Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the Councils of the Church, from the original documents"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at http : //books . google . com/| 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 




WISCj 




^^iJRAl^^ 




Digitized byLjOOQlC 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 






Transferred to the 

LlCn "JiY or THS 

UNiv?::: V ^"= ' t'onsw 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



T. and T. Claris Publications. 



Ifi Twenty-four Handsome Svo Volumes^ Subscription Price £6, 6s, od., 

^nte^TSTicene ffifiristian iLitrarg* 

A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WOEKS OP THE FATHERS OF THE 
OHEISTLAN CHUBOH PBIOB TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC.BA. 

SDRBD BT TRB 

REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 



MESSRS. GLARE are now happy to annoonce the completion of this Series. 
It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the 
Ghristian Chnrch in this country and in the United States, as sn^pl^g what 
has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- 
ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have exeonted a very difficult 
task. 

The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the 
Subscription price. 

The Works are arranged as follow: — 



CLEMENT OF ALEXAtoBIA, Volnme 
Seoond: Comdetion of MisoeOanies. 

TEBTULLIAN, Volifllie Firtt; To the 
Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, 
etc 

FOURTH YEAR. 

CTPBIAN, Volume Seoond (completion) ; 
Novatian; Minncins Felix: Fragments. 

METHODIUS; ALEXANDEB OT LT- 
oopolis; Peter of Alexandria; Anato- 
line; Clement on Yiiginity; and 
Fragments. 

TEBTuiiLIAN, Volume Second. 

APOCBYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND 
Beyelations ; oomprising all the very 
purions Apocryphal Writings of the 
first three Centuries. 

FIFTH YEAR. 

TEBTULLIAN, Volnmo TWrd (comple- 
tion). 

CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- 
lioal Constitutions. In One Volume. 

ABNOBIUS. 

DIONYSIUS; QBEGOBY THAUMA- 
tnrgoe; Syrian Fragments. In One 
Vonune. 

SIXTH YEAR. 

LAOTANTIUS; Two Volumes. 
OBIGEN, Volume Seoond (completion). 

128. to Non-Subscribers. 
EABLY LITURGIES & BEMAINING 

Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscribers. 

Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets; but any Volume 
may be had separately, price 10s. 6d., — with the exception of Oriokn, VoL II., 12s. ; 
and the Earlt XrrtTBOiBS, 9s. 



FIHST YEAR. 

APOSTOLIC FATHEBS, comprising 
Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians ; 
Polycaip to the Ephesians; Martyr- 
dom of Polycarp ; Ejpistle of Barnabas^ 
Epistles of Ignatius (longer and shorter, 
and also the Syriao veraion) ; Martyr- 
dom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ; 
Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious 
Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume. 

JUSTIN MABTYB; ATHENAGOBAS. 
In One Volume. 

TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- 
mentineBecognitions. In One Volume. 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDBIA, Volume 
First, oomprising Exhortation to Hea- 
then ; The Instructor: and a portion 
of the Miscellanies. 

SSOOND YEAR. 

HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Befutotion 
of all Heresies, and Fragments from 
his Commentaries. 

IBEN.a;US, Volume First 

TEBTULLIAN AGAINST MABCION. 

OYPBIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, 
and some of the TreatisiBS. 

THIRD YEAR. 

IBEN.a;US (completion); HIPPOLYTUS 
(oompleuon); Fragments of Third 
Century. In One Volume. 

OBIGEN: De Prinoipiis; Letters; and 
portion of Treatise against Celsus. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



T. and T. Clark's Publications. 



In Two Volumes^ demy 8t'o, price 12«. each^ 

A HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE 

CHURCH 

To A.D. 429. 

jFrom tl)e ©riginal ©ocuments. 

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF 
C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Eottenburg. 



*This careful translation of Hefele^s Councils.* — Dr. Puset. 

' A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit . . . The book 
will be a standard authority on the subject*— ifi^)€ctotor. 

* A thorough and fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligent form/— 
Guardian. 

* The most learned historian of the Councils.'— P^e Gratrt.1 

* We cordially commend Hefele's Councils to the English student' — John Btdl. 

^ The period embraced is of the highest interest ; and the work, which is very car^ 
fully translated, cannot be dispensed with by any students who do not already possess 
the original' — Union Reniew. 

*A book of the most accurate learning, careful and judicious criticism, and gn-at 
theoloscical fairness and honesty.' — Church Opinion. 

* Dr. Hefele is well known to be the greatest living authority on the subject of which 
he here treats ; and he has given us in no sparing measure, throughout these pages, the 
result of his well-digested learning.' — Church Times, 

*We are rejoiced to see in the hands of our fellow-countrymen a standard Catholic 
work, to which we may for the future appeal, as admitted by themselves to be a trust- 
worthy authority.' — Tablet. 

* Bishop Hefele's great work. . . . We know nothing like it among works of this cen- 
tury. Not one of his many and able predecessors has displayed vaster learning or more 
persevering industry in mastering the literature of the subject Those who need a 
strtmg and steady guide from canon to canon, and Council to Council, may be sure of 
finding one in Bishop Hefele.' — Literary Churchsnan. 

* Dr. Hefele's important work is an admirable piece of scholarship, and a clear, full, 
and dispassionate treatment of the minute details of Church History and the tortuous 
movements of controversy.' — Scottman. 

* Of the original work we need only say that it is the standard authority on the subject^ 
and is almost all that could be desired. The translation is excellently done. ... It 
would be a national loss to our theological students to be deprived of a means so 
thoroughly satisfactory of studying the literature and history of the great Councils of 
the Church.'—CAtircA Belli. 

* A great boon to students of Church History. Bishop Hefele possesses the condensing 
faculty in a very high degree, and brings into a brief space the results of extensive 
research.' — Waiehman. 

* This volume has all the elaborateness, thoroughness, and oompleteness of the former. 
It has a strong charm, as well as a high value, for all who are eager to know all that can 
now be known of some of the most momentous controversies which have ever agitated 
Christendom.' — Weile^fan Methodist Magagine. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS OF THE CHUECH. 



Digitized by njOOQIC 



PRIMTED BT MORRISON AND GIBO, 
FOR 

T. 9l T. CLARK» EDINBURGH. 

LONDON, .... OAMILTON, AD AMR, AND CO. 

DUBLIN OBOROE HERBERT. 

NEW YORK. . 8CRIBNER AND WELPORD. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



A HISTORY 



COUNCILS OF THE CHURCH, 



FEOM THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. 



BY THE 

RIGHT REV. CHARLES JOSEPH HEFELE, D.D., 

BISHOP OF ROTTENBUKO, 
FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF TUBINGEN. 



VOLUME III. fffkyif LIBRARY 

A.D. 431 TO A.D. 451. 



CTBtuIattH tarn tf|t CSmnan, fDi'tfi t}|( ^utfiafs a]>]iroiiatton, an)) tSiiWa its t^t 
lEbiUn of l^ascnbatli's J^istoTg of Qoctrhus. 



EDINBURGH: 
T, & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 

1883. 



Digitized by njOOQIC 



« ^'sco;^ 'T 




"^/fiR A^^ 



rr 'i 



^7 4^ 7 
MAR 1 10C7 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 




EDITOR'S PREFACE. 



THE Author's Preface to this portion of his work has already 
appeared in the second volume of the English Transla- 
tion. He there remarks that this History " becomes in many 
ways very like a history of the Church and of dogmas, which 
will be no prejudice to it." This is, of course, the exact truth 
of the matter, and it is the chief interest of the work. The 
History of the Councils differs from that of Doctrines in dealing 
only with those questions which come formally before the 
Church in her Synods. Both are of inestimable value, and of 
absolute necessity, to all who aspire to the name of theologian. 

In the present volume this view of the subject is made 
more prominent than in any other ; as the whole of its con- 
tents, with some slight exceptions, refer to the controversy 
respecting the Person of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, 
in the two great conflicts of the Church with Nestorianism 
and Eutychianism. It begins with an account of the rise of 
the former, and ends with the condemnation of the latter at 
the great Synod of Chalcedon. 

Consequently, this volume possesses an interest which 
attaches to hardly any other, and is marked by an unity which 
is seldom attainable in historical narrative. The Author has 
felt throughout that the subject was vital to the Church of 
Christ then and now, and he has spared no pains to bring the 
resources of his vast learning to bear upon the elucidation of 
his theme. As a result, we know nearly everything that can 
be known respecting the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, 
and the reason of their rejection by the Catholic Church. 

Considerable light is thrown by this volume upon two 
subjects which have been much debated of late — the 
Athanasian Creed and the relation of the Pope of Eome to 
the Christian Church. It will be quite clear to the reader 
that the Quicunque Vult could not have been written by 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



viii editor's pkeface. 

S. Athanasius ; but it will be equally clear that it does little 
more than embody the phrases respecting the Person of Christ 
which were sanctioned in the Creed that was drawn up at 
Chalcedon. To theological students who really grapple with 
the essential elements of the question, it will also be plain 
that the theological or Christological phrases in the '' Athanasian 
Creed " to which the greatest exception has been taken, are 
simple and necessary contradictions of Nestorianism and 
Eutychianism, either of which heresies would have under- 
mined the Nicene faith. 

With regard to the Papacy, it is inevitable that a non- 
Eoman Editor should take exception to some of Bishop Hefele's 
remarks in the 28th canon of Chalcedon. We, of course, 
believe that the Council in that canon stated the exact truth 
respecting the position assigned to the Bishop of Borne. 
This, however, is a matter of opinion, and we only caution the 
reader that he may form a judgment for himself. 

Of the other points on which diCTerences of opinion will 
exist, we need refer only to the character of Cyril of Alex- 
andria, who presided at the Council of Ephesus. Many will 
think that Bishop Hefele has dealt partially with this great 
and powerful man. It will probably seem to most that he 
behaved with unnecessary haste in opening the Synod before 
the arrival of the Antiochenes. On the other hand, there 
seems no reason to doubt that his antagonists purposely 
delayed their arrival, and gave him to understand that the 
proceedings might begin. At any rate, the Author appears 
to have stated the case with all possible accuracy. 

It is inevitable that errata should occur in this volume. 
The Editor has already discovered the word " Dyophysite " 
spelt " Diophysite " in two places. Great care has been taken 
to secure accuracy, and it is hoped that no serious error may 
remain. The Editor has been indebted to several friends, 
and especially to one accomplished friend whose assistance 
has been invaluable. He will welcome any suggestions which 
may be oflfered for the improvement of his work ; and he is 
bound, in conclusion, to acknowledge the great pains taken by 
the experienced publishers and printers in order that every 
possibility of error might be guarded against. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK IX. 

THE THIRD (ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT EPHESUS, A.D. 481. 

CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY HISTORY. 

rAOB 

Sec. 127. The Pre-Nestorian Doctrine on the Union of the Two Natures 

in Christy ..••••. 1 

„ 128. Neatorins, ......•<> 

„ 129. The Conflict between Cyril and Nestorius begins, . • 17 

„ 180. Synpd at Qome, a.d. 480, and the Transactions connected 

with it, . . . •. . • • •25 

„ 181. Synod at Alexandria, ...••• 28 
„ 182. llie Anathematisms of Cyril and the Counter- Anathematisms 

of Nestorius, ....•.• 81 

CHAPTEK II. 

BEGINNING, CONFLICT, AND VICTORY OF THE SYNOD OF EPHESUS. 

Sec. 188. Convocation of the Synod — The Papal and Imperial Commis- 
sioners, ....••• 40 

„ 184. First Session, June 22, 481. — Presidency and Number of those 

present, ....... 44 

„ 186. Opposition. The Condliabulum of the Antiochene Bishops, . 58 

„ 186. Letter of the Orthodox. Their Second Session, July 10, . 61 

„ 187. Third Session at Ephesus, July 11, 481.— Two Synodal Letters, 64 

„ 188. Fourth Session at Ephesus, July 16, 481, ... 65 

„ 189. Fifth Session at Ephesus, July 17, 481, and Two Synodal 

Letters, • . . . . . 66 * 

„ 140. Sixth Session at Ephesus, July 22, 481, ... 70 

„ 141. Seventh Session at Ephesus. Circular Letter and Canons, . 71 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONTENTS. 



Sbc. 142. The Affairs of Pamphylia, the Massalians, Thrace, and the Set 
of Jercualeni, ...... 

„ 148. Both Puties at Ephesus appeal to the Emperor, 

„ 144. Resolution of the Emperor. Arrest of Cyril, Memnon, and 

Nestorius. Distress of the Synod, . 
„ 145. The Creed of the Antiochenes. Their subsequent Letters, 
„ 146. The Emperor summons before him Deputies from both sides, 
„ 147. The Deputies of both Parties are summoned to Chalcedon, 
„ 148. The Emperor decides in favour of the Orthodox, and summons 

their Deputies to Constantinople, 
„ 149. The Ephesine Synod is dissolyed, 
„ 150. Slanders on Cyril and S. Pulcheria, 



76 
77 

82 
98 
96 
99 

104 
109 
112 



CHAPTEK III. 



PROCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO UNION BETWEEN CYRIL AND THE 
ANTIOCHENES. OVERTHROW OF NESTORIANISM. 

Sbo. 151. The Rupture still continues. Synods at Constantinople, Tarsus, 

and Antioch, ....... 115 

„ 152. The Pope and the Emperor attempt to mediate. Synods at 

Constantinople and Antiooh, . . ... 118 

158. Aristolaus travels to Alexandria. The Hopes of Peace increase, 121 

154. Paul of Emisa is sent to Alexandria as Mediator, . 127 

155. The Union-Creed of the Antiochenes : it is accepted by Cyril, 129 

156. Synod of the Antiochenes : Cyril's Presents, # . , 188 

157. The* Union takes pkce, . * . . - . . .184 

158. The Union finds Opponents, but is defended by Cyril, . . 139 

159. The Union is at last, although not without constraint, accepted 
universaUy, . . . . . . . 148 

160. Attack upon Theodore of Mopsuestia. Synods in Armenia and 
Antioch. Overthrow of Kestorianism, . , . 154 



BOOK X. 

THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH 
(ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 



CHAPTER L 

THE SYNODS HELD BEFORE THE BREAKING OUT OF THE 
EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 

Sec. 161. Synod at Riez in the year 439, ..... 
„ 162. Synod at Orange, a.d. 441, ..... 



157 
159 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONTENTS. XI 

PAGE 

Seo. 168. First Synod at Vaison, a.d: 442, . . .164 

i, 164. Secotid Synod of Aries, A.D. 448 or 452, ■ , -, .167 

,, 165. Synods at Rome and Be8can9on, a.d. 444 and 445, . . 171 

„ 166. Three Oriental Synods at Ephesus, at Antioch, and in the 

Province of Hierapolis, ..... 173 

„ 167. Spanish Synods, on account of the Priscillianists, in the years 

446,447, 175 

,, 168. Synods in Gaol, in Britain, and in Kome, A.D. 447, . . 178 

„ 169. Synod at Antioch, A.D. 447 or 448. Two Assemblies at 

Berytos and Tyre, . < . . . 178 



Chapter il 

EUTYCHES AND THE SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 

Ssa 170. The Monophysites begin the Conflict. Bishop Iren»as and 

Theodoret are persecuted, ..... 182 

,, 171. Eutyches and his Accusers, . . . . . 186 

„ 172. Synod at Constantinople, a.d. 448, . . .189 

„ 17.3. Eutyches and Flavian both endeavour to gain over public 

opinion to their side, ...... 204 

„ 174. The Examination on account of the pretended Falsification of 

the Synodal Acts, . . . . . .211 

CHAPTER III. 

THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 

Sec. 175. Convocation of the Synod, . . . . .221 

„ 176. The celebrated Epistola Dogmatica of Leo to Flavian, . . 225 

„ 177. Subsequent Letters of Pope Leo the Great on account of 

Eutyches, ....... 237 

,, 178. The Proceedings at the Robber-Synod, according to their own 

Acts, 241 

„ 179. Testimonies of Antiquity respecting the Robber-Synod, . 252 

„ 180. Fortunes of the Papal Legates who had been deputed to the 

Robber-Synod, ...... 260 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE ROBBER-SYNOD IS TO BE CONFRONTED BY A NEW 
AND GREATER COUNCIL. 

SEa 181. Theodosius 11. for. Pope Leo i. against, the Robber-Synod. 

Synods at Rome and Milan, ..... 263 
„ 182. Pulcheria and Marcian come to the Throne, . . 268 

,, 183. Synods at Constantinople, . . . . .271 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



XU CONTENTS. 

PAOC 

Sec. 184. Pope Leo wishes to restore Ecclesiastical Unity without a new 

Council, ....... 27$ 

„ 185. The Emperor Marcian summons an (Ecumenical ConnciL The 

Pope assents, and nominates Legates, . . 277 



BOOK XI. 

THE FOURTH (ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT CHALCEDON, A.D. 451. 



Sec. 186. Number and Place of the Sessions, 
„ 187. The Synodal Acts and the Translations of them, 
,, 188. The Imperial Commissioners and the Papal Legates. Presi- 
dency and Number of those present, . 
,, 189. First Session, October 8, 451, .... 

„ 190. Second Session, October 10, 451, 
„ 191. Third Session, October 18, 451, 
„ 192. Fourth Session, October 17, 451, 
„ 193. Fifth Session, October 22, 451. The Decree concerning the 
Faith, ...... 

„ 194. Sixth Session, October 25, 451, 
,, 1-95. Seventh and Eighth Sessions, October 26, 451, 
„ 196. Ninth and Tenth Sessions, October 27 and 28, 451, . 
„ 197. Eleventh Session, October 29, 451, 
„ 198. Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, October 80, 461, 
,, 199. Fourteenth Session, October 31, 451, and its two Continuations, 
„ 200. Fifteenth Session. The Canons, 
,, 201. Sixteenth and last Session, November 1, 451, . 
„ 202. The Title : (Ecumenical Patriarch, 
, , 203. Synodal Letter to the Pope. Ho is asked to confirm the Decrees, 
„ 204. Answer of the Pope. He rejects the 28th Canon, 
„ 205. Imperial Edicts in favour of the Synod of Chalcedon, and 
against the Monophysites, .... 

,, 206. Further Correspondence between Rome and Constantinople. 

Leo confirms the Doctrinal Decree of Chalcedon, 
„ 207. The Greeks seem to sacrifice the 28th Canon, . 
„ 208. Subsequent History of Monophysitism, 



285 

288 

295 
298 
315 
320 
329 

342 
353 
355 
358 
370 
375 
379 
383 
422 
429 
429 
433 

438 

441 
446 
449 



Ikdex, ......... 465 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 



BOOK IX. 

THE THIRD (ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT EPHESUS, A.D, 431. 
CHAPTER L 

PRELmiNAEY HISTOET. 

Sec. 127. The Pre-Nestorian Doctrine on the Union of the 
Ttoo Natures in Christ. 

IN opposition to the Docetse, the Church had maintained 
the true manhood of Christ; in opposition to the 
Ebionites, Arians, and others. His true Godhead. The 
development of doctrine and of science now led necessarily 
to the special christological question: In what manner the 
divine and human natures in Christ were united. The fact 
that they were closely united was an established portion of 
the faith of the Church, but the manner of the union had not 
yet become the subject of exact consideration ; and as often 
as the ancient Fathers touched this poiat, they employed 
vague formulsB and expressions. Thus Ignatius calls our Lord 
a aapKOit>6po^ (Ad Smym. a 5) ; TertuUian recommends us 
to say, that the Logos put on humanity, came est indutvs, 
as being better than caro foetus, because the latter expression 
would lead one to think of a transfiguratio of the flesh {Adv. 
Praxeam, a 27). Origen, again, defines the union of the two 
natures as an interweaving {avuv^alveaOai), and still more 
frequently he {Adv. Cels. iii 41 ; De Princip. iiL 6, 3), as well 
as Irenseus (iil 19, 1), Methodius, and later writers, used the 
expression Kpaai^ » mixture or mingling, and the Latins the 
similar expression commixtio. Thus, TertuUian {Apolog. c. 21) 

UL A 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



2 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

says, Christ is homo Deo misltcs; Cyprian (De vanit idol. 
p. 228, ed Paris, 1726) says, Deics cum homine miscetur; 
Lactantius (iv. 13) says, Dem est et homo, ex utroque genere 
permistus. They also speak of a running together, avvSpo/jbtj, 
of the two natures, of their coptdatio, connexio, and the like ; 
and it was only at the time of the fourth (Ecumenical Council, 
and by its means, that the question as to the manner of the 
union of the two natures received an authoritative solution by 
the doctrine of the unto hypostatica. According to this, the 
two natures of Christ are unseparated and inseparable, but are 
also united untransformed and unmingled in the one divine 
personality {yirotrra/ns) of the Logos. The personality in 
Christ, however, is neither a double (divine and human) 
personality, nor a mingled (divine-human) personality, but 
the pure personality of the Logos, who has united Himself 
only with a human nature, not with a human person, since 
otherwise, the unity would be lost, and we should be obliged 
to accept the anomaly of two persons in one individual 
manifestation (Christ), either in juxtaposition or mingled (and 
thus also a mingling of the natures). 

About a hundred years before this ecclesiastical solution of 
the great christological question was given, another was 
attempted in an erroneous manner by the learned Apollinaris, 
Bishop of Laodicea in SjrrifiL He transferred the doctrine of 
the trichotomy from the Psychology of Plato to Christology 
in such a manner as to teach that, as the ordinary man con- 
sists of three factors, body, soul, and spirit, so the God-man 
consists of three factors, body, soul, and ^0709. The last, 
according to his view, took the place of the human spirit 
(irvevfia), and was combined with the two lower factors so as 
to constitute an unity. In this way he certainly brought the 
humanity and divinity in Christ into an unity, so that they 
were not merely in juxtaposition and yet distinct ; and he 
considered that he was not simply justified in adopting this 
theory of union, but even under a necessity of doing so. So 
long, he thought, as a human irpevfjui is ascribed to Christ, we 
must also assign to Him the liberty, and at the same time the 
mutalUUy (to rpeirrbi/), which would endanger the certainty 
of our redemption. It seemed to him possible to save this, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRE-NESTORIAN DOCTRINE ON UNION OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 3 

and at the same time to obtain a comprehensible idea of the 
union of the two natures by denying to Christ a human 
'nvev/jM, But Apollinaris overlooked the fact that, by such a 
theory, there was no true God-man, and that he had destroyed 
the true and perfect manhood of the Redeemer. 

The error of the Apollinaritm system was recognized and 
opposed by many teachers of the Church, especially by 
Athanasius, the two Gregories, of Nazianzus and of Nyssa, 
and Epiphanius; and their chief merit in this controversy 
was, that they held fast at the same time the true Godhead 
of our Lord and His uncurtailed manhood, and developed the 
necessity of a reasonable human soul in Christ. But, when 
they proceeded to speak of the manner of the umon of the 
two natures, their expressions became vague and liable to be 
misunderstood, and in part even erroneous. Thus, on the 
one hand, Epiphanius (Ancorat. §§ 44 and 81) certainly 
rejected with propriety the expression mixture or confusion 
(Ijvyxua^^) of the two natures, and the notion of the one 
being transformed into the other (ou rpaireU rijv ^vacv) ; but, 
on the other hand, he nevertheless makes use of the scarcely 
less objectionable phrase, t^ Bvo xepdawi eh Iv, that is, '' that 
Christ has made the two natures to unite into one." Similarly 
is it with Athanasius. He defines the union of the two 
natui'es with the expression which afterwards became famous, 
a<rvyj^irro9 (f>vaiKrj SvoxTt^ rov \6yov irpb^ ri}v Ihlav axnov 
yevofiiprfv <rdp/ca (Adv, Apollinar, i 10, t. i P. ii p. 742, 
ed. Patav.), and thus certainly denies the mingling of the two 
natures; but, when he (l,c, c. 12) defines the Sptoai^ <f>vaiKi) 
more exactly as an evaxri^; Kara ^vaiv, and expressly as not 
an &a)<rt9 tcaG" {nroaTaaw, one should suppose, at the first 
glance, that he is asserting hereby the opposite of the orthodox 
doctrine of the unio hypostatica. This, however, is not the 
case, for by the expression hoxrt^ Kaff V7r6<rra<nv, the whole 
connection shows that he means not the union in one Person, 
but a suistantial union, and he says with perfect propriety 
that the two natures in Christ cannot become substantially 
one. Still his expression lva)(Ti<: ^va-cKtf or xard <f)v<rw 
remains liable to be misunderstood, as though he intended 
thereby to teach monophysitism, while in reality he uses 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

(I>v(ri^, as in the other case he uses inrQaraai^, not in our 
exactly defined sense, which belongs to a later period, but 
with a more general meaning, and intends to say nothing else 
than that the two natures are united into one, or into one 
Person.^ If the Confession of Faith attributed to Athanasius, 
irepi T779 aapKOiHr€w<; rod Oeov Aiyov (0pp. t. ii. p. 1, ed. 
Patay.)> is genuine, Athanasius would have taught ov Svo 
<^i5cr€A9, and would have used the expression filav (fiwrtp rov 
Oeov Aiyov aeaapKo^fUmfp. But this writing is not genuine, 
imd belongs rather to Apollinaris than to S. Athanasius, as 
is acknowledged not only by Montfaucon of S. Maur in his 
edition of the works of S. Athanasius, and after him by 
Mohler, but also by Miinscher in his Textbook of the History 
of Doctrines (i p. 273), although in his earlier Mamud of the 
History of Doctrines (iv. p. 15) he maintained the Athanasian 
authorship. From what has. been said, however, it does not 
follow that Athanasius never used the expression fiia ^vai^ 
rov Oeov Aoyov aeaaptco^fiepff, which besides could be 
employed with a perfectly orthodox meaning: the phrase 
seems in fact to have met with general acceptance in Egypt, 
and was by Cyril and Dioscurus referred to Athanasius, and 
held as an acknowledged watchword of orthodoxy. 

When, later, the two Gregories, of Nazianzus and of Njrssa, 
took part in the battle against ApoUinarianism, they put forth 
definitely and expressly the duality of the natures, particularly 
Gregory Nazianzen {^v(Tei<: fiev Bvo, Oeo^ /eal avOponro^, viol 
Si ov Svo, OraL 51); but both also speak of a avyKpaai^ and 
avoKpaai^, that is, a mingling of the two natures, and Gregory 
Nyssen besides cannot entirely free himself from the notion of 
a transmutation of the human nature into the divine.^ 

The great teachers of the Antiochene school, at the end of 
the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries, not satis- 
fied with all that had been done, thought themselves bound 
to strike out a new path, so as to define in an intelligible 

> Ct Mdhler, Atktmuuiui, Bd. ii S. 280 ; and Domer, Lehrt wm der Permm 
ChrisUy 2 Anfl. Bd. i a 1072. Tliat pyen is frequently employed in the fourth 
century, e,g, by Apollinaris, in the sense of Person^ is maintained by Miinscher, 
Lehrb. d. Dogmeng, l S. 278. 

> Miinscher, Lthrh, L S. 274, 8, and 276, 9, and 298. [Cf. Hagenbacb, § 99, 
Eng. Tr. L pp. 886-889.] 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRE-NESTOEIAN DOCTRINE ON UNION OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. O 

manner the union of the two natures. All their predecessors 
seemed to them to have preserved insufficiently the particular 
and inviolable character of each nature, and not to have given 
a sufficiently fundamental opposition to Apollinaris, but to 
have more or less given in to his views. And thus ApoUin- 
aris now found much more violent opponents in his own native 
country, Syria, than elsewhere, men of high reputation and 
great endowments, particularly Diodoras of Tarsus and Theo- 
dore afterwards Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia. In the 
latter we behold the special representative and spokesman of 
this school, who, further developing and rectifying the ideas of 
Diodorus, built up a new christological system.^ 

In opposition to ApoUinaris, Theodore holds most decidedly 
that complete humanity and so also moral freedom must be 
ascribed to the Eedeemer. In order, however, to keep at a 
distance from the notion of the mutability of Christ, — ^a theory 
which, however objectionable, seemed to be involved in that 
of His liberty, — Theodore did not allow the idea of liberty to 
result in that of liberty of choice, but went on to the idea of 
a higher, ethical liberty, which consists in the unchangeable 
harmony of the human will with the divine, and ascribed to the 
human nature of Christ such a higher liberty, a kind of liberty 
which practically excluded all sin. So far he was right. But 
he further regarded the union of the divine and human in 
Christ only in the sense of ivoUrfai^, that is, indwelling, be- 
cause to him the idea of Inanimation seemed to be identical 
with transmtUcUion of the Logos into a man, and was there- 
fore rejected by him as absurd. When, however, God dwells 
in any one, he thinks. He does not dwell in Him according to 
His nature, and so not by the expression of His power, but by 
His good pleasure (eiSoKia). This indwelling is not alike in 
all the righteous, but its measure is determined by the measure 
of the divine ebZoKla. But in no one did it take place in so 

' Of his writings only fragments remain, particularly in the Acts of the fifth 
(Ecumenical Synod, CMd, iv. et v. ; in Hardouin, C6U, Condi t iiL p. 72 sqq., 
92 sqq. ; in Mansi, CoU, Condi, t ix. p. 203 sqq. ; also in Galland. Bibl, PcUrum, 
t. xii. p. 690 ; and Miinteri, Fragm, P,P, Orcec,, Hafhiee, 1788. Cf. Fritsche, 
De Theodari MopwesL vita ei Scriptis, Hake, 1887. Theodore's CommerUary 
on the Twelve Prophets was unknown untU it was discovered by Angelo Mai, 
and published in his Nova CoUeetio Script, ve^ t vL pp. 1-298. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

high a degree as in Christ. In order to show mankind its 
future perfected condition, to which it was destined, God 
formed a man in a miraculous manner, in the womb of the 
Virgin, by the Holy Ghost ; and in the moment in which this 
man was formed, the Logos united Himself with Him. After 
some time the Logos led the man to baptism, then to death, 
then raised Him -again, took Him up into heaven, placed Him 
(by reason of His union with Himself) at the right hand of 
the Father, and from that time He (the man) is worshipped 
by all and will judge all. 

As every one who strives after righteousness progresses in 
union with God, so also it is with Christ His union with 
the Logos had first b^un with His conception and birth, and 
now increased gradually as moral union, wherein His 
humanity was constantly impelled, elevated, strengthened, and 
preserved from all aberrations by the indwelling Logos. This 
moral union was confirmt^d and strengthened peculiarly in the 
temptations and at the passion of Christ, but it receives its 
perfection only after the death of Christ, when He has ex- 
changed the state of humiliation for that of exaltation. 

If, according to this theory, the union of the divine and human 
in Christ is placed on the same level with the union of the 
divine good-pleasure with every righteous man, yet the two are 
in the highest degree essentially different, and Christ can in no 
way be compared with men. On the contrary. He transcends 
all men (a) by His supernatural birth, and (b) by His sinless- 
ness ; but (c) also in this respect that it is not merely the 
evBoKta of God generally, but the Logos, and so God Himself, 
the second Person of the Trinity, who dwells in Him ; and 
(d) the Logos is so closely united with the man in whom He 
dwells, that He has destined him to participate in all the 
honours which properly belong to the Logos alone.^ 

It is true that in this manner Theodore could maintain the 
two natures in their perfection, and fundamentally oppose all 
mingling of the two ; and he also explains that this is his aim, 
when he says, " Mingling is not suitable for the two natures ; 

> Compare Hardomn and Mansi, 22. cc §§ 59, 60, 2, 8, 10, 27 ; and the ac- 
count of the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, by Gengler, in the Tubing, 
tlieoL Quartalschrift, 1885, Heft 2, S. 226 f., and Domer, U. Bd. iL S. 88 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PKE NESTORIAN DOCTRINE ON UNION OF TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. 7 

there is a difference between the divine form and the form of 
a servant, between the temple which is adopted and Him who 
dwells therein, between Him who was dissolved in death and 
Him who raised Him, between Him who was made perfect 
through sufferings and Him who perfected Him, and so forth. 
This difference must be preserved: each nature remains 
indissoluble by itself, in its essence." * But Theodore, and here 
is his fundamental error, nut merely maintained the existence 
of two natures in Christ, but of two persons, as, he says 
himself, no subsistence can be thought of as perfect without 
personality. As, however, he did not ignore the fact that the 
consciousness of the Church rejected such a double personality 
in Christ, he endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty, and he 
repeatedly says expressly : " The two natures united together 
make only one Person, as man and wife are only one flesh. . . . 
If we consider the natures in their distinction, we should 
define the nature of the Logos as perfect and complete, and so 
also His Person, and again the nature and the person of the 
man as perfect and complete. If, on the other hand, we have 
regard to the union (crwa^ia), we say it is one Person."^ The 
very illustration of the union of man and wife shows that 
Theodore did not suppose 'a true union of the two natures in 
Christ, but that his notion was rather that of an external con- 
nection of the two. The expression a-mfcufyeui, moreover, which 
he selected here, instead of the term ivtoav;, which he else- 
where employs, being derived from awdirrfo [to join together*], 
expresses only an external connection, a fixing together, and is 
therefore expressly rejected in later times by the doctors of the 
Church. And pgain, Theodore designates a merely external 
connection also in the phrase already quoted, to the effect that 
" the Logos dwells in the man assumed as in a temple." As a 
temple and the statue set up within it are one whole merely 
in outward appearance, so the Godhead and manhood in Christ 
appear only from without in their actuality as one Person, 
while they remain essentially two Persons. 

To be consistent, Theodore was. forced to regard also as 

^ Dorner, 2.c. S. 52, and § 19 in Hardonin and Mansi, II, ce, 
' Hardonin and Mansi, U, ce. § 29 ; Dorner, 2.C p. 52. 
' [It is used of dancers joining hand in hand.] 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



8 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCILS. 

inadmissible the doctrine of the communicatio idiomaUim which 
had practically found acceptance in the ChurcL This doctrine, 
as is well known, is predicating the same properties of the 
two natures in Christ, not in ahstracto (Godhead and man- 
hood), but in concreto (God and man). Christ Himself had 
declared in S. John iii. 16: "God . . . gave His only 
begotten Son" (namely, to death), and similarly S. Peter 
declared (Acts iii 15): "Ye . . . kUled the Prince of Life," 
when in fact the being given up and being killed is a 
property {Ihuojia = Predicate) of man, not of God (the only 
begotten, the Prince of Life).^ In the same, way Clement of 
Eome, for example, spoke of iraOrjixara Seov (1 Ad Cor. 2), 
Ignatius of Antioch {Ad Ephes. c 1, and Ad Rom. 6) of an 
alfia and ird6o<: Seov, Tatian of a 0€O9 ireirovOo)^ (Ad Grcecos, 
c. 13) J Barnabas teaches (c. 7) that "the Son of God could 
not suffer except on our behalf . . . and on our behalf He has 
brought the yessel of His Spirit as a sacrifice." Similarly 
Irenaeus (iii 16, 6) says, "The Logos unigenitics impassibilis 
has become passibilis ; " and Athanasius, iaravp^fievov elvai 
Qeov (JEp. ad Epictet. n. 10, t. i P. ii. p. 726, ed Patav.). 
Specially cherished was the expression " God-bearer " (OeoroKo^ 
= Deipara), and we find it more than a hundred years before 
the outbreak of the christological conflict in the writings of 
Origen, of Alexander of Alexandria, and of Athanasius.^ 

It is, however, to be remarked that the properties of the ono 
nature were never transferred to the other nature in itself, but 
always to the Person, who is at the same time both man and God. 
Human attributes were not ascribed to the Oodhead, but to 
God, and vice versa. They did not say, "the Godhead 
suffered," but "God suffered," and so forth. The ground of 
this communicaiio idiomatum lies in the unio hypostatica of 
the two natures, whereby the Godhead and manhood in Christ 
are \mited in the one divine Person of the Logos ; and long 
before the introduction of the expression unio hypostatica, the 

' Origen expreflsed himself with remarkable beauty in his Commentary on the 
Bpistie to the Romans on the CommwnAcaHo idiomatum: Per indieeolubilem 
tmitaiem Verbi et camis, omnia qua camie sunt, adscribuntur et Verbo, et qua 
Verhi sunt, prcedicantur de came. 

' Compare above, vol i. p. 252. Also MUnscher, Lehrh, I S. 286 ; Socrates, 
vii.82. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NESTORIUS. 9 

ancient fathers felt the truth set forth in it, when they endea- 
voured, although still inadequately, to give the ground of the 
communicatio. Thus Gregory of Nyssa remarks : " So long as 
the divine and human in Christ are regarded, each by itself, 
the properties {ISuofuiTa) of both remain unmixed, but after 
the union (mixing, dvaxpadetaa) the flesh (the human nature) 
participates in the glory of the Logos, in the power of the 
Godhead."^ Still better Epiphanius writes : " If God suffered 
in the flesh, it was not His Godhead (in itself) which suffered ; 
but what He suffered in the flesh which was borne by the 
Godhead, has relation also to the Godhead. It is just as 
when one has on a garment If this garment is spotted with 
a drop of blood, we then say that the man is spotted with 
blood, although the spot has fallen only on the garment, and 
not on the man."^ 

Even Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his time, considered 
himself bound especially to oppose the expression ''God- 
bearer." " Mary," he says, " bare Jesus, not the Logos, for the 
Logos was and remained omnipresent, although from the 
beginning He dwelt in Jesus in a peculiar manner. Thus 
Mary is properly the Christ-bearer, not the God-bearer. Only 
figuratively, per anaphoram, can she be called God-bearer also, 
because God was in Christ in a remarkable manner. Properly 
she bare a man, in whom the union with the Logos was 
begun, but was still so little completed, that He Mras not yet 
(but only from the time of His baptism) called the Son of 
God." And in another passage he remarks : '' It is madness 
to say that God is bom of the Virgin, ... not God, but the 
temple in which God dwelt, is bom of Mary.**' 

Sec. 128, NestatHuB. 

From the school of Theodore came Nestorius, with whose 
name the first period of the great christological controversy is 

» Gregor. Nyss. Contra Eunomium^ l i7. t iL p. 161, ©cL Paris, 1615 ; 
Miiiischer, Lehrb, der Dogmeng, i. 276. 

' Epiph. Ancorat, c 86 and 95, t iL pp. 42 and 96, ed. Patav. Similarly 
H(eres, 69, n. 24 and 42 ; and Hceres. 72, n. 23. 

* Hardooin and Mansi, IL cc il; Dorner, Lc S. 50. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



10 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

connected.^ Bom at Germanicia, a city of Syria, Nestorius 
came to Antioch at an early age, chiefly for the purpose of 
obtaining a more liberal secular education. He soon dis- 
tinguished himself by great facility in extempore speaking in 
union with a beautiful and powerful voice, and shortly after- 
wards entered the monastery of Euprepius at Antioch, and 
was thence appointed as deacon and afterwards as priest in the 
Cathedral of Antioch. As priest he preached very frequently 
and with remarkable acceptance, while he also enjoyed the 
reputation of being a rigid Ascetic, and repeatedly showed 
great zeal for orthodoxy, so that he was the first who 
publicly impugned an erroneous statement which Theodore 
of Mopsuestia had brought forward in the pulpit. But with 
all his activity he showed, as Theodore and others affirm, 
great vanity and a desire for the applause of the multitude, 
particularly in his sermpns.^ In consequence of the fame 
which he acquired, after the death of Bishop Sisinnius of 
Constantinople (Dec. 24, 427), he was raised to this famous 
throne ; and his people hoped that i^ him they had obtained 
a second Chrysostom from Antioch. From the time of his 
ordination (April 10, 428) he showed great fondness for the 
work of, preaching, and much zeal against heretics. In his 
very first sermon he addressed the Emperor Theodosius the 
younger, with the words : " Give me, Emperor, the earth 
cleansed from heretics, and I will for that give thee heaven ; 
help me to make war against heretics, and I will help thee in 
the war against the Persians."* A few days afterwards he 
determined to deprive the Arians of the chapel which they 
still possessed in Constantinople, so that they were led them- 
selves to set fire to it, on which account Nestorius received 
from the heretics and fh)m many of the orthodox the nick- 
name of the Incendiary. Besides this he also attacked the 
Novatians, Quartodecimans, and Macedonians, and obtained 

^ It is not absolately certain that Theodore of Mopeuestia was the teacher of 
Nestorius," bnt it is highly probable, as Petayios (Dogm, Theohg, t. Iy. lib. i. 
c 7) and Walch (Kefoerhist, ThL v. S. 815 ff.) have shown. 

5 Socrat Hiat. Ecd. lib. vii c 29 ; Theodoret, Hwrtt. FabvL lib. iv. 
r. 12 ; EvagriuB, HUt. EccL i 7 ; Gennad. Dt Scrip, ted, c. 53 ; Yincent 
Lirin. c 16. 

» Socrat. nut. Ecd, vii 29. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NESTORIUa 1 1 

from the Emperor several stringent laws against the heretics 
{ibid. c. 31). The Pelagians alone found favour with him, 
since he seems to have regarded as correct their doctrine of 
the sufficiency of man's free will for the accomplishment of 
what is good; but not their view on original sin. He 
received Julius, Bishop of Eclanum, Coelestius, and other 
exiled leaders of the Pelagians, and interceded for them, in 
the year 429, with the Emperor and also with Pope 
Ccelestine.^ The Western layman, Marius Mercator, however, 
who at that time resided in Constantinople, made the Emperor 
acquainted, through a memorial (Commonitorium) still extant, 
with the true state of affairs, and with the fact that the 
Pelagians had already been condemned by Western Synods 
and Popes ;^ whereupon Theodosius commanded them to leave 
the capital.* The sympathy which Nestorius had with them 
is shown by his letter to Ccelestius, the well-known friend 
of Pelagius, in which he bestows upon him the highest 
titles of honour, and compares him with John the Baptist, 
with Peter, and with Paul, as the object of unrighteous per- 
secution.* 

It was during these transactions in connection with the Pela- 
gians that the other controversy began through which Nestorius 
has 80 sadly immortalized his name, and he refers to it in the 
first letter which he wrolbe to Pope Coelestine on the Pelagian 
question.^ In another letter to John, Bishop of Antioch, 
Nestorius asserts that at the time of his arrival in Constanti- 
nople he had found a controversy already existing, in which one 
party designated the holy Virgin by the name of " God-bearer," 
the other as only " man-bearer." In order to mediate between 
them, he said, he had suggested the expression " Christ-bearer," 
in the conviction that both parties would be contented with 
it, since Christ was at the same time God and man.^ On the 
other hand, Socrates relates (vii 32) that ''the priest Anas- 
tasius, a friend of Nestorius, whom he brought to Constanti- 

^ Marius Mercator, ed Gamier, republ. by Migne, Paris, 1846, pp. 61, 174, 
179, 181, 186, 187, 208 (note). 
' In his Works, ed. Gamier-Migne, p. 68 sqq. 
' This is clear from the title of the memorial 

♦ In Marina Merc Ic, p. 182. * Ibid. Ic, p. 176. 

* In Mansi, t r. p. 678 ; Hardouin, tip. 1831. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



12 HISTOEY OF TH£ COUNCILS. 

nople with him, one day warned his hearers, iu a sermon, that 
no one should call Mary the God-bearer {OeoroKoi), for Mary 
was a human being, and God could not be bom of a human 
being.^ This attack on a hitherto accepted ecclesiastical term 
and ancient belief caused great excitement and disturbance 
among clergy and laity, and Nestorius himself came forward 
and defended the discourse of his Mend in several sermons. 
One party agreed with him, another opposed him, and many 
went so far as to accuse him, but evidently with injustice, of 
the error of Paul of Samosata, as if he acknowledged in Christ 
only a man."' 

According to this account of the matter, Nestorius did not 
find the controversy already existing in Constantinople, but, 
along with his friend Anastasins, was the first to excite it. 
The sermons, however, which, as we have stated, he delivered 
on this subject, are still partially preserved for us, and are 
fully sufficient to disprove the inaccurate assertion of many, 
that Nestorius in fact taught nothing of a heterodox character. 
In his very first discourse he exclaims pathetically: "They 
ask whether Mary may be called God-bearer. But has God, 
then, a mother ? In that case we must excuse heathenism, 
which spoke of mothers of the gods; but Paul is no liar 
when he said of the Grodhead of Christ (Heb. vii 3) that it is 
without father, without mother, and without genealogy. No, 
my friends, Mary did not bear God ; . . . the creature did not 
bear the Creator, but the Man, who is the Instr^iment of the 
Godhead. The Holy Ghost did not place the Logos, but He 
provided for Him, from the blessed Virgin, a temple which He 
might inhabit . . . This gamurii of which He makes use I 
honour for the sake of Him who is hidden within it, and is 
inseparable from it. ... I separate the natures and unite 
the reverence. Consider what this means. He who was 
formed in the womb of Maiy was not God Himself, but God 

' According to Cyril of Alexandria {Ep, vL p. 80, Ep, ix. p. 87, 0pp. t v. ed. 
Anbert ; and in Mansi, t iy. p. 1014), the first attack on Surim^t was made 
by Bishop Dorothens (apparently of Marcianople), a friend of Nestorios. 

' Several Protestants lay stress npon the fact that Lnther, in his time, had 
remarked upon the iignstice of the last reproach. Qnite true ; but more than a 
iliousand years before, Socrates (vii 82), in the very place where he mentions the 
accusation, asserts its groundlessness. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NESTOBIUS. 13 

assumed Him (asmmsU, that is, clothed Himself with humanity) 
and, because of Him who assumes, He who is assumed is also 
named God" * 

The second homily opens with a bitter reproach against his 
predecessors, as though they had not had time to lead the 
people to the deeper knowledge of (Jod, Thereupon he turns 
again to his main theme, that Christ is double in nature and 
single in dignity. " When," he says, " the Holy Scripture 
speaks of the birth of Christ, or of His death, then it never 
calls Him God, but Christ, or Jems, or Lord, designations 
which apply to both natures. . . . Mary may then be called 
XpuTTOTOKo^, and she bore the Son of God inasmuch as she 
bore the man who, by reason of his union with the Son of 
God (in the proper sense), may also be called Son of God 
(in the wider sense). In the same way, it may be said that 
the Son of God died, but not that God died. . . . We will, 
then, hold fast the union of the natures without confusion, 
and in the man we will acknowledge Grod, and will reverence 
the man who, by a kind uf divine union with God, is at the 
same time to be worshipped."*'^ 

In the third discourse he says: "The Arians place the 
Logos only below the Father, but these people (who teach the 
deoT6/eo9 and speak of a Urth of God) place Him below even 
Mary, assert that He is more recent than she, and give to the 
Godhead which created all a temporal mother as origia If 
He whom she bore was not man, but God the Logos, then she 
was not the mother of Him who was bom, for how could she 
be the mother of Him who is of a different nature from her- 
self ? But if she is to be called His mother, then He who is 
bom is not of divine nature, but a man, since every mother 
can bear only that which is of like substance with herself. 
Grod the Logos, then, was not bom of Mary, but He dwelt in 
Him who was bom of Mary." 

It is easy to see that Nestorius occupied the point of 
view of his teacher Theodore of Mopsuestia, and was even less 
inclined than he to set aside the dusJity of the persons in Christ 
otherwise than in appearance. Several of hia priests gave him 

^ In MarioB Mercat ed. Gamier-Migne, p. 757 sqq. 
' Marias Merc le, 763 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

notice of withdrawal from his communion, and preached against 
him. The people cried out, " We have an Emperor, but not a 
Bishop." Some, and among them lajrmen, spoke against him 
even in public when he preached, and particularly a certain 
Eusebius, undoubtedly the same who was subsequently Bishop 
of Dorylaeum, who, although at the time still a layman, was 
among the first who saw through and opposed the new heresy. 
Nestorius applied to him and others, for this reason, the 
epithet of " miserable men,"^ called in the police against them, 
and had them flogged and imprisoned, particularly several 
monks, whose accusation addressed to the Emperor against 
him has come down to our times.^ 

It was in a more careful way that Prochis, Bishop of 
Cyzicus, stepped into the lists. He had formerly been a priest 
of Constantinople, and was appointed by the late Patriarch 
Sisinnius as Bishop of Cyzicus. But the inhabitants of that 
city would not accept him, and therefore he continued to live 
in Constantinople. Invited by Nestorius to preach at one of 
the festivals of the Virgin (429), he made use of the oppor- 
tunity to describe, in his presence, the honour and dignity of 
Mary as God-bearer in many rhetorical phrases drawn from 
the Bible, and to defend the expression which had been called 
in question in a clever but, at the same time, rather a pompous 
manner.' Nestorius thus found it necessary at once to deliver 
a second sermon, in order, as he said, to warn those who were 
present against an excessive veneration of Mary, and against the 
opinion that the Word of God (the Logos) could be bom twice 
(once eternally from the Father, and a second time of Mary). 
He who says simply that God is bom of Mary makes the 
Christian dogma ridiculous to the heathen ... for the heathen 
will reply, " I cannot worship a God who is bom, dies, and is 
buried." It is evident that what is bom is the human nature, 
but the Godhead is united with it . . He entirely agreed, 
therefore, with the previous speaker, when he said that "He who 

* Marius Merc. Le, p. 770 ; CyrilL 0pp. t iv. p. 20 ; Tillemont, t. xiv. p. 318. 

* In Hardouin, t i. p. 1336 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1102. 

' His discourse is given in a Latin translation by Marios Mercator, 2.c p. 775 
sqq. ; in Greek by Mansi, t iv. p. 578 sqq. Uardonin has not given it On 
Proclos, cf. Asseinani, BiWioth. jur, orient, t iii. p. 42 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



KESTORIUS. 15 

was bom of woman is not pure God and not mere man, for the 
manhood which is bom is united with the Godhead." ... Is 
the Logos risen from the dead 1 And if the life-giver (Logos) 
died, who then could give life ? The mystery of godliness 
must, however, be expressed in this manner : " One thing is 
the Logos who dwelt in the temple formed by the Holy 
Ghost, and another is this temple itself, different from the God 
who dwells within it." He acknowledged, then, the unity of 
the combination, but the duality of the natures and substances. 
. . . LoL short, it was an absurd accusation to charge him with 
teaching the error of Fhotinus ; on the contrary, that which 
he asserted overthrew the doctrine of Photinus.^ 

In a second discourse, delivered afterwards against Froclns, he 
explained that he could allow the expression 0€OT6/eo<; if it were 
rightly understood, but that he was forced to oppose it because 
both the Arians and the ApoUinarians sheltered themselves be- 
hind it If they did not sufficiently distinguish the two natures, 
an Arian might take all these scripture texts which referred 
to the TaTre/i/Qxrt? of Christ as man, e,g. His not knowing and 
the like, and transfer them to the divine nature, so as to prove 
from them the theory of subordinationism. Nestorius further 
attributes to those who make use of the 0€ot6ko<; the view 
that, in their opinion, the Godhead first had its beginning 
through Mary, which certainly none had asserted ; and in order 
to avoid this notion, he proposes, instead of the expression 
"God was bom of Mary," to allow this, "God passed (transiit) 
through Mary."^ 

The fragment of another sermon* is directed entirely against 
the conimunicatio idiomatum, particularly against the expres- 
sion, "the Logos suffered;" but still moi-e importtmt is the 
fourth discourse against Proclus, containing these words : — 
" The life-giving Godhead they call mortal, and dare to draw 
down the Logos to the level of the fables of the theatre, as 
though He (as a child) was wrapped in swaddling-clothes and 
afterwards died. . . . Pilate did not kill the Godhead, but the 
garment of the Godhead; and it was not the Logos which 
was wrapped in a linen cloth by Joseph of Arimathea and 
buried. ... He did not die who gives life, for who would then 
^ In Marius Mercator, Ic. p. 782. * Jbid, p. 785. » Ibid. p. 787. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



16 HISTOKT OF THE COUNCILS. 

raise Him who died ? . . . God was not altered through His 
union or communion with man, but, united with human nature 
and clasping it in His embrace (complexibus stringem), He 
raised it up to heaven, while He Himself remained unchanged. 
... In order to make satisfaction for men, Christ assumed the 
person of the guilty nature (of humanity) (deberUia suscepit 
personam naturce). . . . Christ is not mere man, but God and 
man at the same time. . . . And this man I worship along with 
the Godhead as the cooperarius divincR aiictaritatis, as the 
instruinentum of the goodness of the Lord, ... as the living 
purple garment of the King, . . . separo naturas, sed conjungo 
reverentiam. That which was formed in the womb of Mary 
is not God Himself . . . but because God dwells in Him 
whom He has assumed, therefore also He who is assumed is 
called God because of Him who assumes Him. And it is not 
God who has suffered, but God was united with the crucified 
flesh. . . . We will therefore call the holy Virgin 0€oS6xo% 
but not 0€ot6ko<:, for only God the Father is 0€ot6ko9 ; but we 
will honour that nature which is the garment of God along 
with Him who makes use of this garment, we will separate 
the natures and unite the honour, we will acknowledge a 
dmible person and worship it as oneJ*^ 

We can see from all this, that Nestorius 

(a) Properly determined to hold fast the duality of the 
two natures and the integrity of each ; that he 

(J3) Was in a position, with his teaching, to reject the 
theories alike of the Arians and Apollinarians ; that he 

(7) Says, with perfect right, that the Godhead in itself can 
neither be bom nor suffer ; also, 

(S) That the notion of the 0€ot6ko<:, which he persistently 
opposes, which would assume that the Godhead in itself had 
been bom, and could have its beginning of Mary, was cer- 
tainly worse than heretical 

(e) Further, we see that in a certain sense he would allow 
even the expression ^€oto#co9 ; but 

(X) As often as he makes the attempt to hit the truth, he 
is again tumed aside by his fear of the communicatio idioma- 
ium. This fear pursues him like a spectre, and in fact for 
1 In Marius Merc. le. pp. 780-801. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CONFUCT BETWEEN CYBIL AND NESTORIUS BEGINS. 17 

this reason, that, instead of uniting the human nature with the 
divine person, he always assumes the union of a human 
person with the Godhead. Embarrassed by the concrete 
notion of a man, he can never rise to the abstract idea, nor 
think of human nature without personality, nor gain an idea 
of the union of the merely hiunan ncUv/re with the divine 
person. Therefore he says quite decidedly, Christ has assumed 
the person of guilty humanity, and he can unite the Godhead 
and manhood in Christ only externally, because he regards 
the latter as a person, as is shown by all the figures and 
similes which he employs. The Godhead dv^ls only, as he 
says, in the manhood, the latter is only a temple, only a gar- 
ment of the Godhead, and the latter was not bom of Mary at 
the same time with the former, but only passed through 
Mary; it did not suffer along with the humanity, but it 
I'emained impassible in the suffering man, that which 
evidently would be possible only if the humanity had a 
centre and a special personality of its own. If, however, the 
personal in Ciirist was His Godhead, and this alone, then, if 
Christ suffered, the Godhead must also have entered into His 
suffering, and the human nature could not suffer alone, because 
it had no proper personal subsistence. So also only one 
Fers&n could be horn of Mary ; and because the personal in 
Christ was only His Godhead, this must also have participated 
in the birth, although in iJtsdfiXi is as little capable of being 
bom as of suffering. 

Sec. 129. Tlie Conflict between Cyril and Nestoritis legins. 

It was not long before the Nestorian views spread from 
Constantinople to other provinces, and so early as in the yeeir 
429 Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, found it necessary in an 
Easter sermon to give clear and plain expression to the 
orthodox doctrine, without, however, mentioning Nestorius 
and the events which had occurred at Constantinople, declar- 
ing that not the Godhead (in itself), but the Logos which was 
united with the human nature, was bom of Mary.^ 

There had been a special attempt made to extend Nesto- 

^ CyrilL Alex. Opp, t v. p. ii. p. 222. 
IIL B 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



18 HISTORY OF THE COUKCILS. 

rianism among the numerous monks of Egypt, and emissaries 
sent for the purpose had been active in this effort Cyril 
considered it, therefore, his duty to put them on their guard 
at once, especially as many of ^em had no theological educa- 
tion ; and if once they had been laid hold of by the error, they 
"would of necessity have been most dangerous, on account of 
their huge number and their great influence upon the people. 
In a very complete doctrinal letter to his monks, he now 
shows ^ how even the great Athanasius had used the expression 
" God-bearer," and that both Holy Scripture and the Synod of 
Nicaea taught the close union of the two natures in Christ. 
The mystery of the Incarnation of God had a certain analogy 
■with the birth of every human being. As the body and the 
soul of the child are bom at the same time of a woman, 
although properly the soul in itself cannot be bom, so also 
the divine Logos was bom along with the human nature.' 
The Logos in Himself cannot properly be called Christ (c 18); 
but neither must we call Christ a Jiomo deifer {6ewf>6posi)t who 
has assumed humanity as an instrument, but He must be 
called "(Jod truly made man" (c. 19). 

The body of Christ is not the body of any other, but of 
the Word (c. 20); i.«., the human nature of Christ does not 
belong to any human person^ but the personality to which it 
belongs is the Logos. (In this way Nestorianism was stmck 
on the head.) Were the humanity of Christ, he proceeded, 
a mere instrumenium of the Godhead, then Christ would not 
be essentially different from Moses, for he, too, was an 
instmment of God (c. 21). At the close he further compares 
the death of Christ with our death. In our case, he says, 
it is properly only the body which dies, and yet we say 
" the man dies " (that is, the soul in itself does not die, but 
it participates in the suffering and death of the body). So 
it is with Christ. The Godhead in itself did not die, but the 
Logos has what in the first place belonged to His human 
nature, vdut praprium in se transtvlit ; and thus we can say, 
"He suffered death" (c. 24). As man He suffered death, 

1 0pp. le, EpUt, i pp. 1-19 ; also in Mansi, t iv. pp. 587-dl8. It is not 
given by Hardouin. 
' Jhid, c 12, p. 599 ; in Mansi, ^c 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CYRIL AND NESTORICJS BEGINS. 19 

as God He again abolished death; and He could not have 
wrought out our salvation by His divine nature if He had 
not endured death for our sake in His human nature (c. 25). 

This treatise of Cyril was also brought to Constantinople, 
and excited Kestorius to employ violent expressions respecting 
his Alexandrian colleague. The latter therefore directed h 
short letter to Nestorius, in which he said, " that it was not 
he (Cyril) and his treatise, but Nestorius or his friend who 
was the cause of the present prevailing ecclesiastical disorder. 
It had even gone so far already, that some would no longer 
call Christ God, but only instrument of God and a God- 
bearing man. At such a violation of the faith, it had not 
been possible for him to keep silence, and Nestorius could 
himself say what he would have to answer the Eoman bishop 
Coelestine and other bishops, who asked him whether 
Nestorius had really written and said the things which were 
currently repotted of him. Besides, there came from all the 
provinces of the East unfavourable reports concerning Nestorius, 
and he should therefore pacify again all who had taken offence 
from the use of the expression 0€or6ico<;" ^ 

Nestorius answered this in a few lines, which contained 
hardly anything but self-praise and insolence, to the effect that 
"Christian love and the urgency of the Alexandrian priest 
Lampo alone had induced him to give an answer to Cyril, 
whose letter contained much that was at variance with 
brotherly love. He greeted all the brethren who were with 
CjTil."* 

About the same time Nestorius availed himself of an oppor- 
tunity of endeavouring, if possible, to gain over Pope Coelestine 
to himself and his teaching. He wrote to him that some 
Western bishops — namely, the Pelagian Julian, ilorus, Oron- 
tius, and Fabius — ^had complained to the Emperor and to 
him that, although orthodox, they were persecuted. They 
had been several times sent away, but they had always 
renewed their complaints, and he would now ask for more 
exact information respecting their case. Moreover, he said, 

^ In Hansi, t iy. p. 883 sq. ; and in the Works of Cyril, Lc Epist, ii. p. 19 sq. 
It is wanting in Haidonin. 
' Cyrill 0pp. l.c, Sp. iiL p. 21 ; and in Mansi, Ic, p. 886. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

he had wished to destroy a heretical disease which prevailed 
in his diocese, and even among tlie clergy, which was akin to 
the corruption of ApoUinarianism and Arianism. These 
heretics mingled the Oodhead and manhood in Christ, and 
blasphemously alleged that the Word of Grod had, as it were, 
taken a beginning from the Christ-bearer; that He was 
built up along with His temple (the humanity), and was 
buried along with the flesh (humanity); and that, after the 
resurrection, the flesh (humanity) had passed over into the 
Godhead. They ventured, therefore, to call the Virgin God- 
bearer, whilst neither the Fathers at Nicfiea nor the Holy 
Scriptures had employed this expression. Such an expression 
\vas not in fact admissible, and could be tolerated only with 
a certain explanation (that Mary had borne only a man, but 
that with this the Godhead was inseparably united). Coeles- 
tine had probably already heard what struggles he (Nestorius) 
had to maintain against these false teachers ; but he had not 
struggled in vain, for many had been happily converted.^ 

A second and somewhat later epistle explains to the Pope, 
that Kestorius had long waited for an answer with reference 
to those Western (Pelagian) bishops, and requests that 
CcBlestine would ^t last let him have more accurate infor- 
mation concerning them. At the same time he speaks 
again of the new heresy, which renews ApoUinarianism and 
Arianism.^ 

The state of tension which had arisen between Cyril and 
Kestorius had induced some Alexandrians, who had been 
punished by Cyril on account of gross moral excesses, now to 
go to Constantinople, and there to bring forward complaints 
against their archbishop. Que of these complainants had 
been guilty of dishonesty as a reliever of the poor, the second 
had shockingly ill-treated his mother, the third had stolen ; 
and Kestorius had granted these people a hearing. Cyril 
now complains of this in a fresh letter to Kestorius, and joins 
with it, as the principal thing, a request that Kestorius will 

^ Giyen in Latin by Marios Merc. he. p. 174 ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1307 ; Mand, 
Ic. p. 1021. In Germany by Fuchs, Biblioih, der KirchenverB, Bd. iiL S. 608. 

' In Marias Merc, tc p. 17S ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1309 ; Mansi, {.c p. 1023 ; 
in German by Fucbs, ^.c S. 507. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CYRIL ANli NESTORIUS BEGINS. 21 

redress the grievance which he has occasioned by his sennons. 
At the same time, he briefly defines the orthodox doctrine, to 
the effect that the Word did not become flesh in such a 
manner as that God's nature had changed or been transformed 
into ahp^ and '^vxn > on the contrary, the Logos had hypos- 
tatically united with Himself the a-hp^, animated by the 'fvxh 
Xoyitdj, and thus had, in an inexplicable manner, become man. . . . 
T?ie two distinct natures had been united into a true unity (7rpd<: 
kvAvrfra ttjv aKfjO^vifv awaxOeuTa^ ifyvceisi), from loth one [not 
double] Christ and one Son had come, n>ot as though the differ* 
enee of the natures had been done atvay by the union, but, on the 
contrary, that they constituted the one Lord Jesus Christ and 
Son by the unuMerdble union of the Oodhead and the manhood. 
He then rejects the unjust reproach of Kestorius, who repre- 
sented that Cyril and his friends taught that the Logos 
had first received His beginning from Mary (this was a 
false inference which Kestorius deduced from the expression 
0€ot6ko<s), and he proceeds : " It is not that a man was bom of 
Mary upon whom the Logos then descended, but the Logos 
united Himself with the human nature in the womb of Mary, 
and thus was, after the flesh, born. So also He suffered, etc, 
since the Logos, who is in Himself impassible, endured this in 
the body which He had assumed." ^ 

Nestorius replied that "he would pass in silence the 
insults which were contained in this astonishing production of 
Cyril's, but on anotlier point he would not be silent Cyril 
appealed to the Creed of Nic«ea, but he had certainly read it 
only superficially, and his ignorance therefore deserved excuse." 
He would now show him from this Creed, and from Holy Scrip- 
ture, that we ought not to say that God was bom and suffered, 
and that Mary was the God-bearer; that was heathenish, 
Apollinarian, Arian. Cyril had certainly said rightly, that 
two natures were united in one person, and that the Godhead 
in itself could neither be bom nor suffer ; but what he added 
afterwards, as to how far the Godhead of Christ entered into 
the suffering, etc., entirely did away with what was said before. 

^ Cyrilli 0pp. l.c Epist, iv. p. 22 ; in Mansi, Lc p. 887 sqq., and t iv. p. 
659 ; Hardonin, tip. 1273, and t ii. p. 115 ; in German by Facha, Ic. S. 
479 ff 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



22 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

At the close Nestorius remarks, in a harsh and scornful tone: 
** That Cyril was so zealous for the cause of (jod, and so anxious 
for the Church of Constantinople, but he had been deceived 
by clergy of his own stamp (7% 0% tato^ S«adi<r€<k>9), who had 
been deposed at Constantinople on account of Manichaeism. 
At Constantinople itself everything was in an excellent con- 
dition, and the Emperor was quite in agreement with the 
doctrine."^ 

While the correspondence of Cyril with Nestorius himself 
led to no result, the former found it necessary, particularly on 
account of the last remark of Nestorius, also to apply to the 
Emperor and to address two letters to the imperial ladies (rah 
fiaa-iXiaacu^), Eudoda (the wife of the Emperor) and Pulcheria 
(the Emperor's sister), and, without mentioning the name of 
Nestorius, to explain to them the true doctrine by passages from 
Holy Scripture and the Fathers, in a very complete manner.* 
That Cyril should apply to the Emperor will astonish no one, 
but even his doctrinal letter to the two princesses finds its 
explanation and justification in the then existing condition of 
the Byzantine Court After the death of his father Arcadius, 
in the year 408, Theodosius the younger became Emperor at 
the age of fix)m seven to eight years. He was and remained 
kindly and pious aU his life long ; but far more talent than 
belonged to him was shown by his sister Pulcheria, who was 
only a few years older than himself, to whom the Senate, on 
account of her remarkable prudence, in A.D. 414, when she 
numbered only sixteen years, gave the title of Augusta, and 
confided to her the administration of the Empire together with 
the guardianship of her brother. She married the latter in the 
year 421 to Eudoda, the intellectual and amiable daughter of 
a heathen philosopher of Athens, whom she had herself gained 
over to Christianity, and whom she had regarded as worthy of 
the throne ; and both these excellent women took so great an 
interest in all ecclesiastical and political occurrences, and were 
80 highly educated and of so great influence, that Cyril had 

^ Cyrilli Opp, le. EpisL v. p. 25. In Hardooin, tip. 1277, and Mans!, 
t iv. p. 891 sqq. In Gennan by Faclis, ^c S. 489. 

' These two letters are preserved in Cyrilli Opp. LCt and in Mansi, t ir. pp. 
618-679, 679-8P3, and 803-888. They are wanting in Hardooin. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CONFLICT BETWEEN CYRIL AND NESTORIUS BEGINS. 23 

every reason for layiug the great theological question as 
distinctly as possible before them. So also he applied to 
several Oreek and Oriental bishops, particularly to the venerable 
Acacius, Bishop of Berrhoea, who was nearly a hundred years 
of age, in order to make them thoroughly acquainted with the 
whole controversy, and to gain them for the orthodox side.* 
Acacius answered in a friendly spirit, lamented the controversy, 
and counselled peace.* The Emperor Theodosius, on the other 
hand, allowed himself to be prejudiced by Kestorius against 
Cyril, and blamed the latter for having begun the quarrel, par- 
ticularly for having addressed the imperial ladies in a special 
letter, as if they were not in agreement with the Emperor on 
this question, or perhaps even to sow discord in the imperial 
family.' We may, with much probability, infer from these 
last words, and also from what happened, especially through 
Pulcheria, after the death of Theodosius, that the two ' 
princesses had expressed themselves in opposition to the 
Emperor, on behalf of Cyril and against Kestorius. 

Long before this imperial letter was despatched, Cyril 
addressed a letter also to those Alexandrian clergy who 
attended to his interests at Constantinople, and explained to 
them, too, the true doctrine on the controverted point, as well 
as the deceptive statements and false accusations of the 
Kestorians. At the same time, he continued, he would not 
yet, as they advised, come forward with a formal complaint 
against Nestorius, whilst he certainly could not at all acknow- 
ledge him as his judge, and he asked them, when it became 
necessary, to transmit the enclosed explanation to the Emperor.^ 
Cyril then pointed out that Nestorius had laid imder 
anathema all who made use of the expression *' God-bearer,''^ 
and had threatened to bring before a Synod the charges against 
Cyril conveyed to him by some Alexandrians,* and to have him 

' In Mansi, t. v. p. 517. ' In Mansi, t t. p. 518. 

' In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1110 ; Hardouin, tip. 1841. 

* Best in the Latin translation in Manns Merc, ^c p. 808 -sqq., and Mansi, 
t. V. p. 722 ; less accurate in Greek, in Mansi, t iv. p. 1008 sqq. In Oennan 
iu Fnchs, Le. S. 495. 

' This is clear from the letter of Cyril to Acacias of Berrhoea, in Mansi, t. y. p. 517. 

* Cf. the third letter of Nestorius to Pope Ccelestine, in Mansi, t. r. See note 
in§13a 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



24 HISTOUT OF THE COUNCILS. 

deposed, as he had already done with others who reverenced 
the expression deoroxo^} For this reason, and also because 
Nestorius himself had first applied to Home in regard to the 
question of 0eoT6/eo^, and, on the other hand, the Pope also had 
made inquiries on the subject of Cyril, the latter had felt 
bound to inform the Pope on the subject of the new heresy, 
and he did this in a letter, in which he said : ** It would be 
more agreeable if we could keep silence, but Ood demands of 
us watchfulness, and ecclesiastical custom requires me to inform 
your holiness. I have hitherto observed profound silence, and 
have written neither to you nor to any other Bishop on what 
has been passing in Constantinople, because haste in such a 
case is a fault ; but now that the evil has reached its culmi- 
nating-point, I believe myself bound to speak and to explain 
all that has occurred,** He then relates how the whole con- 
troversy arose in Constantinople, and how he has warned 
Nestorius several times, and is for this reason persecuted by 
liim. Kearly all the Eastern bishops are in accord with Cyril, 
especially the Macedonian bishops; but Nestorius considers 
himself wiser than all, and believes that he alone understands 
the divine mysteriea He (Cyril) had not wished to threaten 
him with exconmiunication before he had given the Pope 
notice of it, and the latter may now decide what is to be 
done, and give instructions on that point to the Eastern and 
Macedonian bishops.' 

Along with this he sent the Deacon Possidonius to Home, 
and gave him at the same time translations of all the other 
letters written hitherto by Cyril on the Nestorian question, as 
well as a special memorial in which he had drawn out in 
short propositions the Nestorian error, and the orthodox 
doctrine opposed to it He particularly says in it that 
Nestorius avoids the expression hfwn^, and speaks only of a 
<Twd(f>€ia of the two natures.' Possidonius was further com- 
missioned to give the documents in question to the Pope only 

^ Of. the letter of the Pope to Nestorius, etc. p. 25. 

' Cyrilli Opp, Ic EpUL ix. p. 86. In Hansi, t. iv. p. 1011 sqq. In German 
by Fnchs, Z.e. S. 508 ff. Hardonin has not given this document 

' In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1819 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 547. In German, by Fuchs, Ic 
a 516. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT BOME, A.D. 480. 25 

when he learnt that Nestorios had already appealed to the 
Pope.^ 

Sec. 130. Synod at Borne, A.D. 430, and the Transactions 
connected vrith it. 

In consequence of this, Pope Coelestine, in the year 430, 
held a Synod at Borne, at which Nestorius was declared a 
heretic, and threatened with deposition, nnless he revoked his 
errors within ten days of the reception of this decision. We 
have still the fragment of a speech made by the Pope at the 
Synod, in which he approves of the expression deoroKo^,* as 
well as the four letters which he despatched, as the result of 
the Synod, to Nestorius, to his Church, to Cyril, and to John 
of Antioch, all dated the 11th of August 43 0.' 

In the first of these, to Nestorius, in which he uses very 
sharp language, the Pope complains that now, alas I the good 
reputation formerly enjoyed by Nestorius has entirely vanished. 
The Pope had not hitherto answered his letters, because it was 
necessary that they should first be translated into Latin; 
but in the meantime very bad news respecting him had been 
received from Cyril. Nestorius had paid no regard to two 
warnings from Cyril ; if he now refused to obey this third 
admonition, then he must be shut out from the Catholic 
Christian Church, It is no wonder to the Pope that Nestorius 
protects the Pelagians, since he is much worse than they. 
It is to be hoped, however, that he will not destroy the unity 
of the Church, and that in token of his improvement he will 
recall all those whom, for Christ's sake (that is, on account of 
their orthodoxy), he has expelled from tJie Church. If he 
does not condemn his impious innovation within ten days, he 
must be expelled from all communion with the orthodox 
Church, and Cynl has to publish this judgment, as rcpresenta- 
tive of the Pope.* 

^ Mansi, t iv. p. 1130 ; Hardonin, t L p. 1355. 

' In Mansi, t. iv. p. 550 (wanting in Hardouin). 

* In Manai, t iv. pp. 1017, 1025, 1085, and 1047 ; Hardonin, t L pp. 1299, 
1811, 1821, 1823. Cf. Oarnier's treatiae, De SynodU habUU in catua Neatoriana, 
in his edition of the works of Marina Mercator (ed. Migne^ p. 1107 sqq.). Gamier 
here, as frequently, makes two synods ont of one. 

< Mansi, t iv. p. 1025; Hardouin, tip. 1299. In German by Fachs, Ic S. 534. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



26 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

To nearly the same effect is the second letter of the Pope, 
addressed to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, in which 
he exhorts them all to stedfastness and fidelity in the faith, 
and to endurance, if they are persecuted by Kestorius ; for all 
whom the latter has smitten, or shall hereafter smite, with 
excommunication or deposition, on account of their adherence 
to orthodoxy, are and remain in communion with the Pope. 
In conclusion, he informs them that he has delegated to Cyril 
to give effect to the sentence against Kestorius.^ 

Substantially the same statements were contained in those 
letters which Coelestine addressed to the most distinguished 
Eastern and Macedonian Bishops, so as to inform them of the 
error of Kestorius, and of the sentence which had just been 
pronounced against him. These were John, Bishop of Antioch, 
Juvenal of Jerusalem, Bufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of 
Philippi Of these letters, the one addressed to John of 
Antioch is no longer extant,' but they all seem to have been 
to the same effect It is very probable that the Pope sent at 
least the two letters destined for Asia first to Alexandria, for 
greater certainty, on which account Cyril on his part contri- 
buted a companion letter, and from these the two addressed to 
Juvenal and John have come down to us. Cyril in these 
letters endeavoured to justify his previous conduct in this 
matter, and to induce his colleagues to recognize the Boman 
decision.* 

More important for us is Coelestine's letter to Cyril himself. 
In it he praises him in strong terms, approves of his teaching, 
sanctions all that he has done, and gives order that, in case 
Nestorius perseveres in his perverse opinion, and does not 
within ten days after the reception of the Papal letter con- 
demn his impious doctrine, and promise to teach so as to be 
• in accordance with the faith of the Boman and Alexandrian 
Churches, and in fact with the whole of Christendom, Cyril 
must caxry into effect the judgment of the Boman Synod in 

^ Mansi, Ic p. 1085 ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1811. Gennan by Fachs, l.c. 
S.541. 

* In Hansi, le. p. 1047. Hardouin, tip. 1828. Gennan by Focbs, Ic. 
S. 547. 

* In Hand, t iv, pp. 1049 and 1058. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT KOME, A.D. 130. 27 

the name of the Pope, with all energy, and give him notice of 
his exclusion from the Church.^ 

It was probably before Nestorius had received intelligence 
of the sentence pronounced against him at Bome, but certainly 
while he was in fear of it, that he addressed his third letter to 
the Pope, in which he first makes the false statement that 
Cyril had begun the controversy respecting 6€ot6ko<;, in order 
to avert the holding of a Synod at Constantinople, to consider 
the charges which had been brought against him to that city ; 
whereas the first letters between Cyril and Nestorius, as has 
already been pointed out, referred to the controversy respecting 
deoTOKOf;, and it was only those written somewhat later which 
mention those accusations (see pp. 20 and 23). Equally decep- 
tive is the second assertion which Kestorius makes in this letter 
to the Pope, '' that he has nothing against those who make use 
of the expression God-bearer, when it is not done in an Apolli- 
narian and Arian sense," when in fact he had given a general 
approval of the anathema pronounced on this expression, and 
had excommunicated those members of his Church who made 
use of it (See above, p. 25 £) It is evident that he is ready 
to make certain concessions, and so to avert from himself the 
threatening storm; therefore he also proposes to select the 
middle way between the two parties, of which the one calls 
Mary " God-bearer" and the other " Maririearer" by adopting 
the expression ** Chrid-bearer" Finally, he remarks that 
shortly by God's help an (Ecumenical Council of the Church 
will take place and again restore ecclesiastical peace.' 

John, Bishop of Antioch, was most anxious to bring about 
such a peace as soon as possible, even without a Synod. He 
had been in his youth a friend of Kestorius, and immediately 
after receiving the papal letter already mentioned he urged him 
to submission. The limit of ten days, he said, was certainly 
brief, but it needed only a few hours to give his approval to the 
expression ffeoroKo^, which was quite applicable to the saving 
Incarnation and Birth of Christ, and had been used by many of 

* In Mand, t. iv, p. 1017 ; HardooiD, t i. p. 1321. In Qerman by Fnclis, I.e. 
S. 528. 

s In Mansi, t y. p. 725. In the Latin tranalation of Marios Mercator. In 
German by Fochs, l.c S. 526 (wanting in Hardonin). 



Digitized by LjOOQrC 



28 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCTLa 

the Fathers. Here, then, was no danger, and consequently no 
reason for hesitation, especially as Nestorius himself acknow- 
ledged that this expression had also a quite orthodox meaning. 
It was in fact perfectly accurate, and if it were rejected, then it 
would of necessity follow that He who had come into the world 
for us was not God And certainly the Holy Scripture repre- 
sented this as the most glorious operation of the grace of Gkxl, 
thxU the eternal Son of Chd vxis horn of the Virgin; without the 
Logos having thereby suflfered any unworthy change. Therefore 
Paul says (GaL iv. 4): " God sent forth His Son, lorn of a woman." 
Nestorius ought then to accept the expression 0€ot6ko<: ; and 
this was not only his counsel, but also that of many other 
Eastern Bishops, of whom he particularly mentioned several^ 
Nestorius answered courteously but evasively, expressed a 
hope that the controversy might be discontinued, but at the 
same time gave no promise respecting deorotco^, and referred 
everything specially to the expected (Ecumenical Synod.* 
Erom Eome, however, he had still received nothing, for Cyril, 
whose duty it was to transmit the sentence, first held another 

Sec. 131. Synod at Alexandria, 

in order to draw up or have sanctioned a formula of belief, 
which Nestorius should be required to accept, if the judgment 
pronounced against him at Bome was not to be put in force. 
The very comprehensive letter to Nestorius, prepared by Cyril 
and sanctioned by this Synod,' b^ins with somewhat violent 
complaints of his heresy, which it was a sacred duty to resist 
Then follows the announcement that Nestorius, in case he 
refuses to depart from his errors within the space of time 
allowed by Pope Coelestine, shall be entirely excluded from 
the number of God's bishops and priests. It is not sufi&cient 
that he acknowledge the Creed of Nica^, for he understands 
it in an erroneous and perverse manner, and therefore he must 
add a tvritten and sworn declaration, that he moreover con- 

* Mansi, t. iv. p. 1061; Hardomn, tip. 1327. German by Fnchi^ le, S. 554. 
' Mansi, t. y. p. 752 ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1881. German by Fuchs, le,8, 561. 
' In Mansi, t iv. p. 1067 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1288. Merely in Latin, Mansi, 
V. p. 502 8qq. German, Fuchs, ^c. Bd. iii S. 564 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



STKOD AT ALEXANDRIA. 29 

demns his (previous) peiiiicious and unholy assertions, and 
will in future believe and teach the same as Cyril, as the 
Synod, and the Bishops of the East and West. This orthodox 
doctrine is now explained in the following paper, and in the 
first place the Nicene Creed (without the additions of Con- 
stantinople, but along with the Anathema appended against 
Arianism) is verbally repeated. To this is added a doctrinal 
discussion of the point of doctrine in question, and it is said : 
''Following the Confessions of the Fathers, and thus also 
going along the royal road {fiaa-iKiKrjv &<nr€p ipxofJi^evoL 
rplfiov), we explain that the only-begotten Logos of God . . . 
assumed flesh of the blessed Virgin, made it His own, subjected 
Himself to human birth, and came forth from the woman as 
Man, vnthout casting off that which He loas, but even in the 
flesh remaining the same, namely, irtte Ood in His nature. 
And the jUsk (= human nature) was ru>t changed into tlie 
nature of the Godhead^ nor the nature of the divine Logos into 
that of the fleshy for it is subject to no change. But even as 
a child and in the mother's bosom, the Logos at the same 
time filled the whole world, and was Governor of it along 
with His Father, for the Godhead has no bounds and limits. 
If, however, the Logos is hypostaticcMy united with the flesh, 
then we reverence only one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, and 
do not sever man and God, nor believe that they are united 
(awdirrai) only in dignity and power : — these are new ex- 
pressions. We do not teach two Christs, of whom the one 
was the true Logos of God, the other the true Son of the 
woman, but we know only one Christ, the divine Word, 
united with that which has become His own flesh {Iva fjuovov 
elSore^ Xpurrov, rbv i/e Oeov irarpb<: Aoyov fiera -7% lSia<: 
aapico^). Moreover, we do not say that the divine Word 
dwelt in the man who was bom of the holy Virgin, as in 
an ordinaiy man, and we do not call Christ a 0eo4>6po^ 
av6poyiro^\ for when we say that the fulness of the Grodhead 
dwelt in Christ (CoL ii 9), we do not thereby mean such a 
dwelling as that of the Godhead in the saints, but that in 
Christ the Godhead united ii^self with the manhood icara 
^vaiv} just as in man the soul is united with the body. 
^ Cf. on this point, above, p. 8, and below, p. 31 L 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



30 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Ihei^ is thus one Christ, one Son and Loixl, and not merely 
by the awd<f)€ia with the divine dignity and power, by which 
difiTerent natures are not united, Peter and John had equal 
dignity, for both were apostles and both holy disciples, but 
yet they were not one Person. Moreover, the expression 
awcufyeui is not admissible, because it does not clearly indicate 
the union; nor can we properly say that the divine Logos 
is the Lord of Christ, since thereby we should again separate 
the one Lord and Christ. So also we should not say: I 
reverence Him who is borne (the human nature of Christ) 
on account of Him who bears Him, the visible on account 
of the invisible ; or, He who is assumed is called God, together 
with Him who assumed Him ; for in this way, too, would 
Christ be divided into a Grod and a man. On the contrary, we 
must conceive of Christ as One, and honour Him together with 
the flesh which has become His own. Further, we acknow- 
ledge that the only-begotten Son of God is, in His own nature, 
incapable of suffering, but that, for our sake. He suffered in the 
flesh, and was in the crucified body, and being free from suffer- 
ing,He appropriated to Himself the sufferings of His ownfiesh'* 
(jh TT^ IZCa^ aapKh^ airaOw oiKeiovfUin}^ vdffrf), and so forth. 
That this is the orthodox doctrine, the synodal letter 
afterwards shows very beautifully by reference to the eucha- 
ristic belief, thus: "This very fact, that we acknowledge 
that the only-begotten Son of God died in the flesh, rose, and 
ascended into heaven, qualifies us for offering the unbloody 
sacrifice in the Church, and, by participation in the holy flesh 
and precious blood of the Redeemer, for receiving the mystical 
blessing so as to be sanctified. We receive it not as common 
flesh, nor as the flesh of an eminently sanctified man, or of 
one who has received dignity by being united with the Logos 
or by the divine indwelling, but as the true life-giving and 
proper flesh of the Word. For since He as God is, in His 
own nature, life, and is become One with His own flesh, so 
has He imparted to this flesh a life-giving power." The 
Synod further explains a series of Scripture passages, to which 
Nestorius, like the Arians, had appealed. These are the 
passages of which one class ascribe full divine dignity to 
Christ while another class express a limitation and the like. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ANATHEMATISMS OF CYRIL AND OF NESTORIUS. 31 

If the Arians had endeavoured from the latter class to prove 
their theory of subordination, Nestorius, on the other hand, 
made use of both classes of texts to justify his division of 
Christ into a Son of man and a Son of God. The Sjmod, in 
opposition to this, shows how both classes of texts apply to 
one and the same Christ, and developes the doctrine of the 
eommunicaiio idiomatum. When He speaks of Himself 
according to His Godhead, says the Synod, we refer this to 
His divine nature ; and when He ascribes to Himself human 
imperfections, toe refer these expressions also to the divine Logos^ 
in 80 far as He has become man, and has voluntarily emptied 
Himself of His glory ; as, for example, when Christ is called 
an High Priest and the like, or it is said of the Holy Ghost 
that He has glorified Christ All such expressions must be 
assigned to one Person, the one incarnate Hypostasis (Per- 
sonality) of the Logos. But since the holy Virgin bore, 
after the iiesh, God hypostatically tmited with the flesh, we 
call her the God-bearer ; yet not as though the nature of the 
Logos had first taken the beginning of its being from the 
flesh (the body of Mary), but because the Word, uniting the 
human hypostatically with Himself, subjected Himself to a 
fleshly birtii from a human mother. 

Sec. 132. The Anathematis^ns of Cyril and the Counter- 
Anathematisms of Nestorius, 

At the close of their letter the Synod summed up the 
whole in the celebrated twelve anathematisms, composed by 
Cyril, with which Nestorius was required to agree. They are 
the following : — 

1. " H any one does not confess that Emmanuel is true 
God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is God-bearer, since 
she bore, after the flesh, the incarnate Word of God, let him 
be anathema." 

2. "H any one does not confess that the Logos from 
Grod the Father hypostatically united Himself with the flesh 
(=» human nature), and with Uiat which has become His own 
flesh is one Christ, God and man together, let him be 
anathema." 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

3. " If any one separates the hypostases (= natures) as to 
their unity in the one Christ, connecting them only by a 
awd^ut in dignity, power, and appearance, and not rather 
by a conjunction in physical union (/cat ovx^ ^ fiaXXov crwoStp 
if Kaff ivfD(Tiv if>v(TiiCfpi), let him be anathema." 

This is the proposition on account of which the Nestorians 
accused S. Cyril of Monophysitisnu But S. Athanasius had 
already spoken of an &a><rt9 ^vcck^, and (like the Alexandrian 
Synod) had spoken of an union icaixi ^wrtv, without thereby 
intending to signify a mingling or confusion of the two 
natures in Christ Bather by that expression did he under- 
stand the union of the Godhead and manhood into one Being, 
or one existence, in which they still remain two distinct 
elements, which are never mingled, but which are indissolubly 
connected (see above, p. 3). This mode of expression 
employed by his great predecessor Cyril now adopted, and 
imderstood, as he himself expressly declared in his reply to 
the polemic of Theodoret of Cyrus, by ivwri^ ^^vaticfi, not an 
&a>(rt$ eU fiuLv ifyvaiv, which would certainly be Monophysitism, 
but only a trus, real union, an union into one Being, into one 
existence, in opposition to a merely morcU or extemai union, 
such as the Nestorians admitted. In the first words of the 
anathematism before us Cyril would not and could not in any 
way deny the duality of natures, for he speaks everywhere of 
two natures in Christ ; but he wishes to reject the sqparaiing 
of them. He distinguishes them indeed, but does not divide 
them. 

4. " If any one divides the expressions which are used in 
the evangelical and apostolic writings or by the saints, in 
reference to Christ, or which are by Him applied to Himself, 
between two Persons (Trpoaanrotsi) or Hypostases, and specially 
ascribes the one class to the man, separated from the divine 
Logos, and the other as divine merely to the Logos, let him 
be anathema." 

6. " K any one ventures to say that Christ is a man who 
bean God {6eo4>6pov), and not rather, that He is true Grod, as 
the One Son in nature, in accordance with the expression: 
' The Word was made flesh ' (S. John i 14), and ' He partook 
of flesh and blood' (Heb. ii 14); let him be anathema." 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ANATHEMATISMS OF CYEIL AND OF XESTORIUS. 33 

6. " If any one ventures to say that the divine Logos is 
the Grod or Lord of Christ, and does not rather confess that 
one and the same is at the same time God and man, since, 
according to the Holy Scripture, the Logos became flesh, let 
him be anathema." 

7. ** If any one says that the divine Logos only worked in 
the man Jesus, and that the glory of the Only-begotten was 
only conjoined (irepiij^Ocu) with Jesus as something foreign ; 
let him be anathema." 

8. "If any one ventures to say that the man assumed 
is to be reverenced, praised, and admowledged as Qod, along 
vnih Grod the Logos, as if the one were separate from the other — 
for this is the necessary meaning of the word vnth {avp) which 
is always employed (by Nestorius) — and does not rather 
reverence Emmanuel in one reverence, and direct one praise to 
Him, as the Word made flesh ; let him be anathema." 

9. " If any one says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was 
glorified by the Spirit, as though the power thus employed, 
which is through Him, were a foreign one, as though He had 
first received from the Spiiit might over evil demons, and 
miraculous power, and does not rather regard the Spirit by 
whom He wrought miracles as His own ; let him be anathema." 

10. "If any one says that it was not the divine Logos 
Himself, when He was made flesh and man, like us, but 
another than He, a man distinct from Him {iZiKm dpdpooTro^), 
who became our High Priest and Apostle (according to Heb. 
iii 1 and Eph. v. 2) ; or says that He gave Himself as a 
sacrifice not for us alone, but also for Himself, although He as 
the sinless One needed no sacrifice ; let him be anathema.'' 

11. "If any one does not confess that the flesh of the Lord 
is life-giving, and belongs to the divine Logos as His own, but 
says that it belongs to another external to Him, who is united 
with Him only in dignity, or only participates in the divine 
indwelling ; and does not rather hold it to be life-giving, for 
this reason, as we have said, that it belongs to the Logos, who 
can make all things live ; let him be anathema." 

12. "If any one does not confess that the Word of God 
sufiered in (or after) the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and 
tasted death in the flesh, and became the first-bom from the 

Uh c 



Digitized by LjOOQIC 



34 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

dead, since He as God is life and the life-giver ; let him be 
anathema."^ 

In a second, much shorter, and less important letter to the 
clergy and laity of Constantinople, the Alexandrian Synod, 
with Cyril at its head, expresses the hope that Nestorius will 
now forsake his false doctrines. But the zeal with which he 
has propagated them in sermons and writings, has made it 
necessary that Pope Coelestine should limit him to a certain 
period for recanting, and no reproach can be brought against 
Cyril and the Synod on account of the long delay which has 
already occurred. Those whom they address should, however, 
hold fast by the orthodox doctrine, and have no communion 
with Nestorius.* 

The Synod addressed a third letter to the monks of Con- 
stantinople,' of similar purport with the preceding, and at the 
same time sent four commissioners with full authority to 
Constantinople — two Egyptian Bishops, Theopentus and 
Daniel; and two of the Alexandrian clergy, Potamon and 
Macarius, who, on a Sunday, in the Cathedral, solemnly and 
publicly delivered to Nestorius the synodal letter respecting 
him, together with the documents from Eome.* He gave no 
answer, but appointed to meet the deputies on the following 
day ; but when this arrived he did not admit them, nor did 
he give them a written answer, but, on the contrary, stirred up 
the Emperor Theodosius the younger, so that he endeavoured 
to frighten Cyril by threats in consequence of his persecution 
of Nestorius; and further, Nestorius published, on his part, 
twelve anathematisms, representing Cyril as a heretic. These 
have been preserved for us only by the Western layman Marius 
Mercator, who took a great interest in both the Pelagian and 
the Nestorian controversies, on the orthodox side, and em- 
ployed his residence for the transaction of business in Con- 
stantinople, in translating the sermons and writings of Nes- 
torius into Latin, so as to make them more accessible to the 

^ In Mansi, t Iv. p. 1082 ; Hardouin, tip. 1291 ; Fuchs, l.c 8. 678 ff. 
» In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1093 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1295. 
« In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1097 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1297. 

^ We leam this from the account which these ambassadors subsequently gave 
at the Synod of Ephesus. Cf. also Baronius, ad onn. 480, n. 60 and 69. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ANATHEMATISMS OF CYRIL AKD OF NESTORIUS. 33 

Westerns. The twelve counter-anathematisms of Nestorius, 
of which each number corresponds with the same number of 
Cyril's, are as follow i^- — 

1. ''If any one says that Emmanuel is true God, and not 
rather Ood with us, that is, that He has united Himself to 
a like nature with ours, which He assumed from the Virgin 
Mary, and dwelt in it ; and if any one calls Mary the mother 
of God the Logos, and not rather mother of Him who is 
Emmanuel; and if he maintains that God the Logos has 
changed Himself into flesh, which He only assumed in order 
to make His Godhead visible, and to be found in form as a 
man, let him be anathema." 

2. ** If any one asserts that, at the union of the Logos with 
the flesh, the divine Essence moved from one place to another ; 
or says that the flesh is capable of receiving the divine nature, 
and unites this partially with the flesh ; or ascribes to the flesh, 
by reason of its reception of God, an extension to the infinite 
and boundless, and says that God and man are one and the 
same in nature ; let him be anathema." 

3. '^ If any one says that Christ, who is also Emmanuel, is 
One, not (merely) in consequence of cormedion, but (also) in 
naiure, and does not acknowledge the eovmsction {avva<f>eui) of 
the two natures, that of the Logos and of the assumed man- 
hood, in one Son, as still continuing without mingling; let 
him be anathema." 

4. " If any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels and 
apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures of Christ, to 
one only of those natures, and ascribes even sufiTering to the 
divine Logos, both in the flesh and in the Godhead ; let him 
be anathema." 

5. " If any one ventures to say that, even after the assump- 
tion of human nature, there is only one Son of God, namely. 
He who is so in nature (naturalUer Jilitc8='Logos), while He 
(since the assumption of the flesh) is certainly Emmanuel ; let 
him be anathema." 

6. " If any one, after the Incarnation, calls another than 

^ They are found best in Marios Mercator, ed. Migne, p. 909, together with 
the criticisms of Marius Mercator. Also in Mansi, t ir. p. 1099 ; Uardouin, t. i. 
p. 1298. German, Fuchs, Lc. S. 588. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



36 HisrroBY of tab councils. 

Christ the Logos^' and ventares to say that the form of a 
servant is equally with the Logos of Ood, without beginning 
and uncreated,* and not rather that it is made by Him as its 
natural Lord and Creator and God, and that He has promised 
to raise it again in the words : ' Destroy this temple, and in 
three days I will build it up again ;' let him be anathema." 

7. " If any one says that the man who was formed of the 
Virgin is the Ordy-hegoiten^ who was bom from the bosom of 
the Father, before the morning star was (Ps. cix. 3),' and does 
not rather confess that He has obtained the designation of 
Only-hegotten on account of His connection with Him who in 
nature is the Only-begotten of the Father ; and besides, if any 
one calls another than the Emmanuel Chnst; let him be 
anathema.'' 

8. ** If any one says that the fdrm of a servant should, for 
its own sake, that is, in reference to its own nature, be rever- 
enced, and that it is the ruler of all things,^ and not rather, 
that (merely) on account of its connection with the holy and 
in itself universally ruling nature of the Only-begotten, it is to 
be reverenced ; let him be anathema.'' 

9. '' If any one says that the form of a servant is of like 
nature with the Holy Ghost, and not rather that it owes its 
union with the Logos which has existed since the conception, 
to His mediation, by which it wrought miraculous healings 
among men, and possessed the power of expelling demons ; 
let him be anathema." 

10- " If any one maintains that the Word, who is from the 
beginning, has become the High Priest and Apostle of our con- 
fession, and has offered Himself for us, and does not rather 
say that it is the work of Emmanuel to be an apostle ; and if 
any one in such a manner divides the sacrifice between Him 
who united (the Logos) and Him who was united (the man- 

^ This has no reference to Cyril ; but is a hyper-Nestorianiam, which Nes- 
torius here rejects. 

' This was asserted by some ApoUinarists ; and Nestorins accused S. Qrril of 
ApoUinarianism. 

' [This is the reference in the original ; but the Editor is unable to say to what 
it refers.] 

* On this point Marius Mercator already remarked with justice that no Catholic 
had e?er asserted anything of the kind. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ANATHEMATI8MS OF CTBIL AND OF NESTORIUS. 87 

hood), referring it to a common sonship, that is, not giving to 
God that which is Grod's, and to man that which is man's ; 
let him he anathema." 

11. ''If any one maintains that the flesh which is united 
with God the Word is by the power of its own nature life-giving, 
whereas the Lord Himself says, * It is the Spirit that quicken- 
eth ; the flesh profiteth nothing' (S. John vi. 64), let him be 
anathema." [He adds, "God is a Spirit" (S. John iv. 24). 
** It, then, any one maintains that God the Logos has in a 
carnal manner, in His substance, become flesh, and persists in 
this with reference to the Lord Christ, who Himself after 
His resurrection said to His disciples, ' Handle me and see ; 
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having' 
(S. Luke xxiv. 39) ; let him be anathema"]^ 

12. "If any one, in confessing the sufferings of the flesh, 
ascribes these also to the Logos of Grod, as to the flesh in 
which He appeared, and thus does not distinguish the dignity 
of the natures ; let him be anathema." 

One can easily see that Kestorius is here doing battle with 
windmills, since he ascribes to S. Cyril views which he never 
held. But, at the same time, he allows his own error in many 
ways to appear, — ^his separation of the divine and human in 
Christ, and his rending of the one Christ in two. 

It was, however, not Nestorius merely, but the whole 
Antiochene school in general, which was dissatisfied with the 
anathematisms of Cyril, and particularly John, Archbishop. of 
Antioch, Andrew, Bishop of Samosata, and the celebrated 
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, thought that they detected in 
them Apollinarian errors, which they opposed in letters and 
treatises. John of Antioch especially found fault, in a 
letter to Firmus, Archbishop pf Caesarea, and other Oriental 
Bishops,' with the third anathematism, from its saying that 
the flesh of Christ was one nature with the Godhead, and that 
the manhood and Godhead in Christ constitute only one 
nature. He thus misunderstood the expression fv<o<n^ if>v<nKrf, 

^ The part enclosed in brackets is certainly a spurious addition, and is wanting 
in many Hss. Cf. Marius Mercator, ed. Migne, p. 919. 

* In Hand, t r. p. 756 ; Hardouin, tip. 1847. German by Fuchs, Lc, 
S. 595 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



38 HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 

and added ihat he could not believe that this sentence really 
proceeded from Cyril, and now, in a manner wholly incon- 
sistent with his previous letter to Nestorius, came round to 
his side, especiaUy as the latter had recently declared his 
willingness to admit the expression Ood-bearer in a certain 
sense. Andrew of Samosata wrote a whole book against the 
anathematisms of Cyril, and a considerable part of it has been 
preserved for us in an apologia of Cyril's directed against it,* 
from which we see that Andrew contested every one of those 
twelve propositions, but particularly the third, where he pro- 
fessed to see in the expression ^toat^ ^uaticii a mingling of 
the two natures, and consequently rnonophysitism. Still more 
weight had the voice of Theodoret, particularly as he com- 
bated the anathematisms of Cyril, and not in one treatise 
only, but in sevieral,* written partly of his own accord, and 
partly at the request of his ecclesiastical superior, the Bishop 
of AntioclL 

Some, and particularly Protestant scholars, for example, 
Schrockh,^ Fuchs,* and others, have ventured to maintain that 
Cyril departed at least as far as Nestorius, if not further, from 
the orthodox line, and that the whole controversy between the 
two was a mere strife of words, and did not touch the kernel 
of Christianity. In opposition to this assertion, which is as 
false as it is superficial. Dr. Gengler expresses himself, in his 
treatise on the condemnation of Kestorius,' in the following 
admirable manner : " In truth, the controvert by which the 
Church, after storms which had scarcely been stilled, was 
shaken anew in the middle of the fifth century, was not 
merely about a vxyrd, but the question had reference to a 
whole system of doctrinal propositions, which in their organic 
connection threatened to destroy the kernel of the Christian 
faith, and to this system the expression deorotco^ was not 
adapted. In opposition to this false theory, in which Kestorius 

' Cyrilli Apologeticus adv. Orientates, 0pp. t. vL p. 159 sqq. 

^ Theodoret, Reprehensio xiL AwUhematismatorum CyrUU, 0pp. edit 
Schulze, t. y. pp. 1-68 ; Theodoreti Episi, ad Joann, AtUloch, ibid, t, iv. 
p. 1288 ; and in Cyrilli Opp, ed. Anbert, t vi. p. 208 sqq. 

» Kirehengesch. Bd. 18, S. 222. 

* Biblioth, d. KirehenverB. Bd. iii. S. 565, Anm. 627, and S. 587, Anm. 654. 

"" In the Tmng, theoL Quartal9ehrift, 1885, Heft 2, S. 216. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ANATHEMATISMS OF CYRIL AND OF NESTORIUS. 39 

was thoroughly entangled, this expression was the very shib- 
boleth of the true Christian doctrine, and had for the doctrinal 
controversies of the fifth century the same significance as the 
expression ofjkoovau^ in the Arian controversy. This truth 
stood plain and clear before the mind of CyriL He declared, 
and he was most clearly conscious, that this was the state of 
the controversy. He compared in the same way, as has 
already been mentioned, the expression 6ecrr6Ko<: with o/uKit^ 
<rto9, and truly ; for just as the great Athanasius saved the 
Christian doctrine of the Logos by his persistent and energetic 
defence of the o/toot^i09, so Cyril, by his defence of the 
deoTOKo^, saved the true doctrine of the incarnation of the 
Logos. This was acknowledged also by his contemporaries ; 
they gave him the commendation which he deserved by calUng 
him a second Athanasius. He was that With the same clear- 
ness as Athanasius, he grasped the real point of the contro* 
versy from the very beginning. He was not fighting with 
shadows. There was no need for his views to grow clearer 
in the course of the controversy. At the end he maintained 
nothing difiPerent fix)m what he asserted at the beginning, and 
the confession of faith which he subscribed at the end was not 
a retractation, — ^it was nothing but what he had long main- 
tained, but which his opponents, in their passionate blindness, 
could not or would not acknowledge." 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CHAPTER 11. 

BEGINNING, CONFLICT, AND VICTORY OF THE SYNOD OF ETHESUS, 

Sec. 133. Convocation of the Synod — The Papal and 
Imperial Commissioners. 

AS we have already seen, it was not long after the out- 
break of the Nestorian controversy that it was proposed 
to hold an (Ecumenical Council for its settlement, and this 
was expressly demanded both by the orthodox and by Nes- 
torius.* In his third letter to Pope Coelestine, Nestorius 
spoke of this (see above, p. 28) ; and, in like manner, the 
letter of the monks of Constantinople to the Emperor, in 
which they complained of the ill-treatment which they had 
received from Nestorius, contains a loudly-expressed desire for 
the application of this ecclesiastical remedy.^ In fact, the 
Emperor Theodosius IL, so early as November 19, 430, and 
thus a few days before the anathematisms of Cyril arrived at 
Constantinople, issued a circular letter, bearing also the name 
of his Western colleague, Yalentinian IIL, addressed to all 
the metropolitans, in which he summoned them, for the Pen- 
tecost of the following year, to an (Ecumenical Synod at 
Ephesus. He added that each of them should bring with him 
from his province some able suffragan bishops, and that whoever 
should arrive too late should be gravely responsible before 
God and the Emperor.' Theodosius was in this visibly 
anxious that he should not allow that prepossession for 
Nestorius, which he had already betrayed on several occasions, 

* Evagrius, Hwi. Eccl L 7. 

' In Mansi, t iv. p. 1102 ; Hardonio, tip. 1385. Oerman in Fuchs, Bibl. 
der Kirchenvera. Bd. iiL S. 592. 

' In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1111 ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1343. Gennan in Fuchs, l.e, 
Bd. ii. S. 608. 

40 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD. 41 

to appear in this important document; and therefore this 
feeling showed itself the more openly in his letter {Sacra 
imperatoria), already referred to (see above, p. 23), addressed 
to Cyril, in which he accuses him of having disturbed the 
peace, of having given forth rash utterances, of not having 
acted openly and honourably, and of having brought every- 
thing to confusion. Particularly he blamed him for having com- 
municated in writing with the Augusta (co-Empress) Pulcheria, 
and the consort of the Emperor, Eudocia, and for having most 
improperly endeavoured, by means of this letter, in an under- 
hand way, to work out a malicious design of sowing discord 
even in the imperial family. Still he would forgive him 
what was past ; and he added that on the subject of the con- 
tested doctrinal propositions the future Synod would decide, 
and that what they should decide must be universally accepted. 
It would be especially a duty for Cyril to appear at the 
Council, for the Emperor would not endure that any one 
should only be a ruler, and not take common counsel with 
others, nor allow himself to be taught by them. The con- 
clusion of the letter contains some further bitter remarks of a 
similar character.* 

The Emperor had despatched a peculiarly respectful letter 
to Augustine, on account of his great celebrity, inviting him 
to come to the Synod at Ephesus, and had expressly entrusted 
an official of the name of Ebagnius with the delivery of the 
letter. But Augustine was already (August 22 [28], 430) 
dead, and thus the bearer of the letter could only bring 
back to Constantinople the news of his death.' 

Cyril, on his part, now found it necessary to ask of Pope 
Coelestine whether Nestorius should be allowed to appear at 
the proposed Synod as a member, or whether the sentence of 
deposition pronounced against him, after the period of time 
allowed for recanting had elapsed, should now still have effect. 
We no longer possess this letter itself, but we have the answer 

^ In Mansi, t. ir. p. 1109 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1342. Gennan in Facbs, l.c, 
S. 599 ff. 

' Of. Liberati Breoiar, causa Neatorianorum ei EiUych. c 5, and the letter 
of Gapreolos, Archbishop of Carthage, to the Synod of Ephesns, in Mansi, t iv. 
p. 1207 ; in Qardonin, t. L p. 1419. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



42 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of the Pope, dated May 7, 431, which gives a beautiful proof 
of his peace-loving disposition, and in which he says, Grod 
willeth not the death of the sinner, but his conversion, and 
that Cyril should do everything in order to restore the peace 
of the Church and to win Nestorius to the trutL If the 
latter is quite determined against this, then he must reap 
what, with the help of the devil, he has sown.* A second 
letter was addressed by Uie Pope, May 1 5, 431, to the Emperor 
Theodosius, saying that he could not personally be present at 
the Synod, but that he would take part in it by commissioners. 
The Emperor should allow no innovations, and no disturbance 
of the 'pesLoe of the Church. He should even regard the inte- 
rests of the Faith as higher than those of the State, and the 
peace of the Church as more important than the peace of the 
nations.^ As his legates at the Synod, the Pope appointed the 
two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, together with the priest 
Philippus, and gave them a commission to hold strictly by 
Cyril, but at the same time to preserve the dignity of the 
Apostolic See. They were to take part in the assemblies, but 
not themselves to mix in the discussions (between the Nes- 
torians and their opponents), but to givejvdgmmt on the views 
of others. After the close of the Synod an inquiry should be 
instituted, requirendum est, qucUiter fiierirU resfinitce. If the 
old faith triumphed, and Cyril went to the Emperor at Con- 
stantinople, they were also to go there and deliver to the 
Prince the papal briefs. If, however, no peaceful decision 
were arrived at, they were to consider with Cyril what must 
be done.' The papal letter, which they had to lay before 
the Synod, dated May 8, 431, first explains with much 
eloquence the duty of the bishops to preserve the true faith, 
and then, at the close, goes on : " The legates are to be pre- 
sent at the transactions of the Synod, and will give effect to 
that which the Pope has long ago decided with respect to 
Kestorius, for he does not doubt that the assembled bishops 
will agree with this." * 

1 In Mansi, t iv. p. 1292 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1474. 
' In Mansi, t iy. p. 1291 ; Hardonin, tip. 1478. 
> In Hardonin, t. i. p. 1347 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 556. 
* In Hardonin, t i. p. 1467 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 1283 sqi]. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD. 43 

As the Pope, so neither could either of the Emperors 
appear personally at Ephesus, and therefore Theodosius IL, in 
his own name and in that of his (X)lleague Valentinian m., 
appointed the Count Candidian (captain of the imperial body- 
guard) as the protector of the Council In the edict which 
he addressed to the Synod on this subject, he says that Can-* 
didian is to take no immediate part in the discussions on 
contested points of faith ; for it is not becoming that one who 
does not belong to the number of the bishops should mix 
himself up in the examination and decision of theological 
controversies. On the contrary, Candidian was to remove 
from the city the monks and laymen who had come or should 
afterwards come to Ephesus out of curiosity, so that disorder 
and confusion should not be caused by those who were in no 
way needed for the examination of the sacred doctrines. He 
was, besides, to watch lest the discussions among the members 
of the Synod themselves should degenerate into violent dis- 
putes and hinder the more exact investigation of tnith ; and, on 
the contrary, see that every statement should be heard witli 
attention, and that every one put forward his view, or his objec- 
tions, without let or hindrance, so that at last an unanimous 
decision might be arrived at in peace by the holy Synod. But 
above all, Candidian was to take care that no member of the 
Synod should attempt, before the dose of the transactions^ to 
go home, or to the court, or elsewhere. Moreover, he was not 
to allow that any other matter of controversy should be taken 
into consideration before the settlement of the principal point 
of doctrine before the Council. Further, the Emperor had 
given order that no civil accusation should be brought against 
any member of the Synod, either before the Synod itself or 
before the court of justice in Ephesus ; but that, during this 
time, only the supreme court at Constantinople should be the 
competent tribunal for such cases. Finally, a second imperial 
count, Irenseus, was to appear at Ephesus, but he was only to 
accompany his friend, the God-beloved Bishop Nestorius, and 
therefore should take no part in the transactions of the Synod, 
nor in the commission of Candidian.^ 

^ In HardoQiB, t L p. 1846 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1118. German in Fnchs, Ic, 
a 605. • 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



44 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

In accordance with the imperial command, the Synod was 
to begin at Pentecost (June 7) in the year 431/ and Nestorius, 
with his sixteen bishops, was among the first who arrived at 
Ephesus. As though going to battle, he was accompanied by 
a large number of men in armour.' Soon afterwards, four or 
five days before Pentecost, Cyril arrived, with fifty bishops, 
about one-half of his suffragans; and we still possess two 
short letters from him to his Church, of which the one was 
written on the journey at Rhodes, and the other immediately 
after his arrival at Ephesus.' In the latter he says particu- 
larly that he looks forward with longing to the actual opening 
of the Synod. Some days after Pentecost, Juvenal of Jerusa- 
lem and Flavian of Thessalonica appeared with their bishops ; 
Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus, too, had assembled around 
him ^ forty of his suffragans and twelve bishops from Pam- 
phylia. While they were waiting for the arrival of the others, 
there was already a good deal of preliminary conversation on 
the point in question, and particularly Cyril endeavoured to 
drive Nestorius into a comer by acute arguments, and to gain 
friends for the true doctrine. It was then that Nestorius 
allowed himself to break out into the exclamation : ^ Never 
will I call a child,' two or three months old, God ; and I will 
have no more communication with you ; " and at the same 
time showed clearly the nature of his heresy, which, up to 
this time, he had endeavoured in various ways to disguise, 
and also his obstinacy, which left no hope of his submission 
to the decision of a Synod. 

Sec. 134. First Session, June 22, 431. — Presidency and 
Number of those present. 

There was stiU wanting one of the superior metropolitans 
(patriarchs), namely, John of Antioch. His bishops, he said, 
could not leave their dioceses before Renovation Sunday 

^ Haidoain, t. i p. 1485 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 1280. 

' Socrates, yii 84. * In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1115 sqq. 

^ Hardouin, t i. p. 1541 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1881. 

' Socrates, Ic; Schrockh, in his Kirehengeseh, (Bd. 18, S. 285), has per- 
verted and misunderstood this and many other passages in the original autho- 
rities in a partial manner, to the disadvantage of CyriL 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIB8T 8BSSI0K, JUNE 22> 481. 45 

{D(yminica in AUns), and then it would take them twelve days 
to travel to Antioch, and from thence to Ephesus thirty-nine, so 
that they could not arrive until some days after Pentecost^ At 
last (just about Pentecost') John came into the neighbourhood 
of Ephesus, and sent to Cyril a letter, which is still extant, 
full of friendliness, setting forth that the length of the road 
and the death of several of their horses had delayed the 
journey, but that nevertheless he was close at hand, and would 
appear at Ephesus in five or six days.' In spite of this they 
waited sixteen days;^ and then two of the metropolitans of 
the patriarchate c^ Antioch, Alexander of Apamea and Alex- 
ander of Hierapolis, came and repeatedly declared that " John 
had bid them say that they were no longer to defer the 
opening of the Synod on his account, but, in case it should be 
necessary for him to delay longer, they were to do what was 
to be dona*** From this they inferred that the Patriarch John 
was intending to avoid being personally present at the con- 
demnation of his former priest and friend Nestoriua. Cyril 
and his friends now decided therefore on the immediate open- 
ing of the Synod, and assembled for that purpose on the 28th 
day of the Egyptian month Payni (= June 22) 431, in the 
cathedral of Ephesus, which, with great suitableness for that 
assembly, was dedicated to the Ghd-iearer, and named after 
her.* On the day before, several bishops received a commis- 
sion to go to Nestorius and invite him to the session, in order 
to give an account of his statements and doctrines. At first 
he replied, " I will consider it" When, however, a second 
deputation, sent on the 2 2d of June by the Synod, then open- 
ing, came to him, his residence was, by command of Candidian, 

^ Eyagrias, Hist. EccL i c. 8. 

s This date is evident from the fact that the Synod says that they had already 
waited for John of Antioch sixteen days. And Cyril remarks that they had 
waited for sixteen days after receiving intelligence of the approach of John. Cf. 
Mansi, t iv. p. 1230 with 1381, and Hardooin, tip. 1435 with 1506. 

* In Hardooin, t i. p. 1847 ; Blansi, t. iv. p. 1121. 

* Cyril says they waited sixteen days after reoeiving this message, in Hardouin, 
tip. 1435 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 1280. 

* Mansi, t iv. p. 1830 sq.; Hardonin, tip. 1506. These two Alexanders 
afterwards signed, with Nestorios, the protest against the first session of Ephesns ; 
see belpw, p. 54. 

* d Cyril's Letters in Mansi, t iv. pp. 1242 and 1230. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



46 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

surrounded with troops, who prevented the bishops, by threats 
af blows, from entering, and Nestorius sent them word that 
"* he would appear as soon as all the bishops were assembled.'' 
The Synod now, for the third time, sent o£f some bishops to 
him ; but these received no further answer, and were treated with 
insolence by the soldiers on guard in and around the house.^ 

At an earlier period, sixty-eight Asiatic bishops, among 
whom were, in particular, Theodoret of Cjmis and the two 
above-mentioned metropolitans of Apamea and Hierapolis, in a 
letter to Cyril and Juvenal, had requested that they would be 
pleased to defer the opening of the Synod until the arrival of 
bishops from Antioch.' Now, however, the imperial com* 
missioner, Candidian, himself appeared in the place of assembly, 
in order to have the imperial decrees read, and to protest 
against the immediate opening of the Synod.' His demand, 
that they should wait four days longer, remained disr^arded, 
and the first solemn session began under the presidency of 
Cyril, who, as is expressly stated in the Acts, also represented 
the Pope.* No fewer than 160 bishops were present from 
the beginning,^ and when (still at the first session) the docu- 
ment of deposition came to be subscribed, their number had 
increased to 198.^ Particularly were there twenty of those 
sixty-eight Asiatic bishops who had gone over to the side of 
the Synod, as is dear from a comparison of their names with 
the subscriptions of the synodal Acts.^ The first thing which 
was done at the Synod was the reading of the imperial letter 
of convocation to all the metropolitans (see above, p. 40). 
That they should begin with this had been proposed by the 

1 Of. Acta Synodi Ephes, Actio i, Hardonin, t. i pp. 1858 sqq. Of. pp. 1435 
and 1506 ; Mansi, t iv. p. 1181 sqq. Of. p. 1280 sq. and p. 1181. In Gennan 
by Fuchs, Bibl, d, Ktrchenv. Bd. iv. S. 50 ff. 

« Hardouin, t i p. 1350 ; Mansi, t v. p. 765. 

' In Hardonin, t. i. p. 1351 ; Mansi, t ▼. p. 770. 

^ That Cyril presided as Pope*s yicar is asserted also by Mennas of Constan- 
tinople and other Greek bishops in their letter to Pope Vigilius, in Mansi, t iz. 
p. 62 ; Hardooin, t iiL p. 10. 

'Mansi, t iv. p. 1123 sqq.; Hardonin, t L p. 1854. More exactly, there 
were 159 bishops and one d^tcon, Bessola of Carthage, as representative of his 
bishop. 

* Mansi, t. iv. p. 1211 sqq.; Hardonin, t 1. p. 1423. 

f Mansi, t iv. p. 1211 sqq., ct with t v. p. 766 ; Hardooin, t. L p. 1423, 
of. with p. 1350. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIBST SESSION, JUKE n, 431. 47 

Presbyter Peter of Alexandria, who acted as senior notary 
during the whole Synod, and externally controlled the arrange- 
ment of the business.^ Thereupon Bishop Memnon of Ephesus 
pointed out that sixteen days had elapsed beyond the limit 
appointed for the opening ; and Cyril explained that, even in 
accordance with the express command of the Emperor, they 
must without delay begin with the transactions respecting the 
faith. Thereupon reference was made to the first invitation 
sent to Nestorius on the previous day, and directly after- 
wards the second and third deputations, already referred to, 
were sent to him, and the reports of the bishops who had 
returned were received.^ As Nestorius decidedly declined to 
appear, they proceeded, on the motion of Juvenal, to an 
examination of the point of doctrine in question, and began 
by reading the Nicene Creed.* They next proceeded to the 
reading of the second letter which Cyril, as we saw, had a 
long time before addressed to Nestorius, in which he had 
explained the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the Godhead 
and manhood in Christ (see above, p. 21). To the question 
of Cyril, whether this letter of his agreed with the contents 
of the Kicene Creed, all the bishops present answered, and 
among them 126 in short speeches still preserved (explana- 
tory of their votes), in a manner entirely affirmative and con- 
sentient, and for the most part full of commendation for CyriL^ 
It then came to the turn to read the letter which Kestorius 
had sent in answer to the letter of Cyril just mentioned (see 
above, p. 21), and after thirty-four bishops, in explaining their 
votes, had declared emphatically its non-agreement with the 
Nicene faith, all the bishops cried out together : '' If any one 
does not anathematize Nestorius, let him be himself anathema ; 
the true faith anathematizes him, the holy Synod anathematizes 
him. If any one has communion with Nestorius, let him be 
anathema. We all anathematize the letter and the doctrines of 
Nestorius. We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his 



' Cf. Mansi, t iv. p. 1127 sqq.; Hardonin, tip. 1355 sqq. 

* There is no reference in the Acts to what was said or transacted in the Synod 
in the intermediate times during which the envoys came back from Nestorius. 

^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1123 sqq. ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1354 sqq. 

* In Mansi, t. iv. pp. 1189-1170; Hardouin, t i. pp. 1863-1887. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



48 HISTORY OF THE C50UNCILS. 

adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine. We 
all anathematize the impious {aacfirj) Nestorius/' and so forth.^ 

Afterwards there were two other documents read, namely, 
the letter of Ccelestine and the Boman Synod (p. 25 f.), and 
that of S. Cyril and of the Alexandrian Synod to Nestorius ;* 
and the four clerics whom Cyril had sent to ddiver that 
document to Nestorius were examined as to the result of their 
mission. They gave the information, with which we are already 
acquainted (see above, p. 34), that Nestorius had given them 
no answer at alL In order, however, to be quite dear as to 
whether he still persisted in his error, two bishops, Theodotus 
of Ancyra and Acacius of Melitene, who were })ersonal friends 
<^ Kestorius, and had during the last three days been in 
habitual intercourse with him, and had endeavoured to con- 
vert him from his error, were questioned on oath respecting the 
matter. They announced that, unfortunately, all their efforts 
with him had been in vain.' 

In order, however, to submit the doctrinal point in ques- 
tion to a thorough investigation, and in the light of patristic 
testimony, at the suggestion of Flavian, Bishop of Phiilippi, a 
number of passages from the writings of the Fathers of the 
Church were now read, in which the ancient faith respecting 
the union of the Godhead and manhood in Christ was ex- 
pressed. These were statements of the opinions of Peter, 
Bishop of Alexandria (t 311), of Athanasius, Pope Julius i. 
(t 352), Pope Felix l. (t 274), Theophilus, Archbishop of 
Alexandria (t 412), of Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazian- 
zus, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of Constan- 

' Mansi, t iy. pp. 1170-1178 ; Hardonin, t. L pp. 1387-1895. 

' This is the synodal letter to which the twelve anathematisms were appended. 
We were formerly of opinion that these anthematisms were read at Ephesns, 
but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject in the 
Acts. But in the fifth (Ecumenical Council (Collatio vi) it is said : " Chalce- 
donensis sancta Synodus CyriUom sancte memorin doctorem sibi adscribit et 
suscipit synodicas ejus epistola^s quarum uni 12 capitula supposita sunt" (Mansi, 
t. ix. p. 841 ; Hardouin, t iiL p. 167). If, however, the anathematiBms of Cyril 
were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more reason for doing so 
at Ephesus. And Ibas, in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that 
the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the same was 
asserted even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter to the Emperor, of 
which mention will hereafter be made in sec. 145 (Hardouin, t ii. p. 580). 

» Mansi, t. iv. p. 1182 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1398 ; Fuchs, Lc S. 59. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



riBST SESSION, JUNE 22, 431. 49 

tinople (t 426), and Amphilochius of Iconium (t 394). All 
these early aathoritieB knew nothing of the Nestorian separa- 
tion of the Godliead and manhood, but, on the contrary, taught 
the true incarnation of the Logos. The venerable martyr, 
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, said : " God the Logos was made 
flesh, and bom of the Virgin's womb;" but Athanasius used 
frequently and unhesitatingly the expression deorotco^, con-> 
tested by Nestorius, and says : " As the flesh was born of the 
God-bearer Mary, so we say that He (the Logos) was Himself 
bom of Mary." And in a second passage Athanasius strongly 
blames those who (exactly like Nestorius) say that " the suf- 
fering and crucified Christ is not God the Logos;" who dis- 
tinguish between Christ and the Logos, and do not confess, 
and do not acknowledge, '^ that the Logos, inasmuch as He 
assumed a body from Mary, was made man." And in a third 
passage Athanasius teaches that " the Logos was in tmth, in 
the ftdl sense of the word (not diaet = by euioptiou, external 
connection), made man, otherwise He would not be our Ee- 
deemer." In agreement with this Pope Julius said : '* There 
are not two sons, one tme who assumed the man, and another 
the man who was assumed by God, but an only-begotten God 
in heaven, and an only-begotten God on earth." Even Pope 
Felix L, who lived more than a century and a half before 
Nestorius, rejected his error, when he wrote : " We believe in 
our Lord Jesus Christ, who was bom of the Virgin Mary, that 
He is the eternal Son and Word of God, and not a man 
assumed by G^, distinct from that (Word). For the Son of 
God did not assume a man, so that this was distinct from Him, 
but He, the perfect God, was at the same time perfect man, 
made flesh of the Virgin." Less striking are the passages from 
Cyprian and Ambrose; but Gregory of Nazianzus is again 
quite explicit : " We do not sever the man from the Godhead, 
but declare both to be one and the same who at the beginning 
was not man, but God, and the only Son of God, before all 
time and without all corporeity, but who at the end of the 
ages assumed man for the sake of our salvation. We confess 
that He is one and the same, divine and earthly, visible and 
invisible, and so forth, at the same time, so that through the 
whole man, who is at the same time God, the whole man, who 

III. D 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



60 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

has fallen into sin, is created anew." The seven anathe* 
matisms, too, which Gregory of Nazianzus impends to this 
passage, are entirely anti-Nestorian, and the very first of them 
anathematizes those who do not call Maiy deorotco^, and the 
fonrth those who hold that there are two sons, the one eternal 
from the Father, and a second from Maiy. Further, the 
passage selected from Basil soimds as if it had been written 
with reference to Nestorios ; for it says : ** The immeasorable 
and infinite God, without being capable of suffering (in Him- 
self), by assuming flesh combated death, in order by His atcn 
suffering to deliver us from liability to suffering." To the 
same effect, in fine, speak also Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus of 
Constantinople, Amphilochius of Iconium, and Theophilus of 
Antioch, " that God was bom and died." ^ 

In opposition to these patristic passages there were next 
read twenty passages, some longer and some shorter, from the 
writings of Nestorius, in which his fundamental views, which 
we have presented above connectedly, were expressed in sepa- 
rate parts and in concreto} 

The last document which was produced at this first session 
was the letter of Gapreolus, Archbishop of Carthage, in which 
he asks them, on account of the war in Africa (consequent upon 
the invasion of the Vandals), to excuse his own inability to be 
present, or to send any of his suffragan bishops. Besides, he 
said, the Emperor's letter of invitation had not reached him until 
Easter 431, and thus too late ; and Augustine, whose presence 
the Emperor specially wished, had died some time before. He 
(the archbishop) therefore sent only his deacon Bessula, and 
prayed the Synod to tolerate no novelties whatever in matters 
of religion.* In this he does not refer expressly to Nestorius, 
but he unmistakeably indicates that he reckons his doctrines 
among the unauthorized novelties. The Synod gave its ap- 
proval to this letter of the African bishop, and proceeded at 
once (the intermediate speeches are not known to us) to the 

* All these passages are given by Mansi, t. iv. pp. 1183-1195, and by Hardooin, 
t i. pp. 1899-1410. German by Fucha, Le, S. 61 ft 

* Id Mansi, t iv. pp. 1198-1207 ; Hardooin, t L pp. 1410-1419. Qermmn in 
Fuchs, Ic, S. 69 ff. 

' In Mansi, t iv^. p. 1207 sqq. ; Haidouin, tip. 1419 sqq.; Fochs, /.c 8. 76. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SESSION, JUNE «2, 431. 51 

condemnatioii of Nestorios. The sentence is as follows : ^ ^ 
arfia avpoBo^ elwe' IIpo^ rok SXXot^ fAtfre inraKova-at /Sovkrf' 
OivTO^ rod aa-efieardrov Nearopiov r§ trap* ^fA&v Kkijcet, /lwJt€ 
fAVfv Toi^ Trap fjii&v wnroa-raXipTa^ ctyKordrov^ teal OeoceSe- 
ardrov^ hrurtcoirov^ Se^fiivov, dva/ficaUo^ i^cDprjcafjLev hrl Ti}p 
i^iraatv r&v Bva-ae/Sffdhnrt^p nifr^ Kal ifxapda-avre^ avrov l« 
T€ T&v hruTToK&p, ical i/c r&v ^vyypafAfidrav avrov, teal ix r&p 
aprU^^ irap avrov ^dipr^p xaret njpSe rifp furfrporroTup koI 
7rp6<rfuiprvpff0€pro>p, Sva^e^A^ <f>popoGpra seal tcrfpvrropra, 
ava^ieala^ KarevetjdSepre^ diro re r&p kupopcop, zeal ite rrj^ iirya- 
ToX% ToO d/>/uordrov varpo^ fip&p teal avXKetrovpyov KeXec^ 
ripov rov hn^KOirov r^ *Po)fial<op iKteKfjala^ Batepwrapre^ 
'WoXKoKi^, eirl rrjp CK:v0p€dinjp Kar avrov iyaoDpi^ca/jLev d'Tr6if>aa-ip, 
*0 pkac^pflnOeh roipvp ^rapavroi KVpio^ fifi&p 'Ii;<roi)9 Xpiaro^ 
&pi<T€ hih rrjfi wapovatf^ ar/Mrrdrfj^ ^vpoiov, dXKorptop elpat 
rop avrop Nearopiop rov iiruTKonnieov d^uifiaro^ teal irapro^ 
avWoyov Uparueov ; that is : '' As, in addition to other things, 
the impious Nestorias has not obeyed our citation, and did 
not receive the holy bishops who were sent by us to him, we 
were compelled to examine his ungodly doctrines. We dis- 
covered that he had held and published impious doctrines in 
his letters and treatises, as well as in discourses which he 
delivered in this city, and which have been testified to. 
Urged by the canons (c. 74, ApostoL), and in accordance with 
the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Coelestine, 
the Soman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sor- 
rowful sentence against him, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ, 
whom he has blasphemed, decrees by the holy Synod that 
Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity, and from all 
priestly communion." 

As we have already remarked above, this judgment was in 
the first place subscribed by 198 bishops who were present. 
Some others afterwards took the same side, so that altogether 
over 200 subscribed.* 

The session had lasted from early in the morning into the 
night, and the assembled population of Ephesus waited the 
whole day to hear the decision. When this was at last known, 

1 Mansi, t. iy. p. 1211 ; Hardooin, tip. 1422 ; Fuchs, l.c, S. 78. 
< In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1226 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1431. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



52 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

there arose an universal rejoicing ; they commended the Synod, 
and solemnly accompani^ the members, particularly Cyril, 
with torches and cdnsers to their houses. The city was also 
illuminated in many places. This is joyfully related by Cyril 
in one of the three letters which he despatched at that time 
to the members of his Church of Alexandria, and to the monks 
ofEgypt^ 

On the next day the sentence which had been pronounced 
was sent to Nestorius himself in a very laconic edict. In the 
superscription he is called a new Judas, and in the text it is 
said briefly : '' He must know that, on accoimt of his impious 
doctrines and his disobedience to the canons (because he had 
not appeared in answer to the citations), he had been, on the 
2 2d of June, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws, 
deposed by the holy Synod, and expelled from the body of 
the clergy.** * 

In two other similarly curt letters of the same date, the 
one to the collective people, the other to the clergy of Con- 
stantinople, the Synod announced that which had been done, 
and required the latter to watch carefully over all the property 
of the Church of Constantinople, so as to be able to give an 
account of it to him who should, in accordance with the will 
of God and the indication {vevfian) of the Emperor, become 
bishop of that city.^ 

Cyril, as president of the Synod, wrote at greater length to 
his friends and agents in Constantinople, the Archimandrite 
Dalmatius and several (certainly £g}'ptian) bishops and 
priests, and related to them the whole course of the session, 
from the citation of Kestorius to his deposition, with the 
request that they would take care that no false rumours on 
the subject should go abroad. It was reputed that Count 
Candidian had already sent such false information (to the 
Emperor) ; whereas the Synod had not yet completed its full 
report (together with the Acts) to the Emperor.* 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1242 sq. 

« Mansi, t. iv. p. 1227 ; Hardouin. t. i. p. 1434 ; Fucha, Ic. S. 79. 

3 In Mansi, t. iv. pp. 1227 and 1242 ; Hardouin, t. L pp. 1484 and 1443. 

^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1280 sqq. ; Hardouin, tip. 1484. Such a complete report, 
provided irith the Acts of the Synod, certainly needed longer time to prepare, 
for during the session the notaries made only short remarks, notes (hence their 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



OPPOSITION. 53 

Sec. 135. Opposition. The Conciliabulum of the Antiochene 

Bishops. 

Candidian had, in fact, not only done what has been men- 
tioned, but also had caused the placards to be torn down by 
which the sentence against Nestorius was to have been pub- 
lished, and had imposed silence upon the criers who pro- 
daimed it in the city.^ At the same time he published an 
edict proclaiming his great displeasure with what had been 
done, and declared that which only a part had done before the 
arrival of John of Antioch, as well as the Latin bishops, to 
be wholly invalid, and in a separate letter adjured those 
bishops who had not taken part in the first session, not 
to give their adhesion to the others, but to await the open- 
ing of the (Ecumenical Synod.^ Nestorius, too, did not fail 
to raise complaints, and immediately, even before the arrival 
of John of Antioch, addressed a letter to the Emperors, 
setting forth that the Egyptians and Asiatics had, of their 
own will, held a session, and thus had gone against the impe- 
rial command, which required a common consultation which 
should embrace alL Moreover, the people of Ephesus had 
been specially stirred up by their bishop, Memnon, and misled 
into committing all kinds of acts of violence against Nestorius 
and his friends. They had forced their way into their resi- 
dences, had dispersed their meetings there, and had even 
threatened them with death. For this reason they had decided 
to take refuge in the Church of St John or in a martjrr's 
chapel,' and hold their sessions there; but Memnon had 
shut every door against them. The Emperor, therefore, 
was requested to allow them to return home again, or to 
protect them in Ephesus, and to see to the holding of a 
genuine Synod, at which only bishops should be present, and 
not monks and clerics, and further, only such bishops as were 
specially summoned to it And for this purpose two learned 

name), retpectiog what was spoken ; and it was only afterwards tliat the matter 
was r^;alarl7 committed to paper, and the Acts of the Sjnod prepared. Cf. 
TiUemont, t xiv. p. 405. 

* Cf. his own relation in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1268 ; Hardouin, t. i p. 1451. 

' In Hardonin, t L p. 1447 ; Mansi, t v. p. 772. 

' [See 8.V. Martyrium in Smith and Cheetham's DietUmafy of AfUiquUies.] 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



54 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

bishops from each province, together with the metropolitan, 
would be sufficient Besides Kestorius, ten other bishops 
signed this document: Fritilas of Heraclea, in Thrace; Helladius 
of Tarsus; Dexianus of Seleucia; Himerius of Nicomedia; 
Alexander of Apamea; Eutherius of Tyana; Basilius of 
Thessaly ; Maximus of Anazarbus ; Alexander of Hierapolis ; 
and Dorotheus of MarcianopoHs in Mysia.^ 

In order to preserve public opinion in Ephesus on the side 
of the Synod, sermons were preached by Cyril and by 
Bheginus, Archbishop of Constantia (Salamis), in Cyprus, and 
also repeatedly by Theodotus of Ancyra, in opposition to the 
heresy of Nestorius,' and the Synod now sent to the Emperors 
their complete report, of which we have already spoken, in 
which it was specially explained why it had not been thought 
proper to wait longer before b^;inning the first session. Not 
only had sixteen days elapsed from the period of the opening 
of the Council appointed by the Emperors, but many bishops 
had already fallen sick at Ephesus, and some had even died, 
and particularly, the most aged of the bishops were earnestly 
longing to return home. Besides, John of Antioch had re- 
quested them, through Alexander of Apamea and Alexander 
of Hierapolis, to begin at once. They had therefore, notwith- 
standing the refusal of Nestorius to appear, opened the Synod 
on the 2 2d of June, and in doing so had placed the holy 
Gospel, as the representative of Christ, on the throne which 
was set up in the midst of the assembly. Then all besides 
which had taken place in the first session was accurately and 
particularly related and described to Pope Codestine, who had 
already pronoimced the same judgment as the Synod upon 
Nestorius. Finally, the Emperors were entreated to take care 

" Mansi, t. iv. p. 1284 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1488. In the Latin translation of 
thisdocnment (in the Symodicm Irena^ in Mansi, t. ▼. p. 766) six other bishops 
are found subscribing (t,g. Julian of Sardica), and it is added at the end : " Et 
omnes alii, qui erant pariter, subscripserunt similiter." 

* Their homilies are given by Mansi, t. iv. p. 1246 sqq., t v. p. 218 sqq. ; 
Hardouin, t L pp. 1448 and 1668, 1 666. One of Cyril's two sennous was delivered 
when seven additional bishops of the synodal party gave in their adhesion, and 
were present at divine service in the Church of Maria Deipara. Others are 
described as having been deUvra^ " on the day of 8. John the Evuigelist," but 
we should probably read "at the Church of S. John the Evangelist** instead. 
Cf. Tillemont, 1 xiv. p. 401 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



OPPOSITION. 65 

that the heresy should be eradicated from all the Churches and 
the books of Nestorius burnt. The Acts of the Synod, which 
had in the meantime been prepared, were also enclosed.^ 

A few days afterwards^ on the 26th or 27th of June,' John 
of Antioch arrived at last at Ephesus, and the Synod imme* 
diately sent a deputation to meet him, consisting of several 
bishops and clerics, to show him proper respect, and at the 
same time to make him acquainted with the deposition of 
Nestorius, so that he might not be drawn into any intercourse 
with him. The soldiers who surrounded Archbishop John 
prevented the deputation from speaking to him in the street ; 
consequently they accompanied him to his abode, but were 
compelled to wait here for several hours, exposed to the insults 
of the soldiers, and at last, when they had discharged their 
commission, were driven home, ill-treated and beaten. Count 
Irenseus, the friend of Nestorius, had suggested this treat* 
ment, and approved of it The envoys immediately informed 
the Synod of what had happened, and showed the wounds 
which they had received, which called forth great indignation 
against John of Antioch. According to the representation of 
Memnon,' excommunication was for this reason pronounced 
against him ; but we shall see further on that this did not 
take place until afterwards, and it is dear that Memnon, in 
his very brief narrative, has passed over an intermediate por- 
tion — ^the threefold invitation of John.^ In the meantime, 
Candidian had gone still further in bis opposition to the meia- 
bers of the Synod, causing them to be annoyed and insulted 
by his soldiers, and even cutting off their supply of food, 
while he provided Nestorius with a regular body-guard of 
armed peasants.* John of Antioch, immediately after his 

' Mann, t. iv. p. 1285 sqq. ; Hardonin, t i. p. HSSsqq. German in Fuchs, 
Ic. Bd. IV. 8. 80 E 

' This date is dear from the Acts of the ConciUabnlom which was held by 
John of Antioch. See the following pages. The only question is, whether the 
22d of June should be reckoned among the ^t^ days of which the Conciliabnlnm 
speaks or not. In the one case, John would have arrived on the 26th (Friday) ; 
in the other, not until Saturday the 27th. Ct Tillemont, MimoifreB, t. xiv. 
note 45, Sw St. CyriUe. 

' In his letter in Mansi, t iv. p. 1488 ; Hardouin, t L p. 1595. 

* This is confirmed by the semarks of Tilkmont, t xiv. note 46, 8ur St. CyrUle. 

* Ct Bpiitoia Memnoms, ILce. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



56 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

arrival, while still dusty from the joomey/ and at the time 
when he was allowing the envoys of the Synod to wait, held 
at his own residence a Condliabnlnm with his adherents, at 
which, first of all. Count Candidian related how Cyril and his 
friends, in spite of all warnings, and in opposition to the 
imperial decrees, had held a session five days before, had 
contested his (the count's) right to be present, had dismissed 
the bishops sent by Nestorius, and had paid no attention to 
the letters of others. Before he proceeded further, John of 
Antioch requested that the Emperor's edict of convocation 
should be read, whereupon Candidian went on with his 
account of what had taken place, and in answer to a fresh 
question of John's, declared that Kestorius had been con- 
demned unheard. John found this quite in keeping with 
the disposition of the Synod, since, instead of receiving him 
and his companions in a friendly manner, they had rushed 
upon them tumultuously (it was thus that he described 
what had happened). But (he holy Synod, which toas now 
assembled^ would decide what was proper with respect to them. 
And this Synod, of which John speaks in such grandiloquent 
terms, numbered only forty-three members, including himself, 
while on the other side there were more than two hundred. 

John then proposed the question, what was to be decided 
respecting Cyril and his adherents ; and several who were not 
particularly pronounced Nestorian bishops, came forward to 
relate how Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus had, from the 
b^inning, maltreated the Nestorians, had allowed them no 
church, and even on the festival of Pentecost had permitted 
them to hold no service. Besides, Memnon had sent his 
clerics into the residences of the bishops, and had ordered them 
with threats to take part in his coimciL And in this way he 
and Cyril had confused everything, so that their own heresies 
might not be examined. Heresies, such as the Arian, the 
ApoUinarian, and the Eunomian, were certainly contained in 
the last letter of Cyril (to Nestorius, along with the anathe* 
matisms). It was therefore John's duty to see to it that the 
heads of these heresies (Cyril and Memnon) should be suit- 
ably punished for such grave offences, and that the bishops 

1 Eptat, Synodi in Mansi, t iv. p. 1334 ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1507. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



OPPOSITION. 57 

who had been misguided by them should be subjected to 
ecclesiastical penalties. 

To these impudent and false accusations John replied with 
hypocritical meekness, *' that he had certainly wished that he 
should not be compelled to exclude from the Church any one 
who had been received into the sacred priesthood, but diseased 
members must certainly be cut off in order to save the whole 
body ; and for this reason Cyril and Memnon deserved to be 
deposed, because they had given occasion to disorders, and 
had acted in opposition to the commands of the Emperors, 
and, besides, were in the chapters mentioned (the anathe- 
matisms) guilty of heresy. All who had been misled by 
them were to be excommunicated until they confessed their 
error, anathematized the heretical propositions of CyrU, ad- 
hered strictly to the creed of Nicsea, without any foreign 
addition, and joined the Synod of John." 

The assembly approved of this proposal, and John then 
announced the sentence in the following manner :^- 

" The holy Synod, assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of 
Grod and the command of the pious Emperors, declares : We 
should indeed have wished to be able to hold a Synod in 
peace, but because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, 
insolent, and obstinate disposition, although we were already 
in the neighbourhood, and have filled both the city and the 
holy Synod with confusion, in order to prevent the examina- 
tion of your Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies, and 
have not waited for the arrival of the holy bishops of all 
regions, and have also disregarded the warnings and admoni-* 
tions of Candidian, therefore shall you, Cyril of Alexandria, 
and you, Memnon of this place, know that you are deposed 
and dismissed from all sacerdotal functions, as the originators 
of the whole disorder, etc. You others, who gave your con- 
sent, are excommunicated, until you acknowledge your fault 
and reform, accept anew the Nicene faith (as if they had 
surrendered it!) without foreign addition, anathematize the 
heretical propositions of Cyril, and in all things comply with 
the command of the Emperors, who require a peaceful and 
more accurate consideration of the dogma.*' ^ 

^ The Conciliabolum said nothing respecting Nestorius. Cyril and his friends 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



5S HISTORY OF THB COUNCILS. 

This decree was subscribed by all the forty-three members 
of the Conciliabulum : John of Antioch, Alexander of Apamea, 
and Alexander of Hierapolis; John, Metropolitan of Damascus; 
Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Marcianople; Dezianus, Metro- 
politan of Seleucia ; Basilius, Metropolitan of Thessaly ; An- 
tiochus. Metropolitan of Bostra ; Paulus, Bishop of Emesa ; 
Apringius of Chalds; Polychroniusof Heradea; Cyril of Adana ; 
Ausonius of Himeria; Muss&us of Aradus and Antaradus; 
Hesychius of Castabala; Salustius of Corycus; Jacobus of 
Dorostolus; Zosis of Isbuntis; Eustathius of Parnassus; 
Diogenes of Seleucobelus; Placon of Laodicsea; Polychronius of 
Epiphania; Fritilas, Metropolitan of Heraclea; Himerius, 
Metropolitan of Nicomedia ; Eutherius, Metropolitan of Tyana ; 
Asterius, Metropolitan of Amida; Theodoret, the famous 
Bishop of Cyrus; Macarius, Bishop of Laodicsea Major; 
Theosebius of Cios, in Bithynia ; Maxiniian, Metropolitan of 
Anazarbus; Grerontius, Bishop of Claudiopolis ; Cyrus of 
Marcopolis ; Aurelius of Irenopolis ; Meletius of Neocsesarea ; 
Helladius of Ptolemais ; Tarianus (Trajanus) of Augusta ; 
Valentinus of Mallus; Mardanus of Abrytus; Daniel of 
Faustinopolis ; Julian of Larissa ; Heliades of Zeugma ; and 
Marcellinus of Arca.^ 

The Conciliabulum then, in very one-sided letters,^ informed 
the Emperor, the imperial ladies (the wife and sister of the 
Emperor Theodosius n.), the clergy, the senate, and the people 
of Constantinople, of all that had taken place, and a little 
later once more required the members of the genuine Synod, 
in writing, no longer to delay the time for repentance and 
conversion, and to separate themselves from Cyril and Memnon, 
etc, otherwise they would very soon be forced to lament their 
own foUy.* 

therefore accased the Antiochenes of being adherents of NestorioB. They 
certainly were ao negatively , since they did not accept the sentence against 
Nestorins put forth by the Ephesine Synod. But they were not so positively^ 
since they did not sanction the doctrine of Nestorins, and afterwards they agreed 
to his deposition. Of. TiUemont, Mitnoires, t xiv. p. 415 sq. 

* The Acts are given in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1259 sqq. ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1447 sq. 
German (abridged) by Fuchs, l.e. Bd. iv. 8. 92 ft. 

* In Uanax, t iv. pp. 1271-1280 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1458 sqq. 
' In Mansi, t iv. p. 1270 ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1458. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



OPPOSITION. 59 

. On Saturday evening ^ the ConcUiabulum asked Count Can- 
didian to take care that neither Cyril nor Memnon, nor any one 
of their (excommunicated) adherents, should hold divine service 
on Sunday. Candidian now wished that no member of either 
synodal party should officiate, but only the ordinary clergy of 
the city; but Memnon declared that he would in no way 
submit to John and his Synod, and Cyril and his adherents 
held divine service.* All the efforts of John to appoint by 
force another bishop of Ephesus in the place of Memnon were 
frustrated by the opposition of the orthodox inhabitants.' 

It is generally assumed that Candidian anticipated the 
legitimate Synod with his information, and did not allow their 
account to reach Constantinople. But this was not the case ; 
for we see from a still extant letter of Dalmatius and other 
monks and clergy of Constantinople to the Synod,* that the 
Emperor himself had sent them the letters which the Synod 
had addressed to them immediately after the deposition of 
Nestorius (see p. 54), and so he must also have received 
the account which had been addressed to him. Dalmatius 
asserts, at the same time, that all the people had approved of 
the deposition of Nestorius, and that the Emperor had ex- 
pressed himself very favourably respecting the Synod. From 
this we perceive that at that time he had not yet received 
the account of Candidian. After the arrival of this a violent 
change immediately took place. The Emperor Theodosius 
now sent the Magistrian Palladius to Ephesus with a letter,^ 
setting forth " Uiat he had learnt from Candidian that a part 
of the bishops had held a session without waiting for John of 
Antioch. Further, that not even all the bishops who were 
then present at Ephesus had taken part in this session, and 
that those who had done so had not discussed the dogma in 
the prescribed manner, but in a factious spirit He there- 
fore declared all that had been done to be invalid, and said 

> If John arrired at Ephesns on Friday the 26th of Jane, then this Saturday 
was the next day. If, howerer, he arriTeii on the 27th, then that which is here 
related took place on the evening of the day on which he arrived. 

* Manai, t. v. p. 774 sq. 

> Manid, t iv. p. 1489 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1595. 

* In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1481 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1590. 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1378 sq. ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1588 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



60 mSTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 

he would send a special official of the palace, who in con- 
junction with Candidian might examine what had taken place, 
and guard against all disorder for the future. In the mean- 
time, and until the collective Synod should have discussed the 
dogma, no bishop was to leave the city of Ephesus, whether 
to proceed to the imperial court or to return home. The 
command should also be given to the governors of the several 
provinces not to allow any bishop who might return from 
Ephesus to remain at home. He (the Emperor) took no part 
on behalf of any man, and so not for Nestorius, but only for 
the truth and the doctrine." This letter bears date 3 KaL 
JuL, that is, June 29. As, however, Cyril's answer relating 
to it, which was given to PaJladius, was drawn up on July 1,^ 
Palladius must have arrived in Ephesus before the end of 
June, and that date must have been a mistake of the writer. 
On the margin of the text, instead of rpi&v KaXaaf&&v, 
SeKarpi&v is put, that is, June 19, and many learned men 
have agreed to this suggestion; but Tillemont has properly 
drawn attention to the fact that the first session of the Synod, 
and the deposition of Nestorius, of which the Emperor speaks 
in this letter, did not take place until the 2 2d of June.* 

John and his adherents naturally rejoiced at this imperial 
letter, and thought the world happy, as they say in their 
answer, to be under such rulers. They went on to say why 
they had been constrained to depose Cyril and the others, and 
did not disdain to allege as their chief reason, that these had 
ventured to attack the bishop of the imperial city, and had 
not obeyed the Emperor's commands. Their Conciliabulum 
they caU a holy Synod, and pray that the Emperor will give 
order, that at tiie examination respecting the dogma, which is 
about to take place, each metropolitan shall take only two 
bishops with him, in order to paralyse the excessive number 
of bishops from Egypt and Asia Minor, of whom they thought 
they could not speak with sufficient contempt After reading 
the Emperor's letter, they had wished, they said, to hold a 
thanksgiving service in S. John's Church, but the people had 
shut the doors against them, and had driven them to their 

' In Mansi, t iv. p. 1422 ; Hardouin, tip. 1582. 
* TUlemont, Mimoires, t. ziv. note 47, 8ur 8t. CyrUU, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



LETTER OF THE ORTHODOX. THEIR SECOND SESSION, JULY 10. 61 

houses by force. The origin of all was Memnon, and the 
Emperor should therefore have him expelled from the 
city/ 

It is probable that the incident to which they refer had 
taken place on the attempt to appoint another bishop for 
Ephesus, since Memnon also mentions a tumult as having 
arisen on that occasion.^ 

In a second letter to the Emperor, they request that the 
Synod should be removed to another place, nearer to the court, 
where Cyril and his adherents might be convicted from his 
own writings.' 

Sec. 136. Letter of the Orthodac Their Second Session, 
July 10. 

On the other hand, Cyril and his Synod also addressed a 
letter to the Emperors by the before-named Palladius, dated 
July 1, 431, setting forth that all that was necessary on the 
subject of Nestorius and his heresy had already been said in 
the reports and Acts of the first session, which they had sent. 
But Count Candidian preferred the friendship of Nestorius to 
piety, and therefore he had preoccupied the ears of the 
Emperors, and furnished one-sided reports. It would, how- 
ever, be seen from the Acts of the Synod that they had acted 
against Nestorius without any partiality, and had carefully 
discussed the whole subject The Emperors should therefore 
not listen to John of Antioch, who cared more for his friend 
than for the faith, and had allowed the Synod to wait for 
twenty-one days. After his arrival, however, he had imme- 
diately declared himself for Kestorius, whether from friend- 
ship, or because he shared his error. As Candidian prevented 
the Synod from sending to the Emperor an exact account of 
what had taken place, he could summon him, together with 
five members of tiie Synod, before him, and obtain intelligence 
from them by word of mouth. Eecently, moreover, several 
bishops, who had hitherto been on the side of Nestorius, had 

^ Hansi, t. iv. p. 1879 sqq. ; Hardonixi, t. i. p. 1539 sqq. 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1439 ; Hardonin, t. i. p. 1595. 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1386 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1546 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



62 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

oome to take a better view of the matter^ and had passed over 
to the Synod, so that now only about thirty-seven bishops 
remained with Nestorios and John, and these, for the most 
part, because they were afraid of punishment on account of 
ofiTences committed, or because they were heretical, e,g. Pelagians. 
On the side of the Synod, on the contrary, was Bishop Coelestine 
of Bome and the whole episcopate of Africa, although they were 
not personally present Further, they touched slightly upon the 
acts of violence which Irenseus had permitted himself against 
the members of the Synod, and declared that on their side 
there were more than two hundred bishops, but that it was 
impossible to give a complete account because of the speedy 
return of Palladius.^ 

About eight days later, July 10, Cyril arranged the second 
session of the Synod in tfaie episcopal residence of Memnon, 
and he is again designated in the acts of these proceedings 
as representative of the Soman bishop.^ The number of 
those present was the same as at the first session. The occa- 
sion for this second session, however, was given by the arrival 
of the legates sent by Pope Coelestine to the Synod, Biahops 
Arcadius and Projectus, and the Presbyter Philip, who had 
to deliver the letter of the Pope, which has already been 
mentioned. It was first read in the original Latin text, and 
then in a Greek translation, and it pronounced in energetic 
language a commendation on the Synod, and exhorted them that 
they should tolerate no erroneous doctrines on the Person of 
Christ ; that they should make their own the mind of the holy 
Evangelist John, whose relics were honoured in Ephesus ; con- 
tend for the true faith, and maintain the peace of the Church. 
At the close the Pope said that he sent three deputies, that 
they might be present at the transactions, and cany out what 
he had already decided in reference to Nestorius, and that he 
did not doubt that the assembled bishops would agree with 
the same (see above, p. 42). 

Notwithstanding that the papal claims were strongly ex- 
pressed in the last sentence, the members of the Synod greatly 

1 Mansi, t. ir. p. 1422 sqq. ; Haidoain, tip. 1582 sqq. German by Fachs, 
U, Bd. iv. S. 107. 
' In Mansi, t ir. p. 1279 sqq. ; Hardooin, t. L p. 1465 sqq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



LETTER OF THE OETHODOX. THEIE SECOND SESSION, JULY 10. 63 

rejoiced at the Pope's letter, and exclaimed : ** That is the true 
judgment, thanks to Coelestine the new Paul, to Cyril the 
new Paul, to Coelestine the watchman of the faitL" 

The papal legate Projectus then directed closer attention to 
the contents of the papal letter, and especially to the point that 
the sentence which had already been delivered by the Pope 
should be carried into effect for the use of the Catholic Church, 
and in accordance witli the rule of the Catholic faith ; that is, 
that all the bishops should accede to the papal sentence, and 
so raise it to the position of a judgment of the whole Church. 
In this matter, according to the Pope's opinion, the Synod had 
no longer to examine whether l^estorius taught error; this 
was quite settled by the Eoman sentence, and it was only 
incumbent upon the Synod to confirm this by their accession* 
The Synod had in their first session practically taken a different 
view, and had introduced a fresh examination as to the ortho- 
doxy of Nestorius ; * nevertiheless they now gave, partly in 
silence and partly expressly, their adhesion to the papal view, 
whilst Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, in Cappodocia, declared 
^ that the former letter of the Apostolic See to Cyril had 
already contained the sentence and direction (^<f>ov koI 
rthrov) respecting the Nestorian question, and they (the 
assembled bishops) had, by ordering themselves accordingly, 
only fulfilled this direction, and pronounced the canonical and 
apostolic condemnation against Nestorius." ^ 

One of the papal legates, the Presbyter Philip, who was 
rather more prominent than his colleagues, now thanked the 
Synod for this, " that the holy members had adhered to the 
holy head, knowing well that Peter was the head of the Catholic 
faiUi, and of all the apostles," and asked that the decisions of 
the Synod already adopted might be laid before them, so that 
the legates might confirm them (fiefiaidam/iep), in accordance 

1 The KcUholik (1872, S. 29) thinks that this examination of the doctrine of 
Nestorius was not intended to enlighten the Fathers as to its heretical character, 
as they had before declared Nestorius to be heretical, but that it was intended 
as an act of approval. But, in fact, the reading of the passages brought for- 
ward was intended to prove that Nestorius was heretical, and it was only after 
the reading of some of the passages that many Fathers exclaimed, " Anathema.'' 
See p. 47. 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1287 sq. ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1471. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



64 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

with the commission of the Pope. This was agreed to, and 
the session then ended.^ 



Sec. 137. Third Session at Rhesus, July 11, 431. — Ttoo 
Synodal Letters, 

The third session took place on the next day, July 11, and 
also in the residence of Memnon. The papal legates declared 
that they had in the meantime read the Acts of the first 
session, which bad been given to them, and had found the 
judgment to be quite canonical and in accordance with eccle- 
siastical discipline; but, in compliance with the commission 
of the Pope, they must still request that the Acts of that 
session also should now be read again in their presence, which 
was then immediately done. 

Thereupon each of the papal legates, the priest Philip 
again at their head, after a long introduction on the import- 
ance of the Pope, pronounced excommunication and deposition 
against Nestorius; and Cyril of Alexandria then remarked 
that they had thus spoken as representatives of the Pope and 
of the assembly of the Western Bishops. They could now 
sign the Acts of all the three sessions of the Synod already 
held, which they immediately did.^ Philip is again foremost, 
whilst elsewhere he is often put in the third place. 

All the bishops present then subscribed a synodal letter 
addressed to the Emperors, in which it was first related how, 
even before the opening of the Ephesine Synod, the Westerns 
had held a Council of their own in Bome, and had there 
rejected the doctrine of Nestorius. Pope Coelestine had 
already communicated this in a letter, but now three legates 
had arrived from him, and had confirmed the sentence of 
Ephesus on Nestorius. Thus the whole of Christendom, with 
the exception of the few friends of Nestorius, had pronounced 
an unanimous judgment; consequently the Emperor should 
appoint that a new bishop should be given to the Church of 
Constantinople; and that the members of the Synod should 
be allowed to return home, as the long sojourn abroad was 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1290; Hardoain, t. I p. 1474. 
'Mansi, t iv. p. 1299; Hardoain, t i. p. 1482. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOUBTH SESSION AT EPHESU8, JULY 16, 431, 65 

very inconvenient for many of them, that several had already 
fallen sick, and some had even died.^ At the same time the 
Synod, in a second letter to the clei^ and laity of Constanti- 
nople, expressed the hope that soon a worthy bishop might be 
found for the imperial city. Cyril subscribed in the first 
place, after him the Presbyter Philip of Bome, then Juvenal of 
Jerusalem, and then came the two other legates.' 

Sec. 138. FcmHh Session at Ephesus, July 16, 431. 

Five days later, on July 16, the fourth session was cele- 
brated, again in the great Church of S. Mary, and the Acts 
always place Cyril first, but as representative of the Pope. 
After him the three papal legates are named (the presbyter 
this time last), and next Juvenal and tiiie rest Cyril and 
Memnon had handed in a memorial, in which they briefly 
related the history both of the Synod and of the opposition 
Conciliabulum, denied to the latter the authority to condemn 
them, and concluded with the request that John of Antioch 
and his companions might be cited before the Synod, and 
called to an account' Immediately three bishops were sent 
to the Patriarch John to cite him ; he did not, however, allow 
them admission, and they found his house surrounded by 
many armed men, who uttered insulting remarks respecting 
the Synod and the orthodox faith, and threatened the deputiea 

When they had returned and communicated the intelli- 
gence to the Council, Cyril brought forward the proposal that, 
as John plainly had an evU conscience, and therefore did not 
come, the Synod should declare the judgment put forth by him 
against Cyril and Memnon as null, and pronounce a suitable 
punishment against him. Thereupon Juvenal of Jerusalem 
remarked that John should certainly have been present to 
show due reverence and submission to the apostolic see of 
great Bome and the apostolic Church of Jerusalem, especially 
as it was in accordance with apostolic order and tradition that 
the see of Antioch should be judged by the former. (A Greek 

' MaDsi, t. iv. p. 1302 ; Hardooin, tip. 1482. 
' Mansi, t iv. p. 1808 ; Hardouin, t L p. 1488. 
' Kansi, t. iy. p. 1806 sqq. ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1486 sqq. 
UI. E 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



C6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

scholium is added to the text, to the effect that this must be 
understood of the Boman see, not of that of Jerusalem ; for 
Borne had, even in the time of Paul of Samosata, and later, in 
that of Meletius, pronounced judgment concerning the see of 
AntiocL) Juvenal further proposed that the Patriarch John 
should be cited a second time by another deputation. The 
proposition was accepted, and three bishops were again sent 
But neither were they admitted by John ; but received for 
answer, that " he held no intercourse with deposed and 
excommunicated men.'' 

At the repeated wish and motion of Cyril and Memnon the 
Synod therefore now declared : " The judgment which John 
and his companions have pronounced against Cyril and Mem- 
non is uncanonical and altogether invalid. On the other 
hand, he must himself be cited for the third time before the 
holy Synod, and the Emperors must be made acquainted with 
all that has happened." ^ 

Sec. 139. Fifth Session at Fphesus, July 17, 431, and Two 
Synodal Letters. 

On the very next day the bishops assembled for the fifth 
session. Cyril reported that John and his friends had in the 
meantime publicly circulated and posted up an insolent 
placard full of folly, containing the sentence of deposition 
against him and Memnon, and accusing them of ApoUinarian- 
ism, Arianism, and Eunomianism. This accusation was wholly 
unfounded, for he and Memnon anathematized these and all 
other heresies, together with the new heretic Nestorius and 
his adherents. The Synod should now cite John and his 
friends for the third time, so that they might publicly prove 
their accusations (against Cyril and Memnon), or themselves 
be condemned, especially as they had conveyed false reports 
to the Emperors. — Again three bishops were sent, together 
with a notary, to John, in order to cite him for the third time, 
under a serious threat of canonical punishment in case of his 
non-appearance. They came to his residence, but instead of 
being received by him, his archdeacon was instructed to 
^ Mann, t. iv. p. 1810-1315 ; Hardoain, t. L p. 1487 sq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



FIFTH SESSION AT EPHESU8, JULY 17, 481. 67 

deliver to them a document with the words : " The holy 
Synod (that is, the Conciliabulum) sends this to you." It was 
probably nothing else but the decree of deposition of Cyril 
and Memnon already mentioned, and the deputies of the 
Synod declined to receive it. The archdeacon reported this 
to his master, and returned immediately with the document, 
declaring that the decisions (of the Conciliabulum) were already 
communicated to the Emperor, and they must therefore wait 
for further rules of procedure. When the deputies were about 
to deliver orally the commission of their Synod, the arch- 
deacon sprang hastily away, saying, " You have not received the 
document, neither will I listen to the message of your Synod." 
The deputies, however, had the opportunity of making some 
of John of Antioch's priests acquainted with its contents,. so 
that he might.leam them in this way. Thereupon the Synod 
declared that they had reason to proceed in the most stringent 
manner against John and his companions, but that they pre- 
ferred gentleness, and (not to depose, but only) to excommuni- 
cate them, and suspend them from all spiritual jurisdiction 
until they confessed their offences. If, however, they would 
not do this soon, then the stringent canonical sentence must 
be pronounced against them. At the same time, it was self- 
evident that all their decisions against Cyril and Memnon 
were wholly invalid. Finally, the Acts of this session also 
were to be transmitted to the Emperors. 

The Synod mentioned all who were thus punished and 
threatened, particularly John of Antioch, John of Damas- 
cus, Alexander of Apamea, Dexianus of Seleucia, Alexander of 
Hierapolis, Himerius of Nicomedia, Fritilas of Heraclea, Hella- 
dius of Tarsus, Maximian of Anazarbus, Dorotheus of Mar- 
cianopolis, Pet6r of Trajanople, Paul of Emesa, Polychronius 
of Heraclea, Eutherius of Tyana, Meletius of Neocsesarea, 
Theodoret of Cyrus, Apringius of Chalcis, Macarius of Lao- 
dicea Major, Zoeis of Esbuntis, Salustius of Coiycus, Hesy- 
chius of Castabala, Valentinus of Mutlubbaca (Mallus), 
Eustathius of Parnassus, Philip of Theodosianopolis, Daniel, 
Julian, Cyril, Olympius, Diogenes, PaUadius (these without 
names of places), Theophanes of Philadelphia, Trajanus of 
Augusta, AureUus of Irenopolis, Musseus of Arcadiopolis, and 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



68 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Helladius of Ptolemais.^ They are altogether thirty-five 
bishops, and a comparison of their names with those forty- 
three who subscribed the decree of the first session of the 
Condliabulum shows that this party had certainly won a few 
new adherents, but had lost considerably more, a fact which, 
as we know, had been before maintained by CyriL 

The Synod immediately reported what had taken place, both 
to the Emperors and to the Pope, and we are still in posses- 
sion of these documents, which are not without value. In the 
letter to the Emperors it is related that the Synod had deposed 
Nestorius, but that his Mends had won over John of Antioch, 
and in union with him, although only thirty in number (the 
letter to Pope Coelestine says " about thirty "), had held a 
spurious Synod, whilst the Emperors had expressly required 
only one, and that a general Synod, to be held. Among the 
members of the spurious Synod were many who had not yet 
purged themselves of offences of which they had been accused, 
and even John of Antioch had feared lest he should be called 
to account for his long absence from the Synod.^ And this 
spurious Synod, without observing any regular order of pro- 
ceeding, without accusers, and without citation, had, in a 
manner wholly uncanonical and imjust, declared Cyril and 
Memnon deposed, and had endeavoured by false representa- 
tions to deceive the Emperors. The true and only Synod had 
therefore three times cited John of Antioch and his com- 
panions^ that they might bring forward their complaints 
against Cyril and Menmon. They had not appeared, and 
therefore tJieir resolutions against Cynl and Memnon had been 
declared invalid, and they themselves had been placed under 
excommunication until they should be reformed. The Em- 
perors should certainly not regard that conventicle of sinners 
as a Synod. Even at Nic^ea a small minority liad separated 
itself from the Synod of 318 bishops, but these men were in 
no way regarded as a Council by Constantino the Great ; on 

^ Mansi, t iv. p. 1318- 1326 ; Hardoain, t i. p. 1493-1500. Gemum in Fuchs, 
Lc 8. 186 S. 

" In the imperial edict of convocation it was said that whoever should not be 
at Ephesus by Pentecost, should be in a high degree responsible before God and the 
Emperors. See above, p. 40. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTH SESSION AT EPHESU8, JULY 17, 431. 69 

the contrary, they were punished It would be in the highest 
degree absurd that thirty persons should set themselves in 
opposition to a Synod of two hundred and ten holy bishops, 
with whom, moreover, the whole Western episcopate was 
united. And, besides, there were among those thirty several 
who had been previously deposed, several Pelagians and 
Nestorians.^ The Emperors should therefore confirm and give 
effect to what the holy and (Ecumenical Synod had decided 
against Nestorius and his impious doctrine.^ 

Still more complete is the synodal letter to Pope Coelestine, 
and it contains a complete history of the Ephesine Council 
from the imperial edict of convocation to the results of the 
fifth session, with the remark that the Synod had declared 
Cyril and Memnon to be quite innocent, and maintained the 
closest communion with them. Much more important is the 
addition, that in the Ephesine Synod (although we are not 
informed in what session) the Western Acts on the condemna- 
tion of the Pelagians and Celestians, of Pelagius, Coelestius, 
and his adherents, Julianus, Persidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and 
Orentius, eta, were read, and the papal judgment on them 
universally approved.' 

As before against Kestorius, so now Cyril preached also 
against John of Antioch, and we possess still a beautiful and 
very powerful discourse on that subject* If it has some 
strong expressions of an abusive character, it is still moderate 
in comparison with what John had allowed himself to say 
against CyriL 

■ In the letter to the Pope, to be noticed presently, the Synod adds, that 
*' many of these so-called bishops had no churches, others had been expelled 
from Theasaly " (perhaps Italy). 

' Mansi, t. It. p. 1826 sq.; Hardonin, t. L p. 1502 sqq. 

• Mansi, t. iv. p. 1380-1838 ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1508-1510. The words 
relating to the Pelagians are the foUowing : 'Af«yv«^Syr«f Ji It rf »yif 0tnSi»f rZt 

ncNM, KtXc#v<«9, TliXmyUv, *U»k»u§», Utf^tVfv, *Xmfv, M«^tX>./f«v, 'OftwrUy, xal 
tI mvra rwrut ^f«MVfr«y, UtMomfm^tt xai fifttit <V;^v^ »»i /3t/3«M« ftituv rk to** 
lurats iftf/tiut, wmfk m riff Su^tfiuas* »•$ fv/t4"if»* ^dfrts lr^i», xm^ifftifiMUg 

* In Ifansi, t. ir. p. 1338 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



70 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Sec. 140. Sixth Session at Ephems, July 22, 431. 

On the 2 2d of July the sixth session of the Synod was held 
in the residence of Memnon,^ and on that occasion the Nicene 
Creed was first read, and then again all those passages from 
the Fathers which had been brought forward at the condem- 
nation of Nestorius in the first session. This was done in 
proof that the Nestorians had not correctly comprehended and 
explained the Nicene formula. 

Then Charisius, a cleric (CEconomus) of the Church of 
Philadelphia, gave the information that two priests from Con- 
stantinople, Anastasius and Photius, had sent a certain Jacobus 
provided with letters of introduction to the Bishops of Lydia, 
and had commended his orthodoxy. This Jacobus had come 
to Philadelphia, and had soon mided some clerics, and induced 
them to sign another Nestorian Creed instead of the Nicena 
As, now, many Quartodecimans in Lydia wished to return again 
to the Church, they had also allured these to subscribe a 
heretical Creed, instead of the Nicene. He (Charisius), because 
of his opposition, had been declared a heretic by the others, 
and excommunicated, but he was thoroughly orthodox, and 
could prove this by his creed, which he laid before them. 
This was, in meaning, entirely accordsmt with the Niceno- 
Constantinopolitan, and in words almost identical^ He also 
brought forward the falsified creed in question, and there is no 
doubt that this, under inflated language and apparent zeal for 
orthodoxy, contained the fundamental Nestorian error — the 
dividing of Christ into the Logos and an assumed man.' The 
creed was not composed by Nestorius himself, but by Theodore 
of Mopsuestia,* but it had been circulated by the Nestorians, 
and the copy which Charisius presented was subscribed by 
many former Quartodecimans and some Novatians, almost all 

^ The Acts of this session are no longer preserved entire in Greek (Mansi, 
t. iv. p. 1342 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1520 sqq.) ; bnt we possess several Latin 
translations and extracts in Mansi, t. v. p. 602 sqq., and the still more com- 
plete Latin translation of Marios Mercator, ibid, p. 686 sqq. 

^ In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1347 ; Hordouin, t, i. p. 1515. 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1347 sqq. ; Hardouin) t. i. p. 1515 sqq. German in Fuchs, 
l.c, S. 148 ff. Pai-Uy in Tijinng, theoL QuartaUchr, 1835, S. 242 ff. 

* Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. v. S. 354. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SEVENTH SESSION AT EPHESUS. 71 

layiDen of different ranks. Still there was among them a 
Qoartodeciman priest, named Patricius, who could not write.^ 
The Synod now gave order, under pain of excommunication 
and deposition, that no other than the Nicene Creed, parti^ 
cularly not that presented by Gharisius, should be used, and 
had the well-known extracts, of the first session, from the 
writings of Nestorius read again, after which all who were 
present, and Cyril first, subscribed the Acta 



Sec. 141. Seventh Session at Ephesus. Circular Letter 
and CanoTis. 

It is doubtful when the seventh and last session was held. 
The Acts name the 31st of August, but Gamier,' and after 
him many scholars of distinction, have supposed that there 
was a mistake of the writer at this pointy and have pro- 
nounced for the 31st of July, for this reason, that the new 
imperial commissioner, John, reached Ephesus at the beginning 
of August^ and no more sessions were held after his arrival' 
This seventh session again took place in the Church of S. Mary, 
and b^an with the reading of a petition given in by Bheginus, 
Archbishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, and signed by him and 
the two other Cypriote bishops, Zeno and Evagrius. For some 
time the Patriarchs of Antioch had claimed rights of superiority 
over the Bishops of Cyprus, particularly the right of ordina- 
tion, etc. When the metropolitan chair of this island was, 
by the death of Troilus, again left empty, at the time of the 
convocation of the Synod of Ephesus, the Proconsul of Antioch, 
Duke Dionysius, at the request of the Antiochene patriarch, 
forbade the election of a new archbishop before the pending 
controversy should be decided by the Synod. If, however, 
contrary to his expectation, a bishop for Constantia should 
be elected, he must appear at the Synod at Ephesus. — ^The 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1358 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1523. 

* In hia edition of the works of Marias Mercator, in the preface to Pars iL 
p. 729, 6dit. Migne. 

' Dupin, NouveUe BUdioth, t iv. p. 800 ; TiUemont, Jf^wiotrM, t. xiv. 
p. 444, ^it Venise ; Fleury, Hist. Eccl Liv. xxv. § 67 ; Remi Ceillier, 
Higtoire des Auteure Sctcr^, t xiii. p. 746; Walch, Keizergesch. Bd. v. 
8. 511 f. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



Y2 HISTORY OF THB COITNCILS. 

two letters of the proconsol, on this subject, to the President 
of Cjrpras and to the clergy of Constantia, were appended to 
the petition, and read at the same time with it The Bishops 
of Cypros, however, had paid no r^ard to this prohibition, and 
bad chosen as archbishop Rheginus, who has already been men- 
tioned (according to their custom), in their provincial Synod, 
because, as they explained at Ephesus, those pretensions of 
Antioch were contra apostolicos cananes et definitiones sandissimtz 
Nicence Synodi} That by a/ws^o/ici caTwmes they meant a pseudo- 
apostolic, and, in particular, No. 36, has already been noticed 
in vol. L p. 454 f. In reference to the canons of Nicsea, 
however, they evidently had in view canon 4, which says : 
''The bishop shall be appointed by all (the I»shops) of 
the province" (vol. i. p. 381). In the debate which arose at 
Ephesus, on the application of the Cypriotes, it was remarked 
by several, " that it ought not to be forgotten that the Synod 
of Nicsea had preserved its own dignity for every church, and 
this ought especially to be remembered at Antioch." ' The 
speakers here unmistakeably referred to the sixth Kicene 
canon, and meant to say that " this canon confirmed to the 
great patriarchal sees, and among them to Antioch, their 
ancient rights. Therefore the question must be put in this 
form : How was it in earlier times ? Did the Antiochene 
bishops possess and exercise the right in earUer times of con- 
secrating the Cjrpriote bish(^ or not ? " The Synod there- 
upon required of the Cypriote bishops to prove tiiat Antioch 
had no such ancient rights over them, and one of them, Zeno 
by name, certified on this point, that the late Archbishop 
lSx)ilus of Cyprus, and all his predecessors, back to the apos- 
tolic times, bad always been ordained by the bishops of their 
own province, and never by the Bishop of Antioch. There- 
upon the Synod drew up the resolution, '* That the churches 
of Cyprus should be confirmed in their independence, and in 
their right to consecrate (and elect) their own bishops ; that 
the liberties of all ecclesiastical provinces generally should be 
renewed, and all intrusions into foreign provinces forbidden." ' 

^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1465 ; Hardooin, t. L p. 167. 

• Manai, t iv. p. 1468 ; Uardouin, tip. 1620. 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1466-1470 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1617-1620 ; Fuchs, I.e. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SEVENTH SESSION AT EPHESUS. 73 

In the same session the Sjmod also sent forth a circular letter 
to all bishops, clergy, and laity, to the effect that they bad 
pronounced excommonication and suspension from all spiritual 
jurisdiction against John of Antioch and his adherents, who 
were mentioned by name. To this general proclamation they 
appended the following six canons : — 

Canon 1. 

Koi otKOVficvucff^ Svv6Bov, vpoa€0€To T^ TiJ^ cnTOOToalaq <rVV' 
eipt^, fj /ierA tovto irpoaredelri, fj rh KeXeariov i^povricev fj 
^popi]<rg, oSro9 xarh r&v rrj^ hrapj(la^ hnaxovrnv Stairpdr- 
reaOai rt oiSafim Bvvarai, vdirq^ iicKKfifFUUTTUCffi icottwvla^ 
ipT€u0€V ijBTf inrb rrj^ SwoBov ixlSe^fjfiii/o^, seal avevepyrjro^ 
\nrafy)(foir aXX^ Koi alrroi^ rcHi t^ iirapj(Ui^ hrurtdiroi^ ical 
Tofe wipi^ iMFjTpoTr6Kir<u^ tow tA t^9 opOoBo^la^ if>povownp 
xnrofcelaercu^ eh to irairni koX tov fiaOfjLov rij^ hrta-Konrri^: 
ifcfiXffOrjvak 

If a metropolitan has separated himself from this holy 
and (Ecumenical Synod, and has joined that assembly of apos- 
tates (the Conciliabulum), or shall hereaffcer join them, or has 
agreed with Coelestius (= the Pelagians), or shall agree, he 
has no more jurisdiction over the bishops of his province, 
and is already (by the previous sentence on John and his 
adherents) excluded and suspended by the Synod from all 
church communion. It is farther the duty of the bishops 
of the province themselves, and the neighbouring metro- 
politans, who are orthodox, to see to his total deposition 
from the episcopate. 

Canon 2. 

El Be rive^ enapx^^fai hriaKOirot av€\ei<f>0fja'av rrj^ arfla<; 
StnfoSov, teal ry airocTaaUf i^poaeriOrjaav, fj 'n'poareOijvai ^€i- 
paOdev, fj seal viroypd'^vre^ ry Necrroplov xaOaipia-ei hra- 
\ivSp6fMff<rav w/309 to rrj^ airoaraaia^ awiSpiov, tovtoi;? 'travrq 

S. 149-158. Cf., on the Cypriote controversy, also Maassen, Der Primal des 
Biaehqf$ tfon R<m^ S. 50 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



74 HISTORY OF THB COUNCILS. 

Kar^L 70 Bo^av ry a/yla SwoB^ oKXorplov^ dlvtu rrj^ Upo^axhnj^ 
fcal Tov fiaOfiov itcTrhrreiv, 

If any provincial bishops (iirapxiArai = the snfifragan 
bishops of a province, of. Suicer, Thesmurus, s.v.) were not 
present at the holy Synod, bat passed over to the apostates 
(the Antiochenes), or attempted to pass over, or if they signed 
the deposition of Nestorius, but then went over to the assembly 
of apostates, these shall be entirely deposed from the holy 
priesthood, and shall be deprived of their degree (office). 

Canon 3. 

El Si Tiv€^ seal T&v iv €Kcurrrj iroXei ij Jff^pa K\i]piK&v 
inro Necrroplov Kal r&v <rijv avr^ 6vtc9v ttj^ Upc^awry: iK(o\v0fi' 
aav Si^ TO 6p0m <f>pop€iv, iStKauoaafAcv xal rovrcv^ top l^iop 
aTToXafieip /SaOfjbop' koipw Be tou9 t§ opOoBo^ /cal ohcovfi^piicfj 
SwoB^ <rvfi^popovPTa^ KkripiKoth, KeKeiofj^ep tow aTroaTa- 
TTjacuTip fj a^iaTafiivoi^ hriaKorroi^ p/qff 5Xa»9 vrroK€UT0at kotcl 

flffBiva TpOTTOV, 

If any of the clergy in any town or in the country have 
been deposed by Nestorius or his adherents on account of 
their orthodoxy, they shall receive their office again. Grene- 
rally, all clerics who adhere to the orthodox and (Ecumenical 
Synod shall in no way be subject to the apostate or apos- 
tatizing bishops. 

Canon 4. 

Ei Be Ttv€9 airo<TTaTifi<rai€v t&p fcKfipuc&p, icaX ToXfii^acuep fj 
MLT iBlap fi Brjfioaia tcl NeoTopiov fj Th Keketrrlov (l>poprjaiu, 
Kal TOVToxn elpav Kod-QpripApoxr; inro t^ a/yia^ SvpoBov BeBi- 
KaloDTac 

If any of the clergy shall apostatize, and either privately 
or publicly hold with Nestorius or Coelestius, the Synod decides 
that they also shall be deposed. 

Canon 5. 
Oaoi eirl utottoc^ irpa^eai, KaTeKpiOfjaap inro Ttj^ ayia^ 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SKVENTH SESSION AT EPHESUS. 75 

SwoBov ij inro r&p oIkc&ov iiricneoTTtov, Kal tovtoi^ aKavoviaro}^ 
Karh ri)p iv &TrcuTiv ahiai^oplav ainov 6 Nearopio^, xal oi Ta 
avTov (l>povovPT€^, avoBovvcu iireipdOriaav ^ ireipaOeiev koivcO' 
vlav fj fiaOfihv, dvci><f>€\7jTov<i iihuv koI tovtov^, koI elvm ovB^v 
fJTTOv KaOrffyqiiAvov^ iSiKawxrafiep, 

Those who have been condemned on account of improper 
actions, either by the holy Synod or by their own bishops, 
and whom Nestorius and his adherents, nncanonically, and 
without making any distinction between that which is allowed 
and forbidden/ have attempted, or shall attempt, to restore to 
communion or to their office, shall derive no advantage from 
this, but shall remain deposed. 

Canon 6. 

'0/JLol<o^ Bk teal et tiv€^ jSovXrfdetev rit irepX eKaartov TrcTrpay^ 
fjukva iv Ty a/^ia SvvoB^ t§ ip ^E(f>i<T(p o'KpBrjirore rpoir(p 
wapaa-akeveip' 17 ayia SvpoBo^ &puT€v, el fiev hrlaKoiroi, elev 
fj icKfipucoiy rov olxeiov vaprekA^ dnroTriirTetv ^aOfiov' el Si 
\aiKol, aicoiv<oprfrov^ inrdpj(€ip. 

Generally, with respect to those who may, in any way 
whatever, resist any of the enactments of the holy Synod 
at Ephesus, the Synod decrees, if they are bishops or clerics, 
that they shall be entirely deprived of their office, but if they 
are laymen they shall be excommunicated. 

The Acts add, besides, that these canons were subscribed 
by all the bishops.* When, however, in several manuscripts, 
eight Ephesine canons are numbered, this arises from the fact 
that the resolution of the Synod in the matter of Charisius is 
put down as the seventh canon, and the decree respecting the 
Cypriote bishops as the eighth.* 

It is worthy of note that Dionysius Exiguus does not 
receive a single canon of all those of Ephesus into his collec- 

^ This is the camment of the old scholiast Zonaras on this passage. See 
BeTereg. Synodkotiy t. i p. 102. 

* Mansi, t iv. p. 1471 sqq. ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1622 sqq.; Fuchs, S. 153 ff. 
Beyeridge gives a commeutarjr on some of the Ephesine canons, Synodieon, 
t iL Appendix, p. 103 sqq. 

' Mansi, Hardonin, and Fuchs, U,cc. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



76 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS* 

tion, perhaps because these have no general bearing, but only 
contain such decisions as have a special application to the 
Nestorian and Pelagian questions. 

Sec. 142. The Affairs of Famphylia, the Mdssalians, Thrace, 
and the See of Jerusalem. 

That the Synod of Ephesus considered several other special 
subjects, is shown by various documents which have been pre- 
served, only we do not know to what session they belonged. 
At the head of them stands the letter to the provincial Synod 
in Pamphylia with reference to Bishop Eustathius. This man^ 
(whether^ Metropolitan of Pamphylia or Bishop of Attalia is 
doubtful) had resigned, because he could not properly preside 
over his diocese and hold his opponents in check. In his 
place a certain Theodorus was appointed by the other bishops 
of the province ; but, in agreement with his successor, Eusta- 
thius petitioned the Synod for permission to be allowed to 
retain the title and rank of bishop ; and the Synod granted 
him this, with the limitation, that he should undertake no 
ordinations, and that he should never of his own authority 
hold service without consent of the bishop.* 

The second document belonging to this subject is a decree 
in reference to the Massalians or Etichites. The Bishops of 
Pamphylia and Lycaonia, in whose districts these heretics dwelt, 
presented a decree respecting them adopted by the Council 
of Constantinople under Bishop Sisinnius, and our Synod 
confirmed it, as well as that which was done in this matter at 
Alexandria. According to this decree, clerics who had been 
hitherto Massalians, but now anathematized this heresy, were 
to remain among the clergy, and laymen were to be admitted 

* In the Buperscription of the synodal letter he is called metropolitan ; but 
the two metropolitan sees of Pamphylia, Perga and Side, were then occupied by 
Berlnian and Amphilochius (cf. the signatures of the bishops present at Ephesus, 
in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1214 and 1226 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1423 and 1431) ; on the 
other hand, we find among the Fathers of the Epheslne Synod a Theodore of 
Attalia, and Tillemont has suggested (note 65, 8ur Si, Cyr^le) that this was the 
successor of Eustathius. « 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1475 ; Hardouin, t 1. p. 1626. C£^ Heigenrother, PhoUus, 
etc., Bd. ii. S. 339. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BOTH FABHES at EPHE6US APPEAL TO THE EMPEBOB. 77 

to communion. If, however^ they declined to anathematize 
their previous error, then the deigy were to lose office^ dignity, 
and church communion, and the laity to be anathematized. 
Moreover, those who were proved to be Massalians (even if 
they repented) were to have no monasteries allowed them, so 
that this creed (which was quite at home in monasteries) 
should not spread farther. Finally, anathema was pronounced 
upon a writing of these heretics, their Asceticon.^ 

For a third decree two Thracian bishops, Euprepius of Biza 
(Bizya) and Cyril of Coele, gave occasion, pra]ring for pro- 
tection against their metropolitan, Fritilas of Heraclea, who 
had gone over to the party of John of Antioch, and at the 
same time for the coniSrmation of the previous practice of 
holding two bishoprics at the same time. The Sjmod granted 
both.* 

Finally, we also know, from a letter of Pope Leo the Great, 
that at the Sjmod of Ephesus Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem 
endeavoured^ among other things, dishonestly and by the 
presentation of fiEdse documents, to get quite free from the 
patriarchal authority of the Bishop of Antioch, and to gain 
the ecclesiastical primacy over Palestine for his own see ; ' but 
that Cyril of Alexandria, although closely united with Juvenal 
on the main point, the struggle against Nestorius and the 
Antiochenes, yet earnestly opposed this intrigue, and subse- 
quently reported it to the Pope.^ 

Sec. 143. Both Parties at Ephesus appeal to the Emperor. 

As we saw, the Synod had resolved repeatedly, and in every 
session, to send their Acts to the Emperor, but they had com- 
plained, even at the time when Palladius arrived at Ephesus, 
that Count Candidian had not allowed their reports to reach 

^ Mansi, t iv. p. 1477 ; Hardoain, t i. p. 1627. CL Tillemont, t ziT. note 
h%ySwr8t. OyriUe. 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1478 ; Hardoais, tip. 1628. 

* From a letter of the Antiochene deputies (see § 148) we see that Juvenal 
also laid daim to PhcDnicia and Arabia. 

*Ct on this subject our commentary on the seventh Nicene canon, in voL L 
p. 404 ff., and what was said there (p. 898) on the extent of the Patriarchate of 
Antioch. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



78 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the Eniperor. Similar and still more wanton acts of violence 
in this direction had been performed by the Nestorians in 
Constantinople itself. They had taken possession of the high- 
ways and gates, and visited all the ships, in order to prevent any 
communication between the Synod and the capitctL In spite of 
this a beggar at last succeeded in smuggling in a letter, which 
is now lost, concealed in a hollow stick, from Cyril to the 
bishops and monks of Constantinople, in which the oppression 
of the Synod by Candidian and the Orientals was described, 
and a request made that they might be allowed to send bishops 
as deputies to Constantinople.^ Deeply moved by this letter, 
the monks of Constantinople, with their archimandrites and 
specially Dalmatius at the head of them, marched, with singing 
of hymns and psalms, in front of the imperial residence. For 
eight-and-forty years Dalmatius, who enjoyed a great reputa- 
tion for sanctity, could in no way be induced to leave his 
monastery ; but now he believed that he was summoned by a 
heavenly voice to save the Church, and his sudden appear- 
ance made a great impressioiL* The Emperor permitted the 
archimandrites to come into his presence, while the crowd of 
monks and the people waited in the meantime singing sacred 
songs before the gates. The archimandrites read the letter 
which they had received from Ephesus before the Emperor, 
and the following conversation arose. The Emperor said: 
" If this is so, some of the bishops (of the Synod) must come 
to me and represent their case." Dalmatius answered : " None 
of them dares to come hither." To which the Emperor replied : 
" No one hinders them." Dalmatius : " Yes, they are hindered. 
Many who belong to the Nestorian party come and go without 
the least hindrance ; but no one dares to give your Piety intelli- 
gence of what the holy Synod does." He added : " Will you 

' That the last point was contained in this letter, is dear from the Apologia 
Dalmatic, (c«vr« wv lyinrt, Tm wtftfif, »mi 7AJ«r<* m \fxifA9u . . . «« kymrttTu 
Wl9»»*tt •* rh lfxif^*9M wmfk Tnf kyimt rvfd«»), Mansi, t iv. p. 1429 ; Hardoain, 
t L p. 1588 sq. 

' Before this, as he indicates himself (Mansi, Hardouin, U,oe.), he had advised 
the Emperor, when the latter visited him, how he should write to Ephesos. The 
Emperor appeared at first disposed to agree with his advice, bat was turned from 
it by means of an intrigue, and then wrote what Palladius arranged (see above, 
p. 69). 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BOTH PARTIES AT EPHESUS APPEAL TO THE EMPEROR. 79 

rather hear six thousand bishops (the whole of orthodox Chris- 
tendom) or a single impious man (N^estorius) ? " The Emperor 
now gave permission for the envoys of the Synod to come to 
Constantinople, and in conclusion asked the archimandrites for 
their prayers to God The archimandrites, retiring from the im- 
perial palace, with the monks and people, went into the Church 
of S. Mocius the martyr, where Dalmatius ascended the pulpit 
and gave an account of what had happened, whereupon all 
present shouted out, "Anathema to Nestorius!"^ Making 
use of the imperial permission, perhaps even before this 
arrived at Ephesus, the Synod sent Bishops Theopemptus of 
Cabasus and Daniel of Damis (two Egyptians) to Constan- 
tinople ^ with a letter of thanks to Dalmatius.' 

But John and his Orientals also found it necessary to use 
influence at court. Out of obedience to the imperial command, 
however, they would not, as they said,^ like the Egyptians, 
send bishops, but requested Count IrensBus, the zealous friend 
of Nestorius, to go on their behalf to Constantinople. He was 
quite ready, and took a letter from the Schismatics with him, 
in which they informed the Emperor how they had not been 
allowed to hold divine service in Ephesus ; how, shortly after 
the arrival of Palladius, when they wished to go into a church 
to return thanks to God for the letter received from the 
Emperor, they had been maltreated ; and how Cyril and his 

> The documents referring to these events are in Mansi, t. iv. p. 1427 and 
1430 ; Hardooin, t. i p. 1586 sqq. Some historians refer this occurrence to a 
somewhat later period, when Cyril and Memnon were already arrested, and the 
need of the Synod had become greater. But the documents just referred to give 
not the slightest hint that the arrest had as yet taken place, and that which 
Dalmatius requested, namely, the admission of envoys from the Synod, followed 
about the same time, when Irenseus went to Constantinople, and a considerable 
time b^ore the arrival of Count John, and btfore the arrest of Cyril and Memnon. 
Cf. Walch, KHtergeaeh, v. S. 522. 

' Their names are, indeed, never definitely mentioned, but they may be inferred 
from the fiact that these two bishops, ?^o were among those who previously sub- 
scribed at Ephesus, are from this time mentioned as being present at Constan- 
tinople. 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1258 ; Hardouin, t L p. 1447. Frequently, but erron- 
eously, the letter, which we still possess, from Dalmatius to the Synod (Mansi, 
t iv. p. 1258 ; Hardouin, t. i p. 1446), is referred to this time. It is evidently 
later, and mentions earlier services which Dalmatius rendered to the Council. 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1874 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1535. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



80 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

adherents had allowed themselves in all kinds of acts of 
violence.^ The Emperor therefore should listen to Irenseus, 
who transmitted several proposals from their side, with the 
view of putting an end to the eviL^ 

As it is not mentioned in this letter that the Sjmod had 
already pronounced sentences of excommunication and sus- 
pension on the Schismatics, it i^pears that it was composed 
before the fourth and fifth sessions of the Sjmod (July 16 
and 17), so that Iienaeus must have departed about the 
middle of July. 

After, however, the Synod in those two sessions had pro- 
noimced judgment on John of Antioch and his adherents, 
these last immediately prepared an account of this also for 
the Emperor, and sent it after Irenseus, who had already 
departed, that he might deliver it to the Emperor at the same 
time. In Hiis they attempt to prove that their judgment on 
Cyril and Memnon is valid, and, on the other band, that of 
the Synod upon them fooUsh and impotent ; they complain 
again of oppressions, and request that they may be sum- 
moned to Constantinople or Nicomedia (to a new Synod), for 
the sake of a more careful examination. But orders should 
be given (as they had proposed before) that no metropolitan 
should bring more than two bishops to this Sjmod. Finally, 
they asked the Emperor to give orders that every one should 
subscribe the Nicene Creed, which they themselves placed 
at the head of their letter,' that no one should add any- 
thing new, that no one should call Christ a .mere man (as 
Nestorius), and that no one should declare the Godhead of Christ 
to be capable of suffering (which was brought as a reproach 

' Thus each side complained of the miadeeda of the other. Both might have 
occaaion for this. The poaaeaaora of power on the aide of the Schiamatica (Can- 
didian, etc) oppreaaed the Synod ; the people of Ephesns, on the other hand, 
threatened and inaolted the Schiamatica. 

< Manai, t iv. p. 1890 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1547. 

' In our copiea the letter of the Antiochenea no longer haa the Nicene Creed. 
Gamier and othera believed, therefore, that the document with the auperacription 
Dt SchismaUcia, which is printed in Manai, t. iv. p. 1875, and in Hardonin, t i. 
p. 1585, and containa the Nicene Creed, waa (originally a portion of the letter of 
the Antiochenea in question. Thia ia not ao. That document ia evidently 
later, for thore ia a reference in it to the third imperial letter, which Count John 
conveyed. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BOTH PARTIES AT EPHESUS APPEAL TO THE EMPEROR. 81 

against Cyril), for both these statements were quite sacrilegious.^ 
At the same time the Schismatics addressed letters to some 
high state officials, in order to represent to them their sad 
condition in Ephesus, and the bad treatment which they expe- 
rienced, with the petition that they would assist in having 
them summoned to Constantinople, and in obtaining the 
holding of a new Synod.^ To this time certainly belongs also 
the letter of Theodoret of Cyrus to Andreas, Bishop of Samo- 
sata» which we now possess only in Latin, and in which he' 
congratulates him that sickness prevented his coming to 
Ephesua In this way he has not been forced to behold their 
sorrow and misery. The Egyptian, he says, rages against 
God, and the greatest part of the people of God are on his 
side, the Egyptians, the Palestinians, those from Pontus and 
Asia, and the Westerns. The deposed men (Cyril and the 
others) held divine service, while those who deposed them had 
to sit lamenting at home. Never had writer of comedy com- 
posed such a laughable story, or a writer of tragedy such a 
sorrowful play.^ 

The envoys of the genuine Synod arrived at Constantinople 
three days before Irenseus, as the latter himself relates, and 
by their representation of the true state of aflfairs, made a 
powerful impression on many persons of high rank, statesmen 
and generals, so that these recognized the sentence of the 
Synod on Nestorius as perfectly just. This view was adopted 
particularly, by the chamberlain Scholasticus, especially for 
this reason, that Nestorius had at Ephesus opposed the expres- 
sion " God-bearer." * After the arrival of Irenaeus, several 

^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1371 sqq. ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1534 sqq. 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1383 and 1386 ; Hardooin, t. L p. 1543. The last of 
these two letters to the Propositus and the Scholasticus seems, besides, to have 
been composed somewhat later, after the arrival of Count John ; for there is a 
reference there, as in the note above, to three letters of the Emperor. 

' In Theodoreti Opp, ed. Schulze, t iv. p. 1835, and more complete, t. v. 
p. 649. See also the remarks of Gamier, ibid. p. 368. Further, in Mansi, t. v. 
p. 787, and t. ix. p. 293, and Hardouin, t. iii p. 136, under the Acts of the 
fifth (Ecumenical Council, coUat. v. 

* Nestorius wrote to him somewhat later, in order to gain his favour again, 
and explained in what sense he consented to call Mary God-bearer. At the 
same time he misrepresented the doctrine of Cyril, as if the latter ascribed a 
beginning in time and death to the divine nature of Christ, Mansi, t. v. p. 777 ; 
Hardouin, t L p. 15£2« 

m. F 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



82 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

interviews and discussions were brought about between the 
adherents of the two parties, and they came to an agreement 
that Irenseus and the deputies of the Synod should appear 
together, and in the presence of the highest oflBcers of state, 
before the Emperor. Irenaeus declares that he was unable to 
get as far as the palace without incurring the danger of being 
thrown into the sea (so greatly were the people enraged against 
the Kestorians), but blasts of his having succeeded in con- 
vincing the Emperor of the injustice of the Synod, and its 
disorderly conduct (in not having waited for the Antiochenes), 
€ind of having persuaded him to resolve on the deposition of 
Cyril, and to declare what had been done by the majority at 
Ephesus as invalid. Soon afterwards, however, he said, John 
the physician and Syncellus (secretary) of Cyril had arrived 
in Jerusalem, and had overthrown the structure of Irenseus, 
and won over again many of the high oflBcials. One party 
now advised that the Emperor should confirm the depositions 
which had proceeded from both sides, and thus, on the one 
side, that of Nestorius, and, on the other, that of Cjrril and 
Memnon ; a second party, on the contrary, advised that the 
Emperor should agree to neither of these depositions, but 
rather should call together the most eminent bishops to 
examine what had been done. A third advice was to the 
effect that the Emperor should send commissioners to Ephesus, 
in order to restore peace f^in. This last proposal was the 
least acceptable of dl to Irenseus, as it proceeded from a side 
which was imfriendly to Nestorius.' 



Sec. 144. Sesolution of the Emperor, Arrest of Cyril, 
Memnon, and Nestorius, Distress of the Synod. 

The Emperor, in fact, united the first and second proposals, 
confirmed the deposition as well of Nestorius as of Cyril and 
Memnon, and at the same time sent one of the highest 
officers of State, the Comes Sacrorum (=sacrarum largitionum 
= treasurer of state) John, to Ephesus, to publish the 
sentence, and to effect a union of the separated bishops. The 

' Mansi, t. iv. p. 1391 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1547 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BKSOLUnON OF THE EMPEROR. 83 

edict in which he announced this decree ^ was addressed to 
all those archbishops and prominent bishops who had 
previously received special invitations to the Synod of 
Ephesus, and probably through an error of the chancery 
there is still found among them the name of Augustine, who 
had died eleven months before (August 28, 430). The first 
among all the bishops united in the superscription of the 
edict is Pope Coelestine, although he was not personally 
present at Ephesus ; the names of Cyril and Memnon, and on 
the other side of Nestorius, are, however, for obvious reasons 
passed over. Whether John of Antioch is specially named is 
doubtfuL There are certainly two Johns mentioned without 
more peoticular description, but neither of them is placed 
immediately after Pope Coelestine, which the hierarchical order 
would have required if John of Antioch were intended. As, 
however, this order is not strictly maintained in the superscrip- 
tion, and, for example, Juvenal of Jerusalem is mentioned only 
in the eighteenth place, and after bishops who were decidedly 
inferior to him in rank, this argument again loses its force. 

That the Emperor pronoimced a sentence of deposition on 
S. CjtH need not surprise us, for he was himself destitute of 
all necessary insight into the whole theological question, 
otherwise he could not have taken under his protection first 
NestoriuS) and then, as we shall see, at a later period his 
opposite Eutyches. The Antiochenes, however, even the 
highly meritorious and orthodox men among them, like 
Theodoret of Cyrus, had done all in their power to convict 
Cyril's doctrine of Apollinarianism, and his conduct of 
injustice and passionatenesa They said: As his uncle 
Theophilus persecuted S. Chiysostom from private hatred, 
so does Cyril act towards Nestorius. He stamps him as a 
heretic in order to ruin him. 

Accusations of this kind had, to a certain extent, prevailed 
even with orthodox theologians, as we see from the letters 
of the holy Abbot Isidore of Pelusium (near Alexandria) to 
CyrU,^ in which it is said quite distinctly that these com- 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1395 ; Hardouin, t. I p. 1554. 

*l8idor. Pelus. lib. i epist. 810, 828, 370; Baron, ad arm. 431, n. 85; 
Mansi, t. v. p. 758, where thirteen Latin letters of Isidore are printed. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



84 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

plaints had proceeded from the Antiochene party at Ephesus. 
What wonder if the never very powerful-minded Emperor 
Theodosius ih was led into error, especially as his com- 
missioner, Candidian, was in entire agreement with the 
Antiochenea His edict has, however, a more extensive side, 
which deserves special attention. After the cunning manner 
of diplomatists, the true state of the matter is ignored, 
that is, the actual existence of two opposing Synods at 
Ephesus. The matter is represented as though the whole 
of the bishops present at Ephesus, united in one Council, had 
on the one side deposed Nestorius, and on the other Cyril 
and Memnon, and as though they were quite agreed as to 
the orthodox faith, so that nothing more remained to be 
done but to appease some still existing enmities, and then to 
separate in peaca To this peace the Emperor not only him- 
self exhorted the Synod, but he also sent to it at the same 
time a letter directed to the same end from the more than 
centenarian Bishop Acacius of Beroea (now Aleppo), in Syria, 
a man held in the highest esteem, who was unable to come 
in person to the Synod, but who wished to send to it his 
counsel and his opinion. 

With this letter of the Emperor and that of Bishop 
Acacius, the new commissioner, John, proceeded to Ephesus, 
and, as is universally admitted, arrived there at the beginning 
of August.^ There was great fear that the caus^ of orthodoxy 
was in danger, but Cyril endeavoured to lay this apprehension 
to rest by a sermon preached probably before the bishops of 
the Synod, in which he pointed out that persecutions always 
contributed to the wellbeiug of the righteous.^ In the super- 
scription of this sermon it is remarked that he delivered it 
before his arrest, and that this was ordered by the new com- 
missioner. Count John, who thus informed the Emperor 

^ Irenaeus, as we have seen, had arrived at Constantinople on the 20th of July. 
The conferences between him and his opx>onents, and before the Emperor, may 
have lasted until towards the end of the month of July. The consequence of 
them was the despatch of Count John ; and since the latter, as he himself re- 
marks, made uncommon haste, but was yet detained through various hindrances 
(Mansi, t. iv. p. 1897 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1555), his arrival in Ephesus may 
have taken place at the beginning of August 

s Jn Mansi, t iv. p. 1867 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



RESOLUTION OF THE EMPEROR. 85 

respecting his proceedings at Ephesus: "Immediately after 
his anival in Ephesus he had greeted the bishops, as many as 
he met of both sides, and had announced to them, as well as 
to those who were absent (Cyril and Memnon in particular 
had not appeared), that they should assemble all together the 
next day in lus residence. At the same time he had decided 
in what order they should enter, so that conflicts should not 
arise at the meeting together of the two parties. Very early, 
almost at daybreak, Nestorius and John of Antioch had come, 
somewhat later Cyril and the other bishops; only Memnon 
had failed The adherents of Cyril, however, had immediately 
demanded the removal of Nestorius, because he was already 
deposed, and therefore the sacred letter (of the Emperor) 
ought not to be read in his presence and in that of the 
Orientals (Antiochenes). On the other hand, the Antiochenes 
had demanded the same in reference to Cyril and Memnon, 
who had also been deposed by them, and a long and violent 
dispute had arisen on this question. After a considerable 
portion of the day had been spent in this manner, he (the 
Count) had succeeded, by persuasion and forct, as he must 
plainly declare, and in spite of the opposition of Cjrril's party, 
in having the imperial letter read without the presence of 
Cyril and Nestorius, to whom, in fact, it was not addressed. 
Thus the deposition of Cyril, Nestorius, and Memnon had 
been proclaimed, and the Antiochenes had received this with 
approval, and confirmed it; while the others declared the 
deposition of Cyril and Memnon to be illegal. In order to 
avoid greater excitement. Count Candidian had undertaken 
the custody of (the now imprisoned) Nestorius, and he had 
given Cyril into the hands of Count Jacobus, and had sent 
oflBcers, t(^ether with the senior deacon of Ephesus, to the 
absent Memnon, in order to announce to him his deposition. 
Thereupon he (John) had proceeded to the church for prayer, 
and when he learned that Memnon was still at the episcopal 
residence, had immediately summoned him to come to him. 
To the question why he had not come in the morning, 
Memnon had made an insufficient excuse, that he had then 
immediately of his own accord gone to the Count's lodging, 
had been there arrested, and given over also into the custody of 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



86 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Jacobus. Finally, he (John) had taken pains to exhort the 
bishops to peace and unity, and would do so still further, and 
would afterwards acquaint the Emperors with everything of 
importance that should take place." ^ 

That Cyril and Memnon were separated and kept apart in 
a strong prison, and watched by many soldiers, we know 
from two letters of the Antiochenes, who announced this 
triumphantly to their adherents.' The orthodox Synod, how- 
ever, appealed in a frank letter to the Emperors (of the East 
and West), declaring that the decree published by Count John 
had caused deep disturbance, and proved that some treachery 
and falsehood had perverted the ears of the Emperors, who 
had formerly been so truth-loving. The matter was repre- 
sented in the imperial edict as though the Synod itself had 
pronounced a sentence of deposition on Cyril and Memnon ; 
but it was not the (Ecumenical Synod, which was in union 
with the Koman and apostolic see, with the whole of the 
West, with the whole of Africa and Illsnricum, that had done 
this ; on the contrary, it admired those two bishops on 
account of their zeal for the orthodox faith, and believed 
that they were, before men and before Christ the Lord, 
worthy of noble garlands. It was only Nestorius, as the 
herald of the new heresy of the man-worshippers, that they 
had deposed, and of this they had given the Emperors 
information. It had further pained them greatly — and this, 
too, could be explained only on the ground of deception — 
that the names of John of Antioch and his adherents, also 
those of the Coelestians (Pelagians); although condemned by 
the (Ecumenical Synod, were included among the bishops of 
the Synod, and that the imperial Sacra were addressed to 
them as to the bishops of the Synod. Then a brief account 
was given of the conduct of the Antiochenes, with which we 
are already acquainted, and the history of their separation 
from the Synod, with the remark that they could not possibly 
be received into church communion, partly because they had 
not subscribed the deposition of Nestorius and quite openly 

^ Mansi, t. ir. p. 1897 sq., and with a somewhat different text in t. v. p. 779 ; 
Hardonin, tip. 1555. 
^ In Manei, t. v. p. 784 and 786; Hardonin, t. i. p. 1559 and 1560. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



RESOLUTION OF THE EMPEROR. 87 

agreed with him, partly because, through their insolence 
towards the presidents of the Synod (that is, through their 
sentence against Cyril and Memnon), they had violated the 
canons ; partly, in fine, because they had dared to lie to and 
deceive the linperors. The Synod prayed therefore that the 
Emperors would restore Cyril and Memnon, and provide for 
the stedfast maintenance of the faith, which was inherited 
from their fathers, which was impressed on the hearts of the 
Emperors by the Holy Spirit, and which was contained in 
the declarations of the Synod issued against Nestorius. If, 
however, the Emperors wished to learn more exactly what 
had taken place between the Synod and the Antiochenes, they 
might send trustworthy commissioners.^ The meaning here 
attached to the last sentence is given by the Greek text as 
it exists ; in accordance, however, with a conjecture of 
Tillemont, which is very worthy of notice, it would read: 
"If the Emperors wished to know that more exactly, they 
should order the Synod to send trustworthy envoys (to 
Constantinople) " (t^ a^^la awoitp iirirpeTretv i/cirifi'^ai 
/c.tX) ; and this conjecture is supported by the consideration 
that — (a) not the sending of new imperial commissioners to 
Ephesus, but only the sending of envoys from the Synod to 
Constantinople could be of use, and therefore could be desired 
by the Synod ; (6) that the Emperor did, in fact, somewhat 
later sanction the sending of envoys from the Synod; and 
(c) that the Synod, in their subsequent letter (see below, 
§ 146), expressly assert that the Emperors had granted their 
requests, and permitted the sending of deputies.^ 

With reference to this suggestion of the Synod to the Empe- 
rors, Cyril addressed from his prison a letter to the clergy and the 
people of Constantinople, in which he asserts that Count John 
(really the imperial decree) had not properly represented the 
state of the case,' and had falsely ascribed the deposition of 
Cyril and Memnon to the Synod. For this reason they were 

^ In Mansi, t. ir. p. 1484 ; Hardoain, t. i. p. 1591. 

' TUlemont, MimoireSy t, xiv. note 60, Sur 8U CyrUU, 

' Wdch thinks {Ketzergesch. v. 518) that John was accused of having sent false 
reports from Ephesos to the Emperor. But this is not suggested here. Cyril 
has here rather in view the imperial Siicra brought by John, and writes (politely) 
on account of John, what he has to find fault with in it 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



88 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

under the necessity of sending a new account to the Emperor. 
The imperial commissioner bad taken all trouble to bring 
about the union of the Synod with John of Antioch and his 
adherents, but this was not possible until the Antiochenes 
should have recalled their illegal resolutions, approached the 
Synod as petitioners, and anathematized in writing the doc- 
trines of Nestorius. In order, however, to reach his end by 
another way, the Count had demanded a written confession of 
faith from the Synod with the view of having it subscribed by 
the Antiochenes, and of then declaring, " I have reunited those 
who were separated." The Synod, however, had not agreed to 
this, but had remarked that they were there, not to give an 
account respecting their faith, but to confirm the wavering 
faith, and that the Emperor did not need now, for the first 
time, to be taught their faith, for it was known to him since 
his baptism. 

Cyril further relates that the Antiochenes were not agreed 
among themselves as to whether Mary should be called 
" Mother of God " or not, since some of them would rather 
have their hands cut off than subscribe this expression. Of 
aU this he informed the Constantinopolitans, particularly the 
archimandrites, so that Count John, when he returned, should 
not cany false information and mislead the people. The Con- 
stantinopolitans, too, should continue their efforts on behalf of 
the Synod, for there were at Ephesus bishops who were not 
even personally known to him, ready to go with him into exile, 
and even to death. He was himself watched by soldiers, who 
slept before his door, and the whole Synod was in a very 
exhausted condition; several members were dead, and the 
others so impoverished that they had been forced to sell their 
possessions in oixier to procure the means of subsistence.^ 

Another letter was addressed by the Ephesine Synod to 
the bishops and clergy present in Constantinople,* in which 
they say that Ephesus is like a prison, in which they have 

^ Mansi, t. iv. p. 1435 ; HardouiD, t. i. p. 1593. The letter of Memnon to 
the clergy of ConstaDtinople (Mansi, I.e. p. 1438 ; and Hardooin, l.c, p. 1595) 
is earUer, and was composed before the arrival of Count John. 

' The bishops referred to are not mentioned by name here, as they are later 
(see p. 90 f.), perhaps because their names were not yet known at Ephesus. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BESOLUnON OF THE EMPEROK. 89 

been shut up for three months (the letter must therefore have 
been written at the end of August or the beginning of Sep- 
tember), so that they have not been able to send a messenger 
by land or by water to the court or elsewhere ; and as often as 
they have ventured upon it, the bearers have exposed them- 
selves to countless dangers of life, and have been forced to 
conceal themselves in all kinds of disguises. The reason of 
this strict watching arose from the false accounts which had 
been sent from all sides to the Emperors. By one class they 
(the bishops of the Synod) had been denounced as the cause 
of the division, by others it had been said that the Synod 
itself had deposed Cyril and Memnon; and again, others 
had perhaps -asserted that the Synod was ready to come to 
a friendly union with the schismatical false Synod of the 
Antiochenes. It was in order to prevent the exposure of 
these falsehoods that the Sjmod was so closely watched, and 
that war was so violently carried on against it The clergy 
of Constantinople should therefore cast themselves at the feet 
of the Emperor and acquaint him with all. The further con- 
tents of the letter give the substance of that which the Con- 
stantinopolitans are to communicate to the Emperor : that the 
Synod had by no means deposed Cyril and Memnon, but held 
both in the highest honour, and would never separate from 
commimion with them ; that, on the other hand, they never 
could hold communion with the schismatic Conciliabulum, for 
the same reasons which the Synod had already (p. 86) assigned 
in their letter to the Emperor, but which they now repeated, 
because, in their state of blockade, they were forced to doubt 
whether that letter had reached the Emperor. In conclusion, 
the clergy of Constantinople are once more exhorted to beseech 
the Emperor, in the name of the whole Synod, to restore Cyril 
and Memnon, to liberate the bishops of the Synod from their 
imprisonment, and to give them leave either to return home 
or to appear in his own presence, so that they might not all 
perish, partly through sickness, and partly through sorrow. 

In order to make the letter more concise, all the bishops of 
the Synod did not subscribe, but only their heads, — whether 
Cyril and Memnon, or Juvenal and another metropolitan, is 
doubtful. In an appendix it is added : " We are slaughtered 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

here by the heat; almost daily one is buried ; all our servants 
are worn out, and have to be sent home. Go therefore to 
the Emperor and represent to him the distress of the Sjmod. 
Finally, be assured that, however our death may be disre- 
garded, on the part of Christ nothing else will take place than 
that which we have decided." ' 

This letter, it would appear, crossed the one which the 
bishops who were present at Constantinople sent on the 13th 
of August to the Synod. They expressed in it their liveliest 
sympathy with their distress, and assured them that they felt 
bound personally to appear at Ephesus, but that the way by 
sea and land was closed against them. They had, however, 
worked for the Synod in Constantinople, inflamed the zeal 
of many, and strengthened men's minds in their adhesion to it 
The Synod would therefore, they requested, let them know 
what they had to do, and whether they should come to 
Ephesus in order to share their conflict and their suflferings.* 

We learn the names of these bishops from the superscrip- 
tion of the answer which the Synod sent to them.* They were 
Eulalius,Eutrechius, Acacius, Chrysaphius, Jeremias, Theodule, 
and Isaias. The Synod now tell them how greatly they 
rejoice at this sympathy, inform them anew of the progress of 
events and of their own condition, and request the bishops to 
remain at Constantinople, on the one hand, in order to acquaint 
the Emperor with the condition of the Synod ; and, on the 
other, to give them information as to what is passing at Con- 
stantinople. As, however, it was feared that the previous 
letters had not been made known to the bishops, a copy of 
them was now added, and, at the same time, a second account 
addressed to the Emperor.* The bishops might now, in case 

^ In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1448 sqq.; Hardouin, tip. 1599 sqq. 

' Monsi, t iv. p. 1450 ; Hardouin, tip. 1603. 

> We assume that this letter of the Synod to the bishops was the second which 
they sent to them, and so later than that mentioned p. 89, although the 
reverse is possible. 

* I think the words of the text must be understood to mean that it was at this 
time that the second account was addressed to the Emperor, and that it was sent 
on this occasion. Accordingly I assign a different chronological position to this 
second account from that which is commonly given, e.g, by Walch, Ketzergesch, 
Bd. V. S. 519. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



RESOLUTION OP THE EMPEROR. 91 

the Emperors had received the previous account, put them 
in mind of it ; if not, then the Emperors should learn 
fix)m the bishops what had been kept from them by 
intrigue.^ 

In this second letter the Synod urgently entreated that 
they might at last be delivered from their distress, and that 
their heads, Cyril and Memnon, should be given back to 
them ; and they strengthen this appeal by a short but detailed 
and calm narration of the way and manner in which the 
Antiochenes had separated from the rest of the bishops, and 
how those of Nestorian opinions had connected themselves with 
John of Antioch. At the same time, it was towards the end 
quite correctly remarked : If the Emperors confirmed, as they 
had done, the deposition of Nestorius, it would certainly be 
quite inconsistent if they gave their assent to that which 
Ae friends of Nestorius had done, in order to avenge him. 
This letter was signed by Juvenal of Jerusalem, who since 
the imprisonment of C^ril had been president of the 
Synod.* 

The last document which at this time went forth from the 
orthodox side at Ephesus is a short letter of Cyril's to the 
three bishops, Theopemptus, Potamon, and Daniel, whom the 
Synod had at an earlier period sent to Constantinople (see 
p. 79). In this he said that several false accusations had 
been raised against him, as, that he had brought with him 
both attendants and women from monasteries, and that Nes- 
torius had been deposed only by his intrigues, and not by the 
will of the Synod. But, God be praised, Coimt John had 
recognised the falsehood of these charges, and had condemned 
his accusers. Moreover, in consequence of the imperial 
Sacra, he was still under arrest, and did not see what it 
would lead to; but he must thank God that he was 
thought worthy to be put in chains for His name's sake. 
The Synod, on their side, had in no way allowed them- 
selves to be misled . into having communion with the 
Antiochenes, and had declared that tl)|Qr would never do 
so until these withdrew their insolent resolutions against the 

> Mansi, t. iv. p. 1450 sqq.; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1606. 
' Mansi, t iv. p. 1441 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 1597. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



92 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

heads of the Synod, and confessed the true faith, for they 
were still Nestorian, and this was the turning-point of the 
whole controversy,^ 

In the meantime, the clergy of Constantinople had delivered 
to the Emperor Theodosius the Younger a memorial oh behalf 
of the Ephesine Synod, addressed to him and to his colleague 
in the empire, which at the very beginning sets forth the pro- 
position that God should be obeyed rather than the rulers, 
and that therefore a frank word had become a matter of duty. 
The deposition of Cyril and Memnon by the Antiochenes is 
next declared to be entirely illegal, and the Emperors are 
entreated to restore those two highly meritorious bishops, and 
to confirm those decrees which the far larger number at 
Ephesus (in opposition to the Antiochenes) had drawn up. 
If Cyril, the leader {KaOrrpirfj^) of the Synod, had anjrthing 
to endure contrary to what was right, this affected the whole 
Synod which agreed with him, and as a matter of consistency 
all the bishops ought to have been punished in the same way 
as Cyril and Memnon. But the God-loving Emperors should 
take thought that the Church, which they cherished like a 
nurse, should not be rent, and that the century of the martyrs 
should not be renewed.* 

To this time probably belongs also the short letter of 
Dalmatius to the Synod, mentioned above (p. 79, note 3), in 
which he announces the reception of the letters sent to 
him, expresses his sympathy with reference to the death of 
several members of the Synod, and assures them that he has 
now, as hitherto, fulfilled the wishes of the Synod.' Another 
letter was addressed to Cyril by Alypius, a priest of the 
Apostles* Church in Constantinople, in which he congratulates 
him on his sufferings, and compares him with Athanasius.* 
Cyril himself, however, employed the leisure which his 
imprisonment afforded in drawing up a clearer explanation 

* Mansi, t. iv. p. 1447 ; Hardoaio, t. i. p. 1601. 
' Mansi, t iv. p. 1468 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1607, 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1258 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1446. It is certainly erroneons to 
suppose that Dalmatios had not sooner sided with the Synod ; and that now he 
went for the first time with his monks in front of the imperial palace. He 
speaks himself, in the letter mentioned above, of earlier services. 

* In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1463 ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1614. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CKEED OF THE ANTIOCHEKES. 93 

of his twelve anathematisms which had been so often 
assailed^ 

Sec. 145. The Creed of the ArUioclienes, Their svJmquent Letters. 

On the other hand, the Antiochenes also were taking all 
possible pains to win the Emperor to their side. More 
especiaUy they despatched to him by Count John a paper, 
which is extant only in Latin, partaking chiefly of the cha- 
racter of a polite letter, which exalts the recently issued 
imperial edict (on account of the deposition of Cyril, etc.) 
above all measure, as calculated again to pacify tiie whole 
world, which the Egyptian (Cyril) had, according to his 
custom, thrown into confusion. After the arrival of this 
edict, they had immediately httstened to condemn the anti* 
evangelical and anti-apostolic propositions of Cyril (his anathe- 
matisms), in which he ventured to pronounce anathema on 
the saints of all the past, and for which he had, only through 
abuse of the ignorance of some and the sickness of others, as 
well as by his own craft and obstinacy, gained surreptitiously 
a synodal confirmation. As the holy Father Acacius (of 
Beroea) had written to the Synod, these were ApoUinarian" 
propositions, and this bishop of one hundred and ten years 
old, who knew the ApoUinarians so thoroughly, must certainly 
know this. They had, therefore, in union with Count John, 
entreated the bishops who had been misled by Cyril, and 
who had subscribed those propositions, now to declare the 
same erroneous, and in common with them (the Antiochenes) 
to subscribe the Nicene formula. These, however, had 
refused, and therefore it only remained for them, simply on 
their own behalf, to confess the true faith, and to reject those 
false propositions by a written manifesto. The Creed of 
Nicsea needed no addition ; since, however, the Emperors, as 
Count John had intimated, required a declaration in regard 
to the holy Virgin and God-bearer, they would, although such 
things transcended human powers, under invocation of divine 
aid, and to confute their enemies, give expression to their 
belief: "We acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ, the 

^ In Mansi, t. y. p. 1 sqq., and Cyrilli 0pp. ed. Anbert, t. vi p. 145 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



94* HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

only-begotteu Son of God, is true God, and true man, 
consisting of a reasonable soul and a body ; that He was bom 
(begotten) before all time by the Father, as to His Godhead, 
and was in the end of the days, for us and for our salvation, 
bom of the Virgin as to His manhood, of one substance with the 
Father in respect to His Grodhead, and of one substance with 
us in respect to His manhood. For two natures are united 
together {unio facta est), and therefore we acknowledge one 
Christ, one Lord, and one Son. On account of this union, 
which is, however, far from being a mingling {inconfusa 
unio), we also confess that the holy Virgin is the God-hearer, 
because God the Word was made flesh, and by the incarna- 
tion, from the time of His conception, has united the temple 
(manhood) which He assumed of her (the Virgin) with 
Himself."^ They add the request that the Emperor will, in 
his wonted manner, take under his protection the religion 
which has been endangered by the Egyptian propositions, and 
demand of all the bishops the rejection of Cyril's propositions, 
and the subscription of the unaltered Nicene Creed; for 
without the rejection of those propositions, no peace is 
possible in the Church.* 

In proportion as this letter did wrong to Cyril, and found 
Apollinarianism where none existed, so did it on the other 
side weaken the reproach of Cyril and his friends, that the 
Antiochenes were quite Nestorian in their opinions ; for the 
formula drawn up by them bears a thoroughly orthodox 
sense, and was subsequently approved even by CyriL The 
Antiochenes, however, conceal in this letter the fact, that by 
no means the whole of the members of their party had agreed 
to this form of faith, as we leam from a letter of Bishop 
Alexander of Hierapolis, who expresses himself as decidedly 
for Nestorius, and against 0€ot6ko<; and that formula of the 
Antiochenes, and accuses the latter of falsehood and wicked- 
ness, who, although the Emperor required no such declara- 
tion, had thereby betrayed the orthodox Nestorius.* We see, 

^ Ct below, sec. 155, where the same creed appears again, and where the Greek 
text b also given. 
' In Mansi, t v. p. 781 sqq. ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1557. 
> In Mansi, t v. p. 874. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CREED OF THE ANTIOCHENES. 95 

therefore, that Cyril could jostly accuse at least some of the 
Antiochenes of Nestorianism ; and that his assertion, quoted 
above (p. 88), that the controversy respecting the Beoroico^i 
had arisen among the Antiochenes themselves, was entirely in 
accordance with truth. 

In the letter to the Emperors just mentioned, the 
Antiochenes refer to a document which they had put forth 
after the arrival of Count John, in which they, on the one 
hand, had renewed the Nicene Creed, and, on the other, had 
rejected the twelve propositions of Cyril by a written declara- 
tion. This paper, I believe, we possess in a document which 
has been erroneously attributed to a somewhat earlier period, 
but which decidedly cannot have been drawn up before the 
arrival of Count John, since it speaks of three edicts which 
the Emperors had addressed to the Synod. This is the 
synodal declaration mentioned above (p. 80, note 3), subscribed 
by John of Antioch and all his adherents, with the heading 
De Schismaticis} 

A third letter was now addressed by the Antiochene 
Conciliabulum at Ephesus to the clergy, the monks, and the 
people of Antioch, in which they relate, not without a good 
deal of self-praise, all that has hitherto been done, and then 
remark that Cyril and Memnon, even in their close imprison- 
ment, have not yet come to a better mind, and continue to 
throw all into confusion, apparently from despair. They had 
not troubled themselves, they say, about the excommunication 
pronounced, and had continued their spiritual functions. In 
accordance, therefore, with the ecclesiastical regulation (canon 
4 of the Synod of Antioch of 341), they could no longer 
be restored, and knowing this well, they endeavoured to 
make the confusion in the Church lasting. In Antioch, 
however, they might have good hope, tod thank God for 
what had been done, pray for the erring, deliver sermons 
against the impious doctrine (of Cyril), and deliver up to the 
judges every one who sought in any way to propagate it.* 

At the same time the false Synod appealed to the aged 
Bishop Acacius of Beroea, assured him of its zeal against 

^ In Mansi, t. iv. p. 1875 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1585. 
* In Mansi, t v. p. 784 ; Hardonin, tip. 1559. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



96 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

ApoUinarianism, and announced that even now those who had 
been misled by Cjnil would not obey the imperial command, 
or reject those false propositions. They (the Antiochenes) 
had with much trouble drawn up complete refutations of these 
propositions, and invited their opponents to a disputation on 
them ; but they had not appeared, but continued to confuse 
everything, and were sending into all cities and provinces 
lying letters full of accusations against the Antiochenes. 
But they could thus mislead none but the simple ; every one 
else knew that what proceeds from deposed men has no power 
at all. These, however, were for ever deposed, since even 
after their excommunication they had discharged spiritual 
functions. Cyril and Memnon were very carefully imprisoned, 
and watched by soldiers day and night. Acacius might thank 
God, and pray for the Antiochenes, and for those who had 
erred, that the latter might return to the ancient faith.^ 

Se€. 146. The Emperor summons "before him Deputies from 
both sides. 

The efforts of Dalmatius and of the bishops who were 
present at Constantinople were not without favourable results, 
and the latter remarked in their letter to the Synod of 
Ephesus, mentioned above (p. 90), that it was rumoured 
that the Emperor had already gained a truer view of the 
subject* How this change was gradually brought about is 
unknown; we know only that Theodosius now resolved to 
comply with the petition of the Synod, and personally to hear 
deputies from both sides. Baronius thinks that the over- 
throw of his general, Aspar, in his war with the Vandals iu 
Africa, shook the Emperor, and changed him ; but Tillemont 
remarks against this, with justice, that, on the one side, 
Theodosius had taken the previous false steps only from 
ignorance, and not from any evil will, and thus could not well 

> Mansi, t v. p. 785 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1660. 

' This is the meaning of the Greek text: ;^^^r« rk irofk r#v 0f^iXt^drw 
^MtXistt fifu9 iyyixxtratf where iifuf is to be connected with Ayyixxtrat (it is told 
us). The Latin translation has altered the sense : Imperator meUora de nofna 
cogitare dicUur, Mansi, t. iv. p. 1460 ; Hardonin, tip. 1603. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EMPEROR SUMMONS DEPUTIES FROM BOTH SIDES. 97 

have regarded a misfortune as a punishment from God ; and 
that, on the other side, that unfortunate battle did not take 
place before the end of August 431, and therefore the result 
could not have been known so early in Constantinople.^ 

The decree by which the Emperor summoned before him 
eight representatives of each of the two parties is no longer 
extant, and we are acquainted with it only from its results, 
and from the writings to which it gave occasion on both sides. 
Count John made it known to the one side as well as to 
the other, and each party made haste to elect and send its 
commissioners. On the Catholic side the Soman priest and 
papal legate Philip, and the Bishop Arcadius (also a papal 
legate), Juvenal (of Jerusalem), Flavian (of Philippi), Firmus 
(of Caesarea in Cappadocia), Theodotus (of Ancyra), Acacius 
(of Melitene), and Euoptius (of Ptolemais, in Africa) were 
selected.' Cyril, too, would gladly have been among the 
number of these deputies, but he was obliged, as was Memnon 
also, to remain in prison. From the Antiochene side, John of 
Antioch, John of Damascus, Himerius of Nicomedia, Paulus 
of Emisa, Macarius of Laodicea, Apringius of Chalcis, Theodoret 
of Cjrrus, and Helladius of Ptolemais (in Phoenicia) were 
entrusted with the ofQce of deputies.' 

The mandate which the orthodox Synod committed to their 
deputies, given in a somewhat free translation, is as follows : 
" Since the God-loving Emperors have given us permission, in 
the name of the whole world, which, represented by the 
Synod, contends for the right faith, to send an embassy to 
Constantinople in the interest of orthodoxy and of the holy 
Bishops Cyril and Memnon, we have selected you for this 

^ Baron, ad amh 431, n. 137 sqq. ; Tillemont, Mimoires^ t. zir. note 61, Sur 
St. CfyrOU. 

* It is remarkable that in the synodal docnments relating to this subject (in 
Hansi, t. iy. p. 1458 ; Hardonin, t. i. p. 1610) the Boman priest Philip is named 
primo loco, before the other papal legate Arcadins, although he was a bishop, 
and before Juvenal, etc. Peter de Marca {De concordia, etc., lib. y. c 4, § 8) 
would explain this as merely an error of the transcriber ; but Tillemont long ago 
saw {Mim, t ziy. p. 471) the weakness of this argument, without, howeyer, 
supplanting it by another. It may suffice to remember that on seyeral former 
occasions, as we saw aboye (p. 64), Philip stood jurimo loco among the papal 
legates. In the next document, however, he appears again titttmo loco, 

* Kansi, t. iy. p. 1899 ; Hardouin, tip. 1562. 

m. o 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



98 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 

purpose, and give yoa the following instractions. Before all, 
you most consent to no communion with John of Antioch and 
his apostate Council, because they have refused in common 
with us to depose Nestorius, because they have been his 
patrons up to the time of your departure, because they have 
ventured, in opposition to all the canons, to condemn Cyril 
and Memnon ; but especially because to this day they defend 
the doctrines of Nestorius, and besides, many of them are 
Coelestians (Pelagians), and for this reason are deposed ; finally, 
because they have not shrunk from slandering the Synod of 
the whole world as heretical If, however, the Emperor 
urgently requires it (for we must always obey him, when 
possible), you shall grant the Antiochenes communion on the 
condition that they subscribe the deposition of Nestorius, ask 
the forgiveness of the Synod in writing, with reference to 
Cyril and Memnon, principally, anathematize the heresies of 
Nestorius, reject his adherents, and take common action with 
the Synod for the restitution of Cyril and Memnon. Moreover, 
you must communicate on every point with the Synod, since 
the complete restoration of peace with the Antiochenes needs 
their approval; and you must not allow communion to the 
Antiochenes until the Synod have received back their heads 
(Cyril and Memnon)." This document is signed by Bishop 
Berinianus of Perg», who now probably, as the oldest of the 
metropolitans (as Juvenal was among the deputies), occupied 
the presidency of the Council^ 

The Synod entrusted their delegates with the following letter 
to the Emperora They said " they had at last responded to 
the prayers of the Synod, and had allowed the command to be 
conveyed to them by Count John, that they should send a 
deputation. The Synod thanked them for this, and sent 
Arcadius, etc. (the Boman priest Philip is here named ^ultimo 
loco) as their representatives, and prayed the Emperors, on their 
behalf, for a benevolent reception and a favourable hearing. 
At the same time they would mention in this letter that which 
weighed so heavily on them. They then relate how Nestorius 
was summoned sixteen days after the expiry of the appointed 
period, and had not appeared ; how John of Antioch and his 

^ Mansi, t ir. p. 1457 sqc^. ; Hardoain, tip. 1609 iqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. 99 

adherents had comported themselves^ had deposed Cyril and 
Memnon, and had also deceived the Emperor by false intelli- 
gence, and what had then been done on the part of the Synod. 
They now, by their letter and their deputies, embraced the 
knees of the Emperors, and prayed that they would annul the 
sentence obtained by deception against Cyril and Memnon, and 
give back to the assembly their heads. For these were altogether 
sound in faith, and the whole Synod shared their faith, as they 
had declared in writing. In these their heads the whole 
bishops regarded themselves as prisoners, and the Emperors 
were therefore requested to release them all from bonds." ^ 

The Antiochenes, too, did not fail to commit to their 
deputies, whom we have already mentioned, a written mandate, 
which, however, only indulges in general expressions on the 
rights and duties of those elected, and stipulates for the ratifi- 
cation of all the proceedings of the Conciliabulum. This would, 
however, satisfy everything, if only the heretical propositions of 
Cyril were rejected. All the Antiochenes, with Alexander of 
Hierapolis and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis at their head, signed 
this commission.' 

Sec. 147. The Deputies ofloth Parties are summoned to Chalcedon. 

From a short letter of the Antiochene deputies to their 
Conciliabulum, dated the 11th Gorpiaeus, that is, the 11th. 
of September 431,' we learn that the Emperor Theodosius had 
in the meantime altered his plan, and did not allow either of 
the parties to enter Constantinople, but ordered them to go to 
Chalcedon (vis-d-vis to Constantinople, and separated from it 
only by the Bosporus), and to await him there. Disturbances 
among the monks, according to the Antiochenes, induced him 
to take this decision. At the same time we learn from this 
letter that Nestorius, about eight days before, had received 

^ Mansi, t iv. p. 1462, t y. p. 661 ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1611. 
* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1899, t. y. p. 791 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1562, 
' The Syrian month Gorpiens is exactly the same as the Roman month Sep- 
tember. Cf. Ideler, Lehrbuch der Chronol 1831, S. 180 f. Petavius maintained 
the same. Usher, on the contrary, and others, think that Gorpiaeus began with 
the 26th of August, and that the 11th Gorp. is therefore -= September 4. Cf. 
Tillemont, Ic. note 63, Sur St, CyriUe, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



100 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

notice to quit Ephesus, and to return to the monasteiy in which 
he was formerly a monk. The deputies of the Antiochenes 
complained of this, because it must have appeared like 
a confirmation of the unjust judgment pronounced against 
Nestorius. They then declare their readiness to contend for 
the faith even to blood, and remark that on that day, the 
11th of the month Gorpiseus, they expect the Emperor, who is 
on his way to Eufinianum, a suburb of Chalcedon, Finally, 
they commend themselves to the prayers of their friends, to 
whom they wish stedfastness in the faith, and conclude with 
the intelligence that Himerius (Bishop of Nicomedia, one of 
the Antiochene deputies, who had been taken ill on the way) 
had not yet arrived.^ 

We have just heard that Nestorius had received notice, 
during the interval between the departure of the deputies of 
the two parties and their arrival in Chalcedon, to leave 
Ephesus. The edict in which this was announced to him we 
still possess, if not quite in its entirety, and it probably pro- 
ceeded from the prefect of the Praetorians, Antiochus, but 
according to the ordinary custom it was drawn up in the name 
of all the prefects. It is short and courteous, but definite, 
and states that, as Kestorius himself had wished^ to depart 
from Ephesus and to return into his previous monastery, a con- 
voy had been provided for him, which would attend upon him 
during his journey. He was allowed himself to choose the 
route, whether by land or by water, but these attendants had 
to accompany him to his monastery (that of S. Euprepius at 
Antioch). In conclusion, all good is wished him for his 
future life ; and it is added that he, with his wisdom, cannot 
lack for comfort* 

Ifestorius answered:* "He had received the letter of the 
prefect, and from that had learnt the command of the 
Emperor that he should henceforth live in the monastery. He 

1 Hardouiii, t L p. 1668 ; idansi, t. iv. p. 1406 ; still better, t y. p. 794, 
with the notes of Baloziiis ibid,^ 

* He had asked for this pennission when the Emperor sammoned the deputies 
and he now regarded his cause as lost. Evagrius, i. 7. 

' Mansi, t. y. p. 792 ; Hardouin, tip. 1631. 

* EpUtola Nettarii ad eundem Prtrftetum prcetarwm Antiochenum (probably 
Antioekivm)^ in Mansi, t. r. p. 793 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1631. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. 101 

accepted this thankfully, for nothing was more honourable in 
his view than to be exiled for the sake of religion. He only 
requested that the prefect would use his endeavours with the 
Emperor, that imperial edicts might be published in all 
churches in order to the rejection of the false doctrines of Cyril, 
so as to prevent an ofifence to the simple." 

If we turn our attention again to the deputies of the two 
parties and their efiforts, we must chiefly lament the great 
dearth of original sources of information, especially that there is 
not a single original document from the orthodox deputies, and 
from this whole side generally only a single contemporaneous 
brief account of what was done (see p. 108, note 1, and p. 1 1 0) 
has come down to us. But even the documents which pro- 
ceed from the Antiochenes and the Emperor are too defective 
to enable us to understand in sufficient detail the proceedings 
at Chalcedon. We believe we may venture to place the little 
that is known in the following chronological order. In the 
first place stands the short account just mentioned of the 
Antiochene deputies to those whom they represented, in which 
they announce the arrival of the Emperor on the 11th of 
Gorpiseus (September 11) 431. A few days afterwards they 
despatched again a short letter to their friends at Ephesus, in 
which they gave them an account of the fii*st proceedings 
which took place at Chalcedon in the presence of the 
Emperor. They are full of joy, for the Emperor has received 
their proposals very favourably, and they have triumphed over 
their opponents. That which these had brought forward had 
made a bad impression. Ever and anon these had put forward 
the name of their Cyril, and had entreated that he might 
himself be allowed to appear and undertake his own cause. 
They had not, however, attained to this, but it had been 
insisted upon that the faith should be considered and the 
doctrine of the holy Fathers aflBrmed. Further, they (the 
Antiochenes) had opposed Acacius of Melitene, a friend of 
Cyril's, because he maintained that the Godhead was capable 
of suffering (ct p. 122). At this blasphemy the Emperor had 
been so much annoyed that he shook his purple mantle. The 
whole Senate, too, agreed with him. At last the Emperor had 
commanded that each side should hand in to him a written 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



102 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

account of their faith. They had replied that they could give 
no other declaration of faith than the Nicene, and this also 
had greatly pleased the Emperor. All Constantinople had 
come out to them, and entreated them to contend bravely for 
the faith. In conclusion, they adjoined two copies of the 
Nicene declaration of faith, designed for the Emperor, so that 
the Condliabulum might sign them with their own hands.^ 

The Antiochenes at Ephesus were highly delighted at this, and 
immediately sent the two documents back with their signatures, 
assuring their deputies in their answer that they would rather 
die than accept one of the heretical propositions of CyriL 
But if these propositions were heretical, so also were the 
sentences of deposition which the adherents of these proposi- 
tions had pronounced fthey referred particularly to those 
against Nestorius, as is clear from the letter which follows), 
and entirely null and void. They confided in the envoys that 
they would obtain from the Emperor the rejection both of the 
chapters (of the anathematisms) of Cyril and of those sentences 
of deposition, and they transmitted to them a copy of the 
explanation of his anathematisms, recently drawn up by Cyril, 
so that they might the more easily demonstrate his impiety.* 

This document was signed by forty-two adherents of the 
Antiochene party, Tranquillinus of Antioch, in Pisidia, at their 
head;* at the same time they transmitted a letter to the 
Emperor, in which they thank him for the friendly recep- 
tion of their deputies, glory in the zeal of the Emperor for 
the faith, and make intercession for Nestorius, without dii-ectly 
naming him, as his deposition by the heretical party of Cyril 
was invalid.* At an earlier period, when the Emperor pro- 
nounced a sentence of deposition on Nestorius at the same 
time as upon Cyril and Memnon, they had preserved a cowardly 

' We no loDger possess the original Greek text of this letter, but two Latin 
translations, in no considerable degree dirergent from each other, in Mansi, 
t. iv. p. 1411, and t v. p. 795. The former is also in Hardonin, tip. 1572. 

' In Hardouin, t i. p. 1577, and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1417 ; and in the Synodicon^ 
md, t. ▼. p. 795-797. 

' These signatures are given in only one of the two translations in Mansi, t v. 
p. 797, and Hardouin, t. L p. 1578. 

* In Hardonin, t L p. 1579, and Mansi, t. iv. p. 1419 ; and in the Synodtcon^ 
ibid, t V. p. 797. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE DEPUTIES SUMMONED TO CHALCEDON. 103 

silence, and had even commended the imperial wisdom, and sepa- 
rated themselves entirely from Nestorius, as even one of their 
own friends, Alexander of Hierapolis, reproached them with 
having done (p. 94). Now, on the contrary, the moment seemed 
to have come to throw off the mask, and again to take the side 
of Nestorius. They deceived themselves, however, and their 
sanguine hopes did not in the least progress towards fulfilment 
There were, in fact, at Chalcedon, after the first session just 
mentioned, four other sessions, or series of proceedings, held 
in the presence of the Emperor ; but no record of the details 
has been preserved. At the most we have a few small frag- 
ments of Theodoret,^ containing a polemic against the adher- 
ents of Cyril, belonging to the speeches which he may have 
delivered at these proceedings. The other existing documents 
are all drawn up after that session, and in particular a letter 
of the Antiochene deputies to Bufus, Archbishop of Thessa- 
lonica, who had in writing exhorted Julian, Bishop of Sardica, 
a member of the Conciliabulum,' to allow nothing to be added 
to the Nicene Creed, and nothing to be taken from it. The 
deputies commend him for this, speak again of the ApoUinarian- 
ism of Cyril, of their own contending for the Nicene faith, of the 
deposition of Cyril and Memnon, of the impossibility of their 
restitution (because they had continued the exercise of their 
spiritual functions), and of the obstinacy of Cyril's party. 
The Emperor had already admonished the envoys of this 
party in five sessions, either to reject the chapters of Cyril, as 
contrary to the faith, or to prove their conformity with the 
doctrine of the holy Fathers in a disputation. They them- 
selves (the Antiochenes) had collected complete proofs against 
these doctrines, together with evidences from Basil of Csesarea, 
Athanasius, Damasus of Borne, and Ambrose of Milan, and 
they gave some of them (but no patristic passages) for the 
benefit of Bufus, in order to prove that Cyril was an Arian 

* In Schnlze's edition of the works of Theodoret, t. v. p. 104 f. ; and in Har- 
donin, t. iii. p. 136 ; and Manai, t iz. p. 292 sq. Among the Acts of the fifth 
(Ecnmenieal Synod, Collat. y. 

' Julian signed the letter to the deputies, mentioned at p. 101 f. (Mansi, t. r. 
p. 797 ; Hardonin, t. i. p. 1678) ; and also, at the beginning of the Ephesine 
Synod, the protest against their opening before the arrival of John of Antioch. 
See above, p. 45. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



104 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILa 

and a Eunomian. Of entirely similar views with their own 
were many Eastern and even Latin bishops. To this effect 
Bishop Martin of Milan had written to them, and sent them 
the work of S. Ambrose, De Dominica IncarruUione, which 
taught the opposite of those heretical chapters.^ Besides, 
they said, Cyril and Memnon had not only falsified the futh, 
but had also violated all the canonical laws, and had received 
heretics. Pelagians and Euchites, into their communion, in 
order to multiply their number. They had thought that, by 
means of men and by the expenditure of much money, they 
could overthrow the faith of the Fathers. Eufus should beware 
of holding communion with them, and declare far and near 
that their chapters were Apollinarian. Finally, a copy of the 
letter sent by them to the Emperor lay before him, in which 
they had given utterance to the Nicene faith, and had opposed 
the chapters of CyriL^ 

Sec. 148. The Emperor decides in favour of the Orthodox, and 
summons their Deputies to Constantinople. 

The prospects of the Antiochenes had already become more 
troubled when Theodoret wrote from Chalcedon to Alexander 
of Hierapolis as follows : *" No kind of friendliness, no kind of 
urgency, no kind of exhortation, no kind of eloquence had 
been by them left untried with the Emperor and his Senate 
in order that the Nicene Creed alone should be received, and 
the newly-introduced heresy should be rejected. But to the 
present day they had produced no effect^ although they had 
even sworn to the Emperor that it was impossible for them 
to agree with Cyril and Memnon. As often as they had 
endeavoured to speak of Nestorius to the Emperor or the 
Senate, they were accused of departing from their previous 
resolutions, so great was the enmity against him, and the 

' In oppoaltioii to this, cf. the remark of Balnzius in Manai, t. v. p. 807, 
note a. He anggesta that Biahop Martin of Milan conld aa yet have known 
nothing of a diviaion in the Synod of Epheana, hat might have written to the 
Synod generally, and hia letter, during the oppresaion of the orthodox, might 
have come into the handa of the Antiochenea. Apart from thia, it ia atated 
generally, even by Theodoret, that the Latina were on the anti-Neatorian aide. 

« Mansi, t iv. p. 1411-1418 ; Hardouin, tip. 1571. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EMPEBOR DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF THE ORTHODOX. 105 

Emperor had declared with decision that no one should 
venture again to speak to him of that man. Yet> as long as 
they were here, they would concern themselves about this 
father, Nestorius, convinced that wrong had been done him. 
In other respects they wished generally to be set free from 
this place, for there was no further hope of any success, as 
the judges (the imperial officials, who had to decide between 
the two parties) were accessible to gold, and maintained that 
the Godhead and manhood make only one nature. The people 
(of Constantinople), on the contrary, behaved admirably, and 
often came out to the Antiochene deputies. They had there- 
fore begun to deliver discourses to them, and to have meetings 
for public worship with them in the great imperial Aula 
at Eufinianum. The clergy and the monks, however, were 
hostile to them, and once on their return from the meeting 
they had been stoned, and several had been wounded.^ The 
Emperor had learnt it, and had said to Theodoret, when he 
met him: You assemble unlawfully; but Theodoret had 
frankly declared how unfair it was that the excommunicated 
(Cyril's party) should be allowed to hold their services in the 
churches, while all the churches were shut against them. 
(The people, clergy, and Bishop of Chalcedon were orthodox.) 
The Emperor, he said, should do as Count John did at Ephesus, 
and forbid divine service to both parties alike. The Emperor 
replied : I cannot give such an order to the Bishop of Chalce- 
don, but for the future I have not forbidden the meetings 
of the Antiochenes (without the Eucharist). The meetings 
were up to this time very much frequented ; but they were 
themselves always in danger on account of the monks and 
clergy, and had, on the one side, to endure acts of violence, 
and on the other, (the Emperor's) indifference." * 

It was not long before they experienced worse. Despair- 
ing of the possibility of a compromise, the Emperor suddenly 

' The passage, ** et vtdntnireniur muUi ex kucU et faUia monachis, qiU nobis- 
cum erarU,^^ according to the corresponding passage in the second memorial of 
the Antiochene deputies to the Emperor (see helow, p. 108 ; and Mansi, 1 iv. 
p. 1404 ; Hardouin, tip. 1566), mast be corrected to **et vulnerarentur 
mtUa qui nobiseum erant, a laicis etfcUais mon<ichis.** In the second memorial 
it is *M aeroig, momichorum JutbUu indtUis," 

« Hansi, t It. p. 1407, t 7, p. 799 ; Hardouin, tip. 1568, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



106 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

returned from Chalcedon to Constantinople, without the deputies 
of the Antiochenes venturing to follow him, whilst he ordered 
those of the orthodox party to come after him, and to ordain 
another Bishop of Constantinople in the place of the deposed 
Nestorius.* The Antiochenes, who had expected further ses- 
sions, were greatly troubled at this, but would not yet give 
up the hope of triumphing over their opponents in discussions, 
and therefore directly sent after the Emperor a memorial,* of 
which we no longer possess the Greek original, but of which 
we have two ancient Latin translations, diverging considerably 
from each other, and in many places evidently corrupt On 
the whole, that text which is given by the Synodicon of 
Irenaeus* is less corrupt than the other,* so that for the 
most part we adhere to the former. 

The document begins with a violent attack upon Cyril and 
his adherents, accuses him even of heresy, and ascribes to him 
(as Nestorius had done before) the intention of giving occasion 
for the whole confusion, and the misleading of the others by all 
kinds of promises, in order to escape punishment for his own 
ofifences (see above, pp. 27 and 56). To this the assurance was 
added how willingly the Antiochenes would be silent, but how 
their conscience, because it was a question of the overthrow of 
the faith, imperatively required of them that they should come 
and make their petition to the Emperor, who, next to God, 
was the protector of the world. They adjure him then, by God, 
who sees all, by Christ, who will judge all, by the Holy Ghost, 
through whose grace he governs, and by the angels who pro- 
tect him, to avenge the religion which is now attacked, to 
order the abolition of the heretical chapters of Cyril, and to 
give instructions that every one who has subscribed them, 
and who, in spite of the pardon offered by the Antiochenes, 
perseveres in his contentiousness, shall come here (to a new 
disputation on the theological controversy in the presence of 
the Emperor), and be punished, after the sentence of the 

* See below, pp. 108, 110, and 116. 

' That it was sent to the Emperor after his departure from Constantinople is 
declared by the superscription, in Hardouin, t. L p. 1563 ; and Kansi, t. v. 
p. 802. Cf. ibid, t iv. p. 1401, note 1. 

' In Mansi, t r. p. 802 sqq. 

* In Mansi, t iv. p. 1401 ; and Hardouin, t i. p. 1563. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EMPEBOR DECIDES IN FAVOUR OF THE ORTHODOX. 107 

Emperor, in accordance with the ecclesiastical laws. The 
Emperor could do nothing better to express his thankfulness 
that Christ had granted him so many victories over the Per- 
sians and other barbarians. Moreover, it was necessary that 
the proceedings (the disputations of the deputies on both 
sides) should be produced in writing in presence of the Em- 
peror. He could then decide whether those who suppressed 
the true faith, and yet would not stand to their new doctrines 
nor discuss them, were henceforth worthy to be called teachers. 
They had conspired among themselves, and intended to grant 
ecclesiastical privileges as the wages of impiety (to their 
adherents), and in various ways to destroy canonical order, if 
the Emperor did not prevent it.^ Nay, the Emperor would 
see how, when they had overthrown the faith of Christ, they 
would soon distribute the spoils of victory as the wages of 
treachery. In many ways Juvenal of Jerusalem had been guilty 
of presumption (they had previously, however, been silent on 
the subject), and his plans on both Phoenicia and Arabia were 
well known to them. In opposing these efforts they put their 
hope in the judgment of God and in the piety of the Emperor ; 
at the present moment, however, they, before everything and 
exclusively, presented a petition on behalf of the purity of the 
faith, that this which has had such glory since Constantine, and 
even under the present Emperor has been extended to Persia, 
should not be oppressed in the very palace of the Emperor 
himself. If any one should ever venture to become indifferent 
in regard to religion, they hoped that might be any one rather 
than the Emperor, to whom God had entrusted the power 
over the whole world. They were ready to follow his decision, 
for God would enlighten him so that he might perfectly 
apprehend the subject to be handled (in the proposed dis- 
putation). Should, however, such a new disputation be 
impossible, then let the Emperor allow them to return home 
to their dioceses. 

^ As is shown by wliat foUows, this refers chiefly to Jerusalem. The Antioch- 
enes accused the party of Cyril of having promised Juvenal of Jerusalem, in 
reward for his assistance, their support in his endeavour to obtain a higher 
hierarchical position. In &ct, however, as we saw above, p. 77, Cyril did the 
reverse. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



108 HISTOKY Of THE COUNCILaL 

A short time afterwards they addressed a second memorial 
to the Emperor, and there give an account, from their own 
point of view, of the whole course of the Synod of Ephesus, 
and the summoning of the deputies to Chalcedon. They say 
further, that the opposite party had entered into no conferences 
with them on the subject of Cyril's propositions, and to this 
party, although persisting in heresy, permission had been given 
at Chalcedon to attend church and to hold divine service, 
while they (the Antiochenes), for a long time at Ephesus, and 
here also, had been forced to be without holy communion. 
They had endured much besides, and had even been pelted 
with stones by servants who were attired as monks. The 
Emperor had promised them one more session, but had de- 
parted for Constantinople, and had commanded the opposition 
party, although excommunicated, to follow him to celebrate 
divine service and even to ordain (a new bishop for Constanti- 
nople).^ They, the Antiochene deputies, on the other hand, 
did not dare either to go to Constantinople or to return home. 
Of one mind with them were the bishops of Pontus, Asia, 
Thrace, lUyricum, and even of Italy, who would never approve 
of the teaching of Cyril, and had transmitted to the Emperor 
a writing of S. Ambrose which contradicted the new heresy 
(cf. p. 104). In conclusion, they pray that no bishop may be 
allowed to be ordained for Constantinople before a decision is 
arrived at as to the true faith.* 

The Emperor answered by a short decree addressed to the 
whole Synod of Ephesus, — that is, to both parties in common, 
— in which he laments that the discord still lasts, and com- 
mands all the members of the Synod to return home from 
Ephesus, and again to fill their episcopal sees. Only Cyril 
and Memnon are to remain deposed.' 

^ The same thing is asserted in the dnly notice which we possess (rom the 
orthodox side, in Mansi, t. y. pp. 255 and 659 ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1667. 

' Mansi, t iv. p. 1403, t. y. p. 805 ; Hardonin, tip. 1565. 

' Mansi, t. y. p. 798. According to a letter of Acacias of Bercea, to be men- 
tioned hereafter, the Emperor had confirmed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon 
anew, becanse it was shown that the eonnch Scholasticns had receiyed presents 
from Cyril See below, p. 112. Tillemont (MimoktB etc, t xiy. p. 448) sap- 
poses that this new edict was speedily recalled, becaose the Antiochene deputies 
never boasted of it. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EPHESINE SYNOD IS DISSOLVED. 109 

The Antiochene deputies now addressed their third memo- 
rial to the Emperor. " Such a result they had not expected, 
but their modesty had injured them. They had been so long 
detained at Chalcedon^ and now they were sent home, while 
those who had thrown everything into confusion and divided 
the Church, exercised spiritual functions, celebrated divine 
servi^, held ordinations, and spent the property of the poor 
upon soldiers. And yet Theodosius was Emperor not for 
these only, but also for the Antiochenes, and the East was no 
small part of his kingdom. He should not despise the faith 
into which he had been baptized, for which so many martyrs 
had bled, through which he had overcome the barbarians, and 
of which he had now great need in the African war. God 
would protect him if he protected the faith, and did not 
allow the body of the Church to be rent They further 
assure the Emperor that the party of Cyril repeat the errors 
of Apollinaris, Arius, and Eunomius, and discharge spiritual 
functions in a manner not permitted. The greatest part of the 
people, on the other hand, were still sound, and very anxious 
for the faith. If the Emperor, in spite of their adjuration, 
would not receive the true faith, then they shook the dust oS 
their feet, crying, with Paul, * we are guiltless of your blood.* "^ 

Sec. 149. The Ephesine Synod is dissolved. 

This, however, made no more impression than their pre- 
vious eflforts. On the contrary, the Emperor now placed him- 
self still more decidedly than before upon the side of the 
orthodox; and after these had, in accordance with his command, 
ordained a new bishop for Constantinople in the person of 
Maximian, a priest of that Church,' he put forth a new decree 
to the Synod of Ephesus, under which title he understands 
here no longer, as before, both parties, but only the assembly 
of the orthodox ; but he does not treat even this in a quite 
friendly manner, and he does not conceal his displeasure at 

^ Mansi, t ir. p. 1405 ; Haidomn, tip. 1566. 

' We learn this from the single document, already noticed, which we po6« 
aess from the orthodox side, in Mansi, t. y. pp. 255 and 659 ; Hardouin, t i. 
p. 1667. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



110 HISTORY OF THB COUNCILS. 

the miscarriage of his plans for unity. He says: ''As you 
coold not be induced to unite with the Antiochenes, and, 
moreover, would not join in any discussion of the points of 
difference, I command that the Oriental bishops return to 
their churches, and that the Ephesine Synod dissolve. Cyril, 
too, is to return to Alexandria (to his diocese), and Memnon 
shall remain bishop of Ephesus. At the same time we. also 
give it to be known that, as long as we live, we shall not 
condemn the Orientals, for they have not been confuted in 
our presence, and no one would dispute with them. More- 
over, if you wish for the peace of the Church (with the 
Orientals = Antiochenes), that is, if you will still come to an 
understanding with them at Ephesus, let me know this imme- 
diately ; if not, then think of your return home. We are not 
to blame (that no unity was accomplished), but God knows 
who must share the blame." ^ 

An addition to this imperial edict in the Sj/nodicon* notifies 
that Cyril, even before the arrival of this decree, had been 
released from his imprisonment, and had set out on his return 
to Alexandria. From the previously quoted sole communica- 
tion from the orthodox side we learn further, that Cyril 
arrived at Alexandria on the 3d of Atliyr, that is, October 30, 
431, and was received with great rejoicing. He was, besides, 
soon gladdened by a very friendly letter from the new bishop 
of Constantinople.* 

The Antiochene deputies do not seem to have been as quick 
as Cyril in returning home from Chalcedon. At least, after 
Cyril and Memnon had already been set at liberty, and the 
imperial edict of dissolution had appeared, they prepared 
a new statement — ^their third and last — ^to their friends, in 
which they refer to all that has taken place, and promise to 
make further efforts on behalf of Nestorius, if that be still in 
any way possible. Until now, however, they say, all their 
attempts have remained without result, for all here had been 

^ Formerly this edict was known only in Latin in the Synodicony in Mansi, 
t. T. p. 805. Gotelerius was the first to publish it in Greek, in his Monkn. ecel, 
OrcKce, t i. p. 41, from which it was taken byHardouin, tip. 1615, and 
Hansi, t ir. p. 1465. 

* Mansi, t. y. p. 805. 

* Mansi, t v. p. 25S and 659 ; HardouiD, t i. p. 1667. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EPHESINB SYNOD IS DISSOLVED, 111 

unfavourably affected by the very mention of the name 
of Nestorias. At the same time they mention how, in view 
of the fact that the party of Cyril had endeavoured to ensnare 
all by violence, flattery, and bribery, they had repeatedly 
petitioned the Emperor to dismiss them and the Synod from 
Ephesus. For a longer sojourn there was now entirely use- 
less, since Cyril (the party of Cyril) steadily refused all con- 
ference. The Emperor had at last, after repeated admonitions, 
formed the resolution that all should return to their homes, 
but that Cyril and Memnon should retain their dignities. 
Kow Cyril would be able to ensnare all by his presents, so 
that the guilty would return to his diocese, but the innocent 
would be shut up in the cloister.^ 

Immediately before their actual departure from Chalcedon 
the Antiochenes again delivered discourses to the Nestorians 
who came over to them from Constantinople. Of two of these 
we still possess considerable fragments. In the first discourse, 
delivered by Theodoret of Cyrus, he complained that they, 
the Antiochenes, were prevented from going to Constantinople 
on account of their stedfastness to Christ, but that, instead, 
the heavenly Jerusalem was waiting for them. His hearers 
had crossed from Constantinople over the fearful waves of the 
Fropontis (at Chalcedon the Bosporus opens into the Pro- 
pontis) in order to hear his voice, because they believed that 
in it they could see a reflection of the voice of their pastor 
(Nestorius.). He then went on to praise Nestorius, and in- 
voked woes upon his persecutors. No less pathetically did he 
proceed to speak on the expression of the orthodox, " God has 
suffered** (cf. § 153), for which he placed them far down 
below the heathen.' 

After Theodoret, the Patriarch John of Antioch took up the 
word, and of his discourse also we possess a fragment, in which 

1 MaDsi, t iv. p. 1420, t t. p. 801 ; Hardomn, t. i. p. 1579. 

* In Mansi, t ir. p. 1408, t v. p. 810 ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1569. In several 
copies this discourse of Theodoret has the superscription : ' ' Dicta in Chalcedony, 
dum e$aent abUurL *' That this indication of time is correct, is clear from the 
subsequent discourse of John of Antioch.^£ntirel7 without foundation was the 
doubt of Lupus whether this discourse really belonged to Theodoret. Cf. on 
the other side Gamier in his edition of the works of Theodoret (re-edited by 
SchulieX t Y. p. 106. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



113 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

he greets his hearers, and at the same time takes farewM of 
them, esdiorts them to stedfastness in the faith, and assures 
them that from mere believers they have now become Confess 
sores. For the rest they must not allow themselves to be mis- 
led into the notion that God was capable of suflFering, for the 
natures (in Christ) were only united, not mingled. To that 
they must hold fast, and God would be with them.^ 

Sfia 150. Slanders on Cyril and S. Pulcheria. 

We saw how the Antiochenes repeatedly accused Cyril 
and his friends of having brought about by bribery the 
remarkable revolution in the views and conduct of the court. 
The most important document on this subject is a letter from 
the centenarian Bishop Acacius of Beroea, of whom we have 
already heard, to Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, who declares 
that he had heard from John of Antioch, Theodoret, and 
others, that the Emperor had at fii-st been entirely on the side 
of the Antiochenes, but that Cyril had bribed the influential 
eunuch Scholasticus, of whom we have already heard (pp. 8 1 and 
108, note 3), and many others. When he died the Emperor 
had discovered written proof among his effects that he had re- 
ceived many pounds of gold from Cyril. Paul, a brother's son 
of Cyril's,* and an official at Constantinople, had arranged for 
these payments. The Emperor had therefore confirmed the 
deposition of Cyril and Memnon, but Cyril had escaped from 
prison at Ephesus, and the monks at Constantinople had, so 
to speak, compelled the Emperor to dissolve the Synod, and to 
fulfil their wishes (and among them the liberation of Cyril).* 

This report, which Acacius, as he declares himself, had 
only from hearsay, and which those who communicated it to 
him again could only have heard from others (they certainly 
did not venture to come to Constantinople), arouses at the 
very first glance certain doubts. We know that Scholasticus 

* Mansi, t iv. p. 1410, t v. p. 812 ; Hardouin, t L p. 1571 ; Theodoret, 
0pp. ed. Schnlze, t t. p. 110. 

' He was not a brother's son, bnt the son of a sister of Gyrirs named Isfidorm. 
Of. the paper which his brother Athanasios, a priest of Alexandria, presented to 
the Cooncil of Chalcedon. Hardoain, t. it p. 831 ; Mansi, t. yi. p. 102S sqq. 

» Mansi, t v. p. 819. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



8LANDEKS ON CYRIL AND S. PULCIIERIA. 113 

had, at an earlier period, been a pateon of Nestorius, but that 
afterwards he inclined to the other side, and in consequence 
was very likely to become the spokesman of this side with the 
Emperor. It is also correct to say that^ after the conclusion of 
the conferences at Chalcedon, Theodosius at first reaffirmed the 
deposition of Cyril and Memnon ; but it is scarcely credible 
that, if he had discovered the bribery, and therefore had 
renewed the edict against Cyril and Memnon, he would so 
soon afterwards have again given to both complete liberty, 
and restored them to their dioceses. To this we must add, 
that the deputies of the Antiochenes, so long as they were 
at Chalcedon, and so in the immediate neighbourhood of 
Constantinople, had not said a single syllable respecting this 
discovery made at the death of Scholasticus, and yet the 
thing must have occurred before their departure from 
Chalcedon (cf. p. 111). And how gladly would they have 
rejoiced over such a thing if they had known it ! Besides, 
it is not probable that Cyril would have been able and willing 
to escape from his imprisonment at Ephesus, or if he had 
actually done so, that the Emperor, instead of inflicting 
punishment, would have sent after him a decree granting 
him perfect liberty. Finally, it was not Scholasticus, but 
the Emperor's sister, S. Pulcheria, as she relates, who was 
principally active against Nestorius,* for which reason she 
was horribly slandered by his adherents. Nestorius, they 
said, had once accused her of an unlawful connection with 
her own brother, and therefore she had hated him so bitterly.^ 
We will not directly deny that Cyril may at that time have 
offered gifts to Scholasticus and others, for that he afterwards 
made presents to the Empress Pulcheria, and to many other 
high personages, we are told by his own archdeacon and 
Syrvcdlus Epiphanius, as we shall see more fully further 
on at sec. 156. But this must be judged of not by our 
customs and circumstances, but by those of the East, according 
to which no one is allowed to approach a superior without 
bringing a present with him, however just his cause may be. 

^ S. Leonis, ep. 79 (59), ed. Bailer, tip. 1035. 

* Suidas, Leaac. $.v. " Pulcheria ; ** Baron, ad ann, 431, n. 162 ; Walch, 
Ketzergesch. Bd. v. S. 551. 

m. H 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



114 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

The making of presents is absolutely universal in the East, 
but these presents are not all bribes ; very many are simply 
customary recommendations of a cause which, in itself, is 
thoroughly just In reference to this custom of the East, 
the Protestant theologians, who in the 16th and 17th 
centuries laboured to bring about a union of the Greeks with 
the Protestants, had not the slightest hesitation in pleasing and 
conciliating the Greek prelates and dignitaries by presents.* 
And the matter may be stated even more advantageously 
for Cyril In any case, he only sought to gain friends and 
protectors for the ancient faith to which those who were 
the objects of his gifts entirely belonged, whereas those 
Protestant theologians endeavoured to draw away the Greek 
clergy from duties which they had sworn to observe. 

^ Cf. my treatise on Cyril Lacar etc, in the TUblng. theol. QuartaUchrift, 
1843, 558 f., and 563, and in the Beitrdge tur Kirchengeach, etc., Tubing. 
1864, Bd. i S. 452 and 458. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CHAPTER III. 

PKOCEEDINGS WITH A VIEW TO UNION BETWEEN CYRIL AND THE 
ANTIOCHENES. OVEETHROW OF NESTORIANISM. 

Sec. 151. The Rupture still continues. Synods at 
Constantinople, Tarsus, and Antioeh. 

THE rupture which had taken place during the Ephesine 
Synod unfortunately lasted on after its dissolution for 
several years, as the Antiochenes persevered in their peculiarly 
perverse attitude. In the first place, they would not de- 
cidedly defend the doctrine of Nestorius, but came forward 
oecasioncdly as its advocates, and endeavoured to protect and 
cover their own doctrinal indecision by the formally Catholic 
bulwark: Nil innovetur (on the Nicene Creed). In a 
similar way, the point of view which they occupied in 
reference to ihe person of Nestorius was purely formal That 
nuUeriaUy he had been deposed with justice they would 
neither concede nor deny; but they persistently declared 
the sentence against him to be formally invalid, because it 
was pronounced by the Synod too early, lefore the arrival of 
the Antiochenes. Thence it resulted that they in like 
manner disapproved the election of the new Bishop Maximian 
for Constantinople, which had taken place on the 25 th of 
October 431,* and were compelled decisively to reject it, sis 
the chair was, in their opinion, not vacant Positively and 
dogmatically they pronounced only upon one point, — namely, 
the teaching of Cyril, — since they took single expressions of 
his, which were inadequate to convey his meaning, and liable 
to be misunderstood, disregarding all the explanations which 
he had given, and by arbitrary inference charged them with 
ApoUinarianism, Arianism, Eunomianism, and all other 
1 Soerates, HUi. Eecl yii 87. 
lU 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



116 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

possible heresies. It is peculiar that Walch and other 
historians have not the slightest word of disapprobation to 
utter over this imputation of heresy in the gross, while no 
phrase is strong enough, in their view, to scourge Cyril with 

. for his attitude towards Nestoriua Finally, the Antiochenes 
persisted in the assertion : Cyril and Memnon were deposed 
by us, and can no longer hold their sees. 

As we have already seen, the appointment of a new 
bishop for Constantinople was accomplished by the deputies 
of the orthodox majority of Ephesus, whom the Emperor had 
summoned to the metropolis for that purpose. At first they 
thought of the learned priest, Philippus Sidetes, and of Bishop 
Proclus, who had been unjustly refused possession of his 
diocese of Cyzicus, and had always distinguished himself by 
his auti-Nestorian zeal (see p. 14). At last they came to an 
agreement in the person of the monk and priest Maximian, 
who, according to the Greek Menologies, was born at Home, 
had served long among the clergy at Constantinople, and had 
gained a very good name by his piety and unpretentiousness. 
Socrates says of him that he was not exactly learned, and 
that he was addicted to the quiet and contemplative life.^ 
A nature thus peaceful and free from ambition was a real 
benefit to Constantinople, and well adapted to reconcile 
parties, so that only one small Nestorian congregation con- 
tinued for a short time to exist there. 

In union with the orthodox deputies of the Synod, and 
forming with them a kind of Synod (at Constantinople), 
Maximian communicated immediately to the rest of the 
bishops intelligence of the election which had taken place^ 
and transmitted to them the decrees of Ephesus, as we learn 

^from his letter to the Bishops of Epirus.* A second letter he 
addressed to Cyril, in which he congratulated him on 'his final 
victory, and his unchangeable, martyr-like stedfastness for the 
good cause. In his answer Cyril explained to his new colleague 
in all brevity the orthodox doctrine on the union of the two 

^ Socrates, l.e, vii 85. The Bollandists give a complete accoant of him, 
Ada 8S. t. ii. April, p. 847 sq. (Commentar, deS, Maxim,), Of. Tiliemont, 
M&moires etc., t. xiy. p. 488. 

« In Mand, t v. p. 267 ; Hardouin, tip. 1669. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THK KUPTURK STILL CONTINUES. 117 

natures (without mixture), and indeed this letter alone^ would 
suffice to prove the groundlessness of the charges of the 
Antiochenes, that Cyril mingled the two natures, and thus 
impaired both. At the same time, Cyril expressed his joy 
at the election of Maximian in a short letter to the orthodox 
synodal deputies who had co-operated in securing it.* 
Similar sentiments were expressed by Pope CcBlestine in his 
letters to Maximian, to the Church of Constantinople, and to 
the Emperor Theodosius IL* They are all dated on the 15th 
of March 432, and on the same day Coelestine despatched a 
fourth letter, full of praise and appreciation, to the Synod of 
Ephesus, which he regarded as still existing in the deputies 
present at Constantinople, and which he commended for the 
election of Maximianus. 

In the meantime the Antiochenes had, on their return 
&om the Council, gone as far as Ancyra in Galatia, and were 
here, to their great annoyance, already treated practically as 
excommunicated men. Bishop Theodotus of Ancyra, who 
belonged to the orthodox party of Ephesus and to the synodal 
deputies, had, in union with his colleague Firraus of Caesarea, 
despatched a letter from Constantinople to Ancyra, in which he 
gave instructions to this effect^ John of Antioch complained 
of this to the Prefect Antiochus, and apparently about the 
same time addressed in writing to the Emperor the request 
that he would suppress the heretical teaching of CyriL* 

On their way home the Antiochenes held a Conciliabulum 
at Tar9U9 in Cilicia, where they pronounced anew a sentence 
of anathema on Cyril and at the same time on the seven 
orthodox synodal deputies, and published this decision in a 
circular letter. We learn this from two letters of Bishop 
Meletius of Mopsueste (who belonged to the Antiochene 
parfy) to Count Neotherius and the Vicar Titus,* and Theo- 
doret of Cyrus also refers repeatedly to the same/ A second 

^ In Muisi, t. T. pp. 258 and 259 sqq. 

' Mansi, t. v. p. 265 ; Hardonin, t L p. 1671. 

' In Mansi, t t. p. 269 sqq. ; Hardonin, t. L p. 1674 sqq. 

* In Mansi, t. v. p. 266 sqq. ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1671. 

^ In Mansi, t. v. pp^ 818, 814 ; Hardouin, tip. 1682 sq. 

• In Mansi, t v. p. 920, c. 141, and p. 968, c. 174. 
' In Mansi, t t. p. 648, c. 66, and p. 917, c. 136. 



Digitized by LjOOQiC I 



118 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

similar Conciliabulum took place somewhat later at Antioch, 
and after excommunication had here too been repeatedly pro- 
nounced upon Cyril and his adherents/ John of Antioch and 
some of his party proceeded to Beroea, in order to give the 
aged Bishop Aoacius information of what had been done by 
word of mouth, and to obtain his assent, in which they suc- 
ceeded.* At the same time Theodoret of Cyrus, Andrew of 
Samosata, and Eutherius of Tyana took all pains in writings 
and in learned letters to represent the views and statements of 
Cyril as heretical,* and to defend those bishops who, on 
account of their open leaning to heresy, had been recently 
deposed by Archbishop Maximian of Constantinople and 
Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, namely, Helladius of Tarsus, 
Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus 
of Marcianopolis.^ Bishop Babulas of Edessa, on the contrary, 
who was so celebrated afterwards, now seceded from the 
Antiochene party and joined tliat of CyriL* 

Skc. 152. The Pope and the Emperor attempt to mediate. 
Synods ai Constantinople and Antioch. 

On the 26th of July 432, Pope Coelestine L died, and 
Sixtus m. was his successor. Gennadius relates, that in the 
year 430, when he was still a priest at Bome, he had 
required of Nestorius to yield to Cyril ;• but tins statement 
has been pronounced to be inaccurate by later scholars.^ It 
is certain, on the other hand, that Sixtus, soon after his 
entrance upon oflSce, by circular writings and separate letters, 
particularly to Cyril, solemnly approved the decisions of the 

* Socrat. lib. vii c 84 ; Liberal Brtviar. c. 6 ; Mansi, t v. p. 986. 
' Of. the letter of Bishop Acacins in Mansi, t t. p. 819. 

' Cf. Tillemont, Ic, p. 607 sqq. 

* Cf. the letters on the subject in Mansi, t. v. c 45, p. 822 ; c. 48 and 49, 
p. 826 sq. ; c 70, p. 846, and c. 71, p. 847. On the difficulties which may be 
raised on this incidental point, espedallj the question of competence, cf. 
Tillemont, ^c p. 496 sq. 

* Ifansi, t Y, p. 821 sq., c. 48, 44 ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1683 sq. Cf. Tille- 
mont, l,c. p. 604 sqq. 

* Gennadius, Dt Script, eed, m Vita Ccdestini, c 64 in Fabric Bibliotk. 
eeel p. 26. 

' Constant, BpittoUe Pontificum, p. 1281 ; Walch, Ketz€rge9ch, Bd. v. S. 678. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE POPE AND THE EMPEROR ATTEMPT TO MEDIATE. 119 

Synod of Ephesus^ and at the same time endeavoured again* 
to restore the peace of the Church, on the basis that John of 
Antioch and his adherents should, without further difficulties, 
be received into communion, if they rejected all which had 
been rejected by the holy Synod of Ephesus.^ This mildness 
and placableness brought him indeed, in some quarters, an 
ill report, as though he had even regarded the deposition of 
Nestorius with dissatisfaction; but his letters show the 
reverse, and Cyril defended him with decision against this 
accusation.' 

The Emperor Theodosius ii. also took part in the attempt to 
mediate, and for that purpose, about the middle of the year 
432, held a consultation with Maximian of Constantinople 
and the other bishops and clergy who were present there (in 
a kind of Synod), on the ways which might lead to peace. By 
their advice he wrote to John of Antioch, saying, " It was sad 
that bishops who are one in faith should fall into such discord, 
and very sad that the teachers of peace themselves should 
need an exhortation to peace. John and Cyril should therefore 
be reconciled, and the holy bishops assembled at Constanti- 
nople had declared that, if John would subscribe the deposition 
of Nestorius, and anathematize his doctrine, then all cause for 
strife would be removed. Cyril and Pope Coelestine (who is 
thus shown to have been then alive, or, at least, whose death 
was not yet known at Constantinople) and all the other 
bishops would then immediately return into Church com- 
munion with him, and all further smaller scruples could easily 
be set aside. John should now come to Nicomedia as soon 
as possible for the conclusion of peace, whither also Cyril was 
ordered to go by an imperial letter ; but neither of them was 
to bring with him other bishops (who might perhaps destroy 
the good understanding), but only a few coniSdential clerics 
as attendants ; nor would either be received by the Emperor 
until they were reconciled. Finally, until then no new bishop 

1 Compare the two letters of Sixtns in Mansi, t v. p. 874 sq., and Constant, 
MpisL PorU\f. p. 1231 sq. The one of them is directed to Cyril ; the other, on 
the contrary, is a circular letter, which was intended also for the Orientals, 
although the superscription here also names Cyril as the person to whom it is 
addressed. 

' In Mansi, t. t. p. 326. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



120 raSTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

was to be appointed and none was to be deposed."^ This 
letter was sent to Antioch by the hand of the tribune and 
notary Aristolaus, so that he might personally urge on the affair. 
In a second letter, the Emperor requested S. Simeon 
Stylites, afterwards so highly honoured, that he would by 
powerful prayer and exhortation co-operate for the peace of 
the Church.' A similar letter, also asking for intercession 
with God, he addressed to the aged Bishop Acacius of Beroea 
and others.* The imperial letter to Cyril, on the contrary, is 
lost, and its exact contents unknown. We know only that it 
required of him a forgetting and a forgiving of the ill-treatment 
which he had endured at Ephesus.* Tillemont (/.c. p. 516) 
supposes, further, that the Emperor had in it suggested to 
Cyril that he should repudiate his own anathematisms in the 
same way as he had required of John the repudiation of the 
counter-anathematisms of Nestorius (of his teaching generally). 
But Walch (Ix. S. 581 f.) has already declared this to be 
improbable, because the Emperor certainly r^arded Nestorius, 
but not Cyril, as heretical And this comes out still more 
clearly from what follows. John of Antioch was placed in 
great embarrassment by the arrival of the imperial letter, and 
wrote to Alexander of Hierapolis, that he was too weak and 
infirm to travel to Constantinople (properly to Nicomedia, and 
thence, after peace was concluded, to the Emperor at Constan- 
tinople). Besides, he had been told that his enemies might 
easily do him an injury upon the journey. Alexander, how- 
ever, with Theodoret and other bishops, after they had held 
their conference at Cyrus, should come as quickly as possible 
to him and advise him as to what was to be done, for he did 
not know what he should answer to the Emperor. His 
propositions were aperte impias, since the chapters of Cyril 
in an indirect manner contained that which was wrong (the 
Emperor then had not demanded their repudiation of Cyril), 
and he was required to pronounce anathema on those who 
recognize two natures in Christ (no one had required this, 

^ In Mansi, t f. p. 278 ; Hordonin, t. L p. 16S3. 
' In Mansi, t. y. pp. 281 and 828 ; Hardouin, t L p. 1685. 
' In Mansi, t. v. pp. 288 and 828 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1687. 
* Cf. Cyrilli Epist. ad Acac. Melit. in Mansi, t. r. p. 310. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



AKISTOLAUS TRAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA. 121 

and John misrepresents the matter). He adds that the 
Magtster Militum (Plinthas) urged him greatly to accept the 
imperial propositions.^ 

John, however, sought to gain time, and held a Synod, iSrst 
at ArUioch and then in a city of Syria which is unknown to 
us, with the Bishops Alexander of Hierapolis, Acacius of 
Beroea, Macarius of Laodicea, Andrew of Samosata, and 
Theodoret of Cyrus.* They here drew up six propositions, 
probably framed by Theodoret, with the condition that they 
would receive into Church communion whoever would accept 
one of them, without, however, on their side recognizing the 
deposition of Nestorius. They themselves describe, as the 
first and most important, the proposition : " That the creed of 
Nicsea must be maintained without any additions, and with 
the rejection of all other explanations, which were given in 
letters and chapters (of Cyril), and only that explanation of 
it must be accepted which S. Athanasius had drawn up in 
his letter to Epictetus of Corinth (against the Apollinarians).'** 
This first proposition alone is still preserved, and it was placed 
before Cyril and his friends, together with the epistle of Atha- 
nasius in question, as we learn from a letter of the Antiochenes 
to Bishop Helladius of Tarsus.* 

Sec. 153. Aristolaus travels to Alexandria. The Hopes of 
Peace increase. 

With this first proposition and a letter of the aged Acacius 
to Cyril the State official, Aristolaus, who has already been 
named, travelled to Alexandria in order the better to advance 
the work of peace in this place by carrying on negotiations 
with Cyril.* Cyril speaks of his arrival in his letters to 

1 In Mansi, t y. p. 827. 

* On these Synods compare the treatise of Mansi, t y. p. 1155 sqq. 

* In Hardouin, tip. 1684 ; Mansi, t. y. p. 829, c. 68 ; p. 830, c. 54, and 
p. 840, c 60. John of Antioch speaks of Urn propositions, in Mansi, le, c. 77, 
p. 855. 

* In Mansi, t. y. p. 880, c. 54 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1635. German in Fnchs* 
U. a 204. 

' Cf. the heading of c. 58, in Mansi, t. y. p. 829, and Hardouin, t i. p. 1643 ; 
ProponUanes etc. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



122 HISTORY OF THB COUNCILa 

Bishop Acacius of Melitene, to Bishop Donatus of Nicopolis 
in Epirus, and to Bishop Babulas of Edessa/ to the effect that 
*' the friends of Nestoriiis had abused the venerable Acacius 
of Bercea by writing to him that which was unfitting, and 
requiring of him that he should withdraw and repudiate all 
that he had written against Nestorius, and should hold merely 
to the Nicene Creed. But that he had answered them. We 
hold firmly by all that is in the Nicene Creed ; but what I 
have rightly written against Nestorius it is impossible that 
I should declare to be false, and it is, on the contrary, 
necessary that you should, in accordance with the imperial 
command and the decree of Ephesus, repudiate Nestorius, 
anathematize his teaching, and recognize the election of 
Maximian/' 

He gives here in brief the substance of that which in fact 
he explained more fully^ in his answer to Acacius of Beroea 
(for this letter, too, we still possess), with the remark that 
from love to God and the Emperor he willingly forgave all 
the injuries inflicted upon him by the Antiochenes. In pro* 
ceeding further, he asserts that he is unjustly accused of 
ApoUinarianism or Arianism, eta; on the contrary, he 
anathematizes Arianism and all other heresies, confesses (in 
opposition to ApoUinaris) that Christ had a reasonable human 
soul (irvevfia), further, that no mixing and mingling and no 
confusion of the natures in Christ had taken place ; but, on 
the contrary, that the Logos of God is in its oion nature 
unchangeable and incapable of suffering. But in the flesh 
one and the same Christ and only-begotten Son of God 
suffered for us. — Further, that his (Cyril's) chapters had their 
strength and power only in opposition to the errors of 
Nestorius, were intended only to overthrow his false state- 
ments, and that he who condemned the latter should 
certainly cease to find fault with the chapters. If Church 
communion were again restored, he would by letters pacify 
all, and explain all the misunderstood passages of his writings 
to their satisfaction ; but repudiate them he could not, for 
they were doctrinally accurate, and in accordance with truth, 
and approved by the whole of the rest of the Church. In 

' In Mansi, t. v. pp. 809, 347, and 887. ' In Mansi, t v. p. 881 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ARISTOLAUS TRAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA, 123 

condusion, he speaks of the earnest efforts for peace of 
Aristolaus, and greets the receiver of his letter, together with 
all the bishops assembled around him. 

Cyril had consented to give the more exact explanations 
-which were sent, in consequence of the urgent wish of 
Aristolaus, as his archdeacon, Epiphanius, informs the bishop 
of Constantinople,^ and these were in fact very well adapted 
to rebut the ftdse reproaches and accusations of his opponents. 
Besides, Cyril could give them without in the least departing 
from his original teaching, as is dear from a comparison with 
what was said before (pp. 21 and 29 ff.), and only ignorance 
or prejudice can accuse him of a departure from his original 
prindples. 

Aristolaus sent his companion and assistant Maximus to 
the East with this letter of Cyril's, along with the request 
that the Antiochenes would now collectively anathematize 
Nestorius and his teaching.* At the same time, the Pope also 
and some other bishops addressed letters to Acadus' for the 
promotion of peace. Acacius handed the documents which he 
received over to his Oriental colleagues, and at the same time, 
in his letter to Alexander of Hierapolis, expressed his present 
satisfaction with Cyril without the least reserve.* As was 
to be foreseen, this dedded friend of Nestorius was of a quite 
different view, and maintained in his answer to Acacius that 
Cyril, notwithstanding the explanation which he had given, 
was still an ApoUinarian, and that Nestorius should not be 
anathematized before it was proved that he had taught that 
which was contrary to Scripture. He wrote in a still more 
violent style to his fellow-partisan, Andrew of Samosata,* full 
of astonidiment at the changeableness of Acacius, and de- 
claring that " he would rather give up his oflBce, yes, rather 
lose a hand, than have communion with Cyril, unless he 
anathematized his errors, and acknowledged that Christ is 
God and man, and that He suffered in His manhood " (it is 
well known that Cyril did not deny this). 

' In Mansi, t v. p. 988. 

' In Mansi, t v. p. 880, c. 55 ; p. 840, c 61, and p. 988, c. 203. 

* Acacius refers to this in Mansi, t ▼. p. 830, c 55. 

* In Mansi, t v. p. 831, c 55. • In Mansi, t. v. p. 885, 837 aq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



124 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Andrew of Samosata now adopted the same tone in his 
answer to this letter. Cyril is to him a deceiver, and he 
supposes that they are already giving in at Antioch, and that 
it was not wrongly that he had lately dreamt that Bishop 
John of Antioch had allowed himself to pronounce a eulogy 
upon Apollinaris.^ 

Acacius had also written to Theodoret, and invited him to 
a personal interview ; but the latter, being prevented by sick- 
ness and visitors, expressed himself in writing to the effect 
that the most recent explanations of Cyril did not please him 
badly. They were less in harmony with his earlier utterances, 
and more with the teaching of the Fathers. On the other 
hand, it was very blameworthy that Cyril, instead of simply 
accepting one of the six propositions thus modified, which 
had been drawn up, had given out much verbiage and cir- 
cumlocution, and had not chosen the short and simple way to 
peace. He also required that the Antiochenes should sign 
the deposition of Nestorius, but they had not even been 
present at his condemnation, and it would be imposing a great 
burden upon their conscience to do anything which they 
regarded as unjust In conclusion, Acacius should so 
manage the affair that the peace should be pleasing to all, 
but especially to Crod} 

Theodoret expressed himself somewhat more exactly in his 
letter to Andrew of Samosata. He commends the act of Cyril 
in pronouncing anathema upon Apollinarianism, etc ; but, he 
said, it was not possible that the Antiochenes should anathe- 
matize the teaching of Kestorius en bloc (indeterminate), as 
it appeared to them correct It would be something quite 
different if Cyril had required an anathema on those who 
teach that Christ was a mere man, or who divide the one Lord 
Jesus Christ into two Sons.^ Theodoret knew well that such 
statements were decidedly heretical, but he professed to see 
in them, particularly in the latter, not a eoTisegueTiee of 
Kestorianism, but only an unfounded charge which was 
brought against it His offer to repudiate these propositions, 
without, however, alluding to Nestorius himself, has accord- 

* In Mansi, t. v. p. 839. • Mansi, t v. p. 840, c. 60. 

' Mansi, t. y. p. 840 sc^. c. 61. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ARISTOLAUS TRAVELS TO ALEXANDRIA. 125 

iogly no other foundation than the Jansenistic distinction 
between question du fait and du droit — that is, that those 
propositions should be as of right {du droit) repudiated, but 
the qucBstio facti, as to whether Nestorius taught them, was 
to be answered in the negative. 

Andrew of Samosata hereupon answered that he was quite 
in agreement with Theodoret's proposition, that thej should 
promise Cyril to pronounce anathema on those who call 
Christ a mere man, and on those who divide the one Lord 
into two Sons. Moreover, if Cyril should persist in requiring 
that they should subscribe the deposition of Nestorius, but 
should be satisfied if they did not all give their signature, 
but only some of them, it was probable that some would do 
this. In conclusion, he asked that Theodoret would pray that 
peace should be hindered by no obstacle. 

We see how much more placably Andrew here speaks 
than formerly in his answer to the violent Alexander of 
Hierapolis. In order, however, to bring the latter to greater 
mildness, he now sent him the letter of Theodoret, re- 
commends submission, depicts the disadvantages of persisting 
in schism, and wishes that Alexander too would accept the 
new proposal^ The latter, however, again expressed himself 
fanatically and bitterly in two letters to Andrew and 
Theodoi-et, and saw only a temptation of Satan in the whole 
of the proceedings for peace. He is peculiarly indignant at 
John of Antioch, and swears by his soul's salvation not to 
yield a foot's breadth.^ Theodoret replied to him quietly 
and calmly, that he knew the patriarch better, and that 
neither he nor himself would agree to the condemnation of 
Nestorius. On the other band, the new declaration of Cyril 
seemed to him to tend to peace, and he was curious to learn 
how it could be contradictory to the gospeL As for the rest, 
he agreed that it did not yet suffice to justify the reception of 
Cyril into communion again ; in order to this, more exact ex- 
pressions in the sense of the Nicene Creed would be necessary.* 

Bishop Maximin of Anazarbus inclined to the side of 

^ In Mansi, t. v. p. 841 sq. c 62 and 63. 

' In Mansi, t v. p. 842, c. 64, and p. 843, c 65. 

• In Mansi, t. v. p. 843, c. 66. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



126 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 

Alexander, and informed him by letter that John of Antioch 
had commended the latest explanations of Cyril ; while in 
the copy which a friend had given him, Cyril expressed his 
resolation of simply maintaining his previous assertions. 
He hoped then that Alexander would give him an explana- 
tion on this point* — ^We may remark that Maximin had 
seen correctly, for in fact it was only the perverse meanings 
which were attributed to the earlier words of Cyril, and not 
these words themselves, which were contradictoiy to his 
latest explanations. Hence it comes that Theodoret and 
John of Antioch, and all those who had falsely apprehended 
the earlier words of Cyril, were certainly compelled to 
assume that there was a considerable difference between his 
present and his earlier utterances, while in the eyes of a 
genuine Nestorian they were equally ApoUinarian, and made 
too little distinction between the natures of Christ. 

The third violent zealot and decided Kestorian was 
Bishop Helladius of Tarsus, who, in his letter to Alexander 
of Hierapolis, already treats those of the Antiochenes who 
were disposed for peace as traitors. Alexander commends 
him for this, and rejoices that the Churches of both Cilicias 
are so distinctly on the side of the preacher of truth — 
namely, Nestorius.* 

On the other side, Theodoret sought to win this Helladius 
of Tarsus for his more peaceful view, and therefore wrote to 
him that the new explanations of Cyril might be accepted, 
but not his demand that they should anathematize Nestorius. 
Besides, all deposed bishops of the Antiochene side (see 
above, pp. 67 f. and 118) must be restored again before they 
could receive Cyril into Church communion. Helladius 
would please soon to communicate to him his view on this 
subject, and would also win over Bishop Himerius of 
Nicomedia to the same views, and convince him that he 
(Theodoret) had not betrayed the cause of religion. At the 
same time, he explained to tins Himerius, in a separate letter, 
his view, with which we are acquainted, of the new explana- 
tions of Cyril and the possible acceptance of them, with the 

1 In Mansi, t t. p. 844, o. 67. 

* In Mansi, t t. p. 8468q. c. 68 and 69. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PAUL OF EMISA IS SENT TO ALEXANDRU TO MEDIATE PEACE. 127 

addition, that this was not merely hi$ view, but also that of 
John of Antioch, and of all the bishops with whom he had 
held a Synod.^ In a subsequent letter to the head of the 
violent party, Alexander of Hierapolis, Theodoret defends 
himself against the reproach of treachery, and against the 
suspicion that he had become submissive for the sake of a 
better position, or in order to escape persecutions.' 

Finally, Archbishop Eutherius of Tyana, in Cappadocia 
in two letters to John of Antioch and to Helladius of Tarsus, 
expressed himself very decidedly against the party of peace, 
and very violently against reconciliation with CyriL* 

We see that, on the question of the peace of the Church, 
the Antiochenes were divided into two great parties. The 
peace-seeldng majority, who had John of Antioch and the 
venerable Acacius at their head, were opposed by a minority 
disinclined for reconciliation ; but the majority, too, fell into 
two divisions, while Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata formed 
a kind of middle party, and wished to make new proposals 
(see above, p. 124 f.). 

Sec. 154. PatU of JSmisa is sent to Alexandria as 
Mediator. 

In union with his partisans the Patriarch John immedi- 
ately sent the aged Bishop Paul of Emisa as envoy to Alex- 
andria, so that he might by word of mouth have further 
communication with Cyril, and obtain still clearer explanations 
from him. At the same time the Patriarch John now for the 
first time since the outbreak of the rupture came into personal 
correspondence by letter with Cyril, in the letter of intro- 
duction written for Paul of Emisa, and still extant in Latin, 
saying that, "although personally unknown to each other, 
he and Cyril had been united in love with one another, 
but imfortunately the twelve anathematisms of Cyril had 
destroyed this unity, and it would have been good if their 
publication had never taken place. He had at Uie beginning 

* In Manai, t. t. p. 846 sq. c. 70 and 71. 

* In Mansi, t. y. p. 849, c 72. 

* In Mansi, t. ▼. p. 860 sqq. c. 73 and 74. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



128 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

been unable to believe that they proceeded from CyriL By 
his most recent explanations, however, they had been essentially 
impix)ved, and it might be hoped that this would be com- 
pletely accomplished. Cyril himself had promised, after the 
restoration of peace, still further to remove disquiet, and some 
few additions were in fact necessary. John and his friends 
were in a high degree rejoiced by the letter of Cyril to 
Aoacius (which contained the explanations referred to), 
especially because he had so readily accepted the letter of 
S. Athanasius to Epictetus, which so correctly explained the 
Nicene Creed, and removed all difficulties. The work of 
peace thus begun should now be continued, and the mutual 
revilings and accusations of heresy of the Christians among 
themselves must cease. Cyril might receive Paul in a 
friendly manner, and trust him fully, as though John himself 
were present."^ According to an expression of Cyril's arch- 
deacon, Epiphanius, the Patriarch John had also explained that 
the Orientals would never consent to the condemnation of 
Nestorius ;' the letter now before us, however, does not con- 
tain, at least directly, a syllable of this. On the other hand, 
we may say with Theodoret, that John therein decidedly 
repudiated the anathematisms of Cyril.' 

With this step, the sending of Paul of Emisa, the Patriarch 
John made Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, the head of the 
strict party, acquainted, in reply to a letter of the latter which 
is now lost. John blames his dialectical subtlety, which is 
disposed to see Apollinarianism everywhere in Cyril, and 
shows briefly and incisively that the confession of Cyril, that 
the natures of Christ are not mingled, is entirely opposed to 
the principle of Apollinarianism. None of those who dwell in 
Pontus (probably Firmus of Caesarea and other opponents of the 
Antiochenes) had thus expressed themselves. It were indeed 
well if he, who was in Alexander's neighbourhood (probably 
Babulas of Edessa), and those beyond the Taurus (a mountain 
range in the south of Asia Minor), would make the same con* 
fession. Alexander must not be pusillanimous, but trust in 
God. He was always speaking of not drawing back, even of 

^ In Mansi, t. y. p. 856 aqq. * In Mansi, t y, p. 988. 

> Theodoret, E^. 112, t. iv, 0pp. p. 1186, ed. Schulze. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



UNION-CREED OF THE ANTIOCHENES : ACCEPTED BY CYRIL. 129 

being prepared for martyrdom, but this was not now necessary, 
but only the restoration of the peace of the Church. The 
other contents of the letter have to do with little belonging to 
this subject, consisting of sccurcely intelligible details.^ 

Alexander answered in an unfriendly spirit, and tried to 
show that Cyril, even in his new explanations, was still 
heretical K, however, John and Acacius could find them 
orthodox, then the journey of Paul of Emisa was really super- 
fluous. He, for his part, would hold communion neither 
with Cyril nor with those who were reconciled with him, so 
long as he had not spoken out in a thoroughly satisfactory 
manner. The matter was simple: "Cyril offers us com- 
munion if we become heretics."* 

The patriarch answered quite calmly and quietly that he 
would not go into all the bitternesses in the letter of Alexander, 
but would pray for one thing, that he might still put some hope 
in the journey of Paul, since he would have to lay before 
Cyril the ten propositions of the Antiochenes, and communi- 
cation by word of mouth often led to a better result than was 
accomplished by writing.* 

The Patriarch John had, moreover, acquainted not merely 
the bishops of his province, but also foreign friends and par- 
tisans, e,g. Archbishop Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Moesia 
(in Europe), with hb latest steps, and had received from him 
and his suffragans a very sympathetic letter in return, in which 
John was only still asked to see that Cyril acknowledged two 
unmingled natiu^s, and repudiated Ms anathematisms.^ 



Sec. 155. The Union-Creed of the Antiochenes: vt is accepted 

hy Cyril. 

John of Antioch had given to Paul of Emisa, along with 
the above-mentioned letter, a form of faith drawn up by him 
and his friends, which Cyril was to be required to accept. 
We learn this from the subsequent letter of Cyril to John,* 

^ In Mansi, t t. p. S68. ' In Mansi, t ▼. p. 916. 

* In Mansi, t. t. p. 855, c. 77. * In Mansi, t y. p. 855, c. 78. 

* In Mansi, t v, p. 803 ; Hardonin, tip. 1708. 

lU. I 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



130 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and from a letter of John to Cyril ;* and it is clear at the 
first glance that this, apart from the introduction and some 
concluding words, is quite the same formula which the 
Antiochenes at Ephesus had previously presented through 
Count John to the Emperor Theodosius, and of which we have 
alrefiwiy spoken ahove (p. 93 f.). It falls into two. divisions — 
the introduction and the creed itselt In the first it is said, 
" That which we believe and teach concerning the virgin God- 
bearer, and concerning the manner of the incarnation of the 
only-begotten Son of God, we will now, because it is neces- 
sary, briefly set forth in accordance with Scripture and tradi- 
tion, not in order to add anything, but in order to give 
satisfaction to others, without adding anything whatever to 
the faith explained at Kic^ea. As in fact we said before, that 
is quite sufficient for the knowledge of religion, and for the 
refutation of heretical error. And we give this new explana- 
tion, not because we venture to explain the incomprehensible, 
but in order by the confession of our own weakness to refute 
those who reproach us with discussing that which is to man 
incomprehensible." * 

Next followed the second part, the creed itself: "We 
confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of 
God, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul 
and a body, was begotten before all time by the Father accord- 
ing to the Godhead, but at the end of the days, for us and 
for our salvation, was bom of the Virgin, according to the 
manhood, of one substance with the Father as touching the 
Godhead, and of one substance with us as touching the man- 
hood. For two natures are united together {Bvo yhp ^vaeojv 
evaxn^: yiyove). Therefore we acknowledge one Christ, one 
Lord, and one Son. On account of this union, which, however, 
is remote from all mingling {jcarii ravrffp rijv rrjq aa-vyxyrov 
€i/<S)<T€<D<; Ivvouui), we acknowledge also that the holy Virgin 
is the God-bearer, because God the Logos was made flesh 
and man, and before conception united with Himself the 
temple (the manhood), which He assumed from her (the 

* In Mansi, t v. p. 291 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1691. 

* The conclusion of this introduction resembles the shorter introdaction of 
the earlier form of the same creed. See p. 93 f. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



UNION-CREED OF THE ANTIOCIIENES : ACCEPTED BY CYEIL. 131 

Virgin)."* As regards, however, the evangelical and apo- 
stolical utterances respecting Christ, we know that theologians 
apply them differently : the one class, having reference to the 
one person, apply them to both natures in common ; the other 
class, referring to the two natures, separate them. The confes- 
sions which are suitable to God they refer to the Godhead, 
and those which apply to the humiliation to the manhood.* 

We have already remarked (p. 94) that this formula was 
quite orthodox in meaning, and therefore Cyril consented 
without difficulty to further its acceptance, and gave his ad- 
hesion to it, which he afterwards repeated in his celebrated 
letter to John of Antioch after the actual conclusion of peace. 
After Cyril had done this, he then first began to discuss 
with Paul the outrages which had been inflicted upon him at 
Ephesus; but after a considerable time had elapsed in dis- 
cussing them, and also on account of his illness,^ he allowed 
this personal matter to drop, and turned to the more important 
question as to whether the Orientals were now inclined to 
agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, which was the conditio 
sine qua non of their Church communion ; and whether Paul 
had with him a letter from John on this subject. Paul then 
communicated to Cyril the letter of his patriarch, which we 
have already described, and Cyril was so Uttle satisfied with it 
that he declared that this paper did not at all contain what 
it ought (namely, the agreement on the subject of Nestorius), 
and that it embittered the controversy rather than softened it, 

^ To this point the creed is identical with that on p. 93 1 The remainder is a 
new addition. 

• In Mansi, t ▼. p. 808 sqq. ; Hardoain, t L p. 1708. The original text of 
this creed is as follows : 'Offk»ytvfitf rtyfwt t«v «v^«v hfiHf 'lirr«vv Xftmw, rh 

Tm* iifUfSw rir avrtv 3^* nftMf »mi hk rJfv hfMripmf wtrnpitn i» Mecfimg rijf 9'mf^tf»v 

nfuf Kttrk rht Mfttwirtirm' ivt ykf ^urttv tvttm ytyn' %ti 7v« Xfterif, tf» </i«y, 7>« 
MVfit9 SftsXeytS/Uf' »»f» rmvrtiv rn» rng m^vy^vr0V Ittifutf tfttmv ifMX0y»vfii9 rhf 
ity'ttu ^mfii9§9 tiTi»9f^ ^tk ri r«v Stiv hiyv rmfuttinvm mm ktmvifttw'n^tn, »mi l^ 
mirnt rfit ^vXXn^tfg IfSgut ImvTf riv i( alrnt kn^Sifrm 9^9' rkg il tyMyytXtumt jtmi 
Ait»€T9Xt»itf m%fi rtS m»fi»» ^t^vkg Tir/tiv r«vf iuXiy§tn M*%fmg rkf fiiv uivt^twtrmty 
^f if* iv«f irf€mW9^ ritt ^ ^tmtfwtrmif itg M )»« ^uifu/f* »mi rk$ fU9 Suir^iwtTt xmrk 
rm hmrm. nrmt X^r«v, ^kf )) raruvcf »t^k riiv k^fftvimwm avtw vmfoiitifrmt, 

* Mansi, t ▼. p. 988 and 811. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



132 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

since it sought to justify all that had been done at Ephesus 
as having proceeded from a dutiful zeal for pure doctrine. 
Cyril therefore refused to receive this document, and was at 
last induced to do so only by the apologetic explanations of 
Bishop Paul, who made oath that it was not so intended.* 
Paul then declared that he was ready to anathematize the 
heresies of Nestorius, and that this should suffice as though 
all the Oriental bishops had done the same. Cyril replied 
with justice that Paul could act for himself, and that then 
he could be, without delay, received into communion, but 
that this could not possibly suffice for the rest of the Oriental 
bishops, particularly for their patriarch, since there needed an 
express commission from him for that purpose, and there- 
fore he must be asked to give a written declaration on the 
subject.* Paul of Emisa then in his own behalf presented a 
written document to the effect that he acknowledged Maxi- 
mian as bishop of Constantinople, and Nestorius as deposed, 
and that he excommunicated his heresy,* and was then not 
only solemnly received into Church communion by Cyril, but 
was also repeatedly invited to preach in Alexandria. We 
have still (parts of) three homilies of his, which he preached 
there at that time.* 

When, however, Paul abandoned Xestorius, he requested 
in return that the deposition pronounced upon Helladius, 
Eutherius, Himerius, and Dorotheus (four Nestorians) by Cyril 
and Maximian (see above, p. 118) should be removed. With- 
out this concession, he maintained, peace could not possibly 
take place. Cyril, however, replied that this could never be, 
and that on his part he would not agree to it, so that Paul let 
this point drop.* 

All this, especially on account of Cyril's illness, had taken 
up a good deal of time, and the Orientals were complaining 
already that it was so long since they had any intelligence 
from Alexandria, and that the whole transaction seemed to 

» Cf. his Bpiet. ad Acac. Mdet. in Mansi, t. v. p. 811, and liis EpUt. ad 
Dmat. ibid. p. 350. 
' Mansi, Ix, pp. 818, 850. 

3 This document in Mausi, t. v. p. 287 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1639. 
* In Mansi, t y. p. 298 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1698 sqq. 
^ In Mansi, t. y. p. 850. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD OF THE ANTIOCHENES : CYRIL*S PBESENTS. 133 

liave no result We see this from a letter of Bishop Andrew 
of Samosata to Alexander .of Hierapolis.* Now, however, 
the imperial commissioner Aristolaus sent a letter to the 
Antiochenes, in which he urgently demanded of them the 
wished-for declaration respecting Nestorius. 

Sec. 156. Synod of tlu ATdiochenes : CyriVs Presents. 

The Orientals upon this held a new Synod at Antioch, and 
drew up new resolutions of which we have no very definite 
knowledge, and made Aristolaus acquainted with them through 
Verius (the Antiochene deputy at Constantinople), adding that 
soon Bishop Alexander (probably of Apamea) would appear 
with the new resolutions at Alexandria.* That these were 
not favourable is shown by that which followed; but even 
Cyril's own friends at Constantinople sent him, about this 
time, highly disagreeable information, and they had become 
very languid in their zeal for the good cause, as we learn 
from the frequently quoted letter of Cyril's archdeacon, 
Epiphanius.' It is certain that the latter, with Cyril's 
knowledge and consent, wrote now to Bishop Maximian of 
Constantinople, informing him that Cyril had fallen ill again 
in consequence of this bad news, blamed the lukewarmness 
of Maximian and other friends, and exhorted them to new 
zeaL In particular, he urged that they should bring it about 
that Aristolaus should once more go in person to Antioch 
(that the obscure words, hinc exire facialis Aristolaum, are to 
be taken in this sense, is shown by the course of the history). 
At the same time he mentions that Cyril has written to 
Pulcheria, the Praepositus Paulus, the Chamberlain Eomanus, 
and the two court ladies Marcella and Droseria, and has sent 
them valuable henedidiones (presents). To the Praepositus 
Chrysoretes, who was unfavourable to the Church, Aristolaus 
was ready to write, and to him also were eviogia (presents) sent 
Further, Cjrril had entreated Scholasticus and Arthebas, at 
the same time sending them presents, to influence Chrysoretes 
at last to abstain from his persecution of the Church. Bishop 
Maximian himself was asked to pray the Empress Pulcheria 

^ In Mansi, t y. p. 859. ^ In Mansi, t v. p. 988. * In Mansi, le. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



134 HISTORY OF THE COUXCILS. 

again to show zeal for Christ, for she and all the persons at 
court at present had but little care for Cyril, perhaps because 
the presents, although not of trifling value, were yet insuffi- 
cient to satisfy the covetousness of the courtiers. Pulcheria 
should wiite to the Antiochene, ordering him to submit ; but 
Aristolaus must be required to be urgent with John. Further, 
Maximian should entreat the Archimandrites Dalmatius and 
Eutyches (afterwards the heretic), to adjure the Emperor 
and the court officials in reference to Nestorius, and to 
support Cyril with all their might. The little note which 
accompanied this mentioned the presents which had been 
given to each, so that Maximian might see how much the 
Alexandrian Church had sacrificed. They had even been 
compelled to obtain a loan for the purpose. Now the 
Church of Constantinople should also do its duty and satisfy 
the cupidity of certain persons. Finally, Pulcheria should 
use her influence to have Lausus made praepositus soon, so 
that the power of Chrysoretes might be weakened.* 

That Cyril put every engine in motion, so as to obtain a 
victory for the cause of orthodoxy, will hardly be imputed to 
him as a fault by the unprejudiced. That he also had 
recourse to presents is a circumstance which we will defend 
as little as did Tillemont (ic. p. 541); while, at the same 
time, we must explain it and excuse it, as we have said 
already (p. 113 f.), by the peculiar customs of the East 

Sec. 157. The Union takes place. 

Cyril now in fact attained his end. Aristolaus allowed 
himself to be induced to go again with Paul of Emisa to 
Antioch, and two of Cyril's clergy, Cassius and Anmon, had 
to accompany them and present for his subscription to the 
Patriarch John a document on the deposition of Nestorius 
and the anathematizing of his teaching, and in case of his 
subscribing, to hand him the document of his restoration to 
Church communion.* This way appeared to Cyril to lead 

' In Mansi, t. v. p. 987 sqq. 

* CyrUli EfM, ad T/ieotptostum, etc., in Cyrilli 0pp. t. v. P. ii. p. 158, and 
his EpUt. ad Donat in Mansi, t. v. p. 850. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION TAKES PLACE. 135 

much more quickly to the goal, especially as Paul of Emisa 
and Aristolaus of Alexandria carried on the affair too slowly. 
Besides, this way seemed safe enough, since Aristolaus 
declared on oath that the document of union should certainly 
not be given up htfort the signature of the other document, 
and if John of Antioch refused to sign, he would immediately 
travel to Constantinople and explain that it was not the 
Church of Alexandria, but the Bishop of Antioch, that was 
the disturber of the peace. ^ 

The proceedings at Antioch came to a happy termination. 
John on his part wished still for a few slight and insignificant 
alterations in the document which he had to sign, and as, 
according to his own statement, and as his subsequent letters 
show, the sense was not thereby altered, the two delegates of 
Cyril, with the concurrence of Aristolaus and Paul of Emisa, 
consented to them.^ Thereupon the Patriarch John, together 
with the bishops assembled around him, addressed friendly 
letters to Cyril, to Pope Sixtus, and to Bishop Maximian of 
Constantinople, which are still extant, and are interesting 
evidences of the restored unity. The most important of them 
is directed to the three heads of the Church just named, and 
says : " In the year which has just passed, at the command of 
the pious Emperors, the holy Synod of the God-beloved bishops 
came together at Ephesus in order to oppose the Nestorian 
heresy, and, in accord with the legates of the blessed Pope 
Coelestine, deposed the aforenamed Nestorius, because he 
used unholy doctrine (jSe/Si^X^ hiZwcTKCLKLa 'XP^fJ'^ov), scanda- 
lized many {aKav^Xuravra iroXKov^), and in regard to the 
faith did not stand upright {ovk 6p6o7ro8'q<ravra).^ We arrived 
subsequently at Ephesus, found that the matter had been 
already settled, and were dissatisfied therewith. For this 
reason there arose a difference between us and the holy Synod, 
and after much had been done and spoken backwards and 
forwards, we returned to our Churches and cities without 

^ Cyrilli Bpiet. ad Theognostum, Lc, 

* Compare the letter of John to Cyril among the letters of the latter, in Cyrilli 
0pp. t y. P. ii div. 2, p. 168. 

' Probably these terms proceed from the Antioehenes, and belong to the 
alterations in the text of Cyril of which we have spoken. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



136 HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 

having subscribed the sentence of the holy Synod on 
Nestorius, and the Churches were disunited by a difiference 
of opinion. As, however, all must really have had it in view 
to seek restoration of union by the removal of differences of 
opinion, and the God-fearing Emperors required this, and in 
order to bring it about sent the tribune and notary Aristolaus, 
we also determined to agree to the judgment pronounced 
against Nestorius, to recognize him as deposed, and to anathe- 
matize his infamous doctrines {hva^r^fiov^ BtBaaKaXiasi), since 
our Church, like your Holiness, has always had the true 
doctrine, and will ever preserve it and transmit it to the 
nations. We also agree to the consecration of the most holy 
and God-fearing bishop, Maximian of Constantinople, and have 
communion with all the God-fearing bishops of the world who 
retain and hold fast the orthodox and pure doctrine."^ 

The sepond letter of John is addressed to Cyril alone, and 
begins, like the first, with the remark that the Antiochenes 
had not taken part in the Council of Ephesus, but considers 
it now, in the time of peace, superfluous to go into the causes 
of the past discord, and prefers to go on to the efforts for the 
restoration of peace which followed, particularly to the sending 
of Aristolaus and Paul of Emisa, repeats the declaration of 
faith asked by the Antiochenes from Cyril, and proceeds as 
follows : " After thou hast received this formula of faith, we, 
in order to remove all controversy, to imite all the Churches 
of the world, and to remove all offences, have resolved to 
acknowledge that Nestorius is deposed, and to anathematize 
his evil and corrupt new doctrines (tA? (f>av\a<: avrov xal 
^e^rfkov^ KaLvo^<dviasi\'' and so forth, as in the first letter.^ 

The third letter of John is again addressed only to Cyril, 
and is of a more confidential nature. He begins with the 
joyful exclamation: "We are again united," then says that 
Paul of Emisa is returning to Alexandria with the documents 
of peace, speaks of his great services in the cause of union, as 
well as of those of Aristolaus and the two Alexandrian clerics, 
assures Cyiil of his most friendly disposition, prays him to 

* In Mansi, t. v. p. 285 ; Hardouin, t. L p. 1687. 

' In Hardouin, t. i. p. 1691 ; Mansi, t. t. p. 289 sqq. In LAtin only, ibid. p. 
667 8qq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION TAKES PLACE. 137 

accept this peace with goodwill, and promises to do all he can 
to induce all the other Oriental bishops to join it.* — ^He did 
this honestly, and we still possess a letter belonging to this 
time from him to Theodoret, in which he joyfully informs him 
that Cyril has now made it impossible falsely to explain his 
words as teaching only one nature, and has recognized the 
diversity of the natures. The complete confession of his 
orthodoxy, however, Paul of Emisa would soon bring back 
from Alexandria.* 

Cyril did in fact now transmit, by the medium mentioned, 
his celebrated letter Lcetentur Codi to John of Antioch, as 
answer to his Eirenicon, in which, according to the wish of 
the Orientab,' he repeated verbally not only the introductory 
declaration given by them, which we adduced above at p. 130, 
and the creed of the Antiochenes which followed upon it, but 
also added still further doctrinal explanations, in order to 
completely remove all suspicion. 

As this letter of Cyril's, often also called " Ephesine Creed," 
has obtained great celebrity, we quote the following portions of 
it After Cyril had, as has been said, expressed his full agree- 
ment with the above-mentioned introduction and the creed of 
the Antiochenes, he designates as slanderers those who accuse 
him of maintaining that the body of Christ comes from heaven, 
and not from the holy Virgin. The whole controversy, he says, 
has arisen from this, that he called Mary the " God-bearer." 
But this expression he could not possibly have used, if he had 
regarded the body of Christ as having come down from heaven. 
Whom else had Mary then borne, but Emmanuel after the flesh ? 
If, however, we say that " our Lord Jesus Christ is from heaven," 
we mean not that His flesh came down from heaven, but we 
follow the holy Paul, who exclaims : " 'O irpSno^ avdpcmro^ 
€K 7§9 x^MW, o S6VT6/009 apffpoyjTo^ i^ ovpavov" (1 Cor. xv. 
47). Christ is also called ap0pamo<s i^ ovpapov, as He, per- 
fect according to the Gknlhead, and perfect also according to 
His manhood, is to be comprehended as one Person. For the 
Lord Jesus Christ is One, although the difiTerence of the 
natures, from which the unutterable union took place, is not 

^ In Cyrilli 0pp. t v. P. ii p. 163 sq. * In Mansi, t. v. p. 867, c 86. 

' So Facundus relates, lib. i c. 5. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



138 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

to be ignored. Those, however, who speak of a mixture (/cpaa-i^ 
fj <rvy)(y<TL<; ff <f>vpfibs:) of the Logos with the flesh, must be 
checked by thee. I ' know that some accuse me of such 
language ; I am, however, so far removed from it, that I hold 
as senseless those who suppose that any change can take place 
in the divine nature. Moreover, we all teach that the Logos 
of God is incapable of sufiering, although He attributes to 
Himself the sufiering of His flesh (icar* olicelwriv oUovofiuajv). 
. . . We do not in any wise allow that any one should alter 
a single word or omit a syllable in the Nicene Creed, for it was 
not those (318) Fathers who spoke there, but the Spirit of 
God and the Father, who proceeds from Him, but is also not 
foreign to the Son in regard to His essence (pvala), . . . 
Finally, Cyril remarks, as the letter (so often quoted in the 
Nestorian question) of S. Athanasius to Epictetus was circu- 
lating in falsified copies (falsified by the Nestorians), he 
appended accurate copies of the original which was at 
Alexandria* 

To his own Church Cyril announced the joyful event of the 
restoration of peace in a sermon, of which a fragment in a 
Latin translation, and with the date 28 th of Pharmut, %,e, 
April 23 (probably of the year 433), has come down to us.* 
TUlemont infers from this that the union in question was 
probably concluded in March 433, which, besides, is not in 
itself improbable, even if that date in the superscription of a 
mere translation can have no great importance.* 

The happy restoration of peace was immediately communi- 
cated by Cyril to Pope Sixtus and to Bishops Maximian of Con- 
stantinople and Donatus of Nicopolis.* The Patriarch John, 
however, in announcing the fact to the two Emperors, Theodosius 
II. and Valentinian iii., added a petition that they would see to 
the restoration of the deposed bishops.* In a circular letter 
to the rest of the Oriental bishops, he informed these also of 
what had been done, communicated to them the letters of 

^ Mansi, t. v. p. 801 sqq. ; Hardooin, t iL p. 119 sqq. 
' Maosi, t y. p. 239 ; Hardonin, t L p. 1689. 

• TiUcmont, Mimoires, t xiv. p. 647, and note 76, Sur St. CyriUe, ibid, p. 782 ; 
Walch, Ketzerhist, Bd. v. 8. 617. 

• Mansi, t v. pp. 847, 851 ; Hardooin, tip. 1707. 

• Monsi, t. V. p. 871. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION FINDS OPPONENTS. 139 

reconciliation which had been exchanged between Cyril and 
him, assured them that Cyril was quite orthodox, and entreated 
them not again to break this beautiful unity.* Finally, Pope 
Sixtus also, greatly rejoiced at their being won back, wrote at 
last, on September 11, 433, to Cyril, and four days later to 
John of Antioch, to acquaint them with the sympathy of the 
Holy See with that which had been accomplished.* 

Sec. 158. Tlie Union finds Opponents, hut is defended by Cyril. 

The judgments which were soon pronounced upon this work of 
pacification were very different. The great majority of Chris- 
tians were in a high degree delighted at it, and congratulated 
Cyril on his meritorious efforts in the good cause. But there 
were four classes who were discontented ; two classes of his 
own previous adherents, and two classes of his previous oppo- 
nents. Of the latter, the one — the enraged Nestorians — 
decidedly refused, as we shall see more particularly hereafter, 
to enter the union ; while the others affirmed that Nestorius 
himself had taught nothing different from that which Cyril 
now acknowledged, and endeavoured to conceal their Nestorian- 
ism under the expressions of the creed subscribed by Cyril. 
Cyril therefore found himself under the necessity of opposing 
them and their tergiversations,* in a comprehensive letter to 
Bishop Valerian of Iconiuia But even of his own previous 
adherents there were many who were dissatisfied with Cyril, 
and thought that he had yielded more than was right, had 
sacrificed his original doctrine, had allowed himself to accept 
Nestorian terms, and had not imitated those great men of the 
ancient Church, who endured lifelong banishment rather than 
give up one iota of the dogma. This reproach was brought 
against him peculiarly by S. Isidore of Pelusium,^ the same who 
had previously blamed him for passionateness against Nestorius 
(see above, p. 83). According to the testimony of Liberatus, 
similar accusations were made by Bishop Acacius of Melitene 

- Mansi, t. v. p. 751. 

• Mann, t. v. pp. 871, 879 ; Hardooin, tip. 1707 sqq. ; cf. Pagi, Crilica in 
unncd. Baron, ad aim, 488, n. 1-4. 
' In Kansi, t v. p. 868 sqq. ^ Isidor. Pelos. Epi$L lib. 1. no. 824. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



140 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and Valerian of Iconium, as well as by several persons at the 
imperial court* 

As already indicated, these accusers of Cyril, who came from 
his own camp, also fell into two classes, those who brought these 
reproaches merely from a misunderstanding, as undoubtedly was 
the case with Isidore of Pelusium ; and those who, really hold- 
ing Monophysite or Monothelite opinions, understood correctly 
indeed the new explanations of Cyril, but thought themselves 
decidedly bound to disapprove of them. The ecclesiastical 
mean represented by Cyril appeared to them, from their extreme 
point of view, to be Nestorian. To this class perhaps belongs 
Acacius of Melitene, who in a letter to Cyril,* still extant, com- 
mends his efforts for the anathematizing of Nestorianism (and 
Theodore of Mopsuestia),* but at the same time adjures him to 
pronounce anathema also upon those who maintain that, after 
the union of the natures in Christ, there still remain two natures, 
and that each of them has its own operation or activity. This 
evidently, he said, led to Nestorianism. — He was wrong, for 
that which here seems to him to be Kestorianism is the 
orthodox doctrine ; he himself, however, stood, although pro- 
bably without knowing it, at the Monothelite point of view, 
when he refused to ascribe two operations to the two natures 
of Christ, or even at the Monophysite, if he meant entirely to 
deny the duality of the natures. 

All this led Cyril to defend himself and the union which 
had been concluded in a series of treatises. (1) First of all 
he met the accusation of having required from any one, or 
having accepted, a new (altered) ci'eed. The matter, on the 
contrary, stood thus : As the Oriental bishops at Ephesus had 
fallen under suspicion of holding Nestorian opinions, it had 
been necessary that they should give an explanation of their 
faith for their own vindication.* (2) Secondly, he shows 
that this declaration of faith of the Orientals was in fact satis- 
factory, and that there was a great difference between their 
faith and that of Nestorius. The latter really denied the 

^ Liberati Breviar, c. 8, p. 669. 

^ It is stUl extant in two Latin translations in Mansi, t. y. pp. 860, 998. 

' This is probably a later addition. 

* Mansi, t. y. p. 315, in Cyril's letter to Bishop Acacias of Melitene. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE UNION FINDS OPPONENTS. 141 

Incarnation of the Logos, and rent the one Son in two. The 
Orientals, on the contrary, because of the unutterable and 
unmingled union of the Godhead and the manhood (SiA rrjv 
a<l>paa-Tov xal aavyj(yrov Ipcoctv), call the holy Virgin " the 
God-bearer," and confess one Son and Christ and Lord, per- 
fect in the Godhead and perfect in the manhood, because 
His flesh was quickened by a reasonable soul (in opposition 
to Apollinarianism). Thus they in no way divide the one 
Son, Christ, and Lord Jesus into two, but they say : He who 
was from eternity and who appeared on earth in the last time 
is one and the same ; the former is of God the Father as God, 
the latter is of woman after the flesh as man. We teach that 
an union of the two natures has taken place {Svo ^wetov 
fvwrw yeveaOai), and acknowledge openly only one Christ, 
one Son and Lord.^ We say not, as the heretics, that the 
Logos prepared for Himself a body out of His own divine 
nature, but we teach that He assumed flesh of the holy Virgin. 
If we now regard (hold in our thoughts) that from which He 
is, the one Son and Lord, we say that two natures are united ; 
but after the union we believe that, while the division into 
two is now removed (m dvppfjfiiprf^ ^817 rrj^ eh Bvo iiarofirji;), 
the nature of the Son is one, as that of the one, but incarnate 
{fjuap elvcu iriarevoficp rriv rov vlov ^vavv c»9 ivo^ 7r\r)v 
ivavOpmirriaavTo^;)^ and far be all suspicion of a trans- 
formation (of the natures) having taken place. The ivtoai,^ 
is an curvyxyTo<;? (3) Some said : ** How can Cyril commend 
those (the Orientals) who accept two natures ? That is cer- 
tainly a Nestorian expression." Cyril replies : " That Nestorius 
teaches two natures is quite true, for in fact the nature of 
the Logos is diflerent from that of the flesh ; but he is wrong 
in this, that he does not acknowledge with us an ivwai^ of 
the natures. We unite them and thus receive one Christ, 
one Son, and one incarnate nature of God (jilav rrfp rov Oeov 
j>v<nv aeaapKfoiiivqv). Something similar may be said in 
reference to every man. Every human being consists of two 
different parts, body and soul, and the intelligence and the 

^ Maosi, t v. pp. 817 aod 328, in the same letter. 

* How Cyril understood this, see below, p. 142 f. 

' Mansi, t. v. p. 819, in the same letter, and p. 845 in the letter to Eulogius. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



142 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCILS. 

perception (Oetopla) separate the two; but unitiog them we 
make only one nature of man (Troiovfiep fiiew dvOpdnrov 
<f>wnv). To recognize the difference of natures, then, is not to 
divide the one Christ into two."^ In another place he says: 
" The ^i(TL^ of the Logos is recognized as only one : merely in 
reference to the Incarnation of the Logos can the difference of 
the natures or hypostases be thought of (17 r&v <f>v<r€mv ijyow 
vvocTdaemp SuKf)opd). If the question is asked as to the 
manner of the Incarnation, the human intelligence sees two 
things unutterably united with each other, but unmingled; 
yet it in nowise separates that which is united (oTav roiwp 
T79 cap/coHrea^ iroXuTrpa/ffjLovrjrai Tpoiro^, Svo rh dXkijKoi^ 
airopprfTw; re teal aavyyyroy^ cruvrfvey/jUpa Kaff epoxnv opf, S7 
7rdvT(a^ 6 dpOpanrtPO^ pov^, iponBepra ye fiijp hitirrria^p ovhafiw), 
but recognizes in both one God and Son and Christ"* 

We can see that Cyril held firmly the traditional expression : 
fua <t>va-i^ rov \oyov a-ea-apKcofiipfj, but in such a way that he 
does not thereby deny the distinction of natures. On the 
contrary, he says expressly : " Godhead and manhood are not 
alike in natural quality " (ip 'iroiorfjri <f>vaiic^),* and will only 
assert : ** The one and unique principle or subject or Ego in 
the God-man is the Logos, He is also the bearer of the human 
in Christ" As with Athanasius, so with Cyril, as often as he 
uses the expression, the idea of if>va-if; approaches to that of 
nature or persanaliiy (see above, p. 3); as we have seen, 
with reference to this subject he uses (l>v<Tt<; and inroaraa-i^ as 
identical It is true that Cyril says repeatedly : Only when 
one holds firmly in thought that of which Christ consists, can 
two natures be distinguished (ei/ ^InXaU xal ijmpcu^ ipolai^ 
Sex^ofiepoi) ; * but it would be wrong to understand this as 
though in his view the two natures were not real, but were mere 
abstractions, (fxopal, verba, and that, after the union, only one 
nature really remained. Against this notion we have (a) The 
example used by Cyril of the union of soul and body in man, 
where, however, both factors remain after the union as always 
real Besides, (/8) Cyril repeatedly asserts that no mingling 

^ Mansi, t. v. p. 343, in the letter of Cyril to Eologiaa. 

' Mansi, t. v. p. 319, in the letter to Acacins of Melitene. 

» Hansi, t v. p. 319. * In Mansi, t. v. p. 320. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION HNDS OPPONENTS. 143 

or transmutation ^ of the natures of the Christ consists, is to 
be received, which is the same as to say that neither of them 
has lost its reality through the union. To this we must add 
(7) that the whole accusation, that Cyril regarded the two 
natures in Christ as only (fxopal, rests upon a mere misunder- 
standing, for he understands by this not the natures, but the 
attributes and predicates {ISwfLara), as that which follows shows. 
(4) The opponents had represented to Cyril that " the Antio- 
chenes speak of two natures, and mean that in reference to 
this the (fxoval of those who speak of God (ie. the predicates 
used of Christ) are distinct Is this not a contradiction of 
your doctrine ? You certainly do not allow these (fxoph^ to 
be divided into two nrpoa-cjira or {nroa'Tdaet<s" Cyril replied 
that he had certainly, in his fourth anathematism, anathema- 
tized those who so separate the (fxovhf; as to attribute the one 
merely to the Logos, and the other merely to the man ; but 
he had certainly not denied the difference of the ffxaval 
(ilxov&v BMfl>opa^)} The Orientals accept (in thought ip 
iwolcu^) a difference (Sia^opctp) of natures, but allow no 
separation of them {Buzlpeaip <f>v<Tcicijp), like Nestorius, and only 
allow a division of the (frnpai which are used with reference 
to our Lord. They do not say : " The one class of these (fxDpal 
refer only to the Logos of God, the other only to the Son of 
man " (for the Son of God and the Son of man are one), but : 
*' The one refer only to the Godhead, the other to the man- 
hood." Other ifxopal, however, they say again, are common and 
apply to both natures. And in all this they are right, for 
some ifxopal refer principally to the Godhead, others more to 
the manhood, others are of an intennediate kind ; but both 
those which refer to the Godhead and those which refer to 
the manhood are ascribed only to one Son.* (5) John of 
Antioch had written in a letter to some acquaintances that 
"Cyril now recognizes the difference of the natures, and 
divides (Siaipeip) the <f>a)pal between the natures." Former 

^ E,g. Mansi, l.e, p. 320 : 'infftpfn irtu fumfkt r^^vUs v^a-^U, and the IfM^tt is 
frsfri^ilf lfvyx^»f' So at p. 845 in the letter to Eulogius, where he declares 
it to be, a lie to ascribe to him the Apollinarian doctrine Ut fvymfm^tg lyinr* jl 

' Mansi, t ▼. p. 819, in the letter to Acacias of Melitene. 

' In Mansi, t. y. p. 822, in the same letter, and p. 845 in the letter to Eulogios. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



144 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

friends of Cyril took offence at this, on which account he 
declared as follows, that his opponents had suspected him as 
though, like ApoUinaris, he had denied to the manhood of 
Christ a reasonable soul, and asserted a mingling or trans- 
mutation of the Logos into flesh. In the same way they had 
said that he agreed with Arius, because he would not recognize 
the Zia^oph of the ^vai} He had defended himself against 
these accusations, and had written to John that he maintained 
neither a transmutation of the Logos into flesh nor of the 
flesh into the divine nature, nor had he denied the Suiff>opal 
of the iJHovaL The words quoted, however, Siaipeiv, etc., were 
not his, but proceeded from the Antiochenes.^ 

The apology for his Eirenicon was put forth by Cyril 
principally in his letters to Bishop Acacius of Melitene,' and 
to his own envoy at Constantinople, the priest Eulogius,* in 
the letter already quoted to Valerian of Iconium, and also in 
two letters to Bishop Successus or Succensus of Diocsesarea 
in Isauria.^ The latter appears to have partially occupied 
the Apollinarian point of view, and from this to have 
addressed reproaches to Cyril, in two admonitions which he 
sent to him. Cyril, in answer to the first, defends the 
Antiochene expression, "two natures," clearly explains his 
own doctrinal position, and in conclusion opposes the ApoUi- 
narian or Eutychian proposition advanced by Succensus, that 
after the resurrection the body of Christ was transformed into 
the Godhead.* In his second letter, on the contrary, which at 
the conclusion corresponds with that addressed to Acacius of 
Melitene, he shows that his words : /i/a ^v<rt9 rov \6yov aeaap- 
Ktofievrj, did not lead to the Apollinarian (better, Monophysite) 
conserquences which, in the first admonition of Succensus, had 
been deduced from them. At the same time Cyril speaks in 
two letters of the Nestorians as then circulating various 

' The Arians, as is well known, had referred to the Logos those expressions of 
the Scriptures which implied subordination, and had reference to the manhood 
of Christ. 

* Mansi, t. v. p. 328 sq. in the same letter. 

* In Mansi, t v. p. 809 sqq. ' In Mansi, t. v. p. 848 sqq. 

^ In Opp, Oyrilli, t v. P. it p. 185 sqq. tndp. 141 sqq., among the letters of 
Cyril. 

* Cyrilli Opp* tc. p. 188 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION FINDS OPPONENTS. 145 

spurious letters drawn up by themselves, particularly one 
from the Boman priest and legate Philippus, according to 
which Pope Sixtus had disapproved of tie deposition of 
Nestorius; a second from Cyril himself, full of professed 
regret for his conduct at Ephesus,^ and others a^ain from dis- 
tinguished Oriental bishops containing their renunciation of 
the reconciliation which* had been effected. Cyril asserts most 
distinctly that the first two are entire forgeries, and that the 
latter are also certainly spurious.' 

As we have already seen, John of Antioch had informed all 
the Oriental bishops of the conclusion of the union by an 
encyclical letter, and had invited them to accept it, and in 
particular had informed Theodoret of Cyrus, but at an earlier 
period, of the now undoubted orthodoxy of Cyril. Theodoret's 
answer was unfriendly. The union in itself (from the dogmatic 
point of view) he did not blame, and thus implicitly recognized 
the orthodoxy of Cyril, but he demanded that all the bishops 
who had taken sides in the controversy with the Antiochenes, 
and had for that reason been deposed (see above, p. 1 1 8), should 
be restored to their sees, otherwise the peace would be dis- 
honourable and he could not come into it. But the Patriarch 
Jolm must use his influence with the Emperors to secure that 
restoration. At the same time he informed him that Bishop 
Himerius of Nicomedia (one of the four deposed) went much 
further, and declared him, Theodoret, together with the 
patriarch, to be a traitor to their causa' 

The Eirenicon of Andrew of Samosata, Meletius of Mop- 
suestia, and Dorotheus of Marcianopolis in Moesia,* was 
attacked more from the doctrinal side, and most strongly by 
Alexander, bishop of Hierapolis, and charged with too great a 
leaning to Apollinarianism. Alexander, as violent as ever, 
added, moreover, invectives against his Patriarch, John, 
declaring that he would refuse communion to him and all 
the allies of Cyril, even if it should cost him his lifa He 
had already prepared a memorial on the subject, and had not 
yet circulated it publicly, only because he wished first to 
communicate it to Andrew of Samosata and Theodoret^ In a 

> Mansi, t v. p. 826. * Jbld. p. 870. ' Ibid. p. 868. 

* Ihid, pp. 870, 878, 892. » Ibid. p. 874, c. 98. 

m. K 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



146 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

second letter, addressed to the latter, lie reminds him how he 
had protested at Ephesus against the word 0€ot6ko<:, and now 
he would rather a thousand times su£fer death than hold com- 
munion with Cyril and those who accepted the blasphemous 
word. This word alone contained a complete heresy, however 
many explanations might be appended to it.^ In a third 
letter, also intended for Theodoret, he accuses Paul of Emisa 
of having from the first mutilated the document of the 
Orientals which had been transmitted to Alexandria (i.e. the 
declaration of faith which they presented to Cyril), in order 
that Cyril might the more easily accept it.' Theodoret con- 
firmed this accusation, and invited Alexander and Andrew of 
Samosata, with other colleagues, to a Synod at Hierapolis or at 
Zeugma (both lay in the Sjrrian province of Euphratensis), in 
order to take counsel with them as to what was further to be 
done in reference to the union.' 

Informed of this by Alexander, Andrew of Samosata 
declared himself quite ready to go to Zeugma, remarking that 
he had no need to deliberate on the subject of Kestorias, 
because he was quite convinced of his innocence. It was 
quite otherwise with Alexander. Theodoret besought him to 
come to Zeugma as soon as possible;* but he answered 
evasively, and while he would not directly withdraw from 
participation, at the same time he does not believe that 
John of Antioch will, as Theodoret requires, pronounce an 
anathema on the propositions of Cyril, and just as little that 
Cyril had, as Theodoret reported, altered his teaching. On 
the contrary, the new declarations of Cyril were as impious 
as the old. For the rest, he would come to the Synod if 
Theodoret would first obtain from John of Antioch an anathema 
on the propositions of Cyril, and a refusal to accede to the 
deposition of Nestorius. These were the two points on which 
John had given him oflence, and if Theodoret and the others 
did not take the same offence at them, then a meeting with 
them would be superfluous.* In fact, although he was metro- 
politan of the province of Euphratensis, he did not appear at 
the Synod at Zeugma, as we learn from the still extant 

> Mansi, t v. p. 874, c. 94. • Ibid. p. 878, c. 96. » Ibid. p. 879, c. 97. 
* Ibid. p. 880, c. 98, 99. » Ibid. p. 881, c. 100. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION FINDS OPPONENTS. 147 

documents of the Synod. These are, first, a letter of Theodoret 
to John of Antioch, which undoubtedly belongs to this subject, 
in which it is said that the assembled bishops recognized the 
recent declarations of Cyril as orthodox, and had seen in them 
a recantation of the error contained in his anathematisms. 
Whilst they rejoiced at this, they could not, however, concede 
that Cyril should require that the Orientals should pronounce 
an anathema on Nestorius, and John should inform them 
whether such was actually demanded. In conclusion. Bishop 
Alexander was requested to reconsider his violence.* 

The other documents belonging to this subject are : a letter 
of Bishop Andrew of Samosata to Alexander,^ two letters of 
Alexander to him,' and a letter from Alexander to John of 
Grermanicia.* We see from these that Alexander had not been 
present at the S}mod of Zeugma, and did not approve of its 
resolutions ; ' that, on the contrary, Andrew of Samosata, John 
of Germanicia, and Theodoret acknowledged, at the Synod, 
the orthodoxy of Cyril, but not the deposition of Nestorius. 
Theodoret, in particular, explained in a still extant letter to 
Nestorius, that he had found the writings of Cyril free from 
every stain of heresy, but that, on the other hand, he was 
equally convinced of the innocence of Nestorius, and would 
rather lose both hands than agree to his deposition.^ He 
wrote the same to Bishop Theosebius of Chios in Bithynia.^ 
Another and much more violent letter, which is equally 
attributed to Theodoret,^ cannot, as Tillemont* long ago 
pointed out, have proceeded from him, since in it Cyril is 
distinctly charged with heresy. Such was the view of Alex- 
ander of Hierapolis, who persisted in this opinion and refused 
communion not only to his Patriarch, John,*^ but also to 
Theodoret of Cyrus, Andrew of Samosata, and all who re- 
garded Cyril as orthodox, and summoned them before the 
judgment-seat of God.** 

^ Mausi, t. V. p. 876, c. 95. • Ibid. p. 882, c. 101, and p. 884, c. 103. 

> Ibid. p. 883 sq. c. 102 and 104. * Ibid, p. 886, c. 105. 

^ Ibid. p. 885, c 105. * Ibid. p. 898 sq. c. 120. 

7 Ibid. p. 869, c. 88. • Ibid. p. 899, c. 121. 

* Mimoires, t zir. p. 553, and note 78, Sur St. CyriUe. 

>* His last letter to John, in Mansi, t. y. p. 916, c 136. 

u Manai, t y. p. 884 sqq. c 104. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



148 HISTORY OF THE C0UNC1I5. 

His point of view was taken by many other Oriental 
bishops of the province of Euphratensis, of the two Cilicias, of 
Cappadocia Secunda, Bithynia, Thessaly, and Moesia, chiefly 
Bishops Eutherius of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus, who 
now wrote to Pope Sixtus, asking him to make common cause 
with them against the union.^ They invited also the accession 
of Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret of Cyrus, and that 
of the former with success.* At the same time the bishops 
of Cilicia Secunda assembled in a Synod at Anazarbus, in 
which they declared that the union was void, that Cyril was 
a heretic as before, and that every one should be excommuni- 
cated who was in communion with him until he had com- 
pletely repudiated his impious chapters. To this resolution 
the bishops of Cilicia Primu also assented.' 

.Sec. 159. The Union is at last, although not vnihout 
constraint, accepted universally. 

In consequence of what has been mentioned, Theodoret and 
his friends took an intermediate position between this party of 
utter hostility to the union on the one side, and the Patriarch 
John with the decided friends of union on the other side. 
While Alexander of Hierapolis and the Synod of Anazarbus 
entirely repudiated the union, and persistently declared Cyril 
to be a heretic, Theodoret and the Synod of Zeugma did not 
deny the orthodoxy of Cyril, but would accept the union only 
upon the condition of saving Nestorius. John of Antioch was 
dissatisfied with both sides, and thought it the best way to 
compel the universal acceptance of the union in his patri- 
archate by the application of punishments and threats. In 
this he thought the Emperor should help him and apply the 
secular arm for the purpose. He therefore addressed a letter 
to the prefect of the Pretoria n guard, Taurus, expressing his 
satisfaction that, after the death of Maximian, the (anti- 
Nestorian) Proclus of Cyzicus had been raised to the see of 
Constantinople, and praying that the court would take 
measures to re-estabUsh peace and to bridle the obstinate/ 

> Manai, t. v. p. 898 sqq. • Ibid, p. 892, c. 116, and p. 898, c 118. 

» Jbid. p. 890, c. 113, and 891, c. lU. * Jbid, p. 904. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION. IS AT LAST ACCEPTED UNIYBRSALLY. 149 

At the same time Verius, his secretary at Constantinople, of 
whom we have ahready heard, exerted himself to obtain an 
imperial Sacra, to the effect that the Oriental bishops must be 
in communion with John or leave their sees. The Nestorian 
Meletius of Mopsuestia (see above, p. 145) reproaches him 
with having spent much money for this purpose on the court 
officials, and adds that he has certainly attained his end, but 
that the carrying out of the decree was still postponed for 
some time, until peaceful efforts for the re-establishment of 
union should once more be made. Others, on the contrary, 
professed to know that the Emperor had recalled the command 
which he had given, in order to avoid making the excitement 
still greater in some of the provinces,^ 

In order to induce the bishop of Cilicia to reunite with the 
Patriarch John, the imperial Qusestor Domitian now wrote to 
the Cilician Metropolitan Helladius of Tarsus, who was hostile 
to union, with reference to the imperial rescript* John of 
Antioch, however, informed Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis, 
that, in accordance with the imperial command, no bishop 
must appear at court (where they would intrigue against 
the union), and that he should communicate this to the 
bishops who were subject to him.' Alexander certified that 
this letter had been read in his presence, but he had not 
received it personally, as it came from the Bishop of 
Antioch.* 

Andrew of Samosata acted quite differently. Hitherto 
belonging to the middle party, he found, by the influence of 
the earnest friends of union, and especially of Bishop Babulas 
of Edessa, a feeling of hostility stirred up against him among 
a number of his own diocesans, and therefore had left his 
diocese, in order, as it appears, to visit Babulas, and to take 
counsel with him. At the same time he also left the middle 
party of Theodoret and came into full communion with his 
patriarch, without wishing to make any further stand on 
the condition in reference to Nestorius. Indeed he now 
became a zealous promoter of union, and endeavoured to 
induce the clergy of Hierapolis, in opposition to their 

1 Mansi, t ▼. p. 905. • Ibid, p. 906. 

» Ibid, p. 907, c 126. * Ibid, p. 907, c. 127. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



150 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 

bishop, Alexander, to take part in the work of pacifica- 
tion.^ 

Theodoret continued longer in his middle position, and for 
a time was even driven by some violent steps on the part of 
John farther to the left side. In a letter to Meletius of Neo- 
caesarea, he complains particularly that John illegally appointed 
bishops in foreign dioceses (over which he was patriarch, but 
not metropolitan), and even chose for them unworthy persons. 
He had for this reason broken off communion with him.* A 
second letter he, in common with Alexander, Abbibus, and 
others, addressed to the bishops of Syria, Cilicia Prima and 
Secunda, and Cappadocia Secunda, again full of complaints 
respecting the attempts at union, and the arbitrary ordinations 
of John.' The bishops of Cilicia Prima and Secunda answered, 
with letters full of sympathy, in the like spirit of hostility to 
the union.* Theodoret further addressed a letter of complaint 
to a Magister Militum, and described how his opponents had 
endeavoured to set fire to his basilica of SS. Cosmas and 
Damian, but had been prevented by the people. They had 
also driven from his house Bishop Abbibus of Doliche in Syria, 
who was at the point of death, and had declared him to be 
mad ; and in his place John of Antioch had set up the vicious 
Athanasius, and in another see the ill-famed Marinian, in 
defiance of all the canons.* Abbibus himseK had before given 
information of what had been done to Theodoret and other 
friends, with the addition that John had required a recantation 
of him ; but that he had neither conceded this, nor voluntarily 
resigned his bishopric* About the same time Dorotheus of 
^ Marcianopolis transmitted to Alexander and Theodoret a copy 
of the pastoral letter in which the new bishop of Constanti- 
nople, Proclus, had declared the Orientals to be heretics, and 
asks whether they should not with one accord address the 
Emperor;^ and, in fact, Alexander of Hierapolis and his 
suffragans Theodoret, Abbibus, etc., in short, the bishops of the 
Pravincia Huphratensis, now addressed a letter of complaint 

> Mansi, t. ▼. p. 821, c 48; p. 885, c. 101 ; p. 885, c. 106. 
» Ibid, p. 907, c 128. « Ibid. p. 908, c. 129. 

« Ibid, p. 910, c. 180, and p. 911, c. 131. » Ibid, p. 912 sqq. c. 133. 

• lUd, p. 914, c. 184. ' Ibid, p. 918, c. 187. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION IS AT LAST ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY. 151 

against John of Antioch to the Empress Pulcheria.^ They did 
not, however, attain their end in the least; on the contrary, there 
appeared an imperial Sacra (pi which we now possess only a 
fragment), in which the efforts for peace are commended, and 
the disturbers of unity threatened.* In particular, Meletius 
of Mopsuestia was exhorted (although in vain),' by the imperial 
Count Neotherius, to be reconciled to John ; the like exhortation 
was addressed by Dionysius, Magister MUitum (for the East), 
to Alexander, Theodoret, Helladius (of Tarsus), and Maximinus 
(of Anazarbus), with the alternative either to surrender their 
episcopal sees, or to come into communion with John.^ 

At the same time the Emperor entrusted to Count and Vicar 
Titus a commission to hasten the execution of these alterna- 
tives.* This was effectual First, the bishops of Cilicia Secunda, 
with their Metropolitan, Maximin of Anazarbus, returned to 
communion with Cyril and John of Antioch.' The same was 
requested by nearly all the bishops and clergy of Cilicia Prima, 
and even their Metropolitan, Helladius of Tarsus, began now to 
waver. This is shown by his letter to Meletius of Mopsuestia, 
whom he asks for counsel ;^ and although the answer dissuaded 
him,® yet Helladius found himself constrained, by the example of 
Cilicia Secunda and by the wish of his own suffragans, to come 
into the union, although, as he declares, with a heavy heart^ 
Theodoret, too, the spiritual head of the middle party, had 
counselled him to it,^® since, after long hesitation and negotia- 
tion, he had now become friendly to the union. The Count 
and Vicar Titus, already named, had sent a special official to 
him with a letter to the then famous monks, Jacob of Nisibis^ 
Simeon Stylites, and Bardatus, and had threatened them all 
with deposition unless they would be reconciled with John. 
Theodoret at first laughed at this threat, and intended to 
resign his bishopric, but the monks so urged him that he 
yielded so far as to have a conference with John of Antioch.^^ 
Alexander of Hierapolis, with whom he was still in accord, and 

' Mansi, t ▼. p. 916, c. 186. • Ibid, p. 920, c 140. 

* Cf. the answer of Meletiua, ibH, p. 920 sq. c 141. 

* iWrf. p. 928, c 148. » Ibid. p. 922, c. 142. 

* Ibid, p. 938, c 160 ; p. 941, c. 164. ' Ibid, p. 928, c. 144. 
» lUd, p. 924, c 146. • Ibid. p. 941, c 164. 

^» Ibid. p. 988, c. 160. " Ibid. p. 926, c. 146. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



152 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

to whom he communicated this (l.c.), was very much anuoyed 
with these monks, and persisted in his opinion as to Cyril's 
heresy.^ Theodoret replied to him that the formularies (the 
union documents) had been laid before him, and that one of 
the provisions seemed less insidious, inasmuch as it required 
no approval of that which had been wrongly done at Ephesus 
(the deposition of Nestorius). As for the rest, he heard that 
the present bishop of Constantinople, Proclus, was orthodox 
in his teaching. Alexander would, he hoped, impart to him 
his view of the conditions of peace which the bishop of 
Antioch had laid down. The bishops illegally ordained by 
him must be deposed. That John had consented to the con> 
demnation of Nestorius was incorrect ; but he had certainly 
done so in a mild form, and had not condemned his teaching 
directly, but had only said : " We anathematize whatsoever 
he has taught or thought in opposition to the sense of the 
Church."* 

Alexander replied, that it was not the unlawful depositions 
and the like, but the doctrinal point, which he regarded as the 
principal matter ; and so long as Cyril did not recant his heresy, 
he would not have communion with him or with those who 
recognized him.* Theodoret endeavoured again to make him 
more submissive,* but Alexander remained obstinate,* and 
Theodoret now concluded peace with the Patriarch, after he 
had, in the interview just mentioned, satisfied liimself of his 
orthodoxy, and John had conceded, that, whoever was un- 
willing, should not be required to subscribe the deposition of 
Nestorius.* 

On the same conditions the bishops of Isauria also joined 
the union,^ but Alexander of Hierapolis, Meletius of Mopsuestia, 
Abbibus of Doliche, Zenobius of Zephyrium in Cilicia Prima, 
Eutherius of Tyana, Anastasius of Tenadus, Pausianus of 
Hypata, Julianus of Sardica, Basilius of Larissa, Theosebius 
of Chios, Acilinus of Barbolissus, Maximinus of Demetrias 
in Thessaly, and the three Moesian bishops, Dorotheus of 

1 Mansi, t. v. p. 926, c. 147. » Ibid. p. 927, c 148. 

* Ibid, p. 928, c 149. « Ibid, p. 930, c 151. 

» Ibid, p. 981, c 162. • Ibid, p. 988, c. 160. 
' Ibid. p. 944, c. 166, and p. 946, c 168. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE UNION IS AT LAST ACCEPTED UNIVERSALLY. 153 

-Marcianopolis, Yaleanius, and Eudocius, were deposed and 
expelled from their sees.^ 

The Emperor (Theodosius n.) further gave command, in the 
year 435, that Nestorius, who since the year 432 had lived 
in his former monastery at Antioch, should be banished to 
Petra in Ambia.* Probably in consequence of a second decree 
he was, however, brought to Oasis (perhaps to the city of 
Great Oasis) in Egypt He still lived there in the year 439, 
at the time when Socrates wrote his Church history. The 
irruptions of barbarous tribes caused him to leave this place 
again and flee to the Thebaid ; but the imperial governor had 
^him conveyed, against his will and not without severe con- 
straint, to Elephantis, at the outermost boundary of the 
Thebaid, and subsequently to Panopolis. When and where 
he died is unknown. The anti-Nestorian zeal of the Emperor 
was now, however, so great that he ordered all the writings of 
Nestorius to be burnt, and his adherents for the future to be 
called by the nickname of Simonians (from Simon Magus), in 
the same way as the Arians were called Porphyrians ^ by com- 
mand of Constantino the Great. For the rest, he sent anew 
the tribune and notary Aristolaus, of whom we have already 
heard, to the East, in order further to bring all the bishops 
who had entered the union to the positive acceptance of the 
anathema on Nestorius. That the bishops of Cilicia Prima 
acceded, they tell us themselves in a letter still extant,^ and 
besides, John of Antioch remarks that also in Paralia (Cyprus), 
Phoenicia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Osrhoene, Euphratesia, the 
two Syrias, and Isauria, the same took place.* At the same 
time Cyril sent to Aristolaus and the patriarch John a new 
declaration of faith, which the Orientals should be required 
to subscribe, along with the anathema on Nestorius.^ The 
information, that many Orientals had accepted the expression 

^ Mansi, t v. p. 965, c. 190. The further documents on these irreconcilables 
are given ibid, p. 969 sqq. c. 180-187, and p. 951 sqq. c. 174-179. 
« Jbid. p. 255, c 15. 

* Hansi, t. v. p. • 418 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1715. A decree put forth by the 
prefects to secure obedience to this imperial command is given in Mansi, t. v. p. 
415, and Hardouin, tip. 1717. 

* In Mansi, t. v. p. 967, c. 192 ; Hardouin, t i. p. 1721. 

* im. p. 973, c. 197. • IM, p. 969, c. 194, 195. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



154 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

OeoTotco^ and the anathema on Nestorius, and yet retained the 
Nestorian doctrine, had induced him to do this. John, however, 
would hear nothing of a new formula/ and Cyril now restricted 
himself to the request that Aristolaus would urge the acceptance 
of the three propositions : (a) Mary is the Grod-bearer ; (6) there 
are not two, but only one Christ ; and (c) the Logos, although 
in His nature incapable of suffering, suffered in the flesh.' 

Sec. 160. Attack upon Theodore of ifopsiiestia. Si/nods in 
Armenia and AntiocJu Overthrow of Nestorianism, 

In order thoroughly to eradicate Nestorianism, Cyril and 
his friends, especially Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, now also 
began the war against the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
the now long deceased teacher of Nestorius (see above, p. 5 ft). 
Since the Emperor had so strictly prohibited the books of 
Nestorius, his adherents had circulated those of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, and of the still older Diodorus of Tarsus, and had 
translated them into Syriac, Armenian, and Persian. Kabulas 
of Edessa, therefore, pronounced in church an anathema on 
Theodore, as Ibas the priest and subsequently the bishop of 
Edessa tells us in his letter to Maris, which aftenx^irds 
became so famous.* Rabulas further drew Cyril*s attention 
to the fact that Theodore was peculiarly the father of the 
Nestorian heresy,* and, in union with Acacius of Melitene, 
warned the Armenian bishops of the books of Theodore; 
while, on the other hand, CUician bishops assured the 
Armenians that Sabulas was denouncing the writings of 
Theodore merely out of personal spite, because the latter had 
once convicted him of an error. The Armenians now held a 
Synod, and sent two clerics, Leontius and Aberius, to Bishop 
Proclus of Constantinople, in order to obtain information as 
to whether the genuine doctrine was that of Theodore or that 
of Babidas and Acacius. Proclus, in an excellent letter, 
which is still extant, wrote decisively against Theodore, of 
whose errors he earnestly warned them.* This letter was 

^ Mansi, t v. p. 972, c. 197. * /WA p. 996, c 219. 

' Ibid, L vu. p. 241 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 527. * Ibid, t ▼. p. 976, c 200. 

' Ihid, p. 421 ; Hardoain, t i. p. 1723. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ATTACK UPON THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA. 155 

also signed by Cjnril and John of Antioch, with his bishops. 
At the same time Cyril, on his own behalf, wrote a work, of 
which we possess only fragments, against Diodorus of Tarsus 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia, whom he described as the 
source of the Nestorian heresy. When he afterwards visited 
Jerusalem he heard here also complaints of the writings of 
Theodore, and of many Orientals, who, through using them, 
propagated errors worse than those of Nestorius, so that he 
now found it necessary to explain the true sense of the 
l^icene formula,^ and asked his colleague John, by letter, not 
to allow the impious doctrines of Theodore to be propagated 
in Antioch.^ In the same sense he also addressed the 
Emperor.* As, however, many, especially Armenian monks, 
went much further than Cyril, and declared decidedly 
orthodox expressions of Theodore to be heretical, inasmuch as 
they themselves occupied the Monophysite point of view, not 
only did John of Antioch take up his defence in a Synod and 
in several letters,^ but also Cyril and Produs of Constantinople 
opposed his unjust accusers, and resisted their demand for an 
anathema on Theodore. The Emperor, moreover, gave order, 
in an edict addressed to John of Antioch, that the peace of 
the Church should be maintained, and that it should not be 
permitted that men who had died in the communion of the 
Catholic Church should be calumniated.* With this the con- 
troversy rested for several years,* especially as Bishop Rabulas 
died about this time, in the year 435, and the most declared 
admirer of Theodore, the priest Ibas, who has been already 
mentioned, became his successor.^ The Nestorian heresy, how- 
ever, in consequence of stringent imperial edicts, and by the 
deposition of the bishops who were hostile to union, was, 
after a few years, suppressed throughout the whole Roman 

^ In Hansi, t ▼. p. 883. 

• Cyrilli 0pp. L 7. P. ii. Epid, ad Lampon. et ClericoSf p. 198. Also in 
Mansi, t ▼. p. 998, c. 206. 

» In Manai, t ▼. p. 974, c. 198. 

« Ibid, pp. 1182, 1183, 1185. • Ibid. p. 1009, c. 219. 

' The history is given with great completeness by Tillemont, t xiv. p. 
624 sqq. ; more briefly by Balnaos in Mansi, t. y. p. 1181, and by Walcb, 
Ketg>erh. Bd. ▼. 8. 641-646. 

' See above, p. 152, and Hansi, t. y. p. 418 ; Hardooin, t. i. p. 1719. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



156 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Empire. It died out, so to speak, with the exiled bishops ; 
and its last relics were annihilated by the Emperor Zeno in 
the year 489, when he ordered the closing of the school at 
Edessa, their last refuge. Some traces of Nestorians have 
been discovered by Tillemont as late as towards the end of 
the sixth century ; ^ but their special home was no longer in 
the Boman Empire, but in the kingdom of Persia, where they 
continued to exist under the name of Chaldsean Christians, 
and whence they have spread into other countries of the 
East, to India, Arabia, China, and among the Tartars.' For a 
long time Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and later Bagdad,' was the 
residence of the Nestorian Patriarch, who, in the thirteenth 
century, was owned by no fewer than twenty-five metropoli- 
tans as their spiritual head. The terrible Tamerlane almost 
exterminated them; and only on the heights and in the 
valleys of Kurdistan have about 700,000 Nestorians main- 
tained an existence under a Patriarch of their own, who 
resided on to the seventeenth century at Mosul, and more 
recently at Cochanes, near Djulamerk in Central Kurdistan. 
A portion of the Nestorians, on the other hand, particularly 
those in the cities, have, at dififerent times and in different 
sections, become again united with the Catholic Church, 
and are likewise under a special patriarch as "Chaldaean 
Christians." Their number, however, has been reduced to an 
extraordinary extent by wars, pestilence, and cholera. 

Much more dangerous for the faith of the Church than the 
Nestorians were their extreme opponents, the Monophysites, 
whose heresy was soon discovered, and was smitten with 
anathema at the fourth (Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon in 
the year 451, scarcely twenty years after the holding of the 
Council of Ephesus. Before, however, this new heresy became 
the subject of synodal proceedings, several other less important 
ecclesiastical assemblies took place in the meantime, of which 
we must give an account in the next book. 

^ M^moire»t t xiv. p. 615 sqq. 

'On the later history of the Nestorians, cf. Assemani, Di$$, de SyrU 
NeHorianis in his Biblioth, Orient, t. iii P. iL, and in the Kirchenkxieon of 
Wetzer and Welte, «.v. Nestorianer and ChaicUUache Christen, Bd. iL a 448, 
and Bd. riL S. 522 ; Silbernagel, Ver/asmng «. gegenwdriiger zuttand sSmnU- 
Ucher Kvrchen des Orients, Landshut 1865, S. 211 if., and S. 800 ff. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



BOOK X. 

THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH 
(ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. 



CHAPTER L 

THE SYNODS HELD BEFORE THE BREAKING OUT OF THE 
EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 

Sec. 161. Synod at Riez in the year 439. 

A CONTESTED appointment to the episcopal see of 
Embrun (JEbredunum) gave occasion, in the year 439, 
for the Synod at Eiez {Regium) in Provence (Synodtts 
Hegensie). As political metropolis of the Gallic province of 
Alpes Maritimce, Embrun also laid claim to ecclesiastical 
metropolitan rights. But Archbishop Hilary of Aries, who 
endeavoured, at the expense of the metropolitans, to extend 
his primaiial rights beyond measure (see below, § 165), 
treated Embrun as one of his suffragan sees, and when, in 
the year 438, without his concurrence, and certainly in an 
tincanonical manner, chiefly by lay influence, Armentarius 
was raised to the see of Embrun, and was consecrated by 
(only) two bishops, Hilary held, on the 29 th of November 
439, a Synod at Eiez,' at which, besides himself, twelve 
bishops and one representative priest were present from 
various political provinces of South-Eastem GauL The names 
of those present are found in the subscription of the acts. 
The canons are : — 

> Cf. on this subject P. de Marca, De Primatibus, c. 78, p. 52, where it is 
shown that Pope Gregory the Great, and afterwards Pope Hilary, rejected the 
pretensions of the Archbishop of Aries, and restored the metropolitans, whom 
he had wronged, to their rights. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



158 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL.^ 

1. "As the two bishops who consecrated Armentarias did 
so not from wickedness, but from ignorance, they shall not be 
excluded from Church communion, but in accordance with 
the decree of a Synod at Turin (a.d. 401, c. 3 ; see voL iL 
p. 427), they shall not, during the rest of their life, take part 
either in an ordination or at a council. 

2. " The ordination of Armentarius is void (irrita), and a 
fresh appointment is to be made to the see of Embrun. 

3. "In reference to the fact that the Nicene Council 
(canon 8) treats schismatics much more gently than heretics, 
it is allowed that a bishop who is so inclined may grant to 
Armentarius a church in his diocese (but outside the province 
Alpina MarUima) in qua aut chorepiscopi nomine . . . atU 
peregrina ut ajunt communiane foveatur (that is, may receive 
support from the Church).^ But he must never offer the 
sacrifice in towns or in the absence of the bishop, or ordain 
any cleric, or, generally, discharge any episcopal function in 
the church which is granted to him. Only in his own 
church he may confirm {confirmare) the newly baptized. 

4. " Of those whom he has ordained to be clerics, such as 
have already been excommunicated shall be deposed; but 
those who are of good reputation may either be retained by 
the future bishop of Embrun (Ingenuus) or transferred to 
Armentarius. 

5. "Presbyters may give the benediction in families, in 
the field, and in private dwellings (but not in church), as is 
the practice in some provinces. Armentarius, however, may 
also give the benediction in churches, but only in country, 
not in town churches, and may bless virgins. He shall 
come after all the bishops and go before the priests. 

6. "In order to prevent uncanonical ordinations for the 
future, when a bishop dies, only the bishop of the, nearest 
diocese, and no other, shall be allowed to go into the bereaved 
city, in order to superintend the burial, and to guard against 
irregularities. 

7. " After seven days he, too, must leave the city again, and 

^ On the Comm. Peregr. ct below canon 2 of the Synod of Agde, in the year 
506 (§ 222), and canon 16 of the Synod of Serida (§ 237). Cf. Kober, 
Stupenskm etc, S. 8 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT ORANOB, A.D. 441. 159 

no bishop is again to enter it, except at the command of the 
metropolitan. 

8. " When the times are peaceable, in accordance with the 
ancient (Nicene) law, two Synods shall be held annually.'* ^ 

These eight canons are found in the same form in all the 
ancient manuscripts, with one single exception, that of a codex 
of the Isidorian collection, belonging to the Church of Urgel, 
which omits the eighth canon and substitutes two others in its 
place. The first of these threatens with excommunication all 
who rise in rebellion against the Church and its leaders ; the 
second, with canon 8, orders, although in other words, the 
holding of two provincial Synods in each year. Baluzius, 
who first edited these two canons,^ remarks correctly that this 
last canon is borrowed from the Synod of Antioch of the year 
341. It is in fact almost verbally identical with its 20th 
canon. 

Sec. 162. Synod at Orange, a.d. 441. 

A second Gallican Synod was held November 8, 441, in 
the church which is known as the Ecdma Jttstinianensis or 
Justianensis, in the diocese of Orange. It is therefore called 
Justinianensis or AravsUana i, and as Orange lies in the 
south-east of France, and was subject to the Metropolitan of 
Airles, S. Hilary presided also on this occasion, and among the 
sixteen other bishops who were present we find several other 
members of the previous Synod. Moreover, the neighbouring 
province of Lyons was also represented by its Metropolitan, 
Eucherius, who at the same time subscribed in the name of 
all his suffragans. Occasion for the holding of this Synod was 
given, as its 29 th canon shows, by the provision at Eiez, which 
decided that the institution of provincial Synods should again 
be brought into action. The thirty canons which were passed 

^ Mansi, t v. p. 1189 sq., with notes yarioram. Without these in Sinnond, 
Condi, OaU, t L p. 05 sqq., and Hardonin, t. L p. 1747. A new revision of the 
text of these canons was made by the monks of S. Manr in their new coUection 
of the Gallican Synods, of which only the first yolome appeared in 1789, reprinted 
bj Bnms, BihHoth. Becks, t i. P. iL p. 116 sqq. 

' Reprinted in Mansi, tc p. 1194 sq. ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1751 ; and Brons, 
l.c p. 121. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



160 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

by this Synod, and which became the subject of many learned 
and specially of canonistical controversies, are as follow :* — 

1. "If heretics in a mortal sickness wish to become 
Catholics, then in the absence of the bishop a priest may 
mark them with the chrism and benediction," that is, may 
give them confirmation.' 

2. " Priests who are allowed to baptize should always be 
provided with the chrism. Anointing with the chrism we (in 
Gaul) will allow to be conferred only once ;* and if it has from 
any reason been omitted at baptism, this must be told to the 
bishop at confirmation. A repetition of the anointing has 
indeed, in itself, nothing against it, but is not necessary." 

This is probably the sense of this obscure canon, whose place 
in the text is not quite certain. Sirmond and Petrus Aurelius 
had a great controversy over it* 

3. " When penitents fall ill, then the Communion, the Viati- 
cum, shall be given to them without the reconciling laying on of 
hands (that is, solemn reconciliation). That alone is sufficient 
for the dying. If, however, they recover, they must again 
take their place in the order of penitents, and only after the 
performance of the proper works of penance receive the regular 
Communion Qegitimam communionem), together with reconcil- 
ing laying on of hands." 

Some understand by the Communion, which is here allowed 
to the dying, only the communio precum, but not the holy 
Eucharist. But they are certainly wrong. Cf Frank, Die 
Bussdisciplin der Kirche, Mainz 1867, S. 736 and 905; 
Eemi Ceillier, Histoire des autmrs sacr^s, etc., t xiiL p. 779. 
Something similar to this was before ordered by the Synod of 
Nicaea (canon 13) and the supposed fourth Synod of Carthage, 
A.D. 398 (canons 76-78); see vol ii. p. 416 £ 

^ Printed in Sirmond, ConciL OaUi<B, t L p. 71 ; Hardonin, t L p. 1783. 
Best in Mansi, t vi p. 434 sqq., and Bruns, Lc, p. 122 sqq. (Here with the 
variations of Uie S. Maur edition, cf. above, note 1, p. 159.) 

' Ck>mpare Sirmond^s note on this canon in Mansi, t. vi p. 443 sq. 

* This was otherwise in Rome, where the chrism was applied twice, at baptism 
and at confirmation ; and this is now the oniversal practice. 

* Cf. Mayer, Oeaeh, des KatechumenaU, Keropten 1868, S. 188. Da Pixi, 
NovdU Biblioth, t. iy. p. 867, t. xviL p. 204, and Sirmond*8 note in Manid, Lc 
p. 444. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT ORANGE, A,D. 441. 161 

4. " To clerics who request penance it is not to be denied." 
It is doubtful whether this canon speaks only of private or 

also of public penance. In ancient times, at least, it was held 
to be incompatible with the dignity of a spiritual person that 
he should do penance in public. It was thought preferable to 
depose him. So says Pope Siricius, about the year 390, in 
his letter to Himerius, c. 14 : Pomitentiam agere cuiquam non, 
concediiur dericonim} The thirteenth Council of Toledo, on 
the contrary (can. 10), allows penance to the clergy without 
deposition, if they have not committed a capital crime.^ In a 
simOar sense our canon is to be understood.' 

5. " If any one has taken refuge in a church he shall not 
be given up, but shall be sheltered from respect to the sacred 
place." 

6. " If any one has in this way lost a servant, he shall not 
take the servant of a. clergyman as amends, under penalty of 
anathema." 

7. "If any one shall seek to deprive of liberty one who has 
been set free in the church, he shall suffer the ecclesiastical 
penalty." 

8. " A bishop shall not ordain the clergyman of another 
diocese unless he takes him to himself; and not in that case 
without having consulted the bishop in whose diocese he was 
formerly." 

9. " If any one has ordained men from another diocese, he 
must, if they are blameless, either employ them himself or 
obtain for them the forgiveness of their own bishop." 

10. "If a bishop founds a church in a strange diocese, 
with permission of its bishop, which it were besides sinful to 
refuse, the right to consecrate that church does not belong to 
him, but to the other bishop. In this church, moreover, he 
has not the right of institution, but only of presentation. If a 
layman has built a church, he must ask no other bishop but 
that of the diocese to consecrate it" 

11. "A bishop must have no communion with any one 
whom another bishop has excommunicated." 

12. "If any one becomes suddenly dumb, he may be 

* In Hardonin, t i. p. 851. * Hardonin, t. iii. p. 1745. 

> Cf. Sirmond'B note in Mansi, I.e. p. 444; and Kober, Deposition etc. S. 71 f. 

in. L 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



162 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

admitted to baptism or penance, if he indicates his wish for it 
by signs/* 

13. "To those who have lost their reason, all possible 
blessings of religion (ffucecunqtie pietatis sunt) shall be granted " 
(i.e. prayer, baptism, the anointing of the sick; the holy 
Eucharist, however, was only given to those who had asked for 
it while they were in possession of reason).^ 

14. "Persons possessed, who have already been baptized 
and have given themselves into the care and guidance of the 
clergy, may communicate, in order to strengthen themselves 
against the attacks of the evil spirit, or to purify themselves 
from them." (Cf. c. 37 of the Synod of Elvira.) 

15. " Persons possessed, who are only catechumens, may be 
baptized when it is necessary or suitable." 

16. "Those who have been once publicly possessed by a 
demon shall not be ordained. If such have been already 
ordained, they shall lose their office." 

17. "At the same time with the Capsa (Ciborium), the 
chalice is to be brought and is to be sanctified (consecrare) with 
a small portion of the Eucharist." 

The learned Eemi Ceillier {Lc. p. 782) explains this obscure 
canon thus : In the ancient Church they had at each solemn 
mass a host consecrated at an earlier mass laid on the altar ; 
and in the Eoman Church at the very beginning of the mass, 
in the Gallican Church somewhat later, but before the con- 
secration, the deacon brought forward this formerly consecrated 
host in a special vessel (Capsa)? Our canon then requires 
that this custom shall be retained, and this Capsa shdl be 
always placed upon the altar at the same time with the 
chalice, and further that a particle from this Capsa shall be 
thrown into the chalice. Instead of in/erendtis est calix, some 
codices read offerendtcs (it is to be offered), but the majority 
of manuscripts have inferendus. Finally, the sense of consecrare 
is explained by the words hoec commixtio et conseci'atio etc., 
which we still recite at the mixture of the host and 
chalice. 

* Of. Sinnond's note a. h. L 

• Cf. on this subject Meckell, Abhandlung Hber die rifmtschen Ordina, in the 
Tubingen Theol, QuartaUchr. 1862, 8. 81. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT ORANGE, A.D. 441. 163 

18. "The Gospel shall be read in the presence of the 
catechumens." 

19. "They shall not (before the time of their baptism) 
enter the baptistery." 

20. "At family devotions they shall not receive the 
benediction at the same time with the faithful, but shall 
separate themselves from the rest and remain separate for the 
benediction." 

21. "If two bishops have ordained a third in opposition to 
his will, they shall both be deposed, and he who has been 
thus ordained shall, if he is otherwise upright, receive one of 
the two sees thus vacated. If, however, they have consecrated 
him with his consent, he shall also be deposed " (in accordance 
with c. 4 of Nicaea). 

22. " Married men shall not henceforth be ordained deacons, 
unless they have previously vowed chastity." 

23. " He who, after receiving ordination to the diaconate, 
shall have intercourse with his wife, shall be deposed." 

24. " Those, however, who, at an earlier period (before the 
passing of this law), were ordained deacons and have fallen 
back into married intercourse, are excepted from this punish- 
ment But, in accordance with the decrees of the Synod of 
Turin (c. 8 ; see vol ii. p. 427), they must not be advanced to 
higher dignity." 

25. " Persons twice married, in case they are received into 
the number of the clergy by reason of their upright conduct, 
shall not be advanced higher than to the subdiaconate." 

26. " Deaconesses shall no longer be ordained, and (in divine 
service) they shall receive the benediction only in common 
with the laity (not among those holding clerical oflBces)." 

27. "The vow of widowhood must be made in presence of 
the bishop, in the secretarium,^ and is to be indicated by the 
widow's dress which the bishop confers. If any one violates 
such widows, he shall be punished ; and she herself, if she 
again leaves the condition of widow." 

' The Secrekmum is a building adjoining the church, which embraced several 
dirisions, DktcarUcumf ScUtUcUorium, and MeUUorium, and in which Synods 
were often held. Cf. Binterim, Denkw. Bd. iy. ThL 1, S. 139 ff. [Cf. 
I>ictkmaryo/ChrigLAntiquUie8,a.v,] 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



164 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

28. " If any one breaks the vow of virginity, he is to suffer 
the ecclesiastical penalty." 

29. "That which is here decreed shall henceforth have 
validity. Those are blamed who have not appeared at the 
Synod, either personally or by representatives, and have 
despised the prescriptions of the Fathers, according to which 
two Synods ought to be held annually, which, however, at 
present is not perhaps possible. Every future Synod shall be 
announced at the previous one, and the next shall be held on 
the 18th of October next year (442) at Ludanum, also in the 
province of Orange. Those bishops who are not now present 
shall receive notice of it from Hilary." 

30. "If a bishop has become ill or feeble, or if he can no 
longer speak, he must not have his episcopal functions dis- 
charged by a priest in his presence, but shall invite a neigh- 
bouring bishop to assist him." 

Besides these thirty genuine canons, several other ordinances 
are ascribed to one Synod by Gratian (in the Corp. jur. can.) 
and others, which, however, have no authority. Mansi {Lc. 
p. 441 sqq.) has also printed them. They treat of excom- 
munication, of the reception of the excommunicated, of the 
fast on Easter Eve,^ which, except in the case of children and 
the sick, was not to end before the beginning of the night ; 
finally, of the fact that on Good Friday and Easter Eve the 
holy mysteries were not to be celebrated. 

Sec. 163. First Synod at Vaison, a.d. 442. 

The Council which had been ordered by the twenty-ninth 
canon of the previous Synod to be held on October 18, 442, at 
Lucianum, took place not there, but at Vaison {Vasio), a 
neighbouring episcopal city {Concilium Vasense), on November 
13, 442. The subscriptions to the Acts have been lost, and 
therefore we do not know what or how many bishops were 
present there, or who presided. Ado, archbishop of Vienna, 
in the ninth century, mentions his predecessor, Nectarius of 
Vienne, as president of this Synod ; but it is hardly credible 

' Cf. my ahort treatise on the fast on Easter Eve in the BHlrage zur Kirdken* 
gench, etc., Bd. iL S. 292. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SYNOD AT VAISON, A.D. 441 165 

that such an honour should have been accorded in the ecclesi- 
astical province of Aries to another metropolitan than that of 
Aries itsel£^ The ten canons of Vaison are the following :^ — 

1. ^Gallic bishops, who travel in Gaul, need no special 
testimonial, as they are all neighbours of each other." 

2. " When people who, after undertaking penance, lead a 
good life in satisfactory penitence, and die imexpectedly 
without the communion in the field or on a journey, oblations 
shall be accepted for them, and their funeral and their memory 
shall be celebrated with ecclesiastical love. For it were 
wrong if the memory of those were excluded from the saving 
sacrifice who longed for those mysteries with a believing mind, 
and who, while they regarded themselves for a considerable 
time as unworthy of the holy mysteries on account of their 
sins, and longed to be readmitted to them when they had 
been purified more, suddenly died without the viaticum 
of the sacraments, when the priest perhaps had not refused 
them the ahsohUissima reconciliatio."^ In distinction from 
the absoluiissima reconciliation the recondliatio minor consisted 
in reception into the fourth degree of penitence. 

3. " Priests and deacons in the country shall shortly before 
Easter apply for the chrism, not to some favourite bishop, 
but to their own, and shall bring it away themselves, or at 
least by a sub-deacon, and by no one of lower rank.'* 

4. "If any one shall refuse to make over the pious 
bequests of the dead to the Church, he must be treated as 
an unbeliever." 

5. ** If any one shall be unable to acquiesce in the judg- 
ment of his bishop, he shall have recourse to the S}mod." 

6. ** In accordance with a passage of the (pretended) letter of 
the Boman Clement to James, no one shall have intercourse with 
people of whom he knows that they are hostile to the bishop." 

7. "Bishops must not come forward as frivolous accusers 
(of their colleagues before the Synod). If a bishop believes 

* Cf. Tillemont, MSmoireSy etc., t xv. p. 69. "Remi Ceillier, l.c, p. 784. 

* In Sirmond, ConcU. OaU. t. i. p. 76 sqq. ; Hardoain, t i. p. 1787 sq. ; 
Manm, t. tL p. 451 sqq. ; Brans, 2.e. p. 127 (with the variations of the incom- 
plete S. Maur collection of CanciL Oall See above, p. 159, note 1). 

* Ct Frank, Die Bussdiadplin, 1867, S. 734 and 912 f ; and Kober, Kirckfti- 
hann etc., a 527 £ 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



1C6 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

(and proposes) that any one (i,e. a colleague) shall be excom- 
municated, and the other bishops make intercession that he 
shall (only) be reprimanded and otherwise punished, then he 
shall not further disturb the brother with reference to whom 
there is question, when punishment and warning are pro- 
nounced upon him. If, however, he believes that excommuni- 
cation is necessaiy on accoimt of his offences, then he shall 
formally appear as accuser, for it is reasonable that what is 
proved (certain) to one (himself) may also be proved to others." 

8. " If a bishop is the only one who knows of the offence 
of another (bishop), he shall not bring anything of the matter 
forward, so long as he can prove nothing, but shall endeavour 
to awaken penitence in the offender by private exhortations. 
If this is unavailing, and he becomes only more defiant, and 
mixes himself in public communion (as by taking part in the 
Synod), then, even if the accusing bishop can produce no 
proof, and he cannot be condemned by those who do not 
certainly know of his offence, yet he shall be required to 
withdraw for a time (apparently from the Synod) because a 
person of distinction has accused him. But so long as nothing 
is proved, he remains in Church communion with all, except 
him who knows of his guilt." 

I believe I have, in the previous somewhat free trans- 
lation, rightly explained this most obscure and difficult 
canon, which was not generally understood. It is in contra- 
diction with c. 5 (132) of the seventeenth Synod of Carthage, 
of the year 419. See voL ii p. 476. 

9. " If any one has found a child which has been exposed, 
he shall, in accordance with the edict of the Emperors 
(Honorius and Theodosius n.), give notice of it to the Church, 
and on the following Sunday the minister (probably the sub- 
deacon) shall announce at the altar that such a child has been 
found, and that it can be taken away within ten days. During 
these ten days the finder shall retain it, and shall for this 
receive his reward from men, or, if he prefers it, from God." 

The law of March 19, 412, adduced in this canon, printed 
in Mansi (t vi. p. 458), assigns the foundling to the finder 
as his property, if witnesses declare that it has not been 
claimed, and the bishop signs this testimony. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SECOND SYNOD OF ARLES, A.D. 448 OK 452. 167 

10. "K any one, after the passing of this law, demands 
back a child thus acquired (passed over into the possession of 
a stranger), and slanders (the finder, as if he had stolen it), he 
shall be punished by the Church as a murderer." 

The child remained the property, the bondsman, of the finder* 

Sec. 164. Second Synod of Aries, A.D. 443 or 452. 

Many learned men, particularly Peter de Marca, Baluzius, 
Quesnel in his edition of the works of Leo the Great (t ii 
Diss, v.), and Eemi Ceillier (t xiii. p. 786), assign to the year 
443 that Synod of Aries which is ordinarily known as 
Arelatensis ii., while that of the year 314 is regarded as the 
first, and that of 353 is not reckoned, as being Arian. Others, 
particularly Sirmond, Hardouin, and Mansi, refer it to the 
year 452 ; while some (e.g. Binius) think it should be fixed 
almost a hundred years earlier, because it speaks of apostasy 
from Christianity. The last reason is certainly not suflScient, for 
even in the middle of the fifth century, especially in the pro- 
vinces possessed by the barbarians, apostasy might frequently 
take place. Whether, however, we are to prefer 443 or 452, 
even the industry and acumen of Tillemont have not been 
able to decida^ 

The explanation of the last canon of this Synod of Aries, 
vrhich gives instructions to the metropolitans (in the majority), 
leaves us to suppose that it was not a mere provincial council, 
but included bishops from several provinces. Their names 
have not come down to us; probably, however, S. Hilary of 
Aries presided, especially as the assembly took place at the 
capital of his province. It promulgated fifty-six canons, of 
which many are merely repetitions of ordinances of earlier 
Synods, particularly of those of Orange and Vaison, of the first 
of Aries, and of Nicaea.^ Their contents are as follow : — 

1. " A neophyte must not be ordained a priest or deacon." 

1 M6moires, t xv. p. 843. CL Remi Chillier, t xv. p. 601 ; Walch, Hist, 
der Kirchenvers. S. 294. 

* These fifty -six canons are printed in Sirmond, Lc, p. 103 sqq. ; Hardouin, 
t. iL p. 771 sqq.; Mansi, t vii p. 876 sqq.; Brans, lc. p. 130 sqq. (according 
to the edition of S. Maur, cf. ahoye, p. 159, note 1). 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



168 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

2. " A married man is not to be made a priest unless his 
conversion (i,e vow of chastity) has preceded." 

3. " Under penality of excommunication, no cleric, from a 
deacon upwards, shall have a woman in his house, except his 
grandmother, mother, daughter, niece, or his own wife, but 
after she too has taken the vow of chastity. The like punish- 
ment with himself shall the woman also receive if she will 
not separate from him." 

4. " No deacon, priest, or bishop shall allow a girl to enter 
his chamber, whether a free woman or a slave." 

5. " Without the metropolitan, or his written permission, 
and (vel= ety without their comprovincial bishops no bishop 
is to be consecrated. The others (comprovincials) shall be 
requested to give their adhesion in writing. If a controversy 
arise respecting the election of a bishop, the metropolitan shall 
agree with the majority." 

Compare the more ancient ordinances on the election and 
consecration of a bishop in vol. i pp. 195, 381, 386 f. ; voL 
ii. pp. 72, 73, 130, 307. 

6. "If any one is consecrated without the consent of the 
metropolitan, in accordance with the previous ordinance of 
the great Synod, he cannot be a bishop." 

Cf. the sixth canon of Nicaea, vol. i. p. 388 flF. 

7. "Those who mutilate themselves, because otherwise 
they are unable to resist the flesh, cannot be made clerics." 

C£ voL L p. 376 f. and p. 466. 

8. " If any one is excommunicated by a bishop, he must 
not be received by another." 

Cf. vol i. pp. 193 f., 196, 386 f., 462 f., 471 ; vol il pp. 
68, 147 f. 

9. " A Novatian must not be received, unless he has shown 
a spirit of penitence and has condemned his error." 

Cf. vol i p. 409 f. 

10. "In reference to those who have shown themselves 
weak in persecution, the (eleventh) Nicene canon (which is 
cited here according to the translation of Bufinus) shall be 
observed." 

11. "Those who have been constrained by tortures to 

^ Cf. Du CoDge, Olossar. 8,h.v, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SECOND SYNOD OF ARLES, A.D. 443 OR 452. 169 

apostatize, shall spend two years among the audientes, and 
three years among the penitents (third grade)." 
Cf. voL i p. 206. 

12. "If any one dies during his time of penitence, his 
oblation shall be accepted (ablatio illttcs »u8cipiatur)." 

See above, c. 2 of Vaison, p. 165. 

13. "No cleric shall, under penalty of excommunication 
(here and frequently = (fep{w^io7i), leave his church. If, 
while he is staying elsewhere, he is ordained by the bishop 
of that place without the consent of his own, this ordination is 
mvalid." 

Ct Kober, Deposition etc. 

14. " If a cleric lends money on usury, or rents another's 
property, or for the sake of unclean gain carries on any 
business, he must be deposed and excommunicated " {deposUtis 
a clero cammtmione alienus fiat). 

15. "A deacon may not sit in the secretarium among the 
priests ; and if a priest is present, he must not administer the 
body of Christ, under penalty of deposition," 

Cf. vol i p. 426 f. . 

16. "The Photinians or Paulinians (adherents of Photinus 
of Sirmium and Paul of Samosata) must, in accordance with 
the prescriptions of the Fathers, be rebaptized." 

Cf. voL L p. 430, voL ii. p. 302. 

17. "The Bonosians (= Antidicomarianites), however, 
because, like the Arians, they baptize in the name of the 
Trinity, shall be taken into the Church by merely receiving 
the chrism and the imposition of hands." 

18. "Synods are to be summoned according to the discre- 
tion of the Bishop of Aries, in which city (Aries), in the 
time of S. Marinus (Archbishop of Aries), a council of bishops 
from all parts of the world, especially from Gaul, was 
celebrated (namely, the first Sjmod of Aries in the year 314). 
Whoever is, through weak health, unable to come himself, 
shall send a representative." 

19. " If any one fails to come, or of his own accord leaves 
before the termination of the Synod, he will be excluded a 
fratrum communione, and can be taken back into communion 
only by the next Synod." 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



170 HIoTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Onr'the meaning of excommunication in this case, cf. vol iL 
p. ^24, c. 11, and c. 20 of Chalcedon, c. 6 of Tarragona, 
A.?. 516. Kober, Kirchenbann etc., S. 43. 
/ 20. "Horse and carriage drivers (agitatores) and actors, as 
^long as they continue in that manner of life, are excom- 
municated." 

Cf. canons 4 and 5 of the first Synod of Aries, A.D. 314, 
vol. L p. 186 f. 

21. "If a female penitent after the death of her husband 
marries another, or enters into suspicious intercourse with 
him, she shall be excommunicated, along with her fellow- 
offender. So with the man who has been a penitent." 

The reference here may be either to penitence in the proper 
sense, or to the vow of asceticism, which was also called 
pxniteivtia (cf. Du Cange, Glossar., and under a 15 of the Sjmod 
of Agde, A.D. 5 6). One who had undertaken pcenitentia in the 
latter sense could of course no longer marry ; but also during 
the time of penitence in the ordinary sense, no one was 
allowed to marry, and those who were married had no sexual 
intercourse. This enables us to undeijtand also the following 
canon. 

22. "Married persons can be admitted to. penitence only 
with the permission of the other partner." 

23. "A bishop must not permit unbelievers in his diocese 
to light torches or trees in honour of fountains or rocka If 
he fails to prevent this, he has made himself guilty of 
sacrilege. The proprietor of the place, moreover, who 
permits such in defiance of warning given, shall be excom- 
municated." 

24. "If any one fsdsely imputes a capital crime to another, 
he shall be excommunicated to the end of his life, as the 
great Synod (the first of Aries, canon 14) ordains, unless he 
has done penance by sufficient satisfaction." 

25. " If any one, after taking a monastic vow, apostatizes 
(from the monastic state), and returns again into the world, 
he cannot, without penance, be received to communion, and 
cannot become a cleric." 

Canons 26 to 46 inclusive = canons 1 to 26 of the first 
Synod of Orange. See above, p. 160. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNODS AT ROME AND BESANCON, A.D. 444 AND 446. 171 

Canons 47 and 48= canons 4 and 5 of Synod of Vaison. 
See above, p. 166. 

49. ''The excommunicated is excluded not only from 
intercourse and conversation with the clergy, but also from 
that of the laity, imtil he reforma'* 

50. "Those who have public enmity towards each other, 
must not be present at divine service, until they are 
i-econciled." 

51=9 and 10 of the Synod of Vaison in reference to 
children exposed. See above, p. 167. 

52. "If virgins who have devoted themselves to God still 
marry after their twenty-fifth year, they shall, with those who 
have married them, be deprived of commimion, but shall be 
admitted to penance when they wish it. Communion con- 
sequent upon this penance shall not be administered to them 
for some time." 

53. "If a slave commits suicide, no reproach shall fall 
upon his master." 

54. " If a bishop is to be elected, three candidates shall be 
named by the comprovincial bishops, with exclusion of all 
bribery and all ambition, and of these three the clergy and 
(re/) citizens of the city may choose one." 

On vd = et, see p. 168, canon 5. 

56. "If a layman, out of love for a religious life, has 
betaken himself to the bishop of another diocese, this bishop, 
after having instructed him, shall retain him." 

56. "The metropolitans shall violate no ordinance of the 
great Synod." 

In canon 6 the Council of Nicsea is called magna Syriodus, 
-while in canon 24 this name is given to the first of Aries. 
In this place, however, it is certainly the present second 
Synod of Aries which is meant, and it is all Synods like the 
present which are referred to in canons 18 and 19. 

Sec. 165. Synods at Rome and Besangon, A.D. 444 and 445. 

In the first days of the year 444, or shortly before, a sect 
of new Manichfieans, probably Priacillianists, was discovered 
in the city of Rome. Pope Leo the Great on this account held. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



172 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

probably in January 444, a great assembly of bishops, clergy, 
senators, and other distinguished laymen, in order to expose the 
indecencies and excesses of this sect Their own bishop and 
other leading persons presented a complete confession, and Leo 
had a minute of the proceedings drawn up, which he sent 
abroad in all directions. We see this from his sixteenth dis- 
course, and from his seventh letter, which is dated on January 
30, 444/ The Acts of this Synod have not come down to us. 
In the same year, 444, Archbishop Hilary of Aries held a 
Gallican Synod. It is well known that Hilary was endeavour- 
ing to obtain for his see the primacy over the whole of Gaul, 
and for this purpose made many encroachments upon other 
provinces. In particular, he claimed the right that all the 
bishops [of Gaul] should be consecrated by him, and not by 
their own metropolitans.^ An encroachment of another kind 
is mentioned in the already quoted letter of Pope Leo the 
Great, and in the Vita Hilarii by Honoratus Massiliensis,* 
according to which Hilary, at a Gallican Synod, probably 
at Besanijon {Synodus Vesontionensis), pronounced the deposi- 
tion of Celidonius^ the bishop of that city, although he 
belonged to another province, because, while yet a layman, he 
had married a widow. Of the other members of this Synod 
only S. Germanus of Auxerre is known to us, who is mentioned 
by the biographer of Hilary (/.c). Celidonius, however, refused 
to recognize the sentence of the Synod, and went to Rome in 
order to seek for protection and assistance from Pope Leo. 
Hilary followed directly afterwards, in order by his personal 
presence to secure a fair consideration of the case. Pope Leo 
thereupon, as it appears, held in the year 445 a Synod at Rome 
{Concilium Sacerdotum), where Hilary was required to bring 
forward his proofs against Celidonius ; but he could not show 
that the wife of Celidonius had really been a widow, and that 
to which he appealed did not consist of facts, but of secrets 
of conscience. Probably he intended to maintain that the 

^ Leonis Opp, ed. Bailer, t L pp. 50 and 628 ; Mansi, t. vi p. 459 ; ct 
Baron, ad onit. 444, n. 1 sqq. ; Pagi, Crit, mAnncUet Baron, ad arm, 444, n. 2 ; 
Tillemont, Z.c. t. xv. 426. 

' Cf. Eput, 10 of Leo the Great, to the bishops of the province of Vienne, in 
t i. p. 632 of Ballerini's edition, and in Mansi, t. v, p. 1243, c 2. 

» Printed in Mansi, t vL p. 461 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ORIENTAL SYKODS AT EPHESUS, ANTIOCH, AND HIERAPOLIS. 173 

woman in question, before she married Gelidonius, had 
privately known another man. The consequence was, that 
Pope Leo declared the sentence of the Gallic Synod invalid, 
and restored Celidonius to his bishopria^ 

Sec. 166. Thru Oriental Synods at Ephesm, at Antioch, and 
in the province of Hierapolis, 

Bishop Bassianus of Ephesus, in the eleventh session of the 
fourth CEcumenical Synod at Chalcedon, refers to a provincial 
Council at Ephesus, which must have taken place between the 
fortieth and fiftieth years of the fifth century. He relates 
here : " From his youth up he had assisted the poor, and at 
Ephesus he had, at his own expense, erected a poorhouse, with 
seventy bed& As he had thereby gained universal love, his 
bishop, Memnon, had become jealous, and had (in accordance 
with the saying promoveatur ut amoveatur) consecrated him 
bishop of Evazse against his will, by the application of 
physical force to such a degree that blood had flowed. He 
had, however, never entered that diocese, or accepted that 
ofiBce. After the death of Memnon, his successor. Archbishop 
Basil, had summoned a provincial Council to Ephesus, and 
had there acknowledged that violence had been done to 
Bassianus, and ordained a new bishop for Evazse." * It is of 
this provincial Synod that we have now briefly to treat. None 
of its Acts have come down to us. The further destinies of 
Bassian, however, particularly how he afterwards himself 
became Archbishop of Ephesus, and was subsequently deposed, 
we shall hear in the history of the fourth QEcumenical Council. 

In the minutes of the fourteenth session, we find a 
document which mentions a Synod at Antioch in a.d. 445.* 
This Synod was held, in the portico of the summer Secretarium, 
at Antioch by Archbishop Domnus, the successor of that John 
who was so well known in the Nestorian controversy. Many 

^ Cf. the abeve quoted Epitt. 10 of S. Leo, c. 3 ; and Tillemont, MSm, t. xv. 
p. 70 and p. 844 ; and the fifth Dissertation of Quesnel (printed in Ballerini's 
ed. of the works of Leo), which treats of this very subject 

' Hardouin, t. ii. p. 550 ; Mansi, t. y. p. 1203, and t viL p. 274 sqq. 

* In Hardouin, t ii. p. 579; Mansi, t vL p. 465, and t vii. p. 315 sqq. ; 
especiaUy p. 826 sqq., where the Acts of this Synod at Antioch are given. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



174 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

metropolitans and other bishops, altogether twenty-eight, were 
present Athanasius, bishop of Perrha, in the province 
Euphratensis, had several years before been accused by his 
own clergy, before the Patriarch Domnus of Antioch, on 
account of various offences, particularly because he had 
appropriated to himself some silver pillars which belonged 
to the Church. Domnus commissioned the metropolitan 
of Athanasius, Archbishop Panolbius of Hierapolis (the 
successor of the Nestorian Alexander), to inquire into the 
matter; but instead of appearing for trial, Athanasius re- 
signed his bishopric Because, however, Panolbius did not 
immediately ordain a new bishop for Perrha, Athanasius in a 
short time, of his own accord, resumed his see, and brought it 
about that, at the intercession of S. Cyril and of Produs of 
Constantinople, the Emperor commissioned the Patriarch 
Domnus himself to examine the matter in dispute. This 
was done at the Synod of Antioch, a.d. 445. Athanasius, 
however, did not appear, and was deposed. At the same 
time the Synod commanded that a new bishop should be 
ordained for Perrha. This command was obeyed a short time 
afterwards by a Syrian Synod in the province of Hierapolis 
(in Syria, not in Phrygia, as Walch erroneously suggests^), and 
Sabinian, hitherto abbot of a monastery, was elected, as we 
also learn from the Acts of the fourteenth session of Chalcedon. 
It is indeed not expressly spoken of there as a Synod, but it 
is said that the Metropolitan of Hierapolis and his com- 
provincial bishops had appointed Sabinian bishop of Perrha.* 
This implies a provincial Synod. It is generally assumed 
that it took place in Hierapolis itself; but Sabinian says (l.e.) 
that the metropolitan and the comprovincial bishops had come 
to him, that is, into his monastery, and thus the electing 
Synod was certainly held in the city in which Sabinian lived 
as a monk — ^perhaps in Perrha itself. In the history of the 
Council of Chalcedon we shall again meet with the three 
Synods mentioned in this section. 

1 Hist, der Kk-chenvers, S. 296. 

' Mansi, t tu. p. 817 ; Hardouin, t ii p. 573, in the letter of Sabinian to the 
Emperors. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SPANISH SYNODS IN THE YEARS 446, 4-17. 175 

Sec. 167. Spanish Synods, on account of the PriscUlianists, 
in the years 446, 447. 

*" The sending forth of the Acts of the above-named Eoman 
Council (p. 171) caused fresh attention to be directed to the 
PrisciUians in Spain also, which led to the holding of several 
Synods on their account, particularly that at Astorga (Astorica), 
in the north-west of Spain, A.D. 446, which is mentioned only 
by Idacius in his Chronicle, p. 26.^ Nothing further is 
known of it, and the suggestions which have been made are 
uncertain.* The letter of Bishop Turibius of Astorga to Pope 
L.eo the Great' allows us to suppose that he had held the 
Synod simply because of his zeal to uncloak the Priscillianists. 
Pope Leo, however, in his answer, stirred up Turibius to new 
activity,* and thus led to the holding of two other larger 
Spanish Synods, of which the one was held probably at Toledo, 
A-D. 447, the other a little later in the province of Gralicia, in 
municipio Celenensi^ Pope Leo had desired that an (Ecumenical 
Spanish Synod should be held, but the political relations made 
this impossible, as Spain was under various rulers, and these 
ordered that instead of a national Synod, two or three par- 
ticular Synods should be held. 

At the first (of Toledo) there were present the bishops of 
Hispania TairracoTiensis and Carthaginiensis, of Lusitania, and 
Ba3tica, and a creed and eighteen anathematisms are ascribed 
to this Synod.* The documents relating to it are given in 
the collections after the Acts of the Synod of Toledo of the 
year 400.^ In the creed in question for the first time the 
orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was expressed, and it was 

^ In Mansi, t, vi p. 491. 

^ C£. Mansi, t. v. p. 489 sqq. ; Florez, EspaHa Sagrada, t vi. p. 121 ; Bower, 
Oesch, der Pdpaie [History of the Popes, origlnallj written in English] under 
Pope Leo the Great 

* Printed after the 15th letter of Leo in Ballerini, t. i. p. 711 sqq., in Mansi, 
t. T. p. 1802 sqq. 

* S. Leonis M. Ep, 15 in Mansi, t t. p. 1288 sqq. 
^ Mansi, t vi. p. 491. 

* Thus by Baronins, ad ann, 447, n. 16 ; Pagi, CriUcct, ad arm. 405, n. 16 and 
17 ; andbjMandemach in his Oesch. des PrisciUianismus, Trier 1851, S. 64 ff. ; 
LiiWcert, De heeresi PrisciU. 1840, p. 107. 

7 In Mansi, t. iii. p. 1002 sqq. ; Hardooin, tip. 998 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



176 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

said of the Holy Ghost a patre Filioque procedens : ^ then the 
doctrine of the two natures in the one person of Christ was 
sharply defined, although without the exactness of Chalcedon,* 
and then it proceeded : " And the body of Christ is no ima- 
ginary one, no phantom, bat a real and true one (solidum 
atque verum) : He (hunc = Christ) felt hunger, and thirst, 
and pain, and wept, and bore all bodily trials, was at last 
crucified by the Jews, on the third day rose again, afterwards 
conversed with His disciples, and on the fortieth day after 
His resurrection ascended into heaven. This Son of man is 
also called Son of God ; and Him who is Son of God, the Lord, 
M^e call Son of man. We believe that a resurrection of 
human flesh will take place, and we teach that the human 
soul is not a divine substance or like to God, but a creature 
made by the divine wilL" 

To this are added the following eighteen anathematisms 
in opposition to the errors of the Priscillianists : — 

1. " If any one says or believes that this world and its consti- 
tution is not created by Almighty God, let him be anathema." 

2. " If any one says or believes that the Father is the 
same as the Son and the Paraclete, let him be anathema." 

3. " If any one says or believes that the Son of God is the 
same as the Father and the Paraclete, let him be anathema." 

4. " If any one says or believes that the Paraclete is the 
Father or the Son, let him be anathema." 

5. " If any one says or believes that the Son of God 
has assumed flesh only, and not a soul also, let him be 
anathema." 

6. " If any one says or believes that Christ is innascibilis, 
let him be anathema." * 

^ Pope Leo, in his letter to Tiuibius, c L, in which he sets forth the anti- 
trinitaiian doctrine of the Priscillianists, employed this expression in reference 
to the Holy Spirit : Qui de utroque processU, Mansi, t. v. p. 1290. The 
Spaniards followed these words of Leo when they osed the^io^tie. F<Mr the rest, 
the creed was recited at Rome so late as the ninth century without the Jtlioque. 
See Hergenrother in the Tubing, theol Quaartalsehrift, 1858, S. 606, 614. 

' The Monophysitism which is here opposed is that of the PriscUlians. 

' The Priscillianists denied the personal distinction in the Trinity, in the 
same way as the Sabellians. The Son was therefore, in their yiew, only a 
Power of Ood, but not eternally begotten of the Father. Cf. Walch, Ketier- 
luHtorie, Bd. iii. S. 464 f. ; and Mandemach, Z.c., S. 8 and 69. Perhaps it should 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SPANISH SYNODS IN THE YEARS 446, 447. 177 

7. " If any one says or believes that the Godhead of Christ 
is susceptible of change or of snflfering, let him be anathema." 

8. "If any one says or believes that the God of the old 
covenant is another than that of the Gospels, let him be 
anathema." 

9. " If any one says or believes that the world is made by 
another God than by Him of whom it is written : In the 
beginning God created the heaven and the earth, let him be 
anathema." 

10. •* If any one says or believes that meu's bodies will 
not arise after death, let him be anathema." 

11. ''If any one says or believes that the human soul is a 
part of God, or of the substance of God, let him be anathema." 

12. " If any one says or believes that, besides the Scrip- 
tures which the Catholic Church receives, there are others 
vrhich are to be regarded as authoritative {in auctorUaU 
habmdaa), or to be reverenced, let him be anathema." 

13. "If any one says or believes that there is only one 
nature of the Godhead and manhood in Christ, let him be 
anathema." ^ 

14. "If any one says or believes that there is anything 
\vhich can extend beyond the divine Trinity, let him be 
anathema." 

15. " If any one thinks that credit should be given to 
astrology or Mathem, let him be anathema." 

16. "If any one says that marriages which are permitted by 
the divine law are abominable (execrabilid), let him be anathema." 

17. "If any one says that we should not merely abstain 
from the flesh of birds and beasts for the sake of chastening 
the body, but that we should abominate them {execrandas esse 
carries), let him be anathema." 

18. "Whoever follows in these heresies of the sect of 
FrisciUian, or confesses them, or in holy baptism does any- 
thing in opposition to the see of Peter,^ let him be anathema." 

also be said : The Son (the Power of God) could not in fSact be bom as pare 
spirit, bat only in appearance (doceikaUy), 

1 Cf. above, p. 176. 

* In opposition to the aniversal law of the Chorch, the Prisoillianists omitted, 
in the baptismal formala, the conjanctions {et . , . et), no that Father, Son, 
and Spirit appeared identical Cf. Mandemach, Lc. S. 17. 

m. M 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



178 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



Sec. 168. Synods in Gaul, in Britain, and in Some, 
A.D. 447. 

A French and an English Synod with reference to Pela- 
gianism are generally assigned to the years 446, 447. On 
account of the wide spread of the Pelagians in England, the 
British bishops, a short time before the invasion of Britain 
by the Anglo-Saxons, summoned the French bishops to their 
assistance. The latter held a Synod, but where is unknown, 
and then sent two of their nxmiber, S. Germanus of Auxerre, 
and S. Lupus of Troyes, to England. These held a Synod 
here also, probably at St. Albans (Verulam), at which Pelagius 
and his disciple Agricola were subjected to anathema, and the 
Pelagians declared themselves defeated. This is asserted by 
the ancient biographer of S. Germanus, the priest Constantius,^ 
by Prosper in his Chronicle, ad ann, 429, and by the Vener- 
able Bede.* But Pagi, even in his time, suggested doubts as 
to the chronology, and assigned both the Synods to the year 
429.' And the same opinion is maintained by Greith (Bishop 
of S. Gallen) in his history of the ancient Irish Church.* 

A Eoman Synod of the year 447, under Pope Leo the 
Great, on the complaints of some Sicilian bishops, issued 
good decrees in order to make the spending of the property of 
the Church by careless bishops impossible.* 

Sec. 169. Synod at Antioch, a.d. 447 or 448. Two Assemblies 
at Berytus and Tyre. 

After the death of Bishop Rabulas, as we saw above, p. 155, 
his chief opponent, Ibas, the well-known admirer of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, became his successor in the see of Edessa. 
After some time, four clerics of the city, Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, 
and Eulogius, brought forward complaints against the new 

^ In his Vita 8. Oermani, lib. L c 19. 

' In his Hiit. eccL gentis Anglorum, i. 17 ; Mansi, t. vL p. 487 sqq. 

* Pagi, ad ann, 429, n. 2 sqq. Cf. Lingaxd, AnUquitieB of the Anglo-Saxon 
Church, chap. L 

* Ottch, der AUtrisehen Kirche, Freib. 1867, S. 75 f. 

^ Looms Mag. EpUt, 17 ad universoe epiaeapos per SkUiam, in Bailer, t. L 
p. 727 sqq. ; in Hand, t y. p. 1814 ; cf. t vi p. 498. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT ANTIOCH, A.D. 447 OR 448. 179 

bishop, asserting that he was endeavouring to circulate the 
Tvritings of Theodore, and thereby erroneous doctrines, and also 
to make the division again wider between the Orientals and 
the Alexandrians. They presented these accusations to Arch- 
bishop Domnus of Antioch, and he relieved them at once, as 
£aster was near, from the excommunication which Ibas had 
pronounced upon them ; the full decision, however, was 
reserved for a great Synod, which he intended to hold at 
Antioch after Easter 447 or 448. He forbade the four 
accusers, xmder threats of severe punishments, to remove from 
Antioch before the matter was brought on for consideration. 
At the numerously attended Synod, which now actually took 
place after Easter,^ the accusations against Ibas were read ; 
but as two of the accusers, Samuel and Cyrus, were no longer 
present, the matter was no further proceeded with, and these 
two men were excommunicated* They had already departed 
for Constantinople, in order to forward the case more effectually, 
and thither they were followed by the two other accusers, 
with their patron. Bishop XJranius of Himeria, a friend of 
Eutyches. They now brought their complaints before the 
Emperor, Theodosius n., and Flavian, the new Patriarch of 
Constantinople. 

The Archimandrite Eutyches, the extreme opponent of 
Nestorius, and therefore also of Theodore of Mopsuestia and 
of Ibas, supported them ; and Archbishop Flavian, too, seems 
not to have been unfavourable to them, and to have quashed 
the sentence of the Synod of Antioch, although his doing so 
was contrary to the canons of the Church.' They specially 
represented to the Emperor and the Patriarch that Domnus of 
Antioch was a friend of Ibas, €ttid therefore not an impartial 
judge, and succeeded in getting the Emperor to issue a com- 
mission to the before-named Bishop Uranius and the two 
bishops, Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus, to examine 
the matter afresh, and to add to this commission the tribune 

) The names of the bishops present are given in Hardonin, t. ii. p. 515 ; 
Mansi, t. viL p. 218. Cf. the following note. 

' We find this in the Acts of the tenth session of Chalcedon, in Hardouin, 
t. if. p. 611 sqq.; Mansi, t. yii. p. 214 sqq. 

* Ct Tillemont, Mimohres^ t xv. p. 473. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



180 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and notary Damascius.^ So Archbishop Flavian strengthened 
the commission by his deacon Eulogius. The accusers and 
the accused were required to appear before the commission ; 
and the former broiight forward accusations not only against 
Ibas, but against his cousin, the young Bishop Daniel of Carrse, 
and against John, Bishop of Theodosiopla They accused Ibas 
not only of heretical expressions and views, but also of other 
faults, particularly of squandering the property of the Church, 
and of nepotism, since he had ordained as bishop the unworthy 
and dissolute son of his brother, the Daniel just mentioned, 
although he was never at home, but was always staying at 
Edessa from love to a married woman of that city, thus 
causing great scandal, while he enriched his mistress from the 
property of the Church.* The commission held two sittings 
(not proper Synods), one at Tyre, the other at Berytus. The 
question as to which of the two was the earlier can no longer 
be answered with absolute certainty. According to the very 
improbable chronological statements in the documents relating 
to them,' the session at Tyre was held in February, that at 
Berytus on the Ist of September in the same year (448 
or 449). But, to begin with, the date " September 1 " is 
decidedly incorrect, since the clergy of Edessa, in the memorial 
which they addressed to the meeting at Berytus in favour of 
Ibas, express the wish that he may be allowed to return home 
hefore the next Easter.^ Besides, the Acts of Tyre, so to speak, 
naturally presuppose those of Berytus, since only in the latter 
are the accusations brought forward ; while in Tyre the com- 
missioners abandoned their position as jvdges in the proper 
sense of the word, and instead proposed to act as peacemakers, 
and actually were so. The Acts on the proceedings at Berytus, 
therefore, are inconclusive, and lead to no result,* and for this 
reason, that the peacemaking at Tyre was the secofid Act of 

^ The decree on the subject, dd, vL Kal. Novb., without mention of the year, 
is in HfuNiouin, t ii p. 510 ; Mansi, t. yii p. 210. 

* In Hardouin, t ii. p. 518 sq.; Mansi, t vil p. 221 sqq. Cf. Walch, 
Ketzergesch, Bd. vL 8. 75 ff. 

' In the ninth and tenth sessions of Chalcedon, in Hardouin, t it pp. 503 
and 511 ; in Mansi, t viL pp. 198 sqq. and 211 sqq. 

* Hardouin, t. ii. p. 584 ; Mansi, t yii. p. 251 ; Pagi, CrU. ad ann, 4i8, n. 10. 

* In Hardouin, t ii p. 538 ; Mansi, t vii. p. 255. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT ANTIOCH, A,D. 447 OR 448. 181 

the whole proceedings, and a continuation of the sitting at 
Berytns. This was noted already by TiUemont and Walch, 
who altered the date of the meeting at Berytus from Kal. 
Septbr. to Kal. Febnuirias} On the other hand, Pagi, Noris, 
Baronius, and Mansi place the meeting at Tyre before that at 
Berytus,* and think that, after the inhabitants of Tyre had 
been greatly offended by an insolent speech of Ibas concerning 
Christ (that He had only hecome God), it had been thought 
well to remove the meeting to Berytus. 

As far as I can judge, absolute certainty is no longer obtain- 
able on this point, but the evidence favours the priority of the 
meeting at Berytua Besides what has already been mentioned, 
the following should be considered : At Berytus, Bishop 
Uranius, the patron of the accusers, mentioned that he had 
already been present at the examination of this question at 
Constantinople and at AntiocL As he was also present at 
Tyre, if the meeting there had been past, he would certainly 
have said : " I was present at Constantinople, Antioch, and 
Tyre." It is also impossible to decide whether the meetings 
at Berytus and Tyre took place in the year 448 or in 449. 
The expression of the Acts : Post considatum Flavii Zenonis et 
Postumiani^ is taken by some of the learned as identical with 
suh eanstUatu etc, and in that case the year 448 would be 
indicated. Others, however, interpret the word post quite 
strictly, and decide, therefore, for the year 449.* On the 
contents and details of the proceedings at Berytus and Tyre, 
we need not speak more fully until we come to consider the 
history of the ninth and tenth sessions of Chalcedon. 

' Tillemont, t xv. p. 474 sq. and p. 897 aq. ; Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. vi. S. 69, 
and Hist, der Kirchenvers. S. 299. In opposition to this hypothesis, reference 
might be made to the statements of the indictments in the Acts of Tyrus and 
Beiytns, since that of Tyre is noted as Indid, i., that of Berytus as Indict, ii. 
But Tillemont has remarked (Ic.) that such statements of indictments are often 
inaccurate and later additions. . He is mistaken, however, when he thinks that 
the 10th of the month Peritius, according to the Syrian reckoning, is not the 
26th of February, as is stated in the Acts of Tyre. Ct Ideler, Ltkrb, der 
Ckronologle, S. 182. 

' Hansi, t vi. pp. 499-502 ; Pagi, ad ann, 548, n. 9. 

* In Hardouin, t. ii pp. 503 and 511 ; Mansi, t vii. pp. 198 and 211. 

* So Noris, Tillemont, Pagi, and Walch. Baronius, on the contrary, and 
Mansi (vi. p. 501) are for the year 448. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



CHAPTER II. 

EUTYCHES AND THE SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 

Sec. 170. The MonophysUes begin the Conflict. Bishops Irenasus 
and Theodaret are persecuted. 

WHEN the Nestorian heresy began to separate too widely 
the two natures in Christ, the Godhead and the man- 
hood, its false opponent, Monophysitism, was abeady in exist- 
ence, namely, that which made the two natures unite or coalesce 
into one.^ This was at the time called Apollinaiianism ; 
and as certainly as S. Cjrril did not deserve the reproach of 
ApoUinarianism, so is it certain, on the other side, that not 
only the orthodox, but also those who held Monophysite 
opinions, took their place under his banner on the supposition 
that they might venture to regard him as their advocate. His 
anathematisms, especially the third, seemed to justify this 
supposition. But Cyril not only opposed Nestorianism, but 
also avoided the rock that lay over against it, and expressed 
this with remarkable clearness at the establishment of peace 
in the Church with the Orientals (see above, pp. 128, 131 ft). 
From that time no one could any longer be in doubt as to his 
holding the orthodox Diophysitism. At the same time he 
united with this that wise moderation which required only 
the triumph of the dogma, but not the overthrow of its 
previous opponents. For this reason it was only necessary 
that Nestorius alone should be anathematized, and that the 
anathema on him should be universally recognized — all other 

^ According to Theodoret, JSpUL 88 ad IHodcur,, some taught ''that the 
divine nature was often changed into the hnman, that the human was changed 
into the divine.'* This latter is Entychianism proper. An earlier form of the 
error, on the contrary, as Eaterkamp remarks (Kirchengesch. Bd. iii S. 162>, 
was taoght hy several ApoUinarians of that time, who took in a quite literal 
sense the sentence, " the Word was made flesh." 

18S 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE MONOPHYSITES BEGIN THE CONFLICT. 183 

opponents were forgiven.^ For this reason, however, as we 
saw before, p. 139, he was met with the reproach of treachery 
by many of his previous adherents; and although some of 
them, like Isidore of Pelusium, made the charge only from a 
misunderstanding, the others did so on intelligible grounds 
from their Monophysite point of view. As we also saw, Cyril 
defended himself with perfect clearness ; but they persisted 
in requiring that anathema should be pronounced on all who 
spoke of tioo natures in Christ after the union of the Godhead 
and the manhood. So it was with Acacius of Melitene, Sue- 
census of Diocaesarea, and others. That even in Egjrpt there 
were not a few of Monophysite opinions is asserted by Isidore 
of Pelusium,' and this was shown, too, by the course of history. 
It was chiefly in the monasteries that this error had found 
admission ; and many monks who had formerly exhibited so 
great zeal against Nestorius, now showed that they had them- 
selves fallen into the opposite error. This was particularly 
the case with Eutyches, the Archimandrite of Constantinople, 
whom we have firequently met with as the active assistant of 
Cyril, and whom we now see at the head of the new heretics. 
It was a great misfortune that Cyril, who might have 
suppressed this new error by his predominating influence, died 
in the year 444, and had as his successor Dioscurus, who had 
been his archdeacon, a man who up to this time had enjoyed 
a good reputation, and had also accompanied his bishop to the 
Synod of Ephesus,' but now was ever more visibly leaning 
to Monophysitism, and soon became the patron and the support 
of the new heretics in all dioceses and provinces. With this 
he united a bitter enmity to the memory of Cyril, accused him 
of having exhausted the treasury of the Church of Alexandria 
in the struggle against Nestorius, and therefore confiscated his 
not inconsiderable eflTects (for Cyril belonged to a very dis- 
tinguished and wealthy family), procuring with the proceeds 
cheaper bread for the poor, and thereby gaining popularity for 

1 Katerkamp (Bd. iiL S. 162) says : *' Cyril did not persist in requiring that 
the Orientals should anathematize Nestorius." This is inooirect. See aboye, 
p. 132. 

« Lib. i Epist. 419, p. 108, and 496, p. 124. 

' Cr. Tillemont, t xr. in the Dissertation on S. Leo, art iz. p. 434 ; and 
t xiv. in art. ell on S. Cyril 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



184 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

himself; whilst at the same time he expelled some of Cyril's 
relations by violence from among the clergy of Alexandria, and 
plundered their benefices. We do not doubt that Dioscurus, 
with his Monophysite- views, was in real earnest ; but at the 
same time he is liable to the suspicion of having favoured 
this tendency in order that he might find a means of again 
elevating the see of Alexandria above that of Constantinople, 
and, still more, above the other Oriental patriarchates, in which 
he actually succeeded at the so-called Eobber-Synod. 

Trusting to the protection of such a man, who to his great 
position united still greater violence of action, the Monophy- 
sites ventured in various places to persecute orthodox bishops 
and priests as heretical, and, when possible, to remove them 
from their offices. The first striking case of this kind was 
their attack on Irenaeus, since the year 444 Metropolitan of 
Tyre in Phoenicia, who, when an imperial Count, at the time 
of the Council of Ephesus, had certainly belonged to the 
patrons of Nestorius, and for that reason had been exiled by 
the Emperor Theodosius IL in the year 435,^ but had after- 
wards separated from Nestorius and joined the union of Cyril 
His opponents brought against him the reproach of having 
been twice mjuried when he was a layman ; but Theodoret, 
who defended him (JEpist. 110), speaks of his numerous 
virtues, of his great zeal, of his love to the poor, and his 
undoubted orthodoxy ; and remarks that in former times, also, 
some who had been mcmied twice had been ordained on 
account of other excellences of character. He specially 
adduces several cases of this kind, and adds, that the ordina- 
tion of Irenseus had been approved of by the blessed Proclus, 
Archbishop of Constantinople, who had enjoyed so great dis- 
tinction. Besides the opposition which Theodoret generally 
led against the rising sect of Monophysites, he had a special 
reason for a zealous defence of Irenseus, since he was certainly 
himself present at his consecration, and took part in it; 
indeed, Baronius and others have inferred, from the wording 
of his 110th letter, that he was himself the consecrator. 
Tillemont' remarks, however, that a simple bishop of the 

' Assemani, Biblioth. jurie orient, t i. p. 467 sq. 

* T. XV. p. 871, note 5 on the art. ** Theodoret," n. xxiv. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE MONOPHYSITBS BEGIN THE CONFLICT. 185 

province of Euphratesia would hardly have been chosen to 
consecrate the first metropolitan of Fhcenicia, that this honour 
belonged rather to the Archbishop of Antioch, and that, besides, 
the Synodicon expressly says that Domnus of Antioch ordained 
Irenseus. With this, however, the expression of Theodoret is 
quite easily reconcUed, if we only regard the words : ix^i^po- 
Tovffaa Tov • . • Eiprfvatov K,r.\., as spoken by Domnus, to 
whom he is writing. Domnus of Antioch, he thinks, should, 
in the manner which he proposes to him, make declaration to 
the Emperor in regard to Irenseua The intercession of Theo- 
doret was, however, of no avaiL The Emperor Theodosius ii. 
deposed Irenseus, and gave order that he should be expelled 
from the Church of Tyre, and live in his native country, 
without clerical title or dress, as a mere private man iu all 
retirement This happened in the year 448.^ 

It was not long before Theodoret was forced even to 
defend himself, and now Dioscurus came forward publicly 
as the protector of the Monophysites. Invited by his 
patriarch, Domnus, Theodoret had on several occasions spent 
some weeks in Antioch, and had also preached there. In 
one of his discourses some persons professed to discover 
Nestorianism, and communicated this to the Patriarch 
Dioscurus of Alexandria, although neither they nor Theo- 
doret wei-e subject to his jurisdictioa Dioscurus received 
the charge, and wrote on the subject to Domnus of Antioch. 
Theodoret, being informed of this by Domnus, defended 
himself most brilliantly in a letter to Dioscurus, which is still 
extant {Ep. 83), and there laid down a dear statement of 
orthodoxy. In spite of this, Dioscurus pronounced an 
anathema upon him, and sent emissaries to the court in 
order to aggravate the persecution of Theodoret, which had 
already begun.^ An imperial decree then ordered that 
Theodoret should immediately return to his diocese and not 
again leave it, without, however, accusing him of the heresy ; * 

* The imperial decree is given by Mansi, t. y. p. 417, and Hardonin, t. i. 
p. 1719. It has no date ; but it is dear from the govemor^s appended letter of 
publication, that it was made known April 18, 448. 

* Theodoret, Epi8t, 85 ad Basil, and EpUt, 86 ad Flavian, 

' Theodoret, Epiat. 79 ad AnaioL, Epist, 80 ad Eutychium, Epist. 81 ad 
Nijmum, Eptst, 82 ad Euseb. episc, Apam. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



186 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS. 

but a second edict went still &rther, and forbade Theodoret 
to appear at the Synod, which was subsequently to be 
assembled (the Eobber - Synod), unless he were expressly 
summoned.^ Pope Leo the Great, in his thirty-first letter 
to the Empress Pulcheria, says that God has perhaps allowed 
the appearance of Eutyches for this reason, tU quaUs intra 
ecdesiam laterent possent agnosci ;^ and in fact the Mono- 
physites, up to this time, with great cunning, followed the 
practice of accusing bishops who were perfectly orthodox, and 
even the whole Eastern episcopate, of Nestorianism, under 
the pretext of orthodox zeaL* This mask was now to be 
torn from them, and first from one of their most distinguished 
men, the Archimandrite Eutyches, from whom the whole con- 
troversy received the name of Eutychian. 

Sec. I7l. Eutyches and his Accusers. 

Eutyches, who, according to his opponents, had previously 
borne the name of Atyches (i,e. the urducky), had beqome a 
monk in early youth, and thus was able to say of himself in 
the year 448 that he had been for seventy years consecrated 
to the life of continence.* In the Acts of the fourth session 
at Chalcedon, a certain Abbot Maximus, otherwise unknown, 
is mentioned as his teacher (hiZdaKoKo^) ;* it is, however, 
doubtful whether it is the education of Eutyches as a monk 
or as a heretic which is attributed to him. What is certain 
is, that Eutyches was at the same time monk and priest, and 
that he had been for nearly thirty years the archimandrite 
(fidvSpa = monastery) of a convent outside the walls of 
Constantinople, which numbered no fewer than three hundred 
monks.* When the Nestorian heresy broke out, he placed 
himself with great zeal on the side of the opponents of that 
error, and therefore was able to boast that he had contended 

^ In Mansi, t vi. p. 589 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 71. 

' Leonis 0pp. ed. Bailer, t i. p. 856. 

' Theodoret, Ep. 95 tui AfUioehwn prttfect., and Ep. 101 ad Cderinam. 

* Cf. his letters to Pope Leo the Oreat, in Mansi, t v. p. 1015, o. 222 of tHe 
Synodicon. 

^ Mansi, t. viL p. 62 ; Hardonin, t i. p. 422. 

* Mansi, t vi. pp. 651, 689, 868 ; Hardonin, t. ii pp. 110, 108, 234. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



EUTYCHBS AND HIS ACCUSERS. 187 

for the faith with the Synod of Ephesus.^ He did not mean 
by this that he had been personally present at Ephesus (he 
most not be confounded with the deacon Eutyches who 
attended upon Cyril at that Synod), but he directs attention 
to the fact that he had contributed gi*eatly at the imperial 
court to the overthrow of Nestorianism. In particular, he had 
probably taken part in the procession which had been set on 
foot, as we have heard, by Dalmatius, the archimandrite of 
another convent, in order to bring the Emperor tidings of the 
oppression of the orthodox party at Ephesus. Cyril's arch- 
deacon, Epiphanius, makes mention of him in connection with 
the same Dalmatius, when he urgently entreats the two 
archimandrites to adjure the Emperor and the high officers 
of court in reference to ITestorius, and to support the cause 
of Cyril (p. 137). The latter prized him so highly that he 
transmitted to him a special copy of the Acts of Ephesus.* 
The most influential patron of Eutyches, however, was the 
then all-powerful imperial minister Chrysaphius, a eunuch, 
at whose baptism he had stood sponsor.' He endeavoured 
also to gain over Pope Leo the Great to his side, writing a 
letter to him at the beginning of the year 448, in which 
he complained that Nestorians were still in existence. From 
his point of view the orthodox necessarily appeared so to 
him, and Pope Leo seems to have had a suspicion of this, 
and therefore answered him very cautiously (June 1, 448), 
praising his zeal, indeed, but adding that he could not 
intervene until he had obtained more exact information 
respecting the accused.^ In a subsequent letter, however 
(June 13, 449), Leo says expressly that Eutyches had 
endeavoured to wound the good name of the orthodox by 
the reproach of Nestorianism.' We may assume that 
Eutyches thought that, by these accusations, and also by 

* Hand, t vi. pp. 627, 856 ; Hardouin, t. iL pp. 95, 229. 
' Mansi, t. vL p. 681 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 98. 

* Liberati Breviar. c xi in Galland. Biblioth. PP, t xii. p. 138. 

* Leonis EpUt, xx. in BaUerini, tip. 787 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 1 ; Mansi, 
t T. p. 1828. The complete letters of Leo are also given in Mansi, t y. and 
vi, and in accordance with the ed. of Ballerini. Hardouin has only some of 
Leo's letters, and these from the editions before that of Quesnel. 

* XpitL xxxr. in Bailer, (.e. p. 877 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 11. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



188 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the obstinate retention of his own views, he was certainly 
defending the orthodox dogma, and that every doctrine which 
was less rigidly opposed to Nestorianism than his own had a 
Nestorian tendency. He could not grasp the strong opposi- 
tion which existed between the orthodox and the Nestonan 
Diophysitism, and threw out the charge of heresy against every 
one who spoke of two natures. It was on account of this 
spiritual narrowness that Leo the Great repeatedly spoke of 
him as impradens and nimis imperitus (e,g. Epist, xxviiL c. 1, 
and Epist xxxv. c. 1), and said of him that his error was de 
imperitia magis quam de verstUia natvs {Epist. xxx. c. 1). 
Quite as striking were the expressions respecting him of the 
famous Bishop Alcimus Avitus of Yienne, a younger con- 
temporary of Eutyches, who said: Nihil existit dares 
ertcditionis in viro ;^ and very nearly to the same effect 
was the judgment of the learned Petavius.* 

In former days it was thought that Eusebius, bishop of 
Dorylaeum, was the first who, in 448, came forward in 
opposition to Eutyches ; but we learn trom Bishop Facundus 
of Hermione, in his work, Pro defensione trium capUvlorxtmf 
that before this Bishop Domnus of Antioch had publicly 
accused Eutyches of Apollinarianism, and had given informa- 
tion of this to the Emperor Theodosius IL At what time 
this was done we cannot certainly ascertaia Tillemont and 
the Ballerini think it was in the beginning of the year 448.* 
Facundus also gives us the letter of Domnus to the Emperor; 
but we do not derive from it any true insight into the prin- 
ciples of Eutyches, for what Domnus specially brings forward, 
that "he had accused Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore 
of Mopsuestia of error,'* might be said not merely of a 
Monophysite, but of a thoroughly orthodox theologian, as 
the controversy of the three chapters shows. Whether the 
complaint of Domnus against Eutyches had any effect is 
nowhere said. On the contrary, however, the accusation which 

1 E^pist, ii. in Sirmondi Opp, t. ii. p. 8. 

* Dogmat. theol lib. i. De Incamat, c. 14, § 4, t iv. p. 30. 

' Lib. viii. c. 5, and lib. xii. c. 6, in Galland. Biblioth, PP. t xL pp. 751 
and 806. 

* Tillemont, t. xv. p. 493, and Bailer, ed. Opp, S, Leonis, t il p. 448, in the 
notes. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 189 

Eusebius of Doryteum brought against him at Constantinople 
in November 448 had the most serious consequences. 
Flavian was then Archbishop of Constantinople, having 
succeeded in the year 447, after the death of the former 
patriarch, Proclus. As Theophanes relates, the powerful 
minister Chrysaphius was from the b^inning averse to this 
new bishop; and, besides, Flavian lost the favour of the 
Emperor immediately, because, instead of the accustomed 
golden mlogice} he had, on his entrance upon his office^ pre- 
sented to him only^consecrated loaves — that is, the mlogice of 
the ancient Church.^ The consequences of this disfavour 
showed themselves. 



Sec. 172. Syiwd at Constantinople, A.D. 448. 

Some misunderstandings, respecting which we have no 
minute information, between Florentin, Metropolitan of 
Sardes, and his two suffragans John and Cassian, decided 
Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople to assemble the bishops 
then present in the capital to a so-called crwoSo9 ivBrjfiovo'a, 
holy and great, as the Acts express it, in the episcopal 
Secretarium, on the 8th of November 448.* The matter 
was arranged in the first session, as it would appear, with 
all despatch. Afterwards, one of the bishops present, Eusebius 
of DoiylflBum in Phrygia, handed in a complaint in writing 
against Eutyches, and prayed that it might be read. This is 
the same Eusebius who, almost twenty years before, when he 
was still a layman, was among the first of those who perceived 
and opposed the error of Nestorius (see above, p. 14), so 
that the bishops at the Synod of Chalcedon said of him : 

1 [See art. •* Eulogiie " in Did, qf Christian Antiq,] 

* Theophan. Cfhronographia ad ann. 5940, t. i p. 150, ed. Classen, in the 
Bonn collection of the Byzantines. 

* The names of those present are given in the Acts of the seventh session. 
These Acts, however, were embodied first in the Acts of the Robber-Synod, 
and then, along with these, in the Acts of the Conncil of Chalcedon. Mansi, 
t TL p. 649 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 109 sqq. A translation of them (in 
extract) is given by Fuchs in his BUdioth, der Kirchenvtrs, Bd. iv. S. 
861 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



190 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILa 

Eusehius Nestorvam depomit / and now he was to make the 
first serious attack on the opposite extreme. 

Archbishop Flavian now had his memorial read. It 
begins with the complaint that Eutyches accused orthodox 
teachers, even Eusebius of Doryl^um himself, of Nestorianism, 
and then asks that the Synod will summon him before it, 
and require an answer to these accusations. He (Eusebius) 
was ready to prove that Eutyches had no right to the name 
of Catholic, and was far from the true faith.* Flavian re- 
marked upon this that this accusation against the venerable 
priest and archimandrite caused him astonishment, and 
Eusebius should first have an interview and a discussion with 
him on matters of faith privately. If he then showed himself 
to be a heretic, the Synod might summon him before it^ 
Eusebius replied that he had formerly been a friend of 
Eutyches, and had spoken with him privately, and warned 
him not merely once or twice, as several who were present 
could testify. Eutyches, however, had remained obstinate, 
and therefore he adjured the Synod to let him appear, so 
that, being convinced of his error, he might at last abandon 
it, for many had already been scandalized by him. Flavian 
wished that Eusebius would go to Eutyches once more, and 
make another attempt with him ; as, however, he utterly refused 
to do so, the Synod decided to send the priest John and the 
deacon Andrew as deputies to Eutyches, so that they might read 
to him the accusations which had been handed in, and invite 
him to attend before the Synod. The first session then closed. 

The second took place four days later, on the 12th of 
November. Eusebius of DorylaBum renewed his complaint, 
with the remark that Eutyches by conversations and dis- 
cussions had misled many others to adopt his error. At 
liis suggestion some earlier documents were now read, as 

^ Mand, t. vi. p. 67 i ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 126. 

s Mansi, t vi. p. 651 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. u. p. 110 sq. 

' An erratam in Hand, l.c, p. 654, may here easily prodnoe great perplexity. 
According to the reference given there ad marginem, the whole from iS( 
magntu Athancuius was spoken at Chalcedon, while it really belongs to the 
Synod of Constantinople. The right reading is ConsiatUinopoli acta instead 
of Chalcedone <icta. The latter words must be put back several lines to Saneta 
Synodus dixiL Similar errors often occnr in Mansi's book. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 






SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A,D. 448. 191 

examples of the orthodox faith — namely, (a) the second 
letter of Cyril to Nestorius (see above, p. 4 £) ; (J) the approval 
of this letter given by the Synod of Ephesus (p. 47) ; and 
(c) the celebrated letter which Cyril had addressed to John 
of Antioch after the restoration of peace (p. 137). On the 
proposition of Eusebius, Flavian now required that every 
one should assent to these declarations of the faith, as 
explaining the true sense of the Nicene Creed. These 
contained that which they who were there present had always 
beUeved, and still believed, namely, " that Jesus Christ, the 
only-begotten Son of God, is true God and true man, of a 
reasonable soul and a body subsisting, begotten of the Father 
before all time, without beginning, according to the Godhead, 
but in the last times, for us men and for our salvation, bom 
of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood : of one sub- 
stance with the Father according to the Godhead, and of one 
substance with His mother, according to the manhood. We 
confess that Christ after the Incarnation consists of two 
natures (ix Bvo ^vtretop) in one Hypostasis, and in one Person ; 
one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Whoever asserts otherwise, 
we exclude from the clergy and the Church. And every one 
of those present shall set down his view and his faith in the 
Acts."^ They did so, some in longer, some in shorter forms, 
and therein expressed their faith in the duality of the natures 
in the one Hypostasis.* On the proposition of Eusebius of 
Dorylseum, the Acts were sent to those who were absent 
through sickness in their residences, that they also might be 
able to declare and to subscribe.^ 

In the third session, on the 15th of November, the two 
clerics commissioned by the Synod to Eutyches gave an account 
of their mission. First, the priest John told them that 
Eutyches had utterly refused to comply with their command 
to appear before the Synod, and that he had explained that it 
was his rule, that from the beginning (of his monastic life) 

^ Hardonin, t ii. p. 127 ; Mansi, t. yi. p. 679. 
, ' Instead of l» iu» pwutvy some said, in the same sense, U %m fvn^s, Mansi, 
t. vi. p. 695 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 781. The latter was probably brought forward 
in the creed at Chalcedon as the more accurate expression. 

' Mansi, t Ti. pp. 667-698 ; Hardonin, t. ii pp. 114-189. . 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



192 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

he had resolved never to leave the convent and go to any 
place whsd^ever ; that he would rather remain in it as in the 
grava The Synod should, however, know that Eusebius of 
Dorylseum had long been his enemy, and had slandered him 
only out of malice, for he was ready to af&rm and subscribe 
the declarations of the holy Fathers of Nicsea and of Ephesus. 
If these, however, had erred at all in any expressions, he 
found no fault with this, and did not even believe it, but 
rather searched in the Holy Scriptures, which were more certain 
than the declarations of the Fathers. After the incarnation 
of the Logos, that is, after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
he worshipped only one nature, that of God made flesh and 
man (jiiav ^vav wpoaKVPeiv, Koi Taxmjv Seov aapKtoOkvTo^ 
KoX evavdptoirrjaavTosi), Thereupon he had read from a little 
book which he produced, and added that the expression had 
been falsely ascribed to him, that the Logos had brought His 
body from heaven ; this he had never said. But that our Lord 
Jesus Christ consisted of two Persons, united in one Hypostasis, 
this he had not found in the declarations of the holy Fathers, 
nor should he accept it if he should find it in one, because, 
as he had said, the Holy Scriptures were to be preferred to 
the teachings of the Fathers. — At last Eutyches had, indeed, 
acknowledged that He who was bom of the Virgin Mary was 
true God and true man, but he added that His body was not 
of the same substance with ours. 

The second envoy of the Synod, the deacon Andrew, 
asserted that he had heard the same from the mouth of 
Eutyches, and this was also confirmed by the deacon of 
Bishop Basil of Seleucia, named Athanasius, who had been 
present during the whole conversation with Eutychea 

Upon this, Eusebius of Dorylseum said that what the three 
witnesses had testified would certainly suffice (to make them 
take proceedings against Eutyches), but he prayed them 
to invite him a second time. He was ready to prove by 
many witnesses that he was a heretic. Archbishop Flavian 
now sent the two priests. Mamas and Theophilus, to exhort 
him to appear before the Synod, as he had not only given 
offence by that which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had brought 
against him, but also by his most recent heterodox declarations- 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 193 

to the deputies of the Synod. If he would come and abjure 
his error, he should be forgiven. 

The two new envoys of the Synod took with them ako a 
short letter to Eutyches, to the effect that " he was now sum- 
moned for the second time, and must not fail to appear, if he 
did not wish to experience the stringency of the divine canons. 
His excuse that he had resolved never to leave the convent 
was not valid." ^ 

While Mamas and Theophilus were making their way to 
Eutyches, and the Synod were waiting their return, Eusebius 
of Doiylaeum mentioned that he had learnt that Eutyches had 
sent a writing (t^/ao?) on the faith round the convents, and 
was stirring up the monks. This should be examined, for it 
concerned the safety of the Synod. The priest at the Mar- 
tyrium (chapel) of Hebdomus (Septimus) should declare whether 
Eutyches had not sent a " tome," and asked for signatures. 
This priest, Abraham by name, when required by Flavian to 
state the truth, declared that the priest and Archimandrite 
Emmanuel had, according to his own statement, received such 
a tome, sent to him by Eutyches, with the request that he 
would subscribe it. On the requirement of Eusebius of Dory- 
Iseum, several priests and deacons were then sent to the other 
monasteries, in order to ascertain whether Eutyches had ven- 
tured upon the same with them.* 

In the meantime Mamas and Theophilus had returned. The 
first declared : " When we came to the monastery of Eutyches, 
we met some monks standing before the gate, and we asked 
them to announce us, as we had a commission from the Arch- 
bishop and the holy Synod to speak with the Archimandrite. 
They answered : * The Archimandrite is sick, and cannot admit 
you ; tell us, therefore, what you want and why you are sent.' 
We were not satisfied with this, and declared that we had 
only been sent to Eutyches, etc Thereupon they went into 
the convent, and speedily returned with another monk of the 
name of Eleusinius, whom the Archimandrite had commis- 
sioned to hear us in his stead. We replied : ' Was it in this 
way that they dealt with envoys of the most holy Archbishop 

' Hardouin, t. iL p. 139 sqq.; Mansi, t. vL pp. 698-706. 
' Mansi, t Ti p. 706 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 143. 

hl n 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



194 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and the holy and great Synod ? ' and then remarked that they 
muttered something to each other in embarrassment It 
seemed to them very suspicious that we should bring a written 
decree with us ; but we assured them that there was nothing 
hard in it, and nothing secret, and acquainted them with the 
contents. They immediately returned into the convent, and 
we were then conducted to Eutyches. We handed to him the 
letter of the Synod ; he had it read in our presence, and said : 
*It is my purpose never to leave the convent until death 
compels me to do so. And, besides, the holy Synod and 
the pious Archbishop know that I am old and weak.* We 
requested him again to appear and answer for himself; but 
he replied : * I do not leave the convent, for so I have resolved. 
The holy Archbishop and the holy Synod may do what seems 
good to them, only let them not trouble themselves to invite 
me a third time.' He would also have given us a letter to 
bring with us, but we did not receive it, declaring that if he 
had anything to say, he might appear personally before the 
Synod. Then he wanted to have the letter read to us, but we 
would not agree to that either, but took our departure, while 
he said : * I will then send this letter to the Synod.' " 

After the second envoy of the Synod, the priest Theophilus, 
had testified that he had heard the same as Mamas, Eusebius 
of Dorylaeum again addressed the Synod, and said : *• The guilty 
have ever ways of escaping ; Eutyches must now be brought 
here, even against his wilL" The Synod resolved to summon 
him a third time, and Flavian commissioned the two priests, 
Memnon and Epiphanius, and the deacon Germanus, to convey 
to him the third invitation, again in writing. It said : " It is 
not unknown to thee what the holy canons threaten to the 
disobedient, and to those who refuse to answer for themselves. 
In order that thou mayest not now plunge thyself into mis- 
fortune, we invite thee for the third time, and trust it may- 
please thee to appear early on the day after to-morrow, that is, 
on Wednesday the l7th of November." ^ 

Before the expiration of this time, on Tuesday the 16 th of 
November, the fourth session was held. Archbishop Flavian 
was speaking on the subject of the dogma, when they were 
I Manai, t vi. pp. 707-711 ; Hardonin, t. il p. 146 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 195 

informed that envoys from Eutyches, the monks and deacons 
Eleusinius, Constantino, and Constantius, with the Archiman- 
drite Abraham, were at the door and desired admission. The 
Archbishop asked them to enter, and Abraham then said that 
Eutyches was ill, and had been nnable to sleep the whole 
night, but had sighed and called him to him, that he might 
speak for him with the Archbishop. Flavian replied that 
they would not urge him, but wait for his recovery, but that 
then he must appear, for he was not coming to men unknown, 
but to fathers and brothers, and even to those who had hitherto 
been his friends. He had given offence to many, and there- 
fore must of necessity defend himself At the time that 
Nestorius endangered the truth, he had for the sake of that 
left his monastery and gone into the city, and so much the 
more was it his duty to do so now, for the sake of himself, 
and of the truth as well. If he acknowledged and anathe- 
matized his error, then he would receive forgiveness for the 
past ; for the future, however, he must give assurance to the 
Synod and the Archbishop that he believed in accordance with 
the explanations of the Fathers, and that he would not again 
teach anything different. — At the close of the session, when 
they had all risen, the Archbishop further spoke as follows : 
** You know the zeal of the accuser, — fire itself seems cool to 
him in comparison with pure zeal for religion. God knows I 
I besought him to desist, and to yield ; as, however, he per- 
sisted, what could I do ? Shall I scatter you (the monks), and 
not rather gather ? To scatter is the work of enemies ; but it 
is the work of fathers to gather" (Luke xi 23 ; John x. 12).^ 
We can see that Archbishop Flavian had an earnest desire 
for the maintenance of the peace of the Church, but duty re- 
quired him to hear and examine the charges against Eutyches, 
and the heretical obstinacy of the latter made all peace- 
able understanding impossible. He had been invited to 
appear on Wednesday the 17th of November. On this day 
the fifth session was held, and Memnon, Epiphanius, and 
Germanus gave an account of the result of their mission to 
Eutyches. Memnon declared : " After we had handed Eutyches 
the letter of the Synod, he explained that he had sent the Archi- 
1 MaBBi, t YL pp. 711-715 ; Hardooin, t. u. p. 147 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



196 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILa 

mandrite Abraham to the Archbishop and the S}rnod that he 
might in his name give his assent to the declarations of the 
Synods of Nicsea and Ephesus, and to all that Cyril had 
uttered." 

Eusebius of Dorylseum here interrupted the narrator, and 
said : " Even if Eutyches will now assent, because some have 
told him that he must yield to necessity and subscribe, yet I 
am not therefore in the wrong, for it is with reference, not to 
the future, but to the past, that I have accused him." The 
Archbishop agreed to this ; and Eusebius asserted further that 
he had entreated Eutyches, not merely once or twice, but fre- 
quently, to abandon his error, and that he could bring forward 
many witnesses against him. 

After this interruption Memnon further related : " Eutyches 
said that on account of his sickness he had sent AbrahauL 
But when I urged him more strongly to appear in person, he 
decided to await first the return of the Abbot Abraham, since 
he perhaps would soften the Archbishop and the Synod. 
When I remarked that we would remain with him until the 
return of Abraham, he asked us to request the Archbishop 
and the Synod to give him a respite for this week, and then 
he would, if it pleased God, present himself on the Monday of 
next week."^ 

The two other deputies of the Synod confirmed this state- 
ment, and those clerics were then heard whom the Synod had 
sent and commissioned to obtain information respecting the 
attempts of Eutyches to stir up the monks. In their name 
the priest Peter testified: "We went first into the convent 
of the Archimandrite and Presbjrter Martin, and learned that 
Eutyches had certainly sent a writing to him on the 12th of 
November, and had requested him to sign it On Martin 
replying that it was not his business, but that of the bishops, 
to subscribe declarations of faith, Eutyches sent him the 
reply : ' If you do not support me, then the Archbishop, after 
he has overthrown me, will do the same with you.* For the 
rest, the Archimandrite Martin had not even read the writing 
sent by Eutyches, and could only say as to its contents that 
Eutyches had sent him word that it contained what the Synod 
1 Maosi, t. vi. pp. 715-719 ; Hardoain, t. ii. p. 160 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 197 

of Ephesus and Cyril had taught. Thereupon we had recourse 
to the Archimandrite and Presbyter Faustus, who told us that 
the monks Constantino and Eleusinius had brought him the 
writing of Eutyches for his signature, and had said that it 
contained the declarations of the Fathers of Nicaea and 
Ephesus. On his replying that he must, before subscribing, 
compare the tome with the Acts of the two Councils which 
he possessed, in order to see that nothing was added, they 
had departed again discontented. Another president of a 
monastery. Job, stated that Eutyches had sent him no writing, 
but had bid them tell him that the Archbishop would shortly 
lay something before him for his signature ; but he was not 
to give it. Finally, we went to (abbot) Emmanuel and to 
Abraham, who asserted that they had received no writing and 
no request from Eutyches," 

Thereupon Eusebius of Dorylseum said: "The offence of 
Eutyches in attempting to stir up the monks and in teaching 
error is now shown, and therefore we must proceed against 
him. Besides, he is a liar, since on one occasion he said it 
was his principle not to go out, and on another he promised 
to come/' Archbishop Flavian, however, was imwilling even 
now to proceed to extremities, and granted Eutyches the 
respite he had desired until the 2 2d of November, remark- 
ing that in case he did not appear even then, he should be 
deprived of his sacerdotal dignity, and deposed from his head- 
ship of the monastery.^ 

On Saturday the 20th of November the bishops assembled 
for the sixth session, and Eusebius of Dorylseum demanded 
that on the next Monday, when Eutyches should appear, four of 
his friends should also be invited as witnesses, namely, the 
priest Narses, the Syncellus of Eutyches ; the Archimandrite 
Maximus his friend ; the deacon Constantius his secretary, 
and the already-mentioned monk and deacon Eleusinius. 
After Flavian had assented to this request, the indefatigable 
Eusebius brought forward one other point. He had learned, 
he said, that Eutyches had said to the clerical envoys Mamas 
and Theophilus, who had gone to him with the second invita- 
tion, something which was not in the Acts, but which would 

1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 719-724 ; Hardouin, t iL pp. 153-155. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



198 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

throw a dear light upon his views. They ought to hear those 
deputies of the Synod on that subject. The only one of them 
present was Theophilus, and he testified : " Eutyches wished 
to dispute with us ; but when Mamas would not agree to this, 
he said in the presence of the priest Narses, the Archimandrite 
Maximus, and several other monks : Where in the Scripture 
is anything said of two natures, and what Father has stated 
that God the Logos has two natures ? (That certainly no one 
said!!) Mamas answered him that the o/Lcoovo-tw too was 
nowhere in Holy Scripture, and yet this was brought out by 
the explanations of the Fathers, and so it was in reference to 
the two natures. Then I (Theophilus) asked if Grod the Logos 
were perfect (in Christ). Eutyches said He was. I asked 
f luther, whether the man who appeared in the flesh (avOpanro^: 
6 a-apxcsOeU) was also perfect. He also affirmed this, and then 
I said : If, then, (in Christ) God is p>erfectly present, and a 
perfect man, then those two perfects form the one Son. Why 
then should we not say: The one Son consists of two 
natures ? Eutyches answered : Far be it from' him to say 
that Christ consisted of two natures, or to dispute respecting 
the nature of God. If they were pleased to depose him or to 
undertake anything else against him, they must do it He 
must abide by the faith which he had received." 

After this testimony Flavian asked why Theophilus had not 
said this at the very beginning, and he replied : " Because we 
had not been sent for this purpose (to make inquiries into the 
faith of Eutyches), but only to invite him. As we were not 
questioned about that, we thought we ought to be silent." At 
this moment Mamas, the other envoy of the Synod, arrived. 
They read to him the new statements of his colleague, and he 
testified to nearly the same, with the like excuse for his 
previous silence. He also added : " Eutyches said, God the 
Logos became flesh in order to raise up again human nature 
which had fallen. I immediately replied : Consider, you say, 
to raise up human nature ; but by what (other) nature is then 
this human nature assumed and raised up ? Eutyches (not 
attending to this) said : In the Holy Scriptures I find nothing 
of two natures. But I replied: It is the same with 
ofioovaio^ which is not found there; but we are taught by 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 199 

the Fathers respecting the ofioowrio^ and also respecting the 
two natures. Then Entyches said that he did not examine 
into the nature of God, and would not speak of two natures. 
Here he was, he said, if he were condemned, then might the 
convent be his grave, and he would willingly suffer anything ; 
but two natures he would not confess." 

Flavian found the new testimonies of the two envoys clear 
and sufficient, and so closed this session.^ 

The seventh and last session, which was also the most 
important, was in conclusion held on the following Monday, 
the 2 2d of November, and in order to increase its solemnity 
the books of the holy Gospels were publicly set forth. As 
Eusebius of Dorylseum wished to appear as accuser, he placed 
himself first at the door of the Secretarium in which the 
session was held, and asked for admission. Archbishop 
Flavian gave permission, and at the same time sent two 
deacons, Philadelphius and Cyril, in order to inquire, in the 
neighbourhood of the Episcopeum (the episcopal dwelling), 
whether Eutyches had arrived, and then to invite him to the 
assembly. 

They soon returned with the information that he had been 
sought for in the whole church (the Episcopeion lay close to the 
church), but neither he nor any of his people had been seen. 
Flavian again sent two deacons, and these brought the intelli- 
gence that they had not seen Eutyches himself, but they had 
heard that he was coming directly with a great multitude of 
soldiers, monks, and servants of the Prefect of the Praetorian 
guard. It was shortly announced by the presbyter John, 
who was an official (IkBuco^) of the Sjmod, that Eutyches had 
now really arrived, but his convoy would not allow him to 
enter, unless the Synod first promised that his person should 
again be restored to liberty. Among his attendants, he said, 
was also the exalted Silentiar Magnus (assessor in the privy 
council), as representative of the Emperor. Flavian requested 
them to enter, and the Silentiar read to him the letter with 
which the Emperor had entrusted him, as follows : " I wish 
the peace of the Church and the maintenance of the orthodox 
faith, which was asserted by the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus, 

* Mansi, t. vi. pp. 728-780 ; Hardouin, t ii p. 155 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



200 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and because I know that the Patrician Florentius is orthodox 
and proved in the faith, therefore it is my will that he be 
present at the sessions of the Synod, as the faith is in 
question."^ 

The bishops of the Synod received this decree with the 
usual Byzantine courtesies, crying out : " Many years to the 
Emperor, his faith is greTat ; many years to the pious, orthodox, 
high-priestly Emperor (t^ apxt^pel fiaaiKeT),*' Thereupon 
Flavian declared : " We all know that Florentius is orthodox, 
and are willing that he should be present at our session. But 
Eutyches must also say whether he agrees to his presence." 
Eutyches replied : " Do what God and your holiness will ; I 
am your servant." Thereupon the Silentiar brought Florentius 
forward, and the Synod appointed that the accuser and the 
accused should place themselves in the midst, and that all 
the previous proceedings in the matter between Eusebius and 
Eutyches should be read. This was done by the deacon and 
notary Aetius. When he came to the passage in the letter 
of Cyril to the Orientals (pp. 130, 137) in which it is said: 
*• We confess our Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect 
man, and as of one substance with the Father according to the 
Godhead, and of one substance with us according to the man- 
hood ; for an union of the two natures has taken place (Bvo 
yap <f)va€a)v Ivaxri^ yeyove), therefore we confess One Christ, 
One Lord, and, in accordance with this union without con- 
fusion (t^9 aavyxyrov cpdaecosi), we call the holy Virgin Grod- 
bearer, because God the Logos was made flesh and man, and 
in the conception united the temple which He assumed from 
her (Mary) with Himself," — at this point Eusebius of Dory- 
Iseum exclaimed: "Certainly such is not confessed by this 
man here (Eutyches); he has never believed this, but the con- 
trary, and so he has taught every one who has come to him." 
The Patrician Florentius asked that Eutyches should now be 
(questioned as to whether he agreed with what had been read ; 
but Eusebius of Dorylseum objected, remarking that if 
Eutyches now agreed, then he, Eusebius, must appear as 
having been lightly a slanderer, and should lose his oflSce. 
Eutyches had already threatened him even with banishment 

^ Mansi, t. yi. pp. 780-734 ; Hardouin, t. il p. 158 «q. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 201 

to the Oasis, and he was rich and influential, whikt he him- 
self was poor and possessed nothing. Florentius renewed his 
request that Eutyches should be asked how he believed and 
taught (and why he expressed himself differently at different 
times), and Eusebius now agreed on condition that no preju- 
dice should arise to him from the present assent of Eutyches ; 
for he was able to prove tha4i jpreviously he had not taught 
correctly. 

Flavian calmed him by the assurance that if Eutyches now 
agreed there should not arise from this the slightest dis- 
advantage for Eusebius ; and then he asked Eutyches : " Say 
now, dost thou acknowledge the union of two natures {el itc 
hio ^vaemv ivtoanv 6fio\oy€i^)V* Eutyches said: "Yes;" but 
Eusebius of Dorylseum put the question more exactly, and 
asked : " Dost thou confess the existence of two natures even 
after the incarnation, and that Christ is of one nature with us 
after the flesh, or not?"^ Eutyches answered: *' I have not 
come to dispute, but to testify to your holiness what I think. 
My view, however, is set down in this writing; command, 
therefore, that it be read." To the request of Flavian that he 
would read it himself he returned a refusal, remarking that he 
could not, and the like ; whereupon the Archbishop said : " If it 
is thine own confession of faith, why shouldest thou need the 
paper ?" To which Eutyches answered : " That is my belief, 
I pray to the Father with the Son, and to the Son with the 
Father, and to the Holy Ghost with the Father and Son. I 
confess that His (the Son's) bodily presence is fix)m the body 
of the holy Virgin, and that He became perfect man for our 
salvation. Thus I confess before the Father, before the Son, 
and before the Holy Ghost, and before your holiness."* The 
Archbishop asked further : " Dost thou confess also that the 
one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is of one sub- 
stance with the Father as to His Godhead, and of one sub- 
stance with His mother as to His manhood ?" Eutyches 
replied : " I have already declared my opinion, leave me now 
in peace." When, however, the Archbishop further asked: 
"Dost thou confess that Christ consists of two natures?" 

* Manai, t. vi. pp. 784-788 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 169 sq. 

* Mansi, t vi. p. 789 ; Hardoaio, t. ii. p. 168. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



202 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

he replied, "I have not hitherto presumed to dispute con- 
cerning the nature of my Grod ; but that He is of one sub- 
stance with us have I hitherto, as I affirm, never said. Up to 
this present day have I never said that the body of our Lord and 
God is of one substance with us. I do confess, however, that 
the holy Virgin is of one substance with us, and that our God 
is made of our flesh." The Archbishop, as well as Bishop Basil 
of Seleucia and the imperial commissioner Florentius, now 
represented to Eutyches that if he acknowledged that Mary 
was of one substance with us, and that Christ had taken His 
manhood from her, then it followed of itself that He, accord- 
ing to His manhood, was also of one substance with us. 
Eutyches replied : " Consider well, I say not that the body of 
man has become the body of God, but I speak of a human 
body of God, and say that the Lord was made flesh of the 
Virgin. If you wish me to add further that His body is of 
one substance with ours, then I do this ; but I do not under- 
stand this as though I denied that He is the Son of God. 
Formerly I did not generally speak of an unity of substance 
(after the flesh), but now I will do so, because your holiness 
thus requires it" To the reply of the Archbishop: "Thou 
doest it then only of compulsion, and not because it is thy 
faith?" Eutyches made an evasive answer, and remarked 
again that hitherto he had never so spoken, but that now he 
would do so in accordance with the will of the Synod. In 
this answer there was involved the reproach that the Synod 
had allowed itself to make a doctrinal innovation, which 
Flavian decisively rejected. Thereupon Florentius asked, with 
precision and insight into the matter: ''Bost thou believe 
that our Lord, who was bom of the Virgin, is of one substance 
with us, and that after the incarnation He is iic hvo <t>va€€dv, 
or not?" And Eutyches answered: "I confess that before 
the union (of the Godhead and manhood) He was of two 
natures, but after the union I confess only one nature" 
(ofioXoyA i/c Svo if>va'€a>v yeyevrjaOai tov Kvpu)v fifi&v irpo rrj^ 
evdxreoi)*: fierit Se rijv hfOD<n,v fdav if>vat,v 6fAo\oy&)} 

The Synod finally demanded of Eutyches a public declara- 
tion and an anathema on every view which was in opposition 

^ Mand, t. vi. p. 742 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 168 «q. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNOD AT CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 448. 203 

to the doctrine which had been expressed. He answered 
again equivocally : " He would now indeed, since the Synod 
60 required, accept the manner of speech in question (that 
Christ was of one substance with us, and of two natures), but 
he found it neither in Holy Scripture nor in the Fathers col- 
lectively, and therefore could not pronounce an anathema (on 
the non-acceptance of that expression), because in that case he 
would be anathematizing his Fathers." Upon this the Synod 
arose and cried: "To him be anathema;" and the Arch- 
bishop asked : '' What does this man deserve who does not 
confess the right faith, but persists in his perverseness ?" 
Eutyches endeavoured once more to evade the condemnation 
by the distinction which he had already brought forward: 
"That he would now indeed accept the required manner 
of speaking in accordance with the will of the Sjrnod, but he 
could not pronounce the anathema." 

The Patrician Florentius, however, shut him up within 
narrower limits by the question: "Dost thou confess two 
natures in Christ, and His unity of substance with us?" 
And when Eutyches replied : " I read the writings of S. Cyril 
and 8. Athanasius: "before the union they speak of two 
natures, but after the union only of one;" he asked still 
more precisely : " Dost thou confess two natures even after 
the union ? if not, then wilt thou be condemned." Eutyches 
then requested that the books of Cyril and Athanasius 
should be read; but Basil of Seleucia remarked that the 
Acts say (he himself disallowed it in some measure at the 
Eobber-Synod): "If thou dost not acknowledge two natures 
after the union also, then thou acceptest a mingling and con- 
fusion (of the natures)."^ Florentius cried out: "He who 
does not say of two natures, and who does not acknowledge 
two natures, has not the right faith." And the Synod 
replied : " And he who accepts anything only by compulsion 
(as Eutyches), does not believe in it Many years to the 
Emperors ! " At last the Archbishop announced the sentence : 
" Eutyches, a priest and archimandrite, has, by previous state- 
ments, and even now by his own confessions, shown himself to 
be entangled in the perversity of Valentinus and ApoUinaris, 

^ Mansi, t. vL p. 746 ; Hardonin, t. ii. p. 167. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



204 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

without allowing himself to be won back to the genuine 
dogmas by our exhortation and instruction. Therefore we, 
bewailing his complete perversity, have decreed, for the sake 
of Christ whom he has reviled, that he be deposed from every 
priestly office, expelled from our communion, and deprived 
of his headship over the convent. And all who henceforth 
hold communion with him, and have recourse to him, must 
know that they too are liable to the penalty of excommuni- 
cation." This sentence was subscribed by Flavian and the 
rest of the bishops (according to the Greek text 28, accord- 
ing to the old Latin version 31) with the formula opiaa^^ 
vTriypaylra, that is, JUDICANS subscripsi, while the twenty-three 
archimandrites who likewise, but somewhat later, subscribed, 
used only the expression im&^pa^a, since they had a right 
not to ^rovLO\mc& jiidgment, but only to give their assent^ 

Sec 173. Eutyches and Flavian both endeavour to gain over 
public opinion to their side. 

It was to be foreseen that Eutyches and his friends would 
bring forward many complaints and accusations against this 
Synod. We shall see, however, that some of these were quite 
futile, others incapable of proof, and that the few which could 
be proved were of no importance. 

After the close of the Synod, and when its sentence was 
known, there arose great excitement among the people, and 
Eutyches, as he complains, was on his return home publicly 
insulted by the populace.^ He brought this forward again as so 
far a reproach to Archbishop Flavian that he had not hindered 
it. He speaks even of having come into danger of his life,* 
from which, as he flatteringly writes to Leo the Great, he 
had only been saved by the intercession of this Pope (whose 
protection he had invoked) with the imperial soldiers.* For 
the rest he did not fail to have put up at various public 

1 Mansi, t. vi. pp. 746-754 ; Hardoain, t iL pp. 167-172. 

* Eutyches, Ep, ad 8, Leonem, among the letters of S. Leo the Great in the 
edition of the Ballerini, t L Ko. xxL p. 739 ; Mansi, t vi. pp. 1323 and 1014. 

' In Mansi, t. vi. p. 629 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 98. 

* Epist, ad Leonem, see above, note 2, and below, p. 205 f. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



EUTYCHES AND FLA VUN E2a)EAV0TJR TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 205 

places in Constanstinople placards (contestatorios libdlos), in 
vrbich he complained abusively of what had been done, and 
sought to justify his teaching.^ He also made his complaint to 
the Emperor, and here he met with no unfavourable hearing, 
so that Flavian from this time fell into still greater disfavour.^ 
In order, however, to gain to his side the most distinguished 
bishops of remote provinces, he addressed to several of them 
cautiously composed letters ; and one of these, which was sent 
to Pope Leo, we have already noted. He says in it, that at 
the suggestion of Satan, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylseum had 
sent an accusation against him to Bishop Flavian of Constan- 
tinople, and to a number of bishops accidentally assembled for 
other causes, and had charged him with heresy, not in the 
interest of truth, but in order to ruin him and to embroil the 
Cliurch. Invited to the Synod, he had been unable to appear 
in consequence of serious illness, but had been willing to 
transmit to them his confession of faith in writing. Flavian 
had not accepted this writing, nor would he allow it to be 
read, but required that Eutyches should confess two natures 
and anathematize all the opponents of this doctrine. He 
had not been able to do this, since even Athanasius, Gregory, 
Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression " two natures ;" 
and, besides, he had wished to add nothing to the confession 
of faith of Nicaea (and Ephesus), and had not ventured to 
undertake inquiries into the nature of God the Word. He 
had therefore prayed that the Synod would acquaint the 
Pope with the matter, that he might pronounce a judgment, 
to which he would then entirely submit (he thus maintains 
that he had appealed to Bome, and speaks of it ad captandam 
lefhevolentiam, in a manner which must have been very 
pleasing at Bome). But they had not listened to him, but 
had suddenly broken off the Synod and published the sen- 
tence against him, so that he would have come in danger of 

^ Cf. Leonis Epist, xxiii. in Bailer, t. i. p. 768 ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1338 ; 
Hardonin, t. ii p. 1 ; Liberat Breviar, o. 11, in Galland. Biblioth, t xii. 

' Gf. the letter of Flavian to Pope Leo among the letters of the latter, No. 
xxri. in Bailer, t. i. p. 786 ; Mansi, t v. p. 1351 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 4 sq. ; and 
the autor anonym, of the Brevkulus historias Eutychiamstarttnif published by 
Sirmond in the Appendix codicis Theodos. p. 112, where it is said : Offenditiir 
hnpenUor, 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



206 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

his life, if the military had not, at the intercession of the Pope, 
delivered him. Then they had also compelled the heads 
of other convents to subscribe his deposition, which had 
not been done in the case of Nestorius, and had prevented 
him from circulating writings in his own justification (the 
placards) among the people, and having them read. He now 
appealed to Leo, the defender of religion, and adjured him, 
impartially and without being aflfected by the previous in- 
trigues, to pronounce a sentence in reference to the faith, and 
henceforth to protect him (Eutyches), especially as he had 
spent seventy years in all continence and chastity. Finally, 
he presented two writings, the accusation of Eusebius and his 
new paper which had not been received (according to the sup- 
position of the Ballerini, the document of appeal); besides 
(thirdly), his declaration of faith (probably a copy of the 
placard); and (fourthly) the declarations of the Fathers 
on the two natures.^ 

To this letter the Ballerini, in their edition of the letters of 
Leo, have added another fragment, which, in their view, 
contains the beginning of Eutyches' placard. He there 
asserts his orthodoxy. In the remaining part, now lost, the 
contestaito ad populum, that is, the complaint of the wrong 
which he had suffered, and the like, may have been contained.* 

A second letter to the same eflTect was sent by Eutyches 
to the then highly renowned Bishop of Ravenna, Peter 
Chrysologus, but we have now only the answers to it. Peter 
Chrysologus there laments the contentiousness of the theo- 
logians of his day, but prudently does not enter further upon 
tlie subject itself, but only remarks : " He would have 
answered more fully if his brother Flavian had, on his side, 
also made him acquainted with the whole subject Upon a 
one-sided statement he would form no judgment. For the 
rest, Eutyches must acquiesce in that which the Pope had 
\iTitteu,' since the holy Peter, who still lives in his see, 

^ Eutyches, EpisL ad Leonem among the letters of the latter, Ko. xxL in 

Bailer, t. i. p. 739 sqq. ; Mansi, t v. pp. 1323 and 1014. Quesnel supposes that 

this letter to Leo was a circular letter, and that identical copies were sent to 

other bishops. Cf. Walch, Ketzergesch. Bd. vL S. 161. 

' Gf. note 12 of the Ballerini on Epist, xziii., and notes 13-16 on Epid. xxL 

' Wliether the now lost answer of Leo to the previously mentioned letter of 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



EUTYCHES AND FLA.VUN ENDEAVOUR TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 2 7 

imports the truth to those who seek it. We, however, cannot 
decide upon matters of faith without the assent of the Soman 
bishop."^ 

It is not without doubt, but it is very probable, that 
Eutyches now appealed also to Bioscurus of Alexandria and 
other great bishops, although no documents on the subject are 
extant* 

On the other side, Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, 
only did his duty when he caused the sentence which had 
been pronounced against Eutyches to be published in his 
churches, and when he required of the various convents and 
heads of convents that they should subscribe and thus accept 
the sentence.* In this way were added the already mentioned 
(p. 204) subscriptions of twenty- three archimandrites, which 
we still possess. In particular, Flavian sent deputies into the 
convent of Eutyches himself, with the command that the 
monks should no longer recognize him as abbot, that they 
should no longer speak with him, that they should no longer 
attend divine service with him, and that they should not 
leave the administration of their property any longer in his 
hands.^ 

It was further natural that Flavian should acquaint the 
bishops of other provinces with what had been done. That 
he should do so, and also transmit the Acts of the Synod (the 
T0/A09) to the Oriental bishops, had been requested in the 
second session by Bishop Sabbas of Paltus in Syria.^ That 
this was actually done is testified by the Patriarch Domnus 
of Antioch, who declared at the Eobber-Synod that the decree 
of deposition on Eutyches had been sent to him from 
Constantinople, and had been subscribed by hiuL^ Besides, 

Eutyches is meant, or the celebrated Epist. dogmcUica LeonU, is doubtful. Cf. 
Walch, U. a. 168. 

1 Among the letters of Leo, No. zxv. p. 775 sqq. in the ed. of the Ballerini ; 
Kansi, t v. p. 1347 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 21. Cf. Walch, ^.c S. 161 f. 

* Cf. Walch, Le. 8. 161 and 163. 

* Ct the complaint of Eutyches in Mansi, t. vi p. 641 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 
103 aq. 

* CC the complaint of the monks in Mansi, t. vi. p. 864 ; Hardouin, t. iL 
p. 234. 

* la Mansi, t vi. p. 693 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 138. 

* In Mansi, t. vL p. 836 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 218. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



208 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

in regard to this matter, we possess a correspondence between 
Flavian, Pope Leo, and the Emperor Theodosius the younger. 
The first of these letters, according to the investigations of 
the BaUerini, was written by Flavian to Leo a short time after 
the close of the Synod at Constantinople, towards the end of 
the year 448, or early in 449, and begins with the lamenta- 
tion that the Archbishop has not been able to save one of his 
clergy, and snatch him from ruin. There were people, he 
said, who, while they wore sheep's clothing, were inwardly 
ravening wolves. So it was with Eutyches ; he had appeared 
to maintain orthodoxy against Nestorius, and yet he had him- 
self endeavoured to destroy the orthodox faith, and to renew 
the old heresies of Valentinus and Apollinaris. He had 
undauntedly declared before the holy Synod that we should 
not believe that after the incarnation Christ consisted of two 
natures in one person, and that His flesh was of the same 
substance as ours. The Virgin who bare Him was of 
the same flesh with us, but the Lord had not assumed from 
her a body of the same substance as ours, and the body of 
the Lord was not the body of a man, although the body 
which came from the Virgin was a human one. For the sake 
of brevity Flavian further appeals to the proceedings which 
had taken place some time ago {iraXat) in this matter (Synod 
at Constantinople), the Acts of which he sent to the Pope 
(in the epistolary style : " I have sent "), according to which 
Eutyches was deposed. The Pope should make the bishops 
who were subject to him acquainted with it, so that they 
might have no communion with the heretic.^ 

Before this letter reached Eome the Pope received a letter 
from the Emperor and one from Eutyches himself, from 
which we have given an extract above (p. 205). Leo now 
wrote on the 18th of February 449, as the subscription 
shows, to Flavian as follows : " The Emperor had made him 
acquainted with the ecclesiastical troubles in Constantinople, 
and Leo only wondered that Flavian had told him nothing of 
them, and had not taken care that the matter should be 
communicated to him first. He had also received a letter 

^ S. Leonis Ep, xxii in Bailer, t i. p. 745 sqq. ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1 330 ; 
Hardouin, t iL p. 8. Cf. Walch, l,c, S. 166. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN ENDEAVOUR TO GAIN PUBLIC OPINION. 209 

from Eutyches^ who complained that^ aldiough innocent, he 
had been excommunicated on the accusation of Eusebius of 
Doiylaeum, and that his appeal to Borne had not been 
r^arded. Flavian should infonn him of all, for until he knew 
everything accurately he could not judge in favour of either. 
Flavian should also send him an able envoy, who might give 
him complete information respecting the novelty which had 
arisen. He thoroughly desired the restoration of peace, 
that those who maintained error might be turned away from 
their error, and that the orthodox might be confirmed by the 
papal approval And this could not be difficult, as Eutyches 
had declared in his letter that he was ready to correct what 
should be found blameworthy in him. In such a matter,*' 
Leo says towards the end, " above aU an eflfort must be made 
ut sine strepitu concertationum et custodiatur caritas, et Veritas 
defendatur." ^ 

Leo's letter of the same date to the Emperor ia shorter. 
He rejoices that Theodosius has not only the heart of an 
emperor, but also that of a priest, and is rightly anxious that 
no discord should arise. For then is the empire best established 
when the Holy Trinity is served in unity. Further on he 
comes to speak of the letter of Eutyches, and of the accusa- 
tion of Eusebius of Dorylseum which Eutyches had trans- 
mitted to him, and remarks that these two documents do not 
represent the matter with sufficient completeness. He had 
therefore written to Flavian, and had censured him for his 
silence.* 

To this Flavian replied in his second letter to Leo (No. 26), 
in which he explains somewhat more fully the heresy of 
Eutyches, and shows how his doctrine of one nature is in 
opposition to a dear utterance of the Synod of Ephesus.* 
Eutyches had therefore been deposed by the Synod, as the 
Pope would perceive from the Acts attached to this letter. 
The Pope should know that Eutyches, after his righteous 
deposition, instead of repenting and amending, was, on the 

* In Bailer. l.c, pp. 761-765 ; Manai, t. v. p. 1338 sqq. 

* In BaUer. i.c p. 767 ; Manai, t y. p. 1341 aqq. 

* Peculiarly to an utterance of Cyril's, wliich had been approved by the Synod 
of Ephesos (p. 48). We gave it aboye (p. 21) in italics. 

m. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



210 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

contrary, endeavouring to embarrass the Church of Constan- 
tinople, was putting up placards full of insults and calumnies, 
was importuning the Emperor with petitions, and treading 
the holy canons under foot He (Flavian) had received the 
letter of Leo through the Count Pansophius, and had learned 
from that how Eutyches had lied ; for it was not true that 
during the Synod he had put in an appeal to Bome. The 
Pope should certainly confirm the canonical deposition of 
Eutyches in a special brief, and strengthen the faith of the 
Emperor. In that way all would be made peaceful, and the 
future Synod, of which they were already talking, would be 
rendered superfluous.* 

It is evident that this letter was composed hefcrt the 
official convocation of the new Synod (Robber-Synod), which 
was published on the 30th of March 449. The letter 
probably belongs to the same month.* The Pope used the 
first opportunity, the 21st of May 449, in order to acquaint 
Archbishop Flavian briefly that he had received his letter. 
He already acknowledges that Eutyches had erred from the 
right faith, and promises to send a complete letter on the 
subject by Flavian's messenger on his return, in order to 
show how the whole matter must be judged.* He refers 
to his Epistola dogmatica ad Flavianum, which afterwards 
became so famous, and of which we shall presently have to 
speak. 

The Emperor's letter to the Pope, which was mentioned 
above, is a proof to us that Eutyches had gained the favour 
of the court, and that Theodosius had endeavoured to save 
him. He therefore, as he says himself,* frequently got 
Archbishop Flavian to come to him, in order to induce him 
to be contented with the Mcene Creed as confirmed at 
Ephesus, which Eutyches had naturally accepted without 
hesitation. As Flavian did not and would not agree to this, 
the Emperor became very angry ; and as Eutyches continued 
to accuse the Archbishop himself of heresy, Theodosius went 

^ In Bailer. i.c. p. 782 sqq. ; Mansi, t. y. p. 1861 sqq. 

' In Bailer. l.e. p. 781, Nota a ; and in Mansi, Lc, p. 1861, Kota a. 

' S. Leonis Epist, No. zxvii. p. 792, ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t y. p. 1369. 

♦ In Mansi, t vi. p. 697 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 78. Ct Walch, i.c S. 171. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRETENDED FALSIFICAnON OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 211 

80 far as to require a confession of faith from Flavian, which 
he presented, and which has come down to us.^ 

Sec. 174. The Examination on account of the pretended 
fahiJuxUion of the Synodal Acts, 

Mating use of the favourable disposition of the Emperor, 
Eutyches brought a new complaint in the early part of the 
year 449, that the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, which 
Flavian had had prepared, were in many places falsified, and 
that therefore the notaries of Flavian, together with the 
deacon Athanasius of Seleucia, and the clerics whom the 
Synod had sent to Eutyches, should be examined in the 
presence of Thalassius (Archbishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia) 
and other bishops.^ The Emperor acceded to this request on 
the 8th of April 449,' and on the same day the imperial 
tribune, notary, and referendar Macedonius acquainted the 
bishops who were assembled under the presidency of Thalas- 
sius in the baptistery of the church of Constantinople with the 
Emperor's command Flavian is not included in the list of 
bishops, but many others are there who had co-operated in 
the deposition of Eutyches.* 

In consequence of this a second and greater synodal as- 
sembly of thirty-four bishops took place on the 13th of April 
in the .greater portico of the church at Constantinople imder 
the presidency of Flavian. Fifteen of them had also been, in 
the previous year, members of that Synod which had pro- 
nounced the condemnation of Eutychea Besides these, the 
Patrician Florentius was also present again on this occasion, 
and with him two other imperial officials, the Count Mamas 
and the tribune Macedonius, already mentioned. 

After the short minutes of the assembly of April 8 were 

^ In liberat. Breviar, c. xL ; in Qalland. t xii p. 139 ; and in M&nsi, t yL 
p. 539, and viiL p. 824 ; in Hardooin, t ii. p. 7. Cfl Walch, l.c S. 171. 

* The letter of Eatyches to the Emperor, in Mansi, t. vL p. 764 : and Hardouin, 
t- ii p. 177. 

* Mansi, t ri. p. 767 ; Hardooin, t iL p. 178. 

* Mansi, t vi pp. 767-761 ; Hardooin, t iL pp. 178-176. A translation of the 
Acts of this and the foHowing commission (abridged) is given by Fochs, Biblioth, 
der Kirchawen, Bd. iv. S. 386 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



212 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

read, Florentius asked whether representatives of Eutyches 
were present When this question was answered in the 
aflfirmative, Eusebius of Dorylseum and Meliphthongus, Bishop 
of Juliopolis, raised a question as to their admission, as they 
thought that Eutyches himself ought personally to appear. 
When, however, the tribune explained that, as Eutyches, being 
excommunicated, would not venture personally to be present, 
the Emperor had ordered him to send representatives, they 
acquiesced, and the spokesmen for Eutyches were admitted. 
They were the three monks Constantine, Eleusinius, and 
Gonstantius. Thereupon the tribune requested that the 
bishops who had been present at the deposition of Eutyches 
should swear an oath that they would say the truth; but 
Basil of Seleuda, one of the most distinguished among those 
present, rejected this requirement as inadmissible, and as some- 
thing which had never been done before ; but, on the other 
hand, promised that all should speak with the same conscien- 
tiousness as though they stood before the holy altar. 

Whether Macedonius upon this gave up his demand the 
Acts do not say, but they inform us that the petition which 
Eutyches had addressed to the Emperor, and which we have 
already mentioned, was now read. Then the notaries of 
Flavian, who had drawn up the criminated acts, were required 
to stand forth in the midst of the assembly, namely, the deacons 
Asterius, Aetius, Nonnus, Asclepiades, and Procopius. Aetius 
desired at first to be more accurately informed of what they 
were accused, and that they should be allowed time to reply. 
But Florentius refused this as an evasion of the question, and 
declared that the Acts should be read and their genuineness 
examined, but that no definite accusation should be brought 
forward against the notaries. To this Archbishop Flavian 
also agreed, remarking that the Acts had been drawn up by 
his notaries. If they were genuine, they must now maintain 
this without hesitation ; but if anything in them were false, 
they must speak the truth as before the judgment-seat of GU)d, 
and not conceal the falsifier. Florentius acknowledged that 
the Archbishop thus spoke from a sense of his innocence, and 
after another objection of Aetius had been put aside, they 
proceeded to the actual examination of the Acts, in such wise 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTa 213 

that the authentic copy of the notaries of Flavian was read 
from section to section, and the representatives of Eutyches 
were required to compare that which was read with their own 
copy which they had brought with them, and at once to bring 
forward their remarks in opposition.^ 

No objection was made to the Acts of the first and second 
sessions of Constantinople (pp. 1 9 0, 1 9 1) ; but after the reading 
of the minutes of the third session one of the representatives 
of Eutyches, the deacon and monk Constantino, remarked 
that an expression of Eutyches had not been correctly repro- 
duced. He had not said to those whom the Synod then sent 
to him : " If the Fathers of the Church erred in some expres- 
sions, I do not blame them for this, but only inquire in Holy 
Scripture" (p. 1 9 2). Instead, however, of stating how Eutyches 
did then actually express himself, he only explained his own 
view, " that the Fathers had spoken diversely, and I accept all 
from them, but not as a rule of faith (ek teavova Be 'n-iarec^^ 
oif hexpiiaC)^ As, however, he noticed that this expression 
was idso very offensive, he requested that it should not be 
ujsed to the prejudice of Eutyches. He was answered pro- 
perly that the representatives of Eutyches at their entrance 
had themselves given the assurance that they possessed full 
instructions and unrestricted authority from him, so that he 
would acknowledge £tll their explanations as his own words, 
and for that reason the request just made was quite inadmis- 
sible. Embarrassed by this answer, Constantino requested 
that the words, " but not as a rule of faith," might be struck 
out, for he had uttered them only inconsiderately, being con- 
fused by the great noise in the assembly. 

Bishop Seleucus remarked that this had not been so, for, on 
the contrary, he had made use of this expression while perfect 
silence prevailed, and before the noise (caused by Ms utter- 
ance) had arisen. Asked by Florentius to state their opinion, 
the two bishops, Thalassius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Ancyra 
(neither of whom had been present at the Synod of the year 
448), declared that the representatives of Eutyches could not 
confirm one part of what he had deposed and not the other ; 
but all that he said must be confirmed and regarded as 
1 Manjd, t vL pp. 753-771 ; Hardouin, t iL pp. 171-182. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



214 * HISTOKY OF THE CX)UNCILa 

Eutyches' own explanation. Constantine replied that he had 
not claimed to have received such extensive authority from 
Eutyches; but Florentius pointed out that it had been so 
stated by himself in the Acta Bishop Meliphthongus of 
Juliopolis interposed the remark that it was now clear that 
they ought to have accepted his proposal, that Eutyches 
should again be heard in person. But again he found no 
response, and at the request of the Patrician the two earlier 
synodal deputies, the priest John and the deacon Andrew, 
declared most solemnly that Eutyches had certainly spoken 
the words in question to them. Upon the further remark of 
the monk Constantine, that the earlier report of the presbyter 
John had not yet been read from the minutes, the latter him- 
self requested that this should now be done, and that he should 
put off taking the oath until the reading was completed. 

After this the whole of the testimony which had been borne 
by John in the third session at Constantinople (see p. 191 f.) 
was now read from beginning to end, and after this was done, 
John remarked that, as they knew, it was not quite possible 
to repeat the very words which one had heard ; but the deacon 
Andrew and the deacon Athanasius (of Seleucia) had also been 
present at the interview with Eutyches. Besides, he had 
immediately at the time made a note in writing of what he 
had heard, and still possessed this memorandum. At the 
request of Florentius it was read,* and it agreed in every 
essential with the minute (of the Synod of Constantinople). 
For this reason Constantine, the friend of Eutyches, made no 
criticism ; but his colleague Eleusinius called attention to the 
fact that the supposed expression of Eutyches which stood in 
the minutes of the Synod : " Christ's body is not of one sub- 
stance with ours," was not foimd in the memorandum of John. 
John replied that he would swear that Eutyches had actually 
spoken these words, but to him alone, and not also to the 
others who were present, for which reason he had not put 
them in his memorandum. 

Then the short testimony which the deacon Andrew had 
given in the third session at Constantinople (p. 192) was read, 
and he added to this that the priest John had then asked 
* Mansi, t. ti. p. 782 sq. ; Hardonin, t. iL p. 187. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 213 

Eutyches whether he acknowledged that Christ, in His God- 
head, was of one substance with the Father, but in His man- 
hood of one substance with us. Eutyches had replied that 
the Creed (of Nicsea) spoke only ojf one consubstantiality, 
namely that of the Grodhead, and we ought to be satisfied 
with that Moreover, Eutyches had spoken something with 
John alone, which he had not heard. The same was deposed 
by the deacon Athanasius of Seleucia, only he knew nothing 
of the separate conversation between Eutyches and John. 
The monk Eleusinius, one of the agents of Eutyches, laid 
great stress upon the fact that John in his later testimony 
had added something to his first memorandum in his note- 
book, and both reports were then read again and compared. 
Athanasius explained that when in the third session of 
Constantinople the words of Eutyches, " not of one substance 
with us after the flesh," were read, he had remarked that this 
was new to him ; but the priest John had then again asseve- 
rated that Eutyches had uttered this in his presence alone. 
John now said the others, however, must have heard how he 
addressed the question to Eutyches : " Dost thou believe that 
the Son, as touching the Godhead, is of one substance with the 
Father, and as touching the manhood of one substance with 
us ? ** and they testified to this.^ 

Then this point was left, and they proceeded with the 
reading of the Acts of Constantinople. At those of the fifth 
session the monk Constantine at the beginning tried to create 
a doubt as to whether Eutyches had really said to the Archi- 
mandrite Martin, that "if they (the other archimandrites) 
did not make common cause with him, the Archbishop would 
ruin them all, like him" (p. 196). He and his colleague 
Eleusinius, however, immediately gave up the demand for 
further examination of this point, which they themselves 
acknowledged to be unimportant 

After the reading of the minutes of the sixth session, at the 
request of Constantine, the sjmodal deputy Theophilus, who 
had previously been sent to Eutyches, was examined anew on 
the words which Eutyches had then spoken to him (p. 198). 
In his new testimony he added that Eutyches had then also 

* Mansi, t vL pp. 771-791 ; Hardouin, t iL pp. 181-198. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



216 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

said : " I follow the explanations of the Fathers," and the 
agents of Eutyches laid great stress upon this. Then Mamas, 
who had formerly been sent with Theophilus to Eutyches, 
repeated what he had said then, and, after a brief interpositioa 
from Constantino, they passed on to the minutes of the seventh 
session.* The first doubt on this occasion was raised by Flor- 
entius, who remarked: " he had indeed said that they should ask 
Eutyches how he believed and taught ; " but the words further 
ascribed to him, " why he expressed himself differently at differ- 
ent times (p. 2 1 ),he had not added." Archbishop Flavian asked 
who had made this (otherwise very unimportant) addition; but 
the notary Aetius thought it was not yet shown that it really 
was a foreign addition, and Florentius allowed the point to drop. 
On the further reading Eleusinius maintained that everything 
was not set forth in its proper order, particularly that Eutyches 
had at the very beginning offered to hand in the paper 
mentioned in the minutes, which had contained the Creed of 
Nicaea, but which had not been accepted by Flavian. The 
latter asked, in reply, how it was certain that the Nicene 
Creed had really formed part of that paper ; and Eusebius of 
Dorylseum wished to remove this whole point with the pro- 
posal that the chief question, whether Eutyches were reaUy a 
heretic or not, should be left to the (Ecumenical Council which 
was already summoned. But Bishqp Seleucus of Amasia 
remarked, with great force, that Eutyches, in his letter to Pope 
Leo, said that the paper which he proffered to the Synod had 
contained an appeal to Home : how could he then maintain 
that its contents was a confession of faith ? he contradicted 
himself After the further remark of Florentius, that Eutyches 
had, after the conclusion of the Synod of Constantinople, 
handed in that paper to him, they continued the reading of 
the minutes of the seventh session, and after a little Eleusinius 
maintained that the words of Eutyches were omitted, in which 
he said that " he thought exactly as the Synods of Nicaea and 
Ephesus had taught." But the bishops testified in great 
numbers that Eutyches had not then, at least, spoken these 
words. On further reading, Eleusinius raised a doubt as to 
whether, at the point at which it stood in the Acts, "the 

* Mansi, t vi pp. 791-798 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 195. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRETENDED FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 217 

Synod rose up and cried," etc. (p. 203), the first anathema had 
been pronounced upon Eutyches. Florentius and several 
bishops could no longer remember this ; others affirmed that 
they had so exclaimed ; but the notary Aetius remarked that 
it might easily happen, and without any bad intention, that if 
several bishops cried out the same thing (and no one contra- 
dicted), this should be taken for the utterance of the Synod. 
And so it might have happened here. This point also was 
then passed over; but at the next section of the minutes 
Horentius remarked that he had spoken to Eutyches the words : 
" Dost thou acknowledge two natures, eta, and if not, thou 
wilt be condemned" (p. 203), not as a threat, but as an 
exhortation, in order to induce him to submit to the Synod. 
A further expression, however, attributed to him : " He who 
does not say ' of two natures,' has not the right faith " (p. 203), 
was not his, and he should not have been justified, as a layman, 
in thus speaking.^ The notary Aetius appealed, however, to 
the testimony of the bishops and officers of state, in whose 
presence the Acts had been examined and approved after they 
were drawn up. Florentius might, perhaps, object that he at 
least had not read these Acts all through ; but it was incom- 
parably more probable that Florentius had learnt in the 
interval that the expression which he now wished to disavow 
was not in accordance with court-orthodoxy, than that the 
Acts should have been falsified at this place. 

At the conclusion of the minutes of the Synod, Con- 
stantino had several points to represent, and first of all 
that the cause of the condemnation of Eutyches was not 
expressed with sufficient exactness, for this had followed when, 
in answer to the demand of Flavian that he should pronounce 
an anathema on all who did not acknowledge two natures, he 
had replied : " Woe is me if I should anathematize the holy 
Fathers."' This was wanting in the Acts. (Certainly; but it 
appears in them somewhat earlier, and was objected to by the 
agents of Eutyches at that earlier place. The whole error 
then, if there was one, consists in a transposition which was 
made without the least purpose of deception.) 

1 Mansi, t vL p. 810 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 203. 
* Hansi, /.c p. 811 ; Hardouin, Z.e. p. 208. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



218 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Constantine further noted the omission of several insignificant 
details at the close of the seventh session, particularly several 
expressions of some of the bishops, and the notice that Arch- 
bishop Flavian had wished to have another passage read from 
S. Athanasius on the question of one or two natures, but that 
his notary Asterius, without regarding this, had immediately 
published the sentence against Eutyches. On this Aetius and 
several bishops remarked that there had been such loud 
speaking at the close of that session that they might easily 
have failed to hear the one expression or the other. Besides, 
several of them said they could no longer remember particular 
details.^ During the proceedings on this subject Constantine 
asserted that the judgment on Eutyches which stood in the 
Acts had not been conceived first at the session, but had been 
previously dictated by the Archbishop. Aetius demanded 
that Constantine should tell them how he knew this; but 
Bishop Seleucus put the point aside as not belonging to the 
question, since the matter now before them was the alleged 
falsification of the Acts, and not the time at which the Arch- 
bishop had conceived the idea of the sentence on Eutyches.* 

Finally, the monk Constantine again made the assertion 
that during the reading of the judgment pronounced upon him, 
Eutyches had appealed to a council of the Bishops of Bome, 
Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica (the primatial see of 
Illyria Orientalis), but that the minutes were silent on this 
subject That this assertion was scarcely correct is dear 
from that which the imperial commissioner Florentius was 
able to say on the subject, namely, that Eutyches, after the 
Council vxis already dissolved, had said to him quietly that he 
appealed to a Eoman, Egyptian, and Jerusalemite CounciL' 
He (Florentius) had immediately made Archbishop Flavian 
acquainted with this. Bishop Basil of Seleucia asserted that 
Eutyches had said, during the proceedings of the Synod, that 
he would acknowledge the two natures if the Bishops of Rome 
and Alexandria required this of him; but he had heard 
nothing of an appeal Flavian, too, testified that he had not 

' Mand, t. vi pp. 811-814 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 208 sqq. 

* Mansi, f.c p. 814 sqq. ; Hardouin, Le, p. 206. 

• Mansi, i.c p. 817 ; Hardouin, /.c. p. 208. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



PRETENDED PAXSIHCATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS. 219 

heard a word from Eutyches himself on the subject of an 
appeal, and that it was only after the close of the Synod that 
Florentius had given the intimation referred to. The same 
testimony, that they had heard nothing of an appeal, was 
given by all the other bishops. At the close, Florentius 
requested that these new proceedings should also be laid before 
the Emperor. He promised, in like manner, to bring to the 
knowledge of the Emperor the declarations of the notaries of 
Flavian that they had justified themselves, and that no one 
raised any complaint against them, so that in the future, 
when they no longer had the Acts at hand, they should not 
again be called to account.^ 

As we have already seen, the monk Constantino had 
maintained in the assembly just described, of the 13th of 
April, that the sentence of deposition on Eutyches was not 
first drawn up at the seventh session of the Synod, but had 
been previously dictated by Flavian. This point had not then 
been entered upon. Notwithstanding, Eutyches did not allow 
this to pass, and at his request the Emperor appointed a new 
small commission of inquiry, which met on the 27th of April 
449. The imperial Count Martial was its president, the 
Count Castorius his assistant, the tribune Macedonius and the 
Silentiar Magnus, of whom we have already spoken, had to be 
examined. First the petition was read which Eutyches had 
addressed to the Emperor on this subject, and as he appealed 
in it also to the Silentiar Magnus, who had conducted him 
into the presence of the Synod, and had then seen and heard 
something in reference to the sentence in question, the Silentiar 
was now required by Martial to give evidence of the truth. 
He deposed that, when he had come to Archbishop Flavian to 
announce to him that the Patrician Florentius would be 
present at the Synod by the Emperor's commission, the Arch- 
bishop had said to him that it wsts unnecessary to trouble so 
distinguished a personage on this occasion, for the pattern in 
this matter (ie. the sentence) was already given, and Eutyches 
was already condemned, because he had not appeared at the 
second invitation. He had also been shown a paper containing 
this condemnation, and this had been done before the Synod 

^ Maud, t. vi. pp. 817>822 ; Hardonis, t. ii. p. 208 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



220 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

had pronounced its judgment.* — ^This testimony was entered 
in the minutes^ and then, at the request of the monk Con- 
stantine, Macedonius was desired to give an account of what 
he had heard from the priest Asterius, Flavian's notary. He 
declared that after the dose of the previously mentioned 
session for the confirmation of the Acts, Asterius had informed 
him that the Archimandrite Abraham and the notaries had 
falsified the Acts. This also was entered in the minutes * but 
no inquiry was made into the accuracy of this testimony, as it 
must have appeared, A priori, improbable that Asterius, one of 
the notaries of Flavian, who was thoroughly devoted to him, 
and who was himself implicated, should have betrayed himself 
and his colleagues. 

^ Fuchs, in his BU>Uoth. der Kirehenvera. Bd. It. S. 898, says on this point : 
''That Flavian was interrogated on the subject is not said. Probably he would 
not have found it difficult to defend himself, for the whole circumstance could 
prove nothing against the legality of the proceedings against Eutyches. ... As 
Eutyches had not appeared after two citations, it could hardly have been hoped 
that he would appear at the third. In this case he must have been condemned ; 
and why should not Flavian in that case have prepared the judgment before- 
hand?" 

* Mansi, t vi. pp. 821-828 ; Hardouin, t ii. pp. 209-213. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CHAPTER III. 

THE ROBBEB-STKOD. 

Sec. 175. Convocation of tTie Synod. 

A FEW weeks before those two commissions of inquiry met, 
the Emperor Theodosius n. had summoned an (Ecu- 
menical Council to Ephesus. He did this at the united request 
of Eutyches and the Patriarch Dioscurus of Alexandria/ 
supported probably by the minister Chrysaphius. Dioscurus 
stood on the same doctrinal ground as Eutyches, understanding 
the teaching of Cyril in the same sense as he did, and dis- 
covered Nestorianism in every other view. He was perhaps 
also drawn on by envy against the Patriarch of Constantinople, 
whose see began to obtain precedence over that of Alexandria, 
a circumstance which, half a century before, had occasioned 
the irreconcilable hatred of Theophilus of Alexandria against 
S. Chrysostom. Dioscurus now went so far that, in opposition 
to all canonical laws, he received back Eutyches into the 
communion of the Church, and declared him to be restored 
to his dignities as priest and archimandrite even before the 
greater Synod of Ephesus, which had been called for the 
examination of the subject, had given a decision upon it; 
and this although Eutyches had been excommunicated by a 
competent tribunal, and although Dioscurus had not the least 
jurisdiction over him.* 

Of the convocation of this Synod, as imminent, Flavian had 
spoken in his second letter to Pope Leo, and frequently de- 

' liberat. Breviar. HUt, Butych. c. 12, in Galknd. BibUot?L PP, t xiL p. 140 ; 
and Theophanes, CkronograpMa, ad ann, 5940, tip. 154, ed. Bonn. {aUcu, 
p. 86). Fagi contends that the Empress Endocia had also interceded for 
Entyohes, Oril, ad amn. 449 n. 7 (on account of the absence of the Empress at 
the time), and after him, Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. yi S. 200, Anm. 

* Mansi, t vL pp. 1045 and 1099 ; Hardooin, t IL pp. 845 and 879. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



222 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS, 

Glared that he expected no good of it (see above, p. 210). 
Bishop Eusebius of Dorylseum, on the contrary, seems to 
have regarded the prospect as more favourable, as we may 
infer from his expressions already mentioned (p. 216). The 
imperial brief of convocation itself, which, as was usual, was 
sent forth in the name of the two Emperors, Theodosius n. and 
Valentinian ill., is dated from Constantinople on the 30th 
of March 449. It was addressed in identical terms to the 
great metropolitans, and still exists in the copy sent to 
Dioscurus. The Emperors dedare in it their zeal for ortho- 
doxy, and explain that, as doubts and controversies have 
arisen respecting the right faith, the holding of an (Ecumenical 
Synod has become necessary. Dioscurus must therefore, with 
ten of the metropolitans subject to him and ten other holy 
bishops distinguished for knowledge and character, present 
themselves at Ephesus, on the approaching first of August 
The same invitations were sent also to the other bishops, and 
they were warned that none of those who were summoned 
could, without great responsibility, decline or delay their 
arrivaL Theodoret of Cyrus, on the contrary (the strenuous 
opponent of Monophysitism), was not to appear unless the 
Synod itself should summon him.^ 

In a second letter to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May of 
the same year, the Emperor says he has learned that many 
Oriental archimandrites were with great zeal opposing some 
Nestorianizing bishops ; he had therefore given command that 
the Priest and Archimandrite Barsumas (of Syria) should also 
appear as representative of all his colleagues at the Council 
of Ephesus with a seat and a vote, and Dioscurus is required 
to receive him in a friendly maimer as a member of the Synod.* 

^ In Manai, t vi p. 588 sq. ; Hardooin, t. ii. p. 71. (German in Fucha, 
Biblioth. der Kirchenver$, Bd. iv. S. 335. That Ibas had been exiled by the 
minister Chrysaphius, at the request of Eutyches, in order to keep him at a 
distance from the Synod, is asserted by Liberatos in his Breviar. c. 12, in 
Galland. BibL PP. t. ziL p. 140. It appears, however, that this banishment 
really took place after the Bobber-Synod. Cf. Walch, KeizerfM, Bd. vL S. 
204. 

> Mansi, t. vi. p. 598 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 76. This Monophysite abbot, Bar- 
sumas (a Saint of the Jacobites), must not be confounded with the contempo- 
raneous Nestorian bishop, Barsumas of Kisibis. Ct oa both, the Kirchenlexicom 
of Wetsei and Welte, under the article '* Barsumas. " 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD. 223 

"With this agrees the letter of the Emperor to Barsumas himself, 
dated on the 14th of May, which has also come down to us;^ 
and therefore we may suppose that in fact some Nestorianizing 
bishops in the East had been raising controversies at the same 
time with Eutyches, only in a directly opposite manner, and 
that this was, in the Emperor's view, a second reason for the 
convocation of the Synod. About the same time the Emperor 
appointed two high oflBcers of state, Elpidius {Comes sacri con- 
sisiorii, as he is called in the letter to the proconsid Proclus) 
and the tribune and praetorian notary Eulogius, as his com- 
missioners at the approaching Synod, and gave them written 
instructions (comTnonitorium) which still exist in the copy 
addressed to Elpidius, and run as follows : " But lately the 
holy Synod of Ephesus had been engaged with the affair of 
the impious Kestorius, and had pronounced a righteous 
sentence on him. Because, however, new controversies of 
faith had arisen, he had summoned a second Synod to Ephesus, 
in order to destroy the evil to the roots. He had therefore 
selected Elpidius and Eulogius for the service of the faith in 
order to fulfil his commands in reference to the Synod of 
Ephesus. In particular, they must allow no disturbances, and 
they must arrest every one who aroused such, and inform the 
Emperor of him ; they must take care that everything is done 
in order, must be present at the decisions {xplaet), and take 
care that the Synod examine the matter quickly and carefully, 
and' give information of the same to the Emperor. Those 
bishops who previously sat in judgment on Eutyches (at 
Constantinople) are to be present at the proceedings at 
Ephesus, but are not to vote, since their own previous sen- 
tence must be examined anew. Further, no other question is 
to be brought forward at the Synod, and especially no question 
of money, before the settlement of the question of faith. 
By a letter to the proconsul he had required support for 
the commissioners from the civil and military authorities, so 
that they might be able to fulfil his commissions, which were 
as far above other business as divine above human things." * 
A short decree to the proconsul Proclus of Asia acquainted 

1 Mans! and Hardoain, U.ce, 

s Mansi, t. yL p. 596 ; Hardoain, t. ii. p. 75. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



224 HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 

him with the imperial resolution thus expressed, and ordered 
him to support the commissioners as well as possible, other- 
wise he would expose himself to great responsibility.^ 

We possess, besides, two other imperial decrees which pre- 
ceded the actual opening of the Ephesine or Robber-Synod. 
The first of them is an edict to Dioscurus, to the effect that 
"the Emperor has already forbidden Theodoret of Cyrus, on 
account of his writings against Cyril, to take part in the 
Synod, unless he is expressly summoned by the Synod itself 
Because, however, it was to be feared that some Nestorianizing 
bishops would use every means in order to bring him with 
them, the Emperor, following the rule of the holy Fathers, 
would nominate Dioscurus to be president of the Synod.' 
Archbishop Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea, 
and all zealous friends of the orthodox faith, would support 
Dioscurus. In conclusion, the Emperor expresses the wish 
that aU who should desire to add anything to the Nicene 
Confession of Faith {Symbclum), or take anything from it, 
should not be regarded in the Synod; but on this point 
Dioscurus should give judgment, since it was for this very 
purpose that the Synod was convoked."^ 

The second rescript, addressed to the Synod itself, says : 
" The Emperor had indeed wished that aU had remained at 
rest, and that he had not found it necessary to trouble the 
bishops ; but Flavian had brought into question some points 
respecting the faith, in opposition to the Archimandrite 
Eutyches, and on that account had assembled a council. 
The Emperor had several times entreated him to allay again 
the storm which had been raised, so that the confusion might 
not become universal ; but Flavian had not allowed the con- 
troversy to drop, and therefore the Emperor had judged 
necessary the opening of a holy Synod of the bishops of all 
parts, so that they might learn what had already been done 
in this matter, that they might cut off this controversy and 

1 Mansi, t vi. p. 697 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 77. 

' On the presidency at Ephesos, cf. voL i p. 43. Dioscnros said afterwards, at 
the Council of Chalcedon, that Juvenal and Thalassius had presided in common 
with him, which Natalia Alexander calls a falsehood. It is also contradicted by 
the contents of the imperial edict quoted above. 

> Mansi, t vL p. 600 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 80 ; Fachs, Ic S. 341. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 225 

all its diabolical roots, exclude the adherents of Nestorius from 
the Church, and preserve the orthodox faith firm and unshaken, 
since the whole hope of the Emperor and the power of the 
empire depended upon the right faith in God and the holy 
prayers of the Synod." ^ 

An invitation to take part in the Synod of Ephesus was 
also despatched to Pope Leo L, and reached Bome, May 13, 
449.* The Pope, however, was unable to respond to thje 
wish of the Emperor that he should appear personally, on 
account of disquieting coiyunctures,' and therefore he ap- 
pointed three legates. Bishop Julius of Fuzzuolo, the priest 
Eenatus (Cardinal of S. Clement), and the deacon Hilarus, to 
take his place at the Synod, and to convey his letters to Arch- 
bishop Flavian, to the Emperor, to the Synod, to Pulcheria, etc. 

Sec. 176. The celebrated Epistola Dogmatica of Leo to Flavian, 

The first of these letters, to Flavian, contains that complete 
doctrinal treatise on the doctrine of the person of Christ 
which Leo had already (p. 210) promised to the bishop of 
Constantinople, and which afterwards, as approved by the 
fourth (Ecumenical Synod, received symbolical importance.* 

This letter, the original text of which we append in the 
note,* with the omission of a few unimportant sentences, runs 
as follows : — '' Chap. L Thy letter, at the late despatch of 

' Mansi, Ic, p. 689 ; Hardoain, l.e, p. 77 ; Fuchs, Ic. S. 840. 

* Cf. Leonis Epist, 31 ad Pulcherianij c. 4, p. 856, ed. Bailer. In Mansi, t. v. 
p. 1401. 

* L.c, and Ep. 87, p. 886, ed. Bailer, in Mansi, t. v. p. 1424. 

* This letter of Leo's, No. 28 in the collection of Ballerini, is printed in Leonis 
Opp, ed. Bailer, t i. pp. 801-838 ; in Mansi, t. v. p. 1366 ; Hardooin, t ii p. 
290 sqq. ; Qerman in Fnchs, Ix. Bd. iv. S. 812 ff. ; partially also in Arendt, 
Leo d. O, tt. seme Zdt, Mainz 1835, S. 232 ff. The original text is Latin ; the 
Greek translation printed with it was probably made immediately after its 
arrival in Constantinople, and read at the Synod of Chalcedon. Of. Walch, 
KetzerhUt Bd. vi. S. 182 ff. Numerous notes to this letter are given by 
Quesnel and the Ballerini, and all printed together in the second volume of the 
ed. of the BaUerini, p. 1407 sqq. We remark that Gennadius, De Vvris illustr, 
c 84, says that many regard Prosper of Aquitaine as having conceived this 
letter ; but he vindicates the authorship of Pope Leo himself. 

^ Leo episcopus dUectiasimofratri Flaviano eonstantinopoUttino epiacopo. 
Cap. I. Lectis dilectionis tuse litteris, quas miramur fuisse tarn seras, et 
III. P 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



226 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

which I am astonished, and the synodal Acts which were 
appended, have at last made me acquainted with the offence 
which has arisen among you in opposition to the true faith. 
What has hitherto been dark has now become quite dear. 
Eutyches there shows himself as in a high degree ignorant and 
lacking in intelligence. . . . What knowledge of the Old and 
New Testament can he have who does not even understand 
the beginning of the creed ? And that which the catechumens 
throughout the whole world confess, the heart of this old man 
cannot comprehend. — Chap. IL If He did not know what 
he ought to believe respecting the incarnation of the divine 
Word, and would not search throughout the whole Scriptures 
on the subject, then he ought to have adhered to the creed, 
which all know and confess : To believe in God, the Father 
Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who 
was bom by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. By these 
three propositions almost every heresy is overthrown. For, 
if one believes in God the Father Almighty, then is the Son 
declared to be co-eternal with Him, differing in nothing from 
the Father, because He is God of God, Almighty of the 
Almighty, Co-eternal of the Eternal, not later in time, not 

gestomm epiflcopaliiun ordine lecensito, tandem quid apod voe scandali oontn 
integritatem fidei exortom foisset, agnoyimus : et qus prius videbantar occulta, 
nunc nobis reserata pataenmt. Quibos Eutyches, qui piesbjterii nomine 
honorabilis videbatur, multum imprudens et nimis imperitus oetenditur, at 
etiam de ipso dictum sit a propheta : NoiuU intelUgertf tU bene ctgeret ; •»- 
iqiutcUem medUatus est in ctibUi suo (Ps. xxxy. 4). Quid autem iniquios, 
quam impia sapere, et sapientioribus doctioribusque non cedere ? Sed in banc 
insipientiam cadunt, qui cum ad cognoscendam veritatem aliquo impediuntiir 
obscuro, non ad propheticas voces, non ad apostolicas litteras, nee ad erangelicas 
auctoritates, sed ad semetipsos recumint ; etideo magistri erroris existunt, quia 
yeritatis discipuli non fuere. Quam enim eruditionem de sacris novi et Teteris 
testamenti paginis acquisivit, qui ne ipsius quidem symboli initia comprehendit t 
£t quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depromitur, istins 
adhuc sems corde non capitur. 

G. II. Kesciens igitur quid deberet de Yerbi Dei incarnatione sentirey nee 
Tolens ad promerendum intelligentiffi lumen in sanctarum Scripturanun lati* 
tudine laborare, illam saltem communem et indiscretam confessionem soUicito 
recepisset audita, qua fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Denm Patrem 
omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum, Dominum noetram, 
qui natus est de Spiritu sancto et [ex 7] Maria Y iigine. Quibus tribns sententiia 
omnium fere hsereticorum machine destruuntur. Cum enim Dens et oninipotens 
et [setemus] Pater creditur, consempitemus eidem Filius demonstratur, in nnUo 
a Patre differens, quia de Deo Deus, de omnipotente omnipotens, de ctemo natos 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 227 

inferior in power, not unequal in glory, not divided in essence. 
And this only-begotten eternal Son of the eternal Father was 
"bom by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. This birth in 
time has taken nothing from, and added nothing to, the eternal 
birth (from the Father), and its only end is the redemption of 
men. For we could not overcome sin and the author of death, 
unless our nature had been assumed and made His own by 
Him whom neither sin could stain nor death coidd hold. 
He was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the 
Virgin, and she bare Him without injury to her virginity, even 
as she conceived Him without loss of the same. If Eutyches 
in his own blindness cannot comprehend this, then he ought 
to have submitted to the utterances of Holy Scripture which 
treat of the incarnation of the Logos. He could not then 
have asserted that the Word had only so far become flesh, that 
Christ who was bom of the womb of the Virgin had received 

est coaetemns ; non posterior tempore, non inferior potestate, uon dissimilis gloria, 
non divisQs essentia : idem vero sempiterni genitoris nnigenitus sempitemus 
natus est de Spiritu sancto et [ex ?] Maria Virgine. Qus nativitas temporalis illi 
nativitati divine et sempitems nihil minuit, nihil contulit, sed totam se reparando 
homini, qmerat deceptus, impendit ; nt et mortem vinceret, et diabolnm, qui 
mortis habebat imperium, sua virtute destrueret Non enim saperare possemus 
peccati et mortis anctorem, nisi natnram nostram ille susciperet, et soam faceret, 
quern nee peccatum contaminare, nee mors potuit detinere. Conceptus quippe 
est de Spiritu sancto intra nterum matris virginis, quas ilium ita salva virginitate 
edidit, quemadmodum salva yirginitate concepit. Sed si de hoc Christian® 
fidei fonte purissimo sincemm intellectum haurire non poterat, quia splendorem 
perspicuffi veritatis obcacatione sibi propria tenebrarat, doctrin® se evangelic® 
subdidisset. Et dicente Matthao : Liber generationis Jesu ClirisUJUii David, 
JiUi Abraham (Matt. LI): apostolic® quoque pr®dicationis expetisset instructum. 
Etlegensin epistola ad Romanos : Paulus servus Jesu Christie vocatus apostolua, 
segregatuB in Bvangelium Dei, quod ante promiserat per propheta^ auoa in 
Seripttiris Sanctis de Filio suo, qtd foetus est ei ex semine David secundum camem 
(Eom. i 1) : ad propheticas [quoque], paginas piam sollicitudinem contulisset. 
£t inveniens promissionem Dei ad Abraham dicentis : In semine tuo benedicentur 
omnes gentes (Gen. zii. 8, xxiL 18) : ne de hujus seminis proprietate dubitaret, 
secutos fuisset apostolum dicentem : Abrahce dictce sunt promissiones, et semini 
efus, Non dicit et seminibus, quasi in multisj sed quasi in uno, et semini tuo, quod 
est Christus (Gkd. iiL 16). Isai® quoque pr®dicationem interiore apprehendisset 
audita dicentis : Ecce virgo in utero accipiet, et parietfilium et vocabunt namen 
^U8 Emmanuel (Isa. vii. 14), quod est interpretatum, nobiscum Deus (Matt. 
i. 28). Ejusdemque prophet® fideliter verba legisset, Puer naius est nobis, 
JUius datus est nobis, cujus potestas super humerum ^us, et vocabunt nomen 
ejus magni consUH cmgelus, €uimirabilis, consUiaritis, Deus fortis, Princeps 
pads, Pater futuri seculi (iz. 6). Nee frustratorie loquens, ita Verbum 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



228 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the form of a man, but not a true body like His mother's. 
Perhaps Eutyches believed that Christ was not of the same 
nature with us, because the angel said to Mary : ' The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High 
shall overshadow thee : wherefore also the holy thing which is 
to be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.* He 
believed perhaps, because the conception of the Virgin was a 
divine work, that therefore the flesh of Him who was conceived 
was not of the nature of her who had conceived. But this 
is not so. The proper nature of the (human) race is not 
removed by the new mode of creation. The Holy Ghost gave 
fruitfulness to the Virgin, the truth of the body, however, comes 
from the body (of the mother). Therefore the evangelist 
says : ' The Word was made flesh,' that is, the wisdom of God 
has builded for Himself a house in that flesh which He assumed 
of a human being (Mary), and which He animated by the 
spiritiLS animcB [vUce?] rationalis (by a reasonable soul). — 
Chap. III. Since, then, the properties of both natures and 
substances remained uninjured, and united in one person, 
lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by strength, 
mortality by eternity. In order to pay our debt, the 
inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that, as 
our salvation required, the one Mediator between God 
and man on the one side could die, on the other could 

diceret camem factum, ut editus utero vii-ginis Cbristos haberet formam hominis, 
et non baberet xnaterni corporis yeritatem. An forte ideo putavit Dominom 
nostrum Jesum Cbristum non nostrse esse uatune, quia missus ad beatam 
Mariam semper virginem ang^lus ait : Spiritus sanctus superveniei in te, et 
virtus Altimmi ohumhrahit tibi: ideoque et quod ruucetur ex te wnctum, vocabitur 
FUiiu Dei? (Luc. i. 35) ut quia conceptus Virginis divini fuit operis, non de natuia 
concipientis fuerit caro concepti. Sed non ita [nobis] inteUigeuda est ilia generatio 
singulariter mirabilis et mirabiliter singularis, ut per novitatem creationis pro* 
prietas remota sit generis, Fecunditatem enim virgini Spiritus sanctus dedit, 
Veritas autem corporis sumpta de corpore est ; et esdificante sibi sapientia dommn 
(Pi-ov. ix. 1): Verbum caro /actum est, et habitavU in nobis (Joan. i. 14) : boo est, 
in ea came, quam assumsit ex bomine, et quam spiritu yits rationalis animavit. 
C. III. Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturte et substantiffi, et in unam 
coeunte personam, suscepta est a ms^'estate bumilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab 
eetemitate mortalitas : et ad resolvendum conditionis nostras debitum, natara 
inyiolabilis naturs est unita passibili : ut, quod nostris remediis congraebat, 
unus atque idem mediator Dei et bominum, bomo Jesus Cbristus, et mori posset 
ex uno, et mori non posset ex altero. In integra ergo veri hominis peifectaque 
natuiu yerus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris. Nostra autem 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVLAN. 229 

not die. In the inviolate and perfect nature (in integra 
perfedaqtie natura) of a true man, true God is born, com- 
plete in His own (in His Godhead) and complete in ours 
(in the manhood). I say, 'in ours,' and I mean, as the 
Creator fonned our nature, and as Christ wills to restore 
it (that is, Christ's manhood is the integra, not cor- 
nipted by sin). For of that which the tempter has brought 
into us there was in the Redeemer no trace.' He participated 
in our infirmities, but not in our sins. He took upon Him 
the form of a servant without the stain of sin, and He raised 
the human without impairing the divine. The emptying 
of Himself (PhiL ii 7), by which the Invisible showed 
Himself visible, and the Lord and Creator of the world willed 
to become one of the mortals, this emptying of Himself was 
no loss of power, but a working of compassion. He who in 
the form of God had made man, became man in the form of 
a servant Each nature preserves its property inviolate, and 
as the ' form of God ' did not annihilate the ' form of a 
servant,' so the form of a servant in nothing impairs the 
form of God (forma Dei), — Chap. IV. The Son of God, then, 
enters into this lower world, descending from His' heavenly 
throne, and not receding from the glory of the Father, coming 

dicimua, qiue in nobis ab intitio Creator condidit, et quse reparanda soscepit. 
Nam ilia, quie deceptor intulit, e thomo deceptus admisit, nnllam habuemnt in 
Salyatore vestigiom. Nee quia communionem humanarum subiit infirmitatum, 
ideo noetrorum fnit particeps delictorum. Assumpsit formam send sine sorde 
peccati, hnmana angens, divina non minnens : quia exinanitio ilia, qua se invisi- 
bills yisibilem preebnit, et Creator ac Domintts omnium rerum unus voluit esse 
mortaliuro, inclinatio fuit miserationis, non defectio potestatis. Proinde qui 
manens in forma Dei fecit hominem, idem in forma servi factus est homo. Tenet 
enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura : et sicut formam servi Dei 
forma non adimit, ita formam Dei servi forma non minuit Nam quia gloriabatur 
diabolus, bominem sua frauds deceptum divinis canusse muneribus, et immor- 
talitatis dote nudatum duram mortis subiisse sententiam, seque in malis suis 
quoddam de prsevaricatoris consortio invenisse solatium ; Deum quoque, justitie 
ezigente ratione, erga bominem, quem in tanto honore condiderat, propriam 
mutasse sententiam ; opus fuit secreti dispensatione consilii, ut incommutabilis 
Deus, cujus voluntas non potest sua benignitate privari, primam erga nos pietatis 
sue dispositionem sacramento occultiore compleret ; et bomb diabolic® iniqui- 
tatis versutia actus in culpam, contra Dei propositnm non periret. 

C. IV. Ingreditur ergo haec mundi infima Filius Dei, de coelesti sede descen- 
dens, et a patema gloria non recedens, novo ordine, nova nativitate generatus. 
Novo ordine, quia invisibilis in suis, visibilis factus est in nostris ; incompre- 



•Digitized by Google 



230 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

to the world in a new order of things, and in a new kind of 
birth. In a new order of things, since He who is in His 
own invisible, in ours (in our nature) has become visible, the 
incomprehensible willed to be comprehended. He who existed 
before all time began to be in time, the Lord of all veiling 
His majesty took upon Him the form of a servant, the 
impassible God does not disdain to be a suffering man, and 
the Immortal has subjected Himself to the laws of death. 
But it was by a new kind of birth that He came into the 
world, since the inviolate virginity, without experiencing 
concupiscence, furnished the matter of flesh. He assumed 
from His mother nature not guilt, and, as His birth is 
wonderful, so is His nature not unlike ours. For He who 
is true God is at the same time true man, and in this unity 
there is no lie, for the lowliness of man tind the loftiness of 
God have penetrated each other {invicem sunt). As God is 
not changed by His compassion (i.e. since He became man 
out of compassion), so neither is man (the manhood) consumed 
(absorbed) by His dignity. Each of the two forms (natures) 
does in communion with the other that which is proper to 
it, since the Word (of God) performs that which is of the 
Word, and the flesh performs that which is of the flesh. 
The one of them shines forth in mii*acles, the other submits 
to insults. And as the Word does not recede from the 
equality of the Father's glory, so does the flesh not abandon 
the nature of our race. For He who is one and the same, 
as must be often repeated, is truly Son of God and truly Son 

hensibilis volmt comprehsiidi, ante tempora manens esse coepit ex tempore ; 
uniyersitatis Dominus seryilem formain, obumbrata majestatis siue immensitate, 
soscepit ; impassibilis Deas non dedignatns est homo esse passibilis^ et im- 
mortalis mortis legibos subjacere. Nova autem natiyitate generatus, quia 
inviolata virginitas concnpiscentiam nesciyit, camis materiam miniatravit. 
Assompta est de matre Domini natnra, non colpa ; nee in Domino Jesa Christo, 
ex atero virginis genito, quia natiyitas est mirabilis, ideo nostri est natnra dis- 
similis. Qni enim verus est Dens, idem yenis est homo ; et nullnm est in hac 
unitate mendacium, dnm inyicem sunt et humilitas hominis, et altitudo Deitatis. 
Sicat enim Dens non mutator miseratione, ita homo non consnmitur dignitate. 
Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius conimunione, quod proprinm est; 
Yerbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et came exsequente quod camis est. 
Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit ii\juriis. Et sicut Yerbum 
ab squalitate patems glorise non recedit, ita caro naturam nostri generis non 
relinquit. Unus enim idemque est, quod sepe dicendum est, yere Dei Filios, 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 231 

of man. God in this, that * in the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God ; * 
Tnan in this, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
among us ; ' God in this, that all things were made by Him, 
and without Him nothing was made ; man in this, that He 
was made of a woman, and under the law. The birth of the 
flesh is the revelation of human nature ; the being bom of a 
virgin is the sign of divine power. The weakness of the 
child is shown by the lowliness of the cradle ; the glory of 
the Highest is proclaimed by the voice of the angels. He 
is like to the beginnings of men (rudimentis Jumiinum — that 
is, children) whom Herod wishes cruelly to slay ; but He is 
Lord of all, whom the wise men rejoice humbly to adore. 
And that it might not be concealed that the Godhead is 
covered by the veil of the flesh, the voice of the Father 
called from heaven: 'This is my beloved Son,' eta He 
who as man is tempted by the cunning of the d^vil. He, 
as God, is ministered to by angels. Hunger, thirst, weari- 
ness, and sleep are evidently human ; but to feed five 
thousand men with five loaves, etc., to walk on the sea, to 
command the storms, is without doubt divine. As it does 
not belong to one and the same nature to bewail a dead 
friend with deep compassion, and to call him back to life 

ct verc hominis Filiiw. Dens per id, quod m principio ertU Verbum, et Verbum 
erat apud Dettm, et Deu» trat Verbum (Joan. 1. 1) ; homo per id, quod Verbum 
caro /ctctum est, et kabUavit in nobis (ib. i. 14). Deus per id, quod omnia 
per ipsum facta Mcn^, ei sine ipso factwm est nViU (ib. i. 8) ; homo per id, 
quod foetus est ex mn/tere, foetus sub lege (Gal. iv. 4). Nativitas camis mani- 
festatio est humane naturae ; partus Virginia diyinae est Tirtutis indicium. 
Infantia parvuli ostenditur humilitate cunarum ; magnitndo Altissimi decla- 
ratnr yocibus angelorum. Similis est rudimentis hominum, quem Herodes 
impie molitur occidere; sed Dominus est omnium, quem magi gaudent sup- 
plidter adorare. Jam cum ad prsecursoris sui Joannis baptismum venit, ne 
lateret, quod camis velamine diyinitas tegeretur, yox Patris de coelo intonans 
dixit : Hie est I%Uus meus dUectuSy in quo mihi bene comploeui (Matt iii. 17). 
Quem itaque sicut hominem diabolica tentat astutia, eidem sicut Deo angelica 
&mulantur officia (Matt. iv. 1). Esurire, sitire, lassescere atque dormire, 
evidenter humanum est. Sed quinque panibus quinque millia hominum 
satiare (Joan. tL 5), et largiri Samaritanse aquam yivam, cujus haustus bibenti 
pTsestet, ne ultra jam sitiat (Joan. iv. 10) ; supra dorsum maris plantis non 
desidentibna ambulare, et elationes fluctuum increpata tempestate constemere 
(Luc. Tiii 24), sine ambiguitate divinum est. Sicut ergo, ut multa prseteream, 
non ejusdem natune est, flere miserationis affectu amicum mortuum (Joan. xi. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



232 HISTORY OF THE CX)UNCILS. 

when he has been four days dead by the mere command of 
His word, or to hang upon the cross and to make the 
elements tremble, etc. ; so it does not belong to one and the 
same nature to say : * I and the Father are one/ and ' the 
Father is greater than 1/ For although in Jesus Christ there 
is only one person of God and man, yet the common glory 
and the common lowliness of the two natures have a diflferent 
source. From us he has the manhood, which is inferior to 
the Father ; from the Father He has the Grodhead, which is 
equal to the Father. — Chap. V. For this reason that the two 
natures constitute only one person, we read that the Son 
of man came do\vn from heaven (John iil 13), while the 
Son of God took flesh of the Virgin; and also, that the 
Son of God was crucified and buried, while He suflFered 
not in the (Jodhead, according to which He is the only- 
begotten, co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, but 
in the weakness of the human nature. For this reason we 
say in the creed that the only-begotten Son of God was 
crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the 
apostle : ' Had they known it, they would not have crucified 
the Lord of glory * (1 Cor. iL 8). But when the Lord wished 
to instruct His disciples in the faith by questions. He said : 
* Who do men say that I the Son of man am ? ' and on 
receiving diverse answers from them. He said : ' But who say 

85), et eundem remoto qnatriduanie aggere sepal tnrse, ad vocis imperiain 
excitare redivivum (ib. y. 43), aat in ligno pendere, et in noctem lace conversa, 
omnia elementa tremefacere (Matt, xxvii 45, 51) ; aat dayis transfixom esse, 
et paradisi portas fidei latronis aperire ; ita non ejasdem natare est, dicere : Ego 
et Pater unum sumus (Joan. x. 80) ; et dicere : Pater major me est (Joan. xiy. 
28). Qaamyis enim in Domino Jesa Christo Dei et hominis nna persona sit ; 
aliad tamen est, ande in atroqae communis est contomelia, aliad ande cotn* 
munis est gloria. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre homanitas ; de Patre 
iUi est a^qaalis cum Patre Diyinitas. 

C. y. Propter hanc ei^go unitatem persons in atraqae natura intelligendam, 
et Filias hominis legitar descendisse de coelo, cam FiHas Dei camem de e« 
yirgine, de qua est natas, assampserit Et rarsas, Filias Dei cracifixus dicitor 
ac sepaltas, cam hsec non in diyinitate ipsa, qua Unigenitas consempitamas et 
consabstantialis est Patri, sed in natar» hamanse sit infirmitate perpessas. 
Unde anigenitam Filiam Dei cracifixam et sepaltam omnes etiam in symbolo 
coafitemar, secundum illud Apostoli : Si enim eognovissent, nunquam Dominmm 
majeatatis eruci/ixis$erU (1 Or. iL 8). Cum autem ipse Dominus noster atqne 
Salyator fidem discipulorum suis interrogationibus erudiret, Quern me, inquit, 
dicunt homines esse Filium hominis ? Cumque illi diyersas aliorum opiniones 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 233 

ye that I am/ that is, I, the Son of man ? Peter, divinely 
inspired, and anticipating all nations with his confession, 
replied : * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' 
and thus confessed the Son of man as at the same time Son 
of God, because the one without the other could not have 
brought us salvation. . . . And after the resurrection of the 
true body (for it is no other which was raised than that 
which was crucified), what else happened in those forty days, 
but that our faith was cleared from all darkness ? . . . 
He ate with His disciples, came through closed doors, 
imparted the Holy Ghost, and allowed them to touch His 
hands, etc., so that they might know that He possessed the 
properties of the divine and human natures undivided, and 
that we, without identifying the Word and the Flesh, should 
yet confess that the Word and the Flesh are one Son of God. 
This mystery of the faith was quite strange to Eutyches, who 
acknowledged our nature in the only-begotten Son of God, 
neither in the humiliation of mortality nor in the glory of 
the resurrection, and was not afraid of the saying of the 

retexuissent, Voa autemy ait, quern me esse dkitisP Me ntique, qui sum Filins 
hominis, et qnem in forma servi atqne in veritate carnis aspicitis, quern me 
esse dicitia f Ubi B. Petrus divinitus inspiratus, et confessione sua omnibus 
gentibus profuturus : Tu es, inquit, Christus FUhts Dei vivi (Matt xvi. 16). 
Nee immerito beatus eat pronunciatus a Domino, et a principali petra 
soliditatem et virtutis tnudt et nominia, qui per revelationem Patris 
eundem et Dei Filium est confessua et Christum : quia unum horum sine alio 
receptum son proderat ad salutem, et sequalis erat periculi, Dominum Jesum 
Ckristum aut Deum tantummodo sine homine, aut sine Deo solum hominem 
credidisse. Post resurrectionem vero Domini (qusB utique veri corporis fait, 
quia non alter est resuacitatus, qnara qui faerat crucifixus et mortuas), quid 
aliud quadraginta dierum mora gestum est, quam at iidei nostrse integritas ab 
omni caligine mundaretur f CoUoquens enim cum discipulis suis, et cohabitans 
atqne convescens, et pertractari ae diligenti curiosoque contactu ab eis, quos 
dubietas perstringebat, admittens, ideo et danaia ad discipuloa januis introibat, 
et flatu 8UO dabat Spiritum sanctum, et donate intelligentiee lumine, sanctarum 
Scripturamm occulta pandebat ; et rursus idem yulnus lateris, fixuras clayorum, 
et omnia recentissimse passionis aigna monatrabat, dicens : Videie manus meaa et 
pedes, quia ego sum. Palpate et videte, quia epiritus camem et ossa non habet^ 
ekui me videtie habere (Luc xxiv. 89) ; ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinae 
humanseque nature individua permanere ; et ita sciremus Yerbam non hoc esse 
quod camem, ut unum Dei Filium et Yerbum confiteremur et camem. Que 
fidei Sacramento Eutychea iste nimium satimandas est vacuus, qui naturam 
nostram in Unigenito Dei, nee per humilitatcm mortalitatis, nee per gloriam 
resurrectionis agnovit. Nee sententiam beati Apostoli et evangelists Joannis 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



234 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

apostle : ' Every Spirit which looses (parts) Jesus is not of 
God, is Antichrist ' (1 John iv. 3). [According to the Vulgate : 
Omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo rum est ; et hie est 
arUichristvs : derived from the reading of the original, placed 
in the margin hy the revisers and by Westcott and Hort, 
which substitutes Xvei for fiif ofMoXoyet.'] But what is the 
meaning of ' loosing ' Jesus but separating the humau 
nature from Him ? But he who is thus in darkness as to 
the nature of the body of Christ must also, in like blindness, 
teach foolishly in reference to His sufferings. For he who 
does not regard the cross of Christ as false, but holds that His 
death was real, must also acknowledge the flesh (the true man- 
hood) of Him in whose death he believes. He cannot deny that 
the man whom he acknowledges as passible was of our body 
(that is, had a body of the same substance with ours) ; for 
the denial of the true flesh is - also a denial of the bodily 
suffering. If he then confesses the Christian faith, he can 
also see what nature, pierced by nails, hung upon the wood 
of the cross ; he may know whence (from what nature) blood 
and water flowed when the side of the crucified One was 

expavit dicentis : Omnis npir'Uus, qui conJUeturJesum Christum m came vemsm, 
ex Deo est : et omnis sptrituSf qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est; ethic est atUi' 
christus (1 Joan. iy. 2, 8). Quid aatem est solvere Jesum, nisi humaaam ab eo 
separare natnram, et sacramentnm [fidei], per quod unum salvati samns, 
impudentissimis evacnare figmentis? Caligans vero circa natoram corporis 
Christi, necesse est ut etiam in passione ejus eadem obcaecatione dedpiat Nam. 
si cmeem Domini non putat falsam, et susceptmn pro mundi salute suppliciam 
yerum fuisse non dubitat, cig'us credit mortem, agnoecat et camem ; nee 
diffiteatur nostri corporis hominem, quem oognoscit fuisse passibilem ; qnoniam 
negatio verse camis, negatio est etiam corporese passionis. Si ergo christjanam 
suscepit fidem, et a pmdicatione Evangelii suum non avertit auditum, videmt, 
quse natura transfiza clavis pependerit in crucis ligno, et aperto per militis 
lanceam latere crucifixi, intelligat, unde sanguis et aqua fluxerit, ut Ecclesia 
Dei et lavacro rigaretur et poculo. Audiat et beatum Petrum apostolum 
pnedicantem, quod sanctificatio Spiritus per aspersionem fiat sanguinis Christi. 
Nee transitorie legat ejusdem apostoli verba dicentis: Scientes, quod non 
corruptibilibus argento et auro redempti estis de vana tfestra eonversatiome 
patemcB traditionis, sed pretioso sanguine quasi agni inconiaminaU et in^ 
maculati Jesu Christi (1 Pet L 18). Beati quoque Joannis apostoli testimonio 
non resistat dicentis : Et sanguis Jesu FUH Dei emundat nos ab omni peeetUo 
(1 Joan. i. 7). Et iterum : Hoc est victoria, quce vincU mundum,Jides noHm 
(1 Joan. V. 4). Et : Quis est qui vincit mundum, nisi qui credit^ qwmiam Jemns 
est FUius Dei ? Hie est qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus ; nan 
in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quos^atn 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE CELEBRATED EPISTOLA DOGMATICA OF LEO TO FLAVIAN. 235 

pierced. . . . The Catholic Church lives and grows in the 
faith that in Christ Jesus there was neither manhood without 
true Godhead, nor the Godhead without true manhood. — 
Chap. VL When Eutyches answered to your question : ' I 
confess that our Lord htfort the union consisted of two 
natures, but afttr the union I confess only one nature,' I 
wonder that such a foolish and blasphemous confession was 
allowed to pass, as though nothing offensive had been heard. 
The first proposition, that the only-begotten Son of God Itfort 
the iinion had two natures, is as impious^ as the other, that 
after the incarnation there was only one nature. In order that 
Eutyches may not suppose from your silence that his explana- 
tion was right, or at least tolerable, we exhort thee, beloved 
brother, that when through God's mercy he comes to give 
satisfaction, the folly of the ignorant man may be cleansed from 
this pestilential opinion. As the acts show, he began in a 
praiseworthy manner to abandon his view, and under thine in- 
fluence declared that he would confess what he had not hitherto 
confessed, and believe what he had not hitherto believed. 

8piritit8 est veriias. Quia trea surUt qui testimonium dant, spiritus, aqua et 
mnguis, et [hi] trea unum sutU (ib. y. 5 ss.). Spiritus utique sanctificationis, et 
saugois redemptionis, et aqua baptismatis ; qu» tria unum sunt et individua 
raanent, nihilque eonun a sui connexione sejungitur; quia catholica Ecclesia 
hac fide yivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Jesu nee sine vera divinitate humanitas, 
nee sine vera credatur humanitate divinitas. 

C. VI. Cum autem ad interlocutionem examinis vestri Eutyches responderit, 
dicens : *' Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum nostrum ante adnna- 
tionem ; post adunationem vero unam naturam confiteor ;" miror tarn absurdam 
tamque perversam ejus professionem nulla judicantium increpatione reprehen- 
sam, et sermonem nimis insipientem nimisque blasphemum ita omissum, quasi 
nihil quod ofienderet esset auditum, cum tam impie duarum naturarum ante 
incamationem nnigenitus Dei Filius fuisse dicatur, quam nefturie, postquam 
Verbwn caro factum est, natura in eo singularis asseritur. Quod ne Eutyches 
ideo yel recte vel tolerabiliter sestimet dictum, quia nulla vestra est sententia 
confutatum, sollicitudinis tuffi diligentiam commonemus, frater carissime, ut si 
per inspirationem misericordise Dei ad satisfactionem causa perducitur, im- 
prudentia hominis imperiti etiam ab hac sensus sui peste purgetur. Qui quidem, 
sicttt gestorum ordo patefecit, bene cceperat a sua persuasione discedere, cum 
yestra sententia coarctatus profiteretur se dicere, quod ante non dixerat, et ei 

^ Cf. the 85th letter of Leo, where he says quite correctly : He who teaches 
this must assume that the human soul which Christ took was before the birth 
of Mary in heayen, which would be as erroneous as the teaching of Origeu 
concerning the pre-existence of the soul. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



236 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

As, however, he refused to anathematize the impious doctrine, 
your Fraternity perceived that he was persisting in his error, 
and was deserving of condemnation. If, however, he agaia 
manifests genuine penitence, and acknowledges the righteous- 
ness of the episcopal sentence, and condemns orally, and in 
writing, his false statements, then he should be treated gently. 
... In order, however, to bring this whole matter to the 
end desired, I send in my stead my brethren, the Bishop 
Julius and the priest Renatus, with my son, the deacon 
Hilarus, with whom I associate the notary Dulcitius, hoping 
that by God's jissistance he who had erred may abjure his 
false opinion, and so may find salvation. May God preserve 
thee, dearest brother. — Given on the 13 th of June, under the 
consuls Asturius and Protogenes" (a.d. 449).^ 

fidei acquiescere, ci^gus prius fuisset alienus. Sed cum anathematizando impio 
dogmati noloisset pnebere consensam, inteUexit eum fraternitas vestra in sua 
manere perfidia, dignumque esse, qui judicium condemnationis exciperet De 
quo si fideliter atque utiliter dolet, et quam recte mota sit episcopalis auctoritas 
yel sero cognoscit, vel si ad satisfactionis plenitudinem omnia, qus ab eo male 
sunt seusa, viva voce et pnssenti subseriptione damnaverit, non erit repre- 
hcnsibilis erga correctum quantacunque miseratio, quia Dominus noster vems et 
bonus pastor, qui antTnatn suam pomUt pro ovUma suis (Joan. x. 15), et qui 
venit animas hominum salvare, non perdere (Luc ix. 56), imitatores nos anx 
vult esse pietatis ; ut peccantes quidem justitia coerceat, conversos autem 
misericordia non repellat. Tunc enim demum fructuosissime fides vera 
defenditur, quando etiam a sectatoribus suis opinio falsa damnatur. Ad omnem 
yero causam pie ac fideliter exsequendam, fratres nostros Julium Episcopum et 
K^natum Presbyterum Tituli sancti dementis, sed et filium meum Hilarum 
Diaconum vice nostra direximus. Quibus Dulcitium Notarium nostrum, cnjus 
fides nobis est [sspe] probata, sociavimus ; confidentes adfuturum Divinitatis 
auxilium, ut is, qui erraverat, damuata sensus sui pravitate, salvetur. Deus te 
incolumem custodiat, frater carissime.— Data Idibus Junii, Asturio et Protogene 
viris clarissimis Consulibus. 



* To this letter the Pope subsequently (after the Robber-Synod) added a 
number of patristic testimonies, Latin and Greek, for the confirmation of his 
teaching, and sent them by his legates, Bishops Abundius and Asterius, and the 
priests Basil and Senator, to Constantinople (cf. Fpist. 71). This appendix 
was produced there h^ore the Synod of Chalcedon {Epist. 88) ; but in the second 
session of Chalcedon itself, only Leo's letter was read, without the appendix. 
Cf. Ballerini edit. Opp, 3, Leonis, t i. p. 798 sq., and t ii p. 1425. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OF LEO ON ACCOUNT OF EUTYCHES. 237 

Sec. 177. Subsequent Letters of Pope Leo the Great on account 

of Eviyches, 

On the same day Leo signed a series of other letters, which 
stand in still nearer relation to the council which had been 
summoned. This is especially the case with the letter to the 
Emperor Theodosins IL (dated June 13, 449). The Pope, in 
this letter, commends the Emperor's zeal for the faith, and 
asserts that the heresy of Eutyches is made quite clear by 
the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. The foolish old man 
ought, therefore, without further delay, to abandon his view ; 
as, however, the Emperor had invited a synodal judgment 
{SynodcUe judicium) at Ephesus, in order that the blind might 
see, he had commissioned his three legates to take his place 
there. K Eutyches should again come to a right judgment, 
and keep the promise which he had given in his letter to the 
Pope, — namely, to correct what he had erroneously asserted 
(p. 205), — then he ought again to be received with goodwill. 
As regwtled the belief of the Catholic Church concerning the 
incarnation of Christ, Leo had completely explained this in 
his letter to Flavian, which he appended.^ 

Another letter of the same date is addressed to the 
Empress Pulcheria, the sister (and co-regent) of the Emperor, 
and, together with a short commendation of this Princess, con- 
tains an explanation of the fact that Eutyches had certainly 
fallen into the error directly opposed to Nestorianism, and 
had obstinately adhered to it more from ignorance than from 
wickedness. Pulcheria should use her influence for the 
extirpation of this heresy. If Eutyches should repent, then 
he ought to be forgiven, on which point Leo had already 
written to Flavian, and had given his legates commission. 
For the rest, it would be better if Eutyches should again 
correct his error in the place in which he had taught erron- 
eously,* and therefore in Constantinople, and not in Ephesus. 

A second letter of Leo's to Pulcheria, the thirty-first in the 
collection of the BaUerini, bears in some of the manuscripts 

^ EpUi. 29, in BaUer. p. 839 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 15 ; Mansi, t y. 
p. 1891. 
' EpitL 80, p. 847, ed. Bailer. ; Mansi, t y. p. 1398 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 18. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



238 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the date, " June 13, 449 ; " it seems, however, improbable that 
the Pope should have committed to his l^ates two letters 
for Pulcheria of the same date and with the same contents, 
and the Ballerini are therefore of opinion that this second 
and longer one was never despatched.* Walch even regards 
it as spurious.* The contrary is maintained by Arendt in 
his monograph on Leo the Great,' namely, that the longer 
copy of the letter {Epist. 31) is the genuine, and the shorter 
{Epist. 30) is only an extract from it However this may be, 
both the letters to Pulcheria have quite the same leading 
thoughts, the commendation of the Princess, and the assertion 
that Eutyches had through ignorance fallen into the opposite 
extreme from Nestorianism. The only difference is that, in 
the second letter, this point and the doctrinal element are 
brought out at greater length ; besides, that in this there is a 
complaint that the interval before the time fixed for the 
opening of the Synod of Ephesus is so short that the necessary 
preparations can hardly be mtuie, and that it is not possible 
for the Pope to appear in persoa* 

Leo further entrusted to his legates a letter to all the 
archimandrites of Constantinople, also dated June 13, saying 
that he is convinced that they do not agree with the error of 
Eutyches. If Eutyches did not recant, then he would be 
properly expelled from the Church. If, on the contrary, he 
should acknowledge and condemn his error, then their mercy- 
should not be withheld. The true doctrine of the Church on 
the existing controversy might be seen from the papal letter 
to Flavian.* 

For the approaching Synod, Leo had prepared the following 
letter : " The Emperor had wished from zeal for the orthodox 
faith that the influence of the apostolic see should second the 
effect of his edict (in regard to the convoking of the Synod),* 

^ S. Leonis Opp, e<L Bailer, t L p. 846, il 5 ; Mansi, t v. p. 1395, n. 5. 

• Walch, KetztrldsL Bd. vL S. 189 f. » S. 483, n. 4. 
« Episi. 81, in Bailer, p. 863 ; Mansi, t t. p. 1401. 

^ Epist. 32, in Bailer, p. 869 sqq. ; Hardonin, t ii. p. 15 ; Mansi, t r. p. 1406. 

* The imperial edict calls Leo, in accordance wiUi the official style of the 
period, a dispontio taneUif cf. the fourth note of the Ballerini on the text <^ otir 
letter. We most not translate the words disposUio sancta ** diTine order," as 
in the Katholik, 1872, S. 132. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OF LEO ON ACCOUNT OF EUTYCHES. 239 

and that Peter himself, as it were, should declare what he 
meant by the words : ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
Uving God.' If Eutyches had rightly understood this utter- 
ance, he would not have gone aside from the way of truth. 
On account of this answer of Peter, Christ had replied to him : 
' I say unto thee. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my Church,' etc. As, however, the Emperor wished to 
have a Synod, an episcqpale concilium, that the error might be 
dispersed by a fuller judgment (pleniori jvdicio), Leo had sent 
the Bishop Julius, the priest Eenatus, and the deacon Hilarus, 
together with the notary Dulcitius, who should be present as 
his representatives at the holy assembly, and in common with 
the bishops should draw up a decree which should be pleasing 
to God. First, the pestilential error should be anathematized, 
and then they should consider the restitution of Eutyches, 
in case he recanted. As to the dogma, Leo had thoroughly 
explained himself in the letter to Flavian. '* ^ 

The last of these letters, dated on the 13th of June, are the 
two to Bishop Julian of Cos, of which the one appears to 
have been entrusted to the papal legates, the other to Julian's 
own emissary, the deacon Basil.^ Bishop Julian had been 
a member of the Synod of Constantinople which condemned 
Eutyches, and had on this occasion written a letter to Leo, 
which is now lost The Pope commends his orthodoxy, and 
remarks that since the transmission of the Acts of the Synod 
he is convinced of the heresy of Eutyches. To the approaching 
Synod he has appointed three legates, and in the letter to 
Flavian he has expressed himself at large on the dogmsu In 
case Eutyches should repent, they ought to be merciful to him.* 
In the other letter to Julian, Leo explains briefly the orthodox 
doctrine, and refers to the more complete exposition of this 
matter in his letter to Flavian.* 

A few days after Leo's legates had departed with this 

> Epigt, 33, in Bailer, p. 863 sqq. ; Hardooin, t ii p. 19 ; Mansi, t v. 
p. 1410. 

' Cf. the Admonilio of the Ballerini, p. 874, n. 4. 

* BpiH. 84, in Bailer, p. 869 sq. ; Mansi, t y. p. 1418. 

* BpisL 85, in Bailer, p. 875; Manai, Ic p. 1415 ; Arendt holds {Ic) that 
these two letters (Epp, 34, 35) are only one, the contents of which have (by the 
copyist) heen improperly separated. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



240 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

letter/ a new opportunity of sending letters to the East 
presented itself to the Pope, and therefore, on the 20 th of 
June 449, he addressed a few lines to Flavian, with the intelli- 
gence that the legates had now departed; adding that the Synod 
appointed by the Emperor was evidently not necessary.* He 
made the same statement in the letter which he despatched 
to the Emperor himself on the same day, and at the same 
time excused his own non-appearance by saying that the 
troublous times forbade him to leave the city of Rome, and, 
besides, Roman bishops had never been present in person at 
any of the earlier Synods.'* More than a month afterwards, 
on the 23d of July, Leo again addressed a short letter to 
Flavian in answer to a letter in the meantime received from 
him, commending his attitude, and exhorting him to gentle- 
ness towards Eutyches, if he should abandon his error.* This 
was the last letter written by Leo on this subject before the 
opening of the Synod. 

Like Flavian (p. 2 2 1 f.) and Pope Leo, Theodoret expected no 
good from the Synod which had been convoked. He expresses 
this in his letters to Bishop Lrenseus of Tyre and to his patri- 
arch, Domnus of Antioch, and recommends to the latter great 
caution in the selection of the bishops and clerics whom he 
should take with him to the Synod. We can see from the 
last letter that Theodoret recognized the peace concluded 
between Cyril and the Orientals, and was willing to maintain 
it uprightly, but he had not yet given up his doubts as to the 
anathematisms of Cyril, but stiU suspected them of Monophy- 
sitism, and lamented that all the bishops did not see the 
poison in them. Now he was afraid that Dioscurus would 
attempt to have these anathematisms, and therewith Monopby- 
sitism, sanctioned at the Synod,* 

^ In regard to the time, of. note 8 of the Ballerim on Ep, S6, p. 385 ; in 
Mansi, t. v. p. 1423, note 8. 

' Epist. 36, in BaUer. p. 885 ; Mansi, t v. p. 1423. Qnesnel would maintain 
that Leo had wished for the Synod to be held in Italy, so that his inflaenoe in 
it might be increased. But this theory is quite fanciful. Cf. Walch, Uc S. 210. 

» Epist, 87, in Bailer. U. p. 886 ; Mansi, t. v. p. 1424. 

* Epiat, 88, in Bailer, i.e. p. 887 ; Mansi, t v. p. 1426. 

« Theodoret, EpiaL 16 and 112, Opp, t. iv. p. 1076 sqq. and p. 1183 sqq., 
ed. Schulze. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE BOBBER-SYNOD. 241 

Sec. 178. The Proceedings at the RdHber-Synod, according to 
their ovm Acts. 

In accordance with the imperial command, a numerous 
body of bishops actually assembled in Ephesus at the beginning 
of the month of August 449, and that Synod began which, 
under the name of the Eobber-Synod, latrocinium £phesinicm, 
or avvoSo^ \rf<rrpi/cif, has attained to such a melancholy 
celebrity. Its Acts are preserved by their having been read 
over at the (Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon, and having thus 
been embodied in the minutes of that Synod.^ According to 
this document, the Synod, often called Ephesina ii., was 
opened August 8, 449, in the church of S. Mary at Ephesus. 
Whether it lasted only one day, or several, is not indicated in 
the Acts. The principal proceedings, together with the 
deposition of Flavian, seem to have been completed in one 
day, a fact which is also asserted by the anonymous author of 
the Breviculm Historian Eviychianistarum (see below, p. 258); 
whilst on three subsequent days, and perhaps at three sub- 
sequent sessions, those depositions of several bishops, e,g. of 
Theodoret and Domnus, were pronounced, of which the Acts 
say nothing, but which we learn from other sources (see 
below, p. 266). 

Among the members of the Synod, Dioscurus is first men- 
tioned in the Acts ; after him the papal legate Bishop Julius 
(here called Julianus),* next Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus 
of Antioch, and only guinto loco Flavian of Constantinople, 
although the second (Ecumenical Synod had assigned to the 
Bishop of Constantinople the rank next after the Bishop of 
Home. 

The author of the Brevicnltts Historue EiUt/diianistarum 
gives the number of the bishops present at this council as 

^ A special dissertation in Latin on the Synodue Xtirrptxn was put forth by 
Schurzfleisch, at Leipzig 1699 ; but it is of no great value. We shaU draw 
attention to the labours of TiUemont and Walch at the proper places. 

3 Farther on him and the papal legates generally, «ee below, pp. 255 ff. and 
257 ff. Quesnel considered that the legates whom the Pope sent to the 
Oriental conncilB, represented not the Pope merely, but the whole Western 
Chutch. Cf. on the other side, the Ballerini in their edition of the works of 
Leo, t. ii. p. 1175. 

m. Q 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



242 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

about three hundred and sixty ;^ the synodal Acts, however, 
give a far smaller number, and, in fact, at the beginning of the 
Synod they mention only a hundred and twenty-seven bishops 
and eight representatives of eight others, altogether one hundred 
and thirty-five, to whom ultimo loco are added the two Eoman 
clerics, the deacon Hilarus and the notary Dulcitius.* So 
at the close of the Eobber-Synod one hundred and thirty-five 
bishops subscribed, in part personally and in part by their 
representatives ; upon which, however, it is to be remarked 
that here tHirteen names appear which are wanting at the 
beginning of the Synod; and on the other hand, nine are 
wanting which are present at the beginning. Two of the 
bishops present had it added to their subscriptions that, as 
they could not write, they had been obliged to let others 
subscribe for them. These were Bishop Elias of Adrianople 
and Cajumas of Phsenus in Palestine.'* Of those, however, 
who had also been members of the Synod of Constantinople, 
and therefore had no right of voting at Ephesus, there were, 
so far as the subscriptions testify, besides Flavian of Constan- 
tinople, the following, Basil of Seleucia, Seleucus of Amasia, 
^thericus of Smyrna, Longinus of Chersonesus, Meliphthongus 
of Juliopolis, Timotheus of Primopolis, and Dorotheus of 
Neocaesarea, the last represented by the priest Longinus. 

The proceedings of the Eobber-Synod were opened by their 
first secretary {Primicerius Notariorum), the priest John, 
probably one of the clergy of Dioscurus, with the announce- 
ment : " The God-fearing Emperors have, from zeal for religion, 
convoked this assembly."* Thereupon he read, at the com- 
mand of Dioscurus, the imperial brief of convocation (see p. 
222), and the two Eoman legates, Julius and Hilarus, explained 
through their interpreter. Bishop Florentius of Sardis in Lydia, 
that Pope Leo had also been invited by the Emperor, but did 
not personally appear, because this had not happened at the 
Synod of Nicsea or the first of Ephesus ; therefore he had sent 
his legates, and had given them charge of a letter to the Synod. 

* In Sirmond. Appendix Codicis Theodos. p. 118. 

' In Mansi, t vi p. 606 sqq. ; Hardonin, t ii p. 88 sqq. 
» In Mansi, t vi. p. 927 sqq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 269 sqq. 

* Mansi, t. yL p. 612 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 85. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE EOBBER-SYNOD. 243 

This papal brief* was, at the command of Dioscuras, received 
by the secretary John, but instead of reading it, he published 
the second letter which the Emperor had sent to Dioscurus 
in reference to Barsumas (see above, p. 222).* 

Invited by Dioscurus, Elpidius, the first of the imperial 
commissioners, delivered a short discourse, saying : " The Nes- 
torian heresy was now properiy condemned, but new religious 
doubts had soon arisen, for the removal of which the present 
Synod had been arranged. He would immediately com- 
municate what the Emperor had in this respect commissioned 
himself (and his colleagues) to perform; he would only 
first speak on one point The Logos had on that day per- 
mitted the assembled bishops to give judgment upon Him (on 
His person and nature). If they confessed Him rightly, then 
He also would confess them before His heavenly Father. But 
those who should pervert the true doctrine would have to 
undergo a severe twofold judgment, that of God and that of 
the Emperor." * Then Elpidius read the imperial Commoni" 
torium addressed to him and Eulogius (p. 223), and the 
secretary John read the edict of the Emperor addressed to 
the Synod (p. 224). 

Thalassius of Csesarea, the legate of Julius, and the Count 
Elpidius now declared that, in accordance with the command 
of the Emperor, they should first consider the faith. Dios- 
curus interpreted this to mean, not that the faith itself should 
first be declared, for this the former holy Synods had alretuiy 

^ Arendt, in his Monograph on Leo (S. 242 and 488), and others speak quite 
unhesitatingly of the fact that the legate required the reading of ttoo papal 
briefs (the letter to the Synod and the Epigtola dogmatiea to Flavian). The 
Greek text of the Acts, however, has with yfo/ifutra also 'the word Itrt^rtxh in the 
singular, and thus speaks in the first place only of Leo's letter to the Synod. 
But in this Leo had appealed to his Epistola dogmatiea to Flavian, and the 
reading of this was the chief wish of Leo and his legates. Schrockh {Ktrchen" 
geseh. Thl. zviii. S. 461) asserts erroneously that the letter of Leo to the Synod, 
but not the Epistola dogmatiea^ was read. Neither of these writings was read. 

< Mansi, t. vL p. 614 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 88. The iig'ostice involved in 
this is also recognised by Walch, KetzerhUt. Bd. vi S. 254 f. In other respects 
the latter (Ic, S. 218) has misunderstood the text of our Acts. By alics 
divmcB liUercB ad Diotcurum, which John read out, must not be understood a 
second letter of Leo's, but an Imperial letter termed in law language dmnte. 
The correct view was seen already by Tillemont, Mdmoires, etc, t xv. p. 566. 

• Mansi, t vi. p. 620 ; Hardouin, t ii p. 90 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



244 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

done, but rather that they were now to consider whether the 
newly-introduced statements agreed with the declarations of 
the Fathers or not ** Or will you," he cried, " alter the faith 
of the holy Fathers?" The assembled bishops are said to 
have answered : " Anathema to him who makes alterations in 
it: Anathema to him who ventures to discuss the faith;" 
but this cry (the latter part of it) was denied at the Synod 
of Chalcedon. 

Dioscurus proceeded : " At Nicaea and at Ephesus the true 
faith has already been proclaimed, but although there have 
been tvx> Synods, the faith is but (me" and he invited the 
bishops to declare that men must simply abide by the 
definitions of faith of Nicsea and Ephesus. The assembled 
bishops are said again to have shouted approvingly : ** No one 
dare add anything or take anything away ... a great 
guardian of the faith is Dioscurus ! . . . Anathema to him 
who still discusses the faith. . . . The Holy Ghost speaks by 
Dioscurus," etc.* All these exclamations were afterwards 
disavowed at Chalcedon, and it is very probable that only 
some bishops thus exclaimed, and that the notaries put these 
words into the mouth of the whole Synod. They were all 
simply in the service of Dioscurus and his friends, while the 
other bishops were not allowed to have any notaries, and the 
memoranda which their clerics nevertheless made were 
violently taken from them and destroyed.* 

On the. proposal of the Count Elpidius, Eutyches was now 
introduced into the Synod, that he might himself give testi- 
mony concerning his faith. He began by commending himself 
to the Holy Trinity, after which he uttered a short censure on 
the Synod of Constantinople (a.d. 448), and handed in a 
confession which the secretary John immediately read. In 
the introduction Eutyches says that even in his youth he had 
formed the intention of living in complete silence and retire- 
ment, but he had not attained to this good fortune, for he had 
been sun*ounded by the greatest dangers and plots, because, 
in accordance with the definitions of the former Synod at 
Ephesus, he had tolerated no innovation in the faith. Then 

^ Mansi, t. yi. p. 625 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 96. 

' Manai, t vi. p. 624 sq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 93; cf. below, § 179, p. 252* 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 245 

he repeats the Nicene Creed, together with the annexed 
anathemas against Arius, and asserts that he had always thus 
believed. That to this faith, under penalty of excommuni- 
cation, nothing should be added and nothing should be taken 
away from it, had been solemnly declared by the former 
Synod of Ephesus under the presidency of the holy Father 
Cyril, as might be seen from the copy of the Acts which 
Cyril himself had sent to him.^ He had always regarded the 
holy Fathers as orthodox, and had anathematized all heresies, 
Manes, Valentinus, ApoUinaris, Nestorius, all back to Simon 
Magus, and also those who say that the flesh of our Lord and 
God Jesus Christ came down from heaven.* Living in this 
faith he had been accused as a heretic by Eusebius of 
Doiylaeum before Flavian and the other bishops. Flavian, 
the inseparable friend of Eusebius, had summoned him to 
answer to the accusation, but had assumed that Eutyches 
would not appear, and that he might then condemn him for 
disobedience. When, notwithstanding, he did appear before 
the Synod, Flavian had declared his presence to be super- 
fluous, as he had already been condemned in consequence 
of his previous non-appearance. Neither had he received 
the confession which Eutyches wished to hand in, or 
allowed it to be read. Eutyches had at his request then 
orally given testimony to his faith, declaring that he held 
fast to the decrees of Nicsea and Ephesus. When they had 
further questioned him, he had asked for the holding of the 
present Synod, and had promised to obey it. Then they had 
suddenly published the judgment condemning him. When 
he left the assembly at Constantinople, he went in danger of 
his life, and Flavian had everywhere published the sentence 
against him ; but he had prayed the Emperor to convoke a 
Synod, and now entreated the assembled fathers to declare 
how great wrong had been done him, and to punish his 
opponents.* After the reading of this writing of Eutyches, 
Flavian demanded that his accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 
should also be heard. But Elpidius replied that the Emperor 

^ Manai, t vL p. 630 sq. ; Hardomn, t iL p. 97 sq. 

' Mansi, Le. p. 633 ; Hardouin, 2.<^ p. 100. 

' Mansi, l.c p. 640 sqq. ; Hardouin, Le, p. 102 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



246 msTOEY OF the coukcils. 

had commanded that they who had sat in judgment upon 
Eutyches at Constantinople should now themselves be judged. 
Eusebius of Dorylssum had already brought forward his 
accusation at Constantinople, and there had conquered; he 
must not now for the second time appear as accuser,^ but it 
must be judged whether that first judgment was just. They 
must now pass on to that which had occurred in connection 
with the matter in question (that of Eutyches). 

Dioscurus and many other bishops immediately expressed 
their agreement with this ; but the papal legates demanded 
that Leo's letter should first be read. Eutyches objected that 
the legates were suspected by him, because they had stayed 
some time with Flavian, and had supped with him; he 
therefore requested that any unfairness on their part should 
not be allowed to turn to his disadvantage. Dioscurus decided, 
as president, in accordance with the opinions expressed by 
many bishops, that the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople 
must first be read, and not till then the letter of the Pope. 
The reading of the first was undertaken by the secretary 
John, and he received for this purpose one copy from Flavian 
and another from Eutyches.^ The documents relating to the 
first session of Constantinople (see above, p. 190 f.) were 
listened to without interruption;* at those of the second 
session, Bishop Eustathius of Berytus declared, after the read- 
ing of two letters of Cyril,* that this holy father, on account 
of the misunderstanding of his words, had expressed himself 
more clearly in subsequent letters to Acacius of Melitene, 

^ Here there was obvious injustice. If one party, Eutyches^ was allowed to 
speak, his opponent ought to have been heard also. 

• Mansi, Ic, pp. 643-660 ; Hardouin, Ic, pp. 106-110. 

' In Mansi, l,c p. 664 ; Hardouin, 2.C. p. 111. Mansi and Hardouin have 
here not always rightly indicated ad marginem to which Synod the particular 
sentences and exclamations belong, whether to that of Constantinople, to the 
Robber-Synod, or to that of Chalcedon, at which last, as we know, the Acts of 
the first two were read, so that now the minutes of the former Synods are con- 
tained in that of Chalcedon. The sentence on p. 664 in Mansi, and p. Ill in 
Hardouin : Sancta Synodus dixit : Et hoc universalis Synodus sic sapiL £t 
post has voces sequentia Ubelli Eusebii, evidently belongs to the Robber- Synod, 
while Hardouin bribes it to the Council of ChaJcedon. So Mansi attributes to 
the Council of Chalcedon the somewhat lengthy section : Et magtms Athanasius 
etc., whilst it belongs to that of Constantinople. 

* Mansi, l,c pp. 668-674; Hardouin, Lc, pp. 114-126. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PBOCEEDINGS AT THE KOBBEK-SYNOD. 247 

Valerian of Iconiam^ and Succensus of Diocdesarea (see 
pp. 140-144), and not on the side of belief in tvx> natures, 
but in one nature of the incarnate Grod.* He wished also to 
remark that Cyril was more favourable to Eutyches than they 
had supposed at Constantinople; but he did not take the 
words of C)rril in their connection and in their true sense, 
and thereby gave occasion for subsequent discussions at the 
Synod of C3ialcedon. 

When, at the continuation of the reading of the Acts, the 
expression of Bishop Seleucus of Amasia was brought forward : 
"We confess two natures also after the incarnation," the 
Eobber-Synod declared this to be Nestorian, and exclaimed : 
" There are many Nestoriuses," and " It was not the Bishop of 
Amasia, but he of Sinope." * The secretary John added, that 
it was clear from what had been reeid tiiat the bishops at 
Constantinople had substituted another doctrine in the place 
of the Nicene faith which had been confirmed at Ephesus, 
and Bishop Olympius of EvazsB pronounced an anathema on 
such an innovation. Immediately upon this Bishop ^Ethericus 
of Smyrna declared that he had not said that which was 
entered in the Acts of Constantiuople as his expression : the 
point was, however, unimportant, and Dioscurus therefore 
passed quickly over it; but -^thericus himself endeavoured 
afterwards to represent the matter diflferently at Chalcedon, 
and thereby showed himself to be both an ignorant and a 
fickle man.' The remaining part of the Acts of the second 

' Mansi, Lc p. 675 ; Hardonin, l.e. p. 126. 

' Mansi, Lc p. 686 ; Hardoain, l,c, p. 184. TiUemont could not understand 
(Lc 560) what the Robber-Synod meant by this interrnption. We may suppose 
that they meant to say: *'It was not the Bishop of Amasia (Seleucus) who 
said this at Constantinople, but the Bishop of Sinope," who was then called 
Antiochus, as we learn from the Acts of Chalcedon (Hardouin, Lc pp. 369 and 
474 ; Mansi, Lc. pp. 571, 1085). But this Antiochus was certainly not present 
at the Synod of Constantinople, a.d. 448 (Hardouin, Lc p. 167 sqq. ; Mansi, 
Lc p. 750 sqq.)* Perhaps Basil was at an earlier period Bishop of Sinope, and 
had uncanonically exchanged this for the see of Amasia, which was now brought 
against him as a reproach by his opponents, as though they said : ** He was 
nerer Bishop of Amasia, he is Bishop of Sinope." 

* Hansi, t. tL p. 687 sq. ; Hardouin, t iL p. 183 sq. Here, too, both in 
Mansi and in Hardouin, the indications as to the Synod to which each particular 
part belongs are often inaccurate. It should be: The words i fffikUTmrt 
iirU»4tr0s Harwptft to t«v fiiwnrm mlUfm (in Mansl, Lc p. 688 ; Hardouin, Lc 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



248 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

session gave occasion for no remark, and in the same way 
those of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions (see p. 191 flF.) 
were resid without interruption. At those of the seventh 
session, on the contrary, after the reading of the questions 
which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had put to Eutyches (p. 199), 
the ill-will of the Eobber-Synod found vent in the words: 
" Bum Eusebius," and " Anathema to every one who speaks 
of two natures after the Incarnation." " He who cannot 
shout this loud enough," added Dioscurus, ** let him hold up 
his hand in token of his assent ; " and the Synod shouted : 
" Let him who teaches two natures be anathema ! " ^ That, 
however, it was only the Egyptians, and not the whole Synod, 
that thus exclaimed, came out in the first session at Chalcedon 
(see below, sec. 189). Soon afterwards Bishop John of 
Hephaestus remarked: "As long as Eutyches hesitated to 
appear before the Synod of Constantinople, they promised him 
every kindness, but afterwards they treated him in a very un- 
friendly manner." ^ Dioscurus, however, induced the assembled 
bishops to give their solemn approval to the declaration of 
faith which Eutyches had made at Constantinople (see p. 198).* 
Again, this was done by the Egyptians alone, as was shown 
at Chalcedon. At the last Bishop Basil of Seleucia objected 
to the expression ascribed to him (p. 203) in the Acts: **If 
thou, Eutyches, dost not accept two natures even after the 
union, then thou teachest a mingling." He had said: *K 
thou speakest of only one nature after the union, and dost 
not add, crecrapxtofikvT^v KaX iv avOpwirficracrav (that is, one 
incarnate nature of the Logos; see above, pp. 4, 144, and 
192), then thou teachest a mingling."' Subsequently he 
explained at Chalcedon that it was only from excitement and 
anxiety that he had at Ephesus denied and altered his former 
words (see p. 253). 

p. 138) belong to the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople. The farther words : 
Aliiftx»f to «f«y«f«rxi«'^« ra lint, to the Robber-Synod. That which foUows : 

Kai iv rf Jifayt9ti^Kt0-fmi tO mfri rgv murtu r^^hif***' '"'y*' (^ Mansi, Lc. p. 689 ; 

Hardouin, lc, p. 136), to the Ck>ancil of C^ialcedon. In this maimer alone is 
the matter intelligible. 

* Mansi, Lc, p. 738 ; Hardouin, lc. p. 162. 

» Mausi, lc, pp. 739 and 743 ; Hardouin, lc. pp. 163 and 166. 

* Mansi, lc, p. 746 sq. ; Hardouin, lc. p. 767. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 249 

After the whole of the Acts of Constantinople had been 
read, Eutyches declared that they were in several parts 
falsified, and demanded that the minutes of that commission 
should be read, which, at his complaint, had been summoned 
to examine the synodal Acts. The secretary John immediately 
read them through in their whole extent (p. 211 flf.) without 
any intemiption.^ The same was done with the Acts of that 
second commission which had to examine the complaint of 
Eutyches, that " Flavian had drawn up the sentence upon him 
beforehand" (p. 219). In order to justify his charge of a 
falsification of the Acts, Eutyches wished them to read a 
statement of the Silentiar Magnus bearing upon it (p. 219). 
Flavian replied that the charge was false, and when Dioscurus 
demanded that he should prove it, he replied : " They would 
not allow him to speak ; the Acts of the second session of 
Constantinople were quite unfalsified, as Thalassius (p. 211) 
and others who were present knew, and had been examined 
in the presence of the Silentiar and others, and no falsification 
had been proved. Before God he had nothing to fear on 
account of these Acts, and he had never altered his faith (an 
allusion to ^Ethericus, Basil, and Seleucus)." Dioscurus and 
the bishops under his influence asserted, on the contrary, that 
Flavian had full liberty of speech ; but the whole history of 
the Robber-Synod gives him the lie.* 

Thereupon Dioscurus requested that they should individually 
declare their view as to whether Eutyches was orthodox, and 
what was to be decreed concerning him ; and there were now 
no fewer than 114 votes given, declaring the doctrine of 
Eutyches to be orthodox, and demanding his restitution as 
abbot and priest.' The beginning was made by Juvenal of 
Jerusalem and Domnus of Antioch, the close by Abbot 
Barsumas and Dioscunis, when the latter confirmed the votes 
of the others and added his own. Although the Emperor had 
forbidden those bishops to vote this time who had co-operated 
in the deposition of Eutyches, yet the votes of ^Ethericus, 

' Mansi, Lc. pp. 758-822 ; Hardouin, Ic. pp. 171-210. 
' Cf. Tillemont, lc. p. 562 ; Mansi, lc. p. 831 sq. 

» In Mansi, /.c pp. 888-862 ; Hardouin, lc. pp. 217-282. The old Latin 
translation of these votes is more complete than the present Greek text. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



250 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Seleucus of Amasia, and Basil of Seleucia were received, 
because they were for Eutyches.^ Of the papal legates, on 
the contrary, no vote is found. 

Upon this the secretary John informed them that the 
monks of the convent over which Eutyches presided had sent 
in a docament He read it, and it is that accusation against 
Flavian and his Synod from which we have already (see 
p. 207, note 4) made some extracts. They say: "They had 
left all earthly goods and taken refuge in the cloister, three 
hundred in number, and many of them had led the ascetic 
life for thirty years. Then Archbishop Flavian had laid hold 
on their archimandrite, and had condemned him, because he 
would not violate the Nicene faith, like Flavian, but, on the 
contrary, had held fast by the decrees of the first Synod of 
Ephesus. The Archbishop had then denied them all com- 
munion vrith their abbot, and forbidden that the affairs of the 
monastery should be administered by him, and even had gone 
so far as to deny them the celebration of the holy mysteriea 
In consequence of this they had now, for almost nine months, 
had no holy sacrifice upon their altars, and several had 
already died in this state of schism. They therefore prayed 
the Synod to restore to them Church communion, and to 
inflict a just punishment upon him who had so unjustly con- 
demned them."^ Only thirty-five monks had signed, the 
priest and monk Narses at their head, although the context 
speaks of the number of three hundred. Why the other two 
hundred and sixty-five did not also subscribe, the monks did 
not think good to explain. 

Instead of entering upon the assertions of these monks, 
Dioscurus contented himself with questioning them on their 
faith ; and as they declared that they were in full agreement 
with Eutyches, they were also absolved by the Synod, 
restored to • their dignities (the priests among them), and 
brought back to the communion of the Church.' Thereupon 
Dioscurus, for the instruction of his colleagues, gave order 
to read, from the Acts of the first Synod of Ephesus (a.d. 

^ Mansi, he, pp. 889, 845, 851 ; Hardoom, 2.C. pp. 220, 223, 227. 
' Mansi, 2.c pp. 861-867 ; Hardoain, /.c p. 283 sqq. 
* Mansi, Z.c p. 867 sqq. ; Hardoain, l,c, p. 286 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE PBOCEEDINGS AT THE BOBBER-SYNOD. 251 

431), what had been there established concerning the true 
faith, and the secretary John read the Acts of the sixth 
session of Ephesus,^ which contain the Nicene Creed and a 
quantity of patristic and other passages, as well as many 
extracts from the writings of Nestorius, in proof that he was 
a heretic* 

After the reading was finished, Dioscurus said: "You 
have now heard that the first Synod of Ephesus threatens 
every one who teaches otherwise than the Nicene Creed, 
or makes alterations in it, and raises new or further questions. 
Every one must now give his opinion in writing as to 
whether those who, in their theological inquiries, go beyond 
the Nicene Creed, are to be punished or not" It is clear 
that he wanted to use this to make an attack upon Flavian 
and the Synod of Constantinople, since they, going beyond 
the Synod of Niceea, had wished to introduce the expression 
" two natures." 

Several bishops, Thalassius of Caesarea first, declared 
immediately that whoever went beyond the Nicene Creed 
was not to be received as a Catholic. Others simply 
afBrmed their assent to the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, 
without any addition in regard to overstepping it, and this 
was done by the Roman legate, the deacon Hilarus, who 
at the same time again demanded the reading of the papal 
letter. But Dioscurus went on as though he had not heard 
this, saying, " As, then, the first Synod of Ephesus threatens 
every one who alters anything in the Nicene faith, it follows 
that Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
must be deposed from their ecclesiastical dignity. I pro- 
nounce, therefore, their deposition, and every one of those 
present shall communicate his view of this matter. More- 
over, he added, as a means of intimidation, everything will 
be brought to the knowledge of the Emperor." Flavian now 
found it necessary to enter an appeal.* That two papal 

1 Not the foartb, as is erroneously stated by Mansi, Lc, p. 871. 

* Hansi, i.c pp. 871-902 ; Hardonin, l,c pp. 287-264 ; cf. above, p. 70 f. 

' On this appeal, and the canonistic controversy connected with it, and its 
literatnro, cf. Walch, Ketterhist, Bd. vi S. 267 ft. It is asked here whether 
Flavian appealed to another (Ecomenical Council, or to Pope Leo, or to both. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



252 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

legates were still present at that time, and both protested 
against the proceedings of Dioscurus, and accepted the appeal 
of Flavian, is stated by Pope Leo in his 44th letter ; the 
other members of the Synod, on the contrary, Juvenal of 
Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and Thalassius at their head, 
declared Flavian and Eusebius guilty, a hundred of them 
voting under influence, among them again those who had 
been present at the Synod of Constantinople, -Sthericus, 
Basil, and Seleucus. At the close, the 135 bishops who 
were present subscribed, some personally, some by repre- 
sentatives, with the abbot Barsumas,^ 

So far the minutes of the Eobber-Synod take us, thus 
giving us the testimony of the Synod concerning themselves. 
In order, however, to gain a complete and true picture of 
this assembly, we must also consider and compare the other 
testimonies of antiquity on the subject. 



Sec. 179. Testimonies of Antiquity rejecting the 
BobbeT'Synod. 

In a communication addressed to the Emperor Valentinian 
ni. and Marcian (the successor of Theodosius ii.), and also 
read at the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop Eusebius of 

Pope Leo speaks in his letters on the sabject {Bpp. 43, 44) only of an appeal in 
general, in consequence of which a Synod was to be sonunoned. The Emperor 
Valentinian iii., on the contrary, says : Flavian had appealed to the Roman bishop 
{Ep, 55 among those of Leo), and the same is asserted by the Empress Placidit 
( j^. 56 among those of Leo), and Liberatus in his history (Breviarkan) of the 
Eutychian sects (see p. 257). Quesnel expressed the opinion, in a separate 
dissertation (Z)e causa Flaviani, printed in the Ballerini edition of the works 
of Leo, t. ii p. 1183 8qq.)i that Flavian had only appealed to the council, and 
had handed over his appeal to the Roman legates, so that the Pope might see 
to the convoking of a new Synod. The Ballerini, on the other hand, think 
{l.c, p. 1153 sqq.) that the appeal was addressed to the Pope and to a Synod (but 
a Roman, not an (Ecumenical). 

^ Mansi, t. vi p. 927 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 263 sqq. Besides iEthericns, 
Basil, and Seleucus, the priest Longinos also sabscribed as representative of 
Bishop Dorotbeus of Neocssarea, although this last had been a member of the 
Synod of Constantinople. Of Bishops Longinus, Meliphthongns, and Timo- 
theus, on the contrary (see above, p. 242), there is as little any signature to be 
found as of Flavian. They appear to have been of firmer character. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 253 

Doryleeum complains that Dioscurus, at the second Synod of 
Ephesus, by money and by the brute force of his troops^ 
oppressed the orthodox faith^ and confirmed the heresy of 
Eutyches.^ Besides, at the Synod of Chalcedon it came out 
that Dioscurus had given permission only to his own notaries, 
and to those of some friends, the Bishops Thalassius of 
C^esarea and Juvenal of Jerusalem, to draw up the pro- 
ceedings of the Synod ; whilst the notaries of the other 
bishops were not once allowed to write anything for their 
masters. When, however, two notaries of Bishop Stephen 
of Ephesus did so, Dioscurus' notaries came up to tiem, 
erased what they had written, and almost broke their fingers 
in taking away their writing materials. In the same manner 
it appeared that Dioscurus, at the close of the Synod, after 
the judgment had been pronounced upon Flavian and 
Eusebius, immediately compelled the bishops at the same 
time to append their names to a paper which was not yet 
filled up, so that they might not have the opportunity of 
further considering the matter, and that those who refused to 
sign had much to suffer. They were shut up in the church 
until night, and even those who were ill were not allowed to 
go out for a moment to refresh themselves. For companions 
they had soldiers and monks, with swords and sticks, and 
thus they were taught to subscribe. Bishop Stephen of 
Ephesus became security for a few who did not subscribe 
until the next day.* 

To the same effect Bishop Basil of Seleucia deposed at the 
Synod of Chalcedon, that he had certainly altered at Ephesus 
the vote which he had given at Constantinople (p. 248), but 
he had done this from dread of Dioscurus. The latter had 
exercised great constraint over those who were present, both 
by his words and by the people whom he had placed outside 
and inside the church. Armed soldiers had even been in- 
troduced into the church, the monks of Barsumas too, and 
the Parabolani,' and a great crowd of people stood around. 
In this way Dioscurus had frightened them alL When some 

1 Manai, t yi p. 683 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 70. 
' Mansi, t yi p. 628 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 98. 
^ [A kind of inferior deacons. See art in Dkty. qf CkrisUan Antiquities,] 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



254 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

would not agree to the condemnation of Flavian, and others 
tried to get away, he had stood up in an elevated position, 
and cried out, " Those who do not subscribe will have to 
settle it with me." As a completion of these statements of 
Basil, Bishop Onesiphorus of Iconium declared, that, after 
reading the fundamental proposition or rule, that nothing 
should be altered in the Nicene faith, he had immediately 
suspected that this would be turned against Flavian, and had 
said this quietly to those who sat near him. One of these, 
Bishop Epiphanius of Perga, had given his opinion that this 
was impossible, as Flavian had in no way offended; but 
Dioscurus had suddenly got up and proclaimed the con- 
demnation of Flavian, as involved in that rule. Then he 
had risen with some other bishops, had embraced the knees of 
Dioscurus, and urged upon him that " Flavian had done nothing 
worthy of condemnation, but if he had done anything worthy 
of blame, they should be satisfied with blaming him." But 
Dioscurus had risen from his throne, and cried : " Will you 
rebel? The Counts shall come." Thus, he continued, we 
were intimidated, and subscribed. 

When Dioscurus would have denied that he called for the 
Counts, Bishop Marinian of Synnada stood up and declared 
that he, with Onesiphorus and Nunnechius of Laodicea, had 
embraced the knees of Dioscurus, and said : " Thou hast also 
priests under thee, and a bishop ought not to be deposed for 
the sake of a priest" But Dioscurus had replied : " I will 
pronounce no other judgment, even if my tongue should be 
cut out for it" As, however, the bishops already named 
continued to clasp his knees, he had called for the Counts, 
and they had entered with the Proconsul, who brought 
with him many attendants and chains. In consequence of 
this, he said, they had all subscribed. — Dioscurus denied 
this, and proposed to appeal to witnesses, whom, how- 
ever, he would not present until another time, as the 
bishops were then too much fatigued. He never presented 
them.^ 

In the third session at Chalcedon, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
presented a second complaint in writing, in which he repeated 
A Mansi, t. vi p. 827 sqq. ; Hardouiii, l.e, p. 214 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 255 

the contents of his first, and added that he and Flavian had 
not ventured to bring forward their proof at Ephesus, and 
Dioscurus had constrained the bishops to sign a blank paper.^ 
It was further asserted at the fourth session of the same 
Council, by Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus, that the Abbot Bar- 
suinas had killed Flavian. He had exclaimed : *' Strike him 
dead." When the bishops heard this, they all exclaimed: 
" Barsumas is a murderer, cast him out, out with him to the 
arena, let him be anathema."' 

Important testimonies respecting the Robber-Synod are 
contained in the contemporary letters of Pope Leo. In the 
forty-fourth to the Emperor Theodosius, dated October 13, 449, 
he says (a) that Dioscurus had not allowed the two letters of 
the Pope to the Synod and to Flavian (the Epistola dogmatica) 
to be read at Ephesus ; (b) that his deacon Hilarus had fled 
from the Synod that he might not be forced to subscribe; 
(c) that Dioscurus had not allowed all the bishops who were 
present to take part in the judgment, but only those of whose 
subserviency he was assured; (d) that the papal legates had 
protested against the heterodox declarations of the Synod, and 
had not allowed themselves to be forced by violence to assent 
to them; and (c) that Flavian had consigned to the papal 
legates a copy of his appeal The Emperor should therefore 
be pleased to leave everything as it was before this Synod, 
and arrange for the holding of a new and greater Synod in 
Italy.' 

In the next letter addressed to the Empress Pulcheria, and 
also dated October 13, Leo complains that it had not been 
possible for his legates to deliver the letter which he had 
given them for this princess. Only one of them, the deacon 
Hilarus, had succeeded in escaping and returning to Home. 
He therefore again sent the letter destined for Pulcheria as an 
appendix to the present His legates had protested at Ephesus 
that everything had been decided by the violence, or even by 
the rage of one single man (Dioscurus), and he had requested 

^ Mansi, Le. p. 986 ; Hardouin, Lc. p. 811. 
' Mansi, t. yii p. 68 ; Hardouin, /.c. p. 423. 

' Leonis Epiet, 44, in Bailer, pp. 909-917 ; in Mansi, t. yi. p. 14 sqq. ; Har- 
douin, t. ii. p. 28. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



256 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the Emperor not to confirm what had been done there, but 
rather to. appoint the time and place for a Synod in Italy; 
and he entreated her to intercede with the Emperor and 
support this petition.* 

A remarkable letter, undated, probably appended to the 
one just mentioned, is one from the papal legate Hilaras to 
the same princess, saying that, ** as he had not agreed to the 
unrighteous condemnation of Flavian, but on the contrary 
had appealed to another Council, he had no longer been per- 
mitted to go either to Constantinople or to Roma Therefore 
he had not been able to convey the Pope's letter to the 
Princess. He had, however, succeeded, by leaving all his 
property behind him, in escaping by unknown ways to Rome, 
and informing the Pope." * 

In his foity-seventh letter to Anastasius of Thessalonica, 
also of the 13th of October, Pope Leo congratulates this 
bishop that he had been prevented from taking part in the 
Synod of Ephesus ; in consequence of which he had not been 
forced by armed violence and insolence to subscribe. Dios- 
curus had given vent to his ancient personal hatred and 
jealousy of Flavian. Anastasius, however, must not accept 
the decrees of that Synod.* At the same time Pope Leo 
also expressed his sorrow at what had been done in his 
letters to Bishop Julian of Cos, to the clergy and laity of 
Constantinople, to the archimandrites there, and to Arch- 
bishop Flavian, as the death of the latter was not yet known 
to him.* Many other of his letters no less contain numerous 
complaints of the outrages of Dioscurus ; and the ninety-fifth, 
to Pulcheria, dated July 20, 451, for the first time designates 
the Ephesine assembly by the name which afterwards was 
universally applied to it, the latrocinium,^ 

That Dioscurus also deposed the (absent) Theodoret of 
Cjmis at the Robber-Synod, without having heard him at all, 
or having interrogated him with respect to his faith on the 

* Epi9t, 46, p. 919 aqq.; in Mansi, t vi. p. 19 sqq. ; Hardouin, Lc -p, 29. 

* Epigt, 46, p. 925 aqq. ; in Mand, t yi. p. 23 sqq. ; Hardooin, Lc, p. 84. 

* Epist. 47, p. 929 sq. ; in Mansi, t vi. p. 27. 

* I^. 48, 49, 60, 61, p. 930 sqq. ; in Mand, t vi. p. 28 sqq. 
' Epiat, 96, p. 1077 ; in Mansi, t tL p. 138. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TESTIMONIES OF ANTIQUITY RESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 257 

point in question, Theodoret himself mentions in a letter to 
Pope Leo.^ In another to the monks of Constantinople, he 
says that his enemies had spent a great deal of money in 
order to procure this judgment.* In a third letter to Bishop 
John of Germanicia, Theodoret mentions that Domnus of 
Antioch had also been deposed at the Bobber-Synod, because 
he would not agree to the twelve anathematisms of Cyril, 
•whilst Bishop Candidian of Antioch in Pisidia had remained 
unpunished, although often accused of adultery. They had 
also at Ephesus restored Bishops Athenius and Athanasius, 
who had been deposed by the Eastern Synod.^ 

Noteworthy testimonies as to the outrages of Dioscurus and 
the intimidation of the bishops by military are also found in 
the letters of the Western Emperor, Valentinian m., of his 
wife Eudoxia, and of his mother Galla Placidia, to Theodosius 
and Pulcheria.^ In particular, the Empress Eudoxia calls the 
Synod of Ephesus a tumulttums and unhappy one, and Valen- 
tinian, too, speaks of its tumultuous character. 

To these epistolary communications on the Synod of 
Ephesus may be added several testimonies of ancient his- 
torians, from which we learn some things which we could not 
obtain from other sources. We naturally place first among 
these the contemporary of the Eobber-Synod, Prosper of 
Aquitaine, to whom in particular we owe three statements — 
(a) that Pope Leo had sent two legates, Bishop Julius of 
Puteoli and the deacon Hilarus, to Ephesus ; (J) that Hilarus, 
because he opposed Dioscurus, when they were using the 
military to enforce subscription, went in great danger of his 
life, and only by leaving all his property behind, had been 

^ Theodoret, Epist. 113, 0pp. iv. p. 1187, ed. Schulze. Also among the letters 
of Leo in the Ballerini Collection, No. 62, p. 941. In Mansi, t. vi. p. 85. A 
special treatise on the deposition of Theodoret and his restoration by Uie Synod 
of Chalcedon, by Quesnel, is reprinted with the criticisms of the BaUerini, in 
their edition of the Works of Leo, t ii. p. 1237 sq., 1257 sq. 

* Theodoret, EpUt. 146, t iv. p. 1244 sq., ed. Schulze. 

* Theodoret, JE^pUt, 147, ed. Schulze, t iv. p. 1276 sqq. 

* Nos. 66>58 among the letters of Leo, in BaUerini, t i. p. 961 sqq. ; Mansi, 
t. vi p. 50 sqq. ; Haidouin, t ii p. 35 sqq. Eudoxia was a daughter of Theo- 
dosius II., Galla Placidia, a sister of Arcadius and Honorius ; but Valentinian 
III. was sisters child of Theodosius ii., a son of that Galla Placidia and of the 
Patrician, afterwards Ctesar, Constantius. 

m. R 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



258 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

able to escape home ; and (c) that the holy Flavian had gone 
to Christ by a glorious death, at the hands of those who were 
appointed to convey him to the place of his banishment^ 

The somewhat later anonymous author of the Breviadus 
Historice Eutychianistarum says : " At this Synod there were 
also present the representatives sent by the Apostolic See, 
Bishop Julius of Puteoli and the Archdeacon BKlarus. The 
Presbyter JRenatus, haioever, died during the journey to Ephegus 
in the island of Debs. The Eoman notary Dulcitius was also 
present. The dogmatic letter of Leo to Flavian was not* 
allowed to be read, and they spent the whole of the first day, 
the 8th of August, in reading the Acts of the first Synod of 
Ephesus and the judgment of Flavian on Eutyches (ie. the 
Acts of Constantinople). In spite of the opposition of the 
Eoman legates, Flavian was deposed, and Eusebius of Dory- 
laeum was condemned as a Nestorian, although he, when yet a 
layman, had stood up as an accuser of Nestorius. These Euty- 
chianists would not allow that between them and Nestorius 
there was a third party, and held every one who was not an 
Eutychian for a thorough Nestorian (a very good remark !) 
. . . Three days after the deposition of Flavian, Domnus of 
Antioch was also deposed, after which Dioscurus departed in 
haste, and the assembly was dissolved. Flavian was carried 
into exile, and died at Epipa, a city of Lydia, whether by 
a natural or a violent death, and Anatolius, an adherent of 
Dioscurus, became Bishop of Constantinople." * 

Something more we learn from liberatus (sixth century) in 
his Breviarium, (a) Dioscurus had the bravest soldiers and the 
monks of Barsumas around him. (h) The legates of the Pope 
were not allowed to sit with the bishops, as the presidency 
had not been conceded to the Eoman see ; that is, because the 
legates were not allowed to preside, they took no seat at all, 

^ Prosperi Chronic, in Basnage, Thesaur. t i. p. 304. 

' In the appendix of Sirmond ad Codicem Theodos. p. 113 sqq. The account 
here given of the death of Flavian, with which that of Prosper (see above) 
also agrees, is the more probable ; and when Barsnmas was called his murderer 
at the Synod of Chalcedon, this must be understood to mean that, by his ill- 
treatment of Flavian, he was indirectly the cause of his death. Nioephoros^ 
lib. ziv. c. 47, says that Flavian died on the third day after the Synod, in con- 
sequence of the ill-treatment which he received. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TESTDiONIBS OF ANnQXJITT HESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD. 259 

but stood extra ordinem. (c) At the command of Dioscurus 
the S3mod condemned Bishop Ibas of Edessa in his absence as 
having, by not appearing at the Synod, shown his contempt 
for it He was summoned three times, and his enemies 
accused him of having said : " I do not envy Christ for having 
become God, for I too can become this, if I like." His letter 
to Maris was also brought against him. (d) In the same way, 
at the suggestion of Dioscurus, the Synod condemned Theodoret 
in his absence, on account of his writings against the twelve 
anathematisms of Cyril, and on account of his letter to the 
clergy, monks, and laity, which he had written against the 
first Synod of Ephesus, before the establishment of peace, 
(e) Bishop Sabinianus of Perrha was also deposed ; and (J) last 
of all, Domnus of Antioch, although he had agreed in every- 
thing with Dioscurus. When on one occasion Domnus, by 
reason of sickness, was not present at a session of the Synod 
(some time back we saw that this was on the third day after 
the deposition of Flavian), Dioscurus brought out letters which 
Domnus had some time before addressed to him privatim 
against the twelve chapters of Cyril, and now condemned him 
on accoimt of them.^ (g) Flavian appealed by the legates to 
the apostolic see (see above, p. 251, note 2). (A) Flavian, 
beaten and seriously injured, died in consequence of the blows 
which he had received, (i) In the place of Flavian, the 
deacon Anatolius, hitherto the secretary of Dioscurus, was 
appointed Bishop of Constantinople ; in the place of Domnus 
of Antioch, Maximus ; in the place of Ibas, Nonnus ; and in 
the place of Sabinianus, Athanasius. No others were chosen 
in the places of Theodoret and Eusebius of Dorylseum. (k) 
Fleeing from Ephesus, the legates of the Pope came to Rome 
and reported what had taken place.* 

Evagrius relates that, besides those already named. Bishops 
Daniel of Carrae, Irenaeus of Tyre, and Aquilinus of Byblus 
were also deposed at the Bobber-Synod; and, on the other 
hand, resolutions were drawn up in favour of Bishop Sophro- 

^ On the proceedings against Domnus, Quesnel composed a special dissertation, 
reprinted, with the criticisms of the BaUerini, in the edition of Leo's Works, 
t. iL p. 1188 sqq. and 1215 sqq. 

' liberati Brtviar. c. 12, in Galland. t. zil p. 140. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



260 HISTORY OF THE OOONCILa 

mas of Constantina (in Phoenicia).^ In another place (il 2) 
Evagrins also adduces the testimony of Eusebios of Doryhemn, 
to the effect that Flavian, beaten and kicked bj Dioscuros, had 
miserably perished. 

Finally, the Byzantine Theophanes, althou^ belonging only 
to the eighth centoiy, contributes something which is wortiiy 
of notice, (a) Agreeing with the expression of Leo : Lairo- 
einium £pJiesinum, he calls this Synod a avpoBo^ Xtftrrpiicrij 
and says (b) that Flavian before his deposition was struck by 
Dioscurus both with hands and feet, and on the third day after 
died;' (e) that the papal legates, being always ridiculed, had 
taken flight and returned to Bome.^ 



Sec. 180. Fortunes of the Papal Legates who had been dqnUed 
to the Rdbber-Synod. 

This last statement leads us to some remarks on the l^ates 
of Leo. We know that he had named three of these — Bishop 
Julius, the priest Renatus, and the deacon Hilarus. In all 
the documents of the Synod, however, there is nowhere the 
very slightest mention of Eenatus ; even at the beginning of 
the Synod only Julius and EUlarus, with the notary Bulcidos, 
are mentioned as being present. Accordingly Benatus does 
not appear to have been at Ephesus, and therefore that is 
credible which is said by the author of the BrevictUus Hist, 
Eutych, (see above, p. 258), that he died during the journey on 
the island of Delos. In direct contradiction to this, however, 
stands the hundred and sixteenth letter of Theodoret, which 
is addressed to this very Eenatus, and is written aJUr the dose 
of the Bohber-Synod. Theodoret praises him on account of his 
liberality and the zeal with which he had blamed the violence 
practised at the Robber-Synod. The whole world was, on this 
account, full of his fame. The legate had been present up to 

1 Evagrii ffitt, Ecd, lib. i. c 10. 

' According to the teatimony of the Breviculus already adduced, Fla?iaD died 
considerably later in exUe. 

' Theoph. Chronog^phia, ad aim. 5941, p. 145 sq. of the Bonn edition of 
Classen, a. 1889. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FORTUNES OF PAPAL LEGATES DEPUTED TO EOBBER-SYNOD. 261 

the deposition of Flavian, but he had then departed, and thus 
had not remained to witness the unjust condemnation of Theo- 
doret.^ 

Various attempts have been made to reconcile this contra- 
diction, and to set some other points right Quesnel gives it 
as his opinion, in his remarks on the twenty-eighth letter of 
Leo,* (a) that " the author of the Bremculus made a mistake ; 
Q)) that not Renatus, but Bishop Julius of Puteoli, died at 
Delos during the journey, and then that Bishop Julian of Cos 
had taken his place at Ephesus as papal legate, and therefore 
the reading, Julianus instead of Julius, which occurs in most 
manuscripts, is the correct one ; (c) that the fact of Benatus 
not being mentioned in the Acts is a consequence of their 
incompleteness (!) ; (d) that after the close of the Synod, 
Hilary and Benatus had travelled back to Bome (Julian of Cos 
naturally had no reason for going there), but the former had 
arrived the earlier, on which accoimt Leo, in his forty-fourth 
and forty-fifth letters (see above, p. 256), says that Hilary 
alone had returned to Bome; (e) and that Theoderet had written 
the letter in question to Benatus, who also returned there, but 
at a later period." 

Against this hypothesis Baluzius* and the Ballerini* pro- 
tested, and, as it appears to me, with full right, (a) In the 
first place, there are two quite arbitrary fictions, that the legate 
Julius died, and that Bishop Julian of Cos became his substi- 
tute. (J) In the next place, the silence of the Acts of 
Ephesus not only makes it probable that Benatus was not 
present at the Synod, but also the contemporaneous Prosper 
knows of only two papal legates, Julius and Hilarus, and this 
confirms the statement of the BrevictUus. (c) If, however, 
Theodoret nevertheless writes to Benatus, either the superscrip- 
tion of the letter is false (for the name of Benatus never occurs 
in the text), or Theodoret has made a mistake and confounded 

• Theodoret, Epist. 116, p. 1196 sq., ed. Scbulze. 

• Printed in the Ballerini edition of Leo's Works, t. ii. p. 1410 sqq. 

» In the Prctfat, to his edition of the Antiqua Veraio CancUii Choked, n. 
xzz. sq. in Mansi, t. yii p. 665. 

• Leonis 0pp., ed. Bailer, t ii. p. 1411 sqq., in their annotations to the 
treatise of Quesnel referred to above. With them agreed also Walch, Ketaxr- 
hittorie, Bd. tL S. 250 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



262 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Renatus with Hilarus, with respect to whom the statement in 
the letter is quite accurate. 

To this we add only that we know nothing more of the 
legate Julius. Before iJie end of the first session at Ephesus, 
we meet only with Hilarus ; he alone, and not also Julius with 
him, protests against the deposition of Flavian, and it is of 
Hilarus alone that Pope Leo says that he was able to escape 
and save himsell Of Julius, however, just as little as of 
Eenatus, is there any word in the later epistles of the Pope. 
Theophanes (see above, p. 260) professes to know that Julius 
also had returned to Rome; and Liberatus also (p. 258 1) 
speaks of the return of the legates in the plural On this state- 
ment Tillemont makes the remark that Julius must necessarily 
have returned later than Hilarus, as Leo says nothing of him 
in his forty-fourth and forty-fifth letters.^ 

^ Tillemont, Mimoires, t. xv. p. 677. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



CHAPTEE IV. 

THE ROBBER-SYNOD IS TO BE CONFRONTED BY A NEW AND 
GREATER COUNCIL. 

Sec. 181. Theodosius II. for. Pope Leo I. against y the Robber- 
Synod. Synods at Rome and Milan. 

AFTER all that we know and have already brought for- 
ward respecting the disposition of the Byzantine Court 
at that time, it could not be doubted that the Emperor Theo- 
dosius IL, in spite of all the counter-representations of the 
Pope and the Latin Court (see above, p. 255 flf.), would con- 
firm the decrees of the Robber-Synod ; and he actually did so 
in a decree which is still extant in Latin, as follows : " When 
Nestorius endeavoured to violate the old faith, he had been 
condemned at the Synod of Ephesus. This Synod had also 
confirmed the Nicene Confession of Faith, and he (the Emperor) 
had, in accordance with these synodal decrees, published a 
law condemning Nestorius. More recently, however, Flavian 
of Constantinople, and another bishop named Eusebius, fol- 
lowing the errors of Nestorius, had raised a new controversy, 
and therefore the Emperor had convoked a great Council of 
Bishops of all places to Ephesus, which had deposed Flavian, 
Eusebius, Domnus, Theodoret, and some others on account of 
their being entangled in the Nestorian heresy. The deci*ees 
of this Synod he commended and confirmed, and he gave 
command that all the bishops of his empire should immediately 
subscribe the Nicene Creed, and that no adherent of Nestorius 
or Flavian should ever be raised to a bishopric. If, however, 
such a thing should be done, he should be deposed. Nothing 
whatever was to be added to the Nicene word of faith, and 
nothing should be taken away from it No one was to read 
the writings of Nestorius and Theodoret; on the contrary, every 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



264 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

one was to give them up to be burnt The Nestorians were 
to be tolerated neither in the cities nor in the country, and 
whoever tolerated them should be punished with confiscation 
of goods and perpetual exile." ^ 

It was clear that this edict had the force of law only in the 
Byzantine Empire, and not also in the West ; but even in the 
former, on account of its stringency, it could not obtain uni- 
versal authority; on the contrary, there now arose a great 
ecclesiastical schism in the East i^pt, Thrace, and Pales- 
tine held with Dioscurus and the Emperor; the bishops of 
Syria, Pontus, and Asia, on the contrary, with Flavian * That 
Theodoret of Cyrus turned to Rome we have already noted, and 
we may now add that in three letters to the Pope, to Renatus, 
and to the Archdeacon (Hilarus), he appealed (iTn/caXetaBcu) 
to the judgment of Eome, of whose Primate he speaks in the 
strongest terms, asking that a new Synod may be held. To 
this he requests the Pope to summon him and there to try and 
examine his teaching, and generally to take an interest in the 
Oriental Church. At the same time he expresses his complete 
agreement with the Epistola dogToatica of Leo, upon which he 
bestows great praisa* — Whether Theodoret presented an appeal 
to Rome in the full sense of the word, or not, is a disputed 
question which does not concern us very nearly here, and 
which has been decided in the negative by Quesnel, Dupin, and 
others, and in the afi&rmative by the Ballerini and others.^ 

In a second letter Theodoret asked the Patrician Anatolius 
of Constantinople to intercede for him, that he might have 
permission to travel to the wished-for Roman Council* 

In fact, Pope Leo immediately held a considerable Western 
Synod (pcddentale concilium it is called by his deacon Hilarus 

' Printed in Mansi, t. viL p. 495, and by Hardouin, t. ii p. 67S, among 
the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon. A second ancient Latin yersion of this 
imperial edict is found among the Acts of the fifth (Ecumenical Synod in Mansi, 
t. ix. p. 250, and Hardouin, t. iii p. 105, with the variation that here the books 
of Diodorus of Tarsus and of Theodore of Mopsuestia are mentioned among those 
which are forbidden. 

' Liberat Brevktr. c. 12, in Galland. t. xii. p. 140. 

» Theodoret, Epp, 118, 116, 118, p. 1187 sqq. t iv., ed. Schulze. 

* Of. Leonis 0pp. ed. Bailer, t. ii. p. 1237 sqq. and p. 1257 sqq., and Walch, 
Ketserhia, Bd. vi S. 272 ff. 

* Theodoret, Ep. 119, p. 1200, l,e. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNODS AT ROME AND MILAN. 265 

in his letter to Pulcheria), and in agreement with this Synod 
rejected ^ that had been done at the Robber-SynoA^ The 
libelltis synodieus also speaks of this Roman Council/ with the 
addition which is certainly not quite warranted, that Leo had 
here pronounced an anathema upon Dioscurus and Eutyches, 
and had sent a solemn annoimcement of it to the Clergy, 
Senate, and Laity of Constantinople.' More certain is it that 
Dioscurus, about that time, took upon him to pronounce a 
sentence of excommunication on Leo, as is clear from the Acts 
of the Council of Chalcedon.* 

In agreement with this Roman Synod,* Pope Leo immedi- 
ately wrote, on the 13th October 449, to the Emperor Theo- 
dosius u., saying, that until a greater S3mod of Bishops from 
all parts of the world could be held, he should be pleased to 
allow everything to remain in the statvs which existed before 
the recently-held Synod at Ephesus, and to give orders for the 
holding of an (Ecumenical Synod in Italy, especially as Flavian 
had appealed. As to what must be done after an appeal had 
been presented, that had already been declared in the Nicene 
(properly, Sardican) Canons, which he appended.* 

Leo wrote in similar terms to Pulcheria, and asked for her 
support with her brother, and his archdeacon Hilarus also 
appealed in this matter to the influential princess.^ — ^We have 
already seen (see p. 256) that the Pope had also written to 
Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica (JSpist. 47), and to the 
Clergy, Laity, and Archimandrites of Constantinople, in order 
to warn them not to acknowledge the Ephesine Synod (Bpp. 

* So the deacon Hilarns says in the letter referred to above to Pulcheria, No. 
46 among the letters of Leo, ed. Bailer, tip. 926 sqq. ; Mansi, t vi. p. 24 sqq. 

« Ct on the Libdlus, voL i. p. 78. 

' In Mansi, t. vi p. 509 ; Hardouin, t. y. p. 1528. 

* Mann, t tL p. 1009 ; Haidomn, t. u, p. 828. Of. Walch, Z.c. S. 290 ; 
Tilleraont, Lc p. 608. 

' This agreement is dear from Leonis Ep, 61, p. 984, and Ep. 69, p. 1008, ed. 
Bailer. ; in Mansi, t. yL pp. 65 and 88. 

* Leonis Epp, 48, 44, in Ballerin. t L pp. 901-918 ; Mansi, t Yi. p. 7 sqq. ; 
Hardouin, t ii pp. 28, 27. Cf. above, p. 255 f. The 44th letter was probably 
written a few days later than the 48d. Cf. Ballerin. le, p. 898, n. 7 ; and 
Mansi, Ic, p. 6, n. 7. On the interchange of the Nicene and Sardican canons, see 
vol. i. pp. 856 and 869. 

7 Leonis Epp. 45, 46, in Ballerini, t. L p. 919 Bqq. ; Mansi, t. vL p. 19 sqq. 
Cf. above, p. 256. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



266 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

50 and 51). — Somewhat later, at Christmas in the same year 
(449), he appealed again to the Emperor Theodosius, assured 
him of his stedfastness in the Nicene faith, and repeated the 
request for the holding of a great Council in Italy.^ 

Before he received an answer to this, in the early part of 
the year 450, the Latin Emperor Valentinian m. came with 
Ms wife Eudoxia (a daughter of Theodosius il), and his mother 
Galla Placidia (aunt of Theodosius), to Eome, in order to pay 
his devotions there on the Festival of the holy Apostle Peter 
(at the Festival of the See of Peter, S. Peter's Day, February 
22, 450). While they were praying in S. Peter's Church, 
Pope Leo came to them in company with many bishops out of 
various provinces, and earnestly entreated them for their kind 
intercessions with the Emperor Theodosius. And not only 
Valentinian but the two exalted ladies responded to his wish, 
and towards the end of February 450 addressed three letters 
to the Emperor of the East, and a fourth to his sister Pulcheria, 
in which, while maintaining the high dignity of the Eoman 
see, they entreat him to commit the existing controversy to 
the sentence of the Pope, to whom Flavian had appealed, and 
to a new Council to be held in Italy.* 

The Emperor Theodosius answered, about Easter 450, with 
a refusal, saying that everything had been settled at Ephesus 
with complete liberty and entirely in accordance with the truth, 
and that Flavian had been justly deposed on account of inno- 
vations in the faith.* — Before Leo could receive this distressing 
intelligence, he had already learnt to his joy, that the clergy, 
the aristocracy, and the people of Constantinople had for the 
most part remained loyal to the orthodox faith, and were 
asking for his help and support He commended them for 
this in a letter written in March 450, and briefly expounded 
to them the orthodox doctrine on the person of Christ.* Per- 

' Eput. 54. On the date of this letter of the Ballerini, Lc p. 957, note 8 ; and 
Walch, Le. 8. 210. 

' Among the letters of Leo, Nos. 55, 56, 57, 58, in Bailer, tip. 961 sqq. ; 
Hardouin, t. ii p. 35 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi p. 50 sqq. Cf. above, p. 257. 

» Epist. 62, 68, 64 among those of Leo, in Bailer, tip. 985 sqq. ; in Har- 
douin, t. ii. p. 89 sqq. ; Mansi, t. vi p. 67 sqq. 

* EpUt, 59, in Bailer, p. 975 sqq. ; in Hardonin, t. ii. p. 81 ; Mansi, t tL p. 
58 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNODS AT HOME AND MILAN. 267 

haps he was still more rejoiced at a letter from Pulcheria, in 
which (for the first time) she clearly declared that she saw 
and abhorred what was erroneous in the teaching of Eutyches. 
Leo therefore wrote a short letter to her on the l7th of March 
450, in which he commended her, saying, that, after the receipt 
of her letter, he asked her anew for her support, and now 
with still greater urgency and confidence.^ On the same day 
he also exhorted anew the Archimandrites and Priests, Martin 
and Faustus of Constantinople, to stedfastness in the orthodox 
faith.* 

Directly after this, in May 450, Leo endeavoured to 
interest the Gallican bishops in the dominant doctrinal ques- 
tion, having at the same time to meet with them in order to 
settle the contest for the primacy between Aries and Vienne ; 
and he succeeded in this with the best results, as is testified 
by his letter to the Archbishop Eavennius of Aries, and the 
answer of several Gallican bishops.* With equal decision, a 
year later, the bishops of Upper Italy, at a Synod at Milan, 
declared in favour of the orthodox faith, and accepted Leo's 
Epidola doginaiica, as we see from the letter of Archbishop 
Eusebius of Milan to the Pope, in the summer of 451.^ 

With equal tact and courtesy as decision Leo further 
resisted, in his letter of July 16, 450 (Up. 69), the request 
of the Emperor Theodosius to recognize Anatolius, the suc- 
cessor of Flavian, as Bishop of Constantinople. Anatolius 
had, in a special letter, of which only a fragment yet remains,* 
requested this confirmation from Bome, and the Emperor, as 
well as the consecrators of the new bishop, had supported his 
request Leo therefore wrote to Theodosius : Before he could 
decide on this matter, the elected person must first of all 
testify to his orthodoxy, a thing which was required of every 
Catholic Anatolius should therefoi-e read the writings of the 
Fathers of the Chiurch on the doctrine of the Incarnation, 
particularly those of S. Cyril and of the Synod of Ephesus, 

^ £pvtt, 60, in BaUer. p. 982 ; Mansi, t. tL p. 64. 
' JEpist, 61, in BaUer. p. 988 ; Mansi, t vi. p. 65. 

' Epigt. 67, 68, in BaUer. p. 1000 sqq. ; in Mansi, t vi p. 78 sqq. Epistles 
65 and 66 refer to the controversy respecting the GaUican primacy. 

* Among the letters of Leo, No. 97, ed. BaUer. p. 1080 ; in Mansi, t. vi. p. 141. 

* Epi$i. 58, among the letters of Leo, p. 953, in BaUer. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



268 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

also the letter of the Pope to Flavian, and then publicly 
subscribe an orthodox confession of faith, and send it to the 
apostolic see and to all the churches. At the same time, he 
said he was sending two bishops, Abundius and Asterius, and 
two priests, Basil and Senator, as legates, to Constantinople, 
in order to speak more confidentially with the Emperor, and 
to explain to him the creed of the Pope. If the Bishop of 
Constantinople should honestly agree with this creed, he would 
rejoice at having secured the peace of the Church, and lay 
aside all other doubts (respecting Anatolius) ; in case, how- 
ever, some should still fail to agree with the true faith of the 
Pope and the Fathers, then an CEcumenical Council in Italy 
would be necessary, to the holding of which the Emperor 
would, he hoped, consent.^ 

We see that, even during the life of Theodosius IL, Leo 
regarded the holding of a new great Synod as superfluous, in 
case all the bishops should, without any such Synod, make 
an orthodox confession of the faith — a circumstance which 
casts a necessary light, which has not been sufficiently 
regarded, upon his conduct after the death of Theodosius. 

The same is contained in a letter of Leo's to Pulcheria, of 
the same date {Epist. 70). A third, addressed a day later, to 
the Archimandrites of Constantinople, says that Anatolius and 
his consecrators (among them Dioscurus, whose excommunica- 
tion of the Pope followed afterwards) had informed him of 
the election and ordination of the new BishQp of Constanti- 
nople, but not of his orthodoxy, and of the suppression of 
heresy in his neighbourhood. He had therefore sent four 
legates to the Emperor, and asked the Archimandrites to 
support them according to their ability.* 

Sec. 182. PtUcheria and Marcian conu to the Throne. 

It is probable that Theodosius was already dead when those 
papal legates arrived at Constantinople, for he died in conse- 
quence of a fall from his horse, July 28, 450. As he left no 
male succession, and as his sister Pulcheria, in the year 415, 

^ Epi9t. 69, in Bailer, p. 1005 ; in Manai, t tL p. S3 sqq. 
' Epist 71, in Bailer, p. 1011 ; in Mansi, t. yi. p. SS. 



Digitized by V>OOQlC 



PULCHERIA AND MARCIAN COMB TO THE THRONE. 269 

when he was still a boy^ had been raised to be Augusta and 
Co-regent^ the crown now fell to her, and not to Eudoxia, the 
daughter of the late Emperor, who was married to Valentinian 
iiL, the Emperor of the West As, however, a woman had 
never governed the Eoman Empire alone, either in the East or 
in the West, Pulcheria oflfered her hand and her throne to 
Mareian,^ one of the most distinguished generals and states- 
men of the time, a man very highly esteemed for piety and 
ability, on condition that she should not be disturbed in her 
vow of perpetual virginity. On Marcian's consenting, she 
presented him to her assembled council as her husband and 
as the future Emperor. The selection met with universal 
approval in the army, among the officers of state, and among 
the people, and Marcian was solemnly crowned on the 24th of 
August 450. The Emperor Valentinian gave his assent to 
that which had been done, and the new Emperor gained for 
himself such renown, that all writers number him among the 
best, the most pious, and the most virtuous of princes that 
ever sat upon a throne, and many exalt him even above 
Constantine and Theodosius the Great. 

Upon this the position of ecclesiastical affairs suddenly 
changed, since Marcian, like Pulcheria, was devoted to the 
orthodox faith, and, moreover, the previous chief protector of 
Eutychianism, the minister Chrysaphius, was executed on 
account of his numerous acts of injustice (whether shortly 
before or after the death of Theodosius is doubtful). Dios- 
curus rightly foresaw what he had to fear from the new 
Emperor, and therefore endeavoured to prevent his recognition 
in Egypt;* but the attempt miscarried, and could only 
strengthen the dislike entertained for the Alexandrian, who 
was now doubly deserving of punishment. With Pope Leo, 
on the other hand, Marcian entered into friendly correspond- 
ence soon after he ascended the throne, and informed him at 
once, in his first letter (at the end of August or the beginning 
of September 450), that by God's providence, and the election 

* He was a widower. After his elevation to the throne, he married Euphemia, 
his daughter by his first marriage, to Anthimus, afterwards Emperor of the 
West 

• Walch, KeUerfM. Bd. vL S. 807. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



270 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of the Senate and the army, he had become Emperor. He 
adds that he now, above all things, in the cause of the orthodox 
faith, for the sake of which he had obtained his power, 
appealed to Leo, who had the oversight and the first place ia 
the faith (ri^v re ar}v a/fuoavvrjv iiriaKOirevovaav koX apjdDvaav 
•7% Oeia<; iriarem), and requested him to intercede with (Jod 
for the security of his government Finally, he declares that 
he is favourable to the holding of the S}mod suggested by Leo 
{crov av0€VTovPTo^), for the extirpation of heresy and the 
restoration of peace.^ 

Somewhat later, on the 2 2d of November 450, the 
Emperor Marcian addressed a second letter to Leo, and 
assured him anew of his zeal for the true religion, remarking 
that he had received the papal legates with pleasure and in a 
friendly manner (the four named above, who had been sent to 
Theodosius). It now only remained that the Tope should be 
pleased to come in person to the East, and there to celebrate 
the Synod. If this, however, was too great a burden to lay 
upon him, Leo would inform him of it, so that by a circular 
letter he might summon all the bishops of the East, of Thrace, 
and of Illyricum, to a place that might suit him (the 
Emperor) to a Synod. There they should establish what 
might be advantageous to the Catholic faith, in accordance 
with the manner stated by the Pope (in his letter to 
Flavian).* 

At the same time there arrived in Bome a third letter, one 
from Pulcheria, with the important intelligence that Bishop 
Anatolius of Constantinople had come over to the orthodox 
side, had acknowledged the confession of faith contained in 
the papal letter (to Flavian), and had rejected the (Eutychian) 
heresy which had recently found acceptance with some, as Leo 
might perceive from Anatolius' own letter. The latter had sub- 
scribed the doctrinal letter {Hpistola dogmatica) of Leo with- 
out any hesitation. The Pope would be pleased to grant the 
expression required by the Emperor (as to whether he would 
come to the Council in person or not), so that all the bishops 

^ Leonis E]pifi, 73, p. 1017 sqq. t L ed. Bailer. ; in Hardouin, t u. p. 41 ; 
Mansi, t yi. p. 94. 
' BpisU 76, p. 1023, l,c ; in Hardonin, t ii. p. 41 ; in Mansi, t yi. p. S^. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SYNODS AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 271 

of the East, of Thrace, and lUyricum might be summoned to 
a Synod. At this a resolution should be taken respecting the 
Catholic confession, and respecting the bishops who had been 
for some time in a state of separation (the adherents of the 
Robber-Synod), at Leo's suggestion (aov avffevrovpro^:). At 
the command of the Emperor the body of Flavian had been 
brought to Constantinople, and solemnly laid in the basilica 
of the apostles, where the former bishops lay buried. The 
Emperor had further ordered the recall of those bishops who 
had been exiled with Flavian on account of the faith. Their 
episcopal sees should, however, not be restored to them until 
the close of the Synod about to be held.* 

That Theodoret of Cyrus was included among the bishops 
recalled we learn from his letters 138 to 140,* in which he 
declares the convocation of a new Synod to be very necessary. 
This was as strongly insisted upon and asked for by Eusebius 
of Dorylffium, who, as it appears, had not yet been recalled 
from exile, and was still in Some, under the protection of the 
Pope.* 

Sec. 183. Synods at Constantinople. 

The information which Pulcheria gave, as we have seen, 
respecting Bishop Anatolius, is connected with a Synod which 
the latter had held, a short time before, at Constantinople. 
That at this Synod the whole clergy of that city, the monks, 
and many bishops who were present, had accepted Leo's 
letter to Flavian, we learn from Leo himself in his 88th 
letter, dated June 24, 451 ; and besides, there is a reference 
to it, as well as to a still earlier Synod at Constantinople 
under Anatolius, in the Acts of the fourth session of Chal- 
cedon.* The Metropolitan Photius of Tyre then complained 
that Eustathius of Berytus had taken from him some towns 
belonging to his province, and that this had been confirmed 

^ Among the letters of Leo, No. 77, p. 1027, t. i. ed. Bailer. ; in Hardonin, 
t. ii. p. 48 ; in Mansi, t. vi p. 99 8qq. 
» Opp. t. iv. ed. Schuke, p. 1229 sqq. 

* Cf. Eyagrins, Hid, Ecd. iL 2 ; and Leonis Epp. 79 and 80. 

* Mansi, t. yii p. 85 sqq. ; Hardonin, t IL p. 435 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



272 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

by a Synod at Constantinople under Anatolias. In the reply 
to this, Eustathius related, " that very recently the letter of 
Leo had been sent for subscription by the Synod at Con- 
stantinople (under Anatolius) to the absent metropolitans, 
and in like manner at the (somewhat earlier) Synod held 
during the life of Theodosius IL those who were absent had 
been allowed to add their subscriptions, and it was of this 
that Photius was complaining." We see from this that 
Anatolius held tuH) Synods be/ore the Council of Chalcedon, 
or, more exactly, as is clear from the further contents of the 
Acts, that Anatolius had twice collected around him those 
bishops who were then present in Constantinople at what is 
called a crwoSo? ivBijfiov<ra, the first time imder Theodosius n., 
in reference to the matter of Photius,^ the second time under 
Marcian, for the acknowledgment of the orthodox faith and 
the Epistola dogmatica of Leo. Hardouin and Walch, on the 
other hand, have erroneously fused the two Synods into one, 
and Remi Ceillier, too, has spoken only of one.* 

We obtain a more complete account of the second Synod under 
Anatolius in the history of the life of S. Abundius, who, as we 
saw above (p. 268), was then Pope's legate at Constantinople. 
This biography certainly is not written by a contemporary, 
and is not very ancient ; but the fragment from the Acts of 
the Synod which it embodies (which is also distinguished by 
a different style from the rest, from the word max) has a good 
claim to credibility, as has been shown by the Ballerini and 
by Walch.* It says that Anatolius had held a Council of all 
the bishops (that is, then present at Constantinople), archi- 
mandrites, priests, and deacons. The letter of Leo, which his 
legate Abundius delivered, had been publicly read. Anatolius 
had agreed to it summa devotione, and had subscribed it, and 
at the same time had pronounced an anathema upon Eutyches, 
Nestorius, and the adherents of their heresies. The same had 

^ See further on this subject below, in the history of the Council of Chalcedon. 

* Walch, Ketzerh, Bd. vi. 8. 306 ; Historie der KircJienvers. S. 805 ; Remi 
Ceillier, Hisioire des auteurs aacriSf t. ziv. p. 649 ; Hardouin, t. i. in the Index 
ad ann. 450. 

3 Walch, KetzerMst. Bd. vi. 8. 316 ; Leonis 0pp. ed. Bailer, tip. 1487, 
where also the fragment in question is printed. It is also given twice in 
Mansi, t vi p. 518, and t vii. p. 775. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



POPE LEO WISHES TO RESTORE ECCLESUSTICAL UNITY. 273 

been done by all the bishops, priests, archimandrites, and 
deacons. For this Abundius and the other legates of the 
Pope had immediately given thanks to God, and on their 
part had pronounced an anathema upon Eutyches and his 
adherents, as well as upon Nestorius. — The time of the 
holding of this Synod at Constantinople cannot now be 
exactly ascertained ; but it may be inferred from the letter 
of Pulcheria, noticed above, that it took place shortly before 
that letter was composed (probably in November 450). 

Sec. 184. Pope Leo wishes to restore Ecclesiastical Unity 
mthout a new Council. 

Archbishop Anatolius of Constantinople had also, on his 
side, sent envoys to the Pope, the priest Casterius, and the 
two deacons Patricius and Asclepiades,^ in order to inform 
him of all that had taken place. When they returned, Leo 
gave them letters to Anatolius, to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, 
and to Bishop Julian of Cos, which are all dated April 13, 
451, and are still preserved.* The letter to the Emperor 
(Ep. 78) is only a letter of courtesy; in that to Pulcheria 
(j^. 79), however, the Pope says, that it was especially by 
her influence that first the Nestorian and now the Eutychian 
heresy had been subdued. He thanks her for the benefits 
she has conferred upon the Church, for the kind support of 
the Eoman legates, for the recall of the banished Catholic 
bishops, and for the honourable burial of the body of Flavian. 
He further adds, that he has learned from his legates, and 
from the envoys of Anatolius, that many of those bishops 
who had given ear to the impiety now wished for reconcilia- 
tion and restoration to the communion of the Catholics ; and 
this should be granted to them by the papal legates and by 
Anatolius in common, if they had corrected their error, and 
by their own signatures condemned the heresy. He also 
mentions that Eusebius of Dorylseum still remained with him, 
and had been received into his communion. The Empress 

* They are mentioned in the letter of Leo (Ep. 80) to Anatolius. 

* Leonis Epist, 78, 79, 80, 81, p. 1083 sqq. t i ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t vL 
p. 108 sqq. 

m. S 






Digitized byLjOOQlC 



274 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

should be pleased to take under her protection the Church of 
this man, which, as was reported, had been devastated by the 
intruded bishop. Finally, he recommends to her also Bishop 
Julian of Cos, and the clergy of Constantinople, who had 
remained faithful to Flavian. 

The letter to Anatolius {Ep. 80) begins with the expression 
of joy that this bishop and his whole church had taken the 
side of evangelical truth. He received him therefore with 
affection into the one chaste conmiunion (of the Bride of 
Christ), and approved of the documents furnished with the sub- 
scriptions (of the Synod of Constantinople). In regard to the 
bishops who had allowed themselves to be led astray by the 
violence of the Bobber-Synod to side with foreign injustice, 
he confirmed the decree established in the presence and with 
the co-operation of his legates (at the Synod of Constanti- 
nople), that these must for the present be satisfied to be again 
received into communion with their churches;^ Anatolius 
might, however, in conjunction with the papal legates, con- 
sider which of them should again be taken into full Church 
communion with the Popa First, however, they must be 
required to anathematize the heresies. The names of Dioscurus, 
Juvenal, and Eustathius of Beiytus must be struck out of the 
diptychs, and must no longer be read at the altar in Constan- 
tinople.* In r^ard to Eusebius of Doiylseum, Julian of Cos, 
and the clergy of Constantinople, who had remained fEuthfuI 
to Flavian, Leo repeats what he had already said in his letter 
to Pulchena, and closes with the request that this letter of his 
should be generally made known. 

The fourth letter, which Leo signed on the 13th April 451, 
and gave to the envoys of Anatolius, was addressed to Julian 

- ^ That is, they reoeived again their sees and ministered again in their churches, 
bat they were still excladed from intercourse with the other bishops, and from 
participation in Synods and the like. Cf. Quesnel's note 1 in this place 
(printed in Bailer, t. iL p. 1462 sq., and Morin. BxercU, EgcUs, lib. iL Baeer^L 
17, 18, 19). 

' Dioscoros, Javenal, Thalassios of Csesarea in Cappadocia, Eostathios of 
Berytns, etc, were the heads of the Robber-Synod. The latter distingoished 
himself at it by misunderstanding the words of Cyril and expressly declaring, 
that ** after the Incarnation there was only one nature to be acknowledged. " Cf. 
abore, p. 2i6 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



POPE LEO WISHES TO RESTORE ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY. 275 

of Cos (Epist. 81), and speaks first of the great dangers to 
which Julian had been exposed on account of his adherence 
to orthodoxy. For this reason, he had been forced to flee to 
Borne, and it had been pleasant to the Pope to be able to 
speak with him. But it was still better that now the times 
had changed in favour of orthodoxy and of Julian, and that 
he could live in the East again in freedom and without danger. 
He heard with pleasure that most of the misguided bishops 
now wished to return again to Church communion; some, 
however, were obstinate, and must be treated with severity. 
His legates, whom he would send to the East, would in this 
matter arrange what was proper with Julian. — For some 
reason unknown to us, the sending of these new legates was 
delayed until June, and the envoys of Anatolius returned 
alone with the four letters which have just been mentioned.^ 

About the same time Leo received a new letter from the 
Emperor, which was brought to him by Tatian, the prefect of 
the city, but which is now lost The Pope answered this on 
the 23d of April 451, and first of all bestowed great com- 
mendation upon the zeal of the Emperor, and then adds : " It 
would not be right to respond to the demand of a few fools, 
and give occasion for new disputations and allow a new in- 
quiry to be made as to whether the doctrine of Eutyches were 
heretical or not, and whether Dioscurus had rightly judged or 
not (at the Synod which was to be held). The most of those 
who had gone astray had already found their way back, and had 
asked for pardon. Therefore they must not now consider the 
question as to what was the true faith, but which of those who 
had erred should have favour shown to them, and in what way 
it should be shown. Therefore he would more fully communi- 
cate to the Emperor, who was so anxious for a Synod, his view 
on this subject by the new legates who would soon arrive." * . 

These new legates were sent by Leo after the former ones, 
Abundius and the others, had returned, and had brought with 
them another letter from the Emperor, which is now lost' 
To the new legates he gave four letters, dated June 9 

^ Cf. note 7 of the Ballerini on Episi. 78, and their note 5 on Ep, 81. 
' Epist. 82, p. 1043 sqq., in Mand, t vL p. 112. 
* We see this from the beginning of his Epist. 83. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



276 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

(probably the day of their departure from Rome), to Marcian, 
Pulcheria, Anatolius, and Julian of Cos, which, like the earlier 
letters, are not without significance for the preliminary history 
of the Council of Chaloedon.^ 

In his letter to the Emperor, Leo gives a brief review of 
what he (the Emperor) had already done for the good of the 
Church, and then he adds : In order to cleanse all the provinces 
of the empire from the heresy, as had been done in the 
capital, he sent the bishop Lucentius, and the priest Basil, as 
legates in the East, in order to complete the restoration of 
the penitent members of the Bobber-Synod to communion 
with Anatolius, and these l^tes he commended to the 
Emperor. He had himself desired the holding of a Synod of 
which the Emperor spoke ; but the necessity of the present 
time did not allow the meeting of bishops, since those very 
provinces whose bishops were most necessary for the Synod 
(the Western) were at present greatly i^cted by war 
(by Attila), and could not dispense with their shepherds. 
The Emperor might therefore put off the holding of the Synod 
to a more peaceful time. On this subject his legates would 
speak further.' Leo wrote much the same to Pulcheria, but 
in addition he entreated her to have Eutyches removed from 
the neighbourhood of Constantinople (from his monastery) to 
a more remote place, so that be might not easily have inter- 
course with those whom he had misled. At the same tibie 
she should give orders that a Catholic abbot should be 
appointed to the monastery of which Eutyches had been the 
head, in order to deliver this community from false doctrine.' 

^ Leonis Epp. 83, 84, 85, 86, p. 1045 sqq., ed. Bailer, t L ; in Mansi, t tI. 
p. 114 sqq. 

' EjmL 83, in Boiler. l.e. p. 1046 ; in Mansi, t. vL p. 114 sqq. 

' Epist. 84, p. 1048. That Eutyches had still many adherents, particnkrly 
among the monks of his convent, is proved by the complaint which Faustos 
and many other archimandrites at this time forwarded to the Emperor. They 
complained that these people had yielded no obedience to the exhortations of 
Anatolius and his Synod. The Emperor should therefore permit that they 
should be treated according to the monastic rules, and should correct themselves 
in accordance with these or be subjected to greater punishment The Emperor 
was also asked to permit the archimandrites to arrange what was necessary in 
the hole in which they lived (Eutyches' convent), ie. appoint a Catholic 
abbot. Mansi, t vii. p. 76 ; Hardouin, t ii p. 428. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EMPEROB MAKCIAK SUMMONS AN CECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 277 

Leo requested Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, in com- 
mon with the papal legates, to arrange all that was advan- 
tageous to the Church (in reference to the restoration of those 
who had fallen away). In this it should be a leading rule, 
that all former members of the Eobber-Synod should be re- 
quired to pronounce an anathema upon Eutyches, his doctrine, 
and his adherents. With respect to those who had been most 
seriously implicated, the Apostolic see reserved the decision, 
and Anatolius should not, without this, allow the names of 
such persons to be read in the church.* — Finally, the Pope 
requests Bishop Julian of Cos in all ways to support his 
legates, as they also had received a commission to act 
steadily in communion with Julian.* 

Sec. 185. The Emperor Mardan summons an CEcuToenical 
Council, The Pope assents, and nominates Legates, 

When Leo wrote these last letters, the Emperor had already, 
on the 1 7th of May 45 1, in his own name and in that of his co- 
Emperor, summoned an CEcumenical Council to Nicsea, which 
was to open on the Ist of September of the current year.' 
The edict is addressed to the metropolitans, and is as follows : 
*' That which concerns the true faith and the orthodox religion 
is to be preferred to everything else. For if God is gracious 
to us, then our Empire will be firmly established. Since now 

^ EpUL 85, in Bailer. Ic, p. 1050 ; Mansi, t vL p. 118. A second letter to 
Anatolius, dated June 19, 451, recommends two priests to him, bat contributes 
nothing to the preliminary history of the Council of Chalcedon. 

' EjAtL 86, Bailer. Ic p. 1052 ; Mansi, t. vL p. 119. 

' " When Mardan put forth this summons, he had not yet received the re- 
presentations of Leo to a contrary effect, for the envoys who had been commis- 
sioned to convey them did not depart from Rome until the beginning of June 
451, whilst the edicts of convocation had been issued at Constantinople in May. 
If the Emperor had been more accurately acquainted with the views of the Pope 
on the subject, he might probably have been induced to desist from his purpose ; 
as, however, he knew nothing of this, he was therefore bound to believe that, 
in accordance with the previous views of Leo, he was only doing what he wished. 
It is probable that the still divided condition of the Church in the East aroused 
in him the desire to assemble an (Ecumenical Council, and thereby conclusively 
and thoroughly to put an end to the disturbances, embarrassments, and dis- 
sensions which, in spite of all the pains which had been taken on the subject, 
were not yet put an end to.'*— Areudt, Lto d. Or. S. 264. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



278 HISTORY OF THE COUNClLa 

doubt has arisen respecting the true faith, as is shown by the 
letters of the most holy Bishop of Rome, Leo, we have 
resolved that a holy Council shall be held at Niccea in 
Bithynia, so that, by consent of all, the truth may be proved, 
and that without passion the true faith may be more clearly 
declared, so that no doubt and no disturbance of unity may 
for the future take place. Therefore your holiness is re- 
quired to attend at Nicaea on the iiext 1st of September, 
together with such members as you may think fit of devoted, 
wise, and orthodox bishops. We shall ourselves, unless we 
are prevented by any warlike expeditions, be present in 
person ,at the venerable Synod." — ^This edict of convocation 
is still preserved to us in two copies,^ of which the one 
is addressed to no particular metropolitan, the other to 
Anatolius of Constantinople. The latter bears the date of 
the I7th, or, according to the old Latin translation, the 
23d of May. 

On hearing of this summons, Leo again addressed a letter, 
Jime 24, 451, to the Emperor Marcian, at the beginning of 
which he expresses his dissatisfaction with what has been done 
in the words : " I thought that your grace would have been 
able to comply with my wish to postpone the Synod to a more 
convenient time out of regard to the present pressure, so 
that bishops from all provinces might be present, and thus 
form a really (Ecumenical CounciL But since from love to 
the Catholic faith you wish this assembly to be held now, in 
order to oflfer no impediment to your pious will, I have chosen 
as my representative my fellow-bishop Paschasinus (of Lily- 
baeum, now Marsala, in Sicily), whose province appears to be 
less disquieted by war, and have joined with him the priest 
Boniface. These two, together with the previous legates (at 
Constantinople), the bishop Lucentius and the presbyter 
Basil, and Julian of Cos, shall form the representatives of the 
papal see at the Synod, and in particular, Paschasinus shall 
there preside in my place."* 

* Printed in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 551 and 553 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 45 sq. 

2 Epist. 89, p. 1060, t. i ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t. vi p. 125 sqq. Perthel 
says, in hia monograph on Leo i. (Jena, 1843, 8. 71) : " The Emperor is 
requested in this letter to assign the presidency at the Synod to Paschasinus." 



_„Goog,e {, 



THE EMPEROE MARCIAN SUMMONS AN (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 279 

The document in which Leo appoints Paschasinus as first 
legate no longer exists ;* but we still possess a letter of Leo's 
to Paschasinus, also dated June 24, 451, saying that the 
Pope sent to him his Epistola dogmatica and some other 
patristic documents, which he had also entrusted to his 
previous envoys to Constantinople (in causa Anatolii), so 
that he might be more accurately informed on the subject in 
question. To this he adds a short instruction on heresy in 
regard to Eutyches, and declares that the whole Church of 
Constantinople, together with the convents and many bishops, 
had agreed to his doctrinal letter, and had subscribed an 
anathema on Nestorius and Eutyches. Nay more, according 
to the most recent letter from Anatolius, the Bishop of 
Antioch^ had sent round Leo's letter to all his bishops, and in 
common with them had declared his agreement with it, and 
the repudiation of Nestorius and Eutyches. Finally, the 
Pope gives him the commission, not belonging, however, to 
this subject, to examine, along with men who understood the 
matter, the day on which Easter should be held in 455, as 
the Easter reckoning of Theophilus (of Alexandria) for this 
year was erroneous.^ 

Two days later, on the 26th of June 451, Leo wrote again 
to the Emperor Marcian that '' he had indeed wished that the 
Synod, which he had himself desired, and which the Emperor 
had judged necessary, for the pacification of the Eastern 
Church, should be held later ; as, however, the Emperor, from 
religious zeal, was hastening the matter, he would not oppose 
it, but he prayed and most solemnly adjured the Emperor 
that he would not allow the ancient faith to be brought into 
question at the Synod, and old condemned propositions to be 

This is incorrect There is nothing in the letter of a request or an assignment 
(by the Emperor). It says : PrcedietumJrcUrem et coepiseopum meum vice mea 
Synodo convenit prandere, and Peter de Marca is qoite right when he asserts 
that the right of the papal legate to preside did not depend npon the will of the 
Emperor. De concord, sacerd, et imp. lib. y. 6. 

^ Of. note 4 of the Ballerini on Spist, 89. 

' This was Maximns, who had been pat in the place of Domnns, and had 
been ordained by Anatolins. Even Pope Leo recognized him later. Cf. Leonis 
Epp. 104, 119. 

• Leonis EpisL 88, t. i. p. 1057, ed. Bailer. ; in Mansi, t vi p. 128. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



280 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

renewed ; but would see that the definitions of the Synod of 
Nicaea remained in force."* 

In a letter to Anatolius, dated on the same day, Leo 
expresses his astonishment that so short an interval had been 
allowed for the assembling of the Synod. How could he trans- 
mit the intelligence respecting it, in proper time, into all the 
provinces (of the West), so that a truly CEcumenical Council 
might take place ? In order, however, not to act in opposition 
to the Emperor, he had already appointed legates for the Synod, 
and he teUs Anatolius their names.^ 

In a third letter, also dated June 26, Leo gave a com- 
mission to Bishop Julian of Cos to represent the Pope at 
the Synod now summoned to meet at Nicsea, in union witii 
the other legates.' At last he despatched himself sub 
eodem a letter to the Synod which had been convoked, 
in which he says : '' Since it is agreeable to God to show- 
mercy to the penitent, the decision of the Emperor to convoke 
a Synod for the warding off of the wiles of Satan, and for the 
restoration of the peace of the Church, should be thankfully 
acknowledged. In this he had preserved the right and 
distinction of the Apostle Peter, and had asked the Pope for 
his personal presence at this assembly. But this was per- 
mitted neither by the necessity of the times nor by previous 
custom. Bis legates, however, would preside in his place, 
and he would in that way, although not in bodily form, be 
present As the Synod knew (from his Epistola dogmaUca) 
what he believed to be in accordance with the ancient tradi- 
tion, they could not doubt as to what he wished. No opposi- 
tion to die true faith should be allowed at the Synod ; as the 
true faith in regard to the Incarnation of Christ, in accordance 
with apostolic teaching, was fully set forth in his letter to 
Flavian.^ It must also be a special business of the Synod to 

^ Epist. 90, in Bailer. Ic p. 1063 ; in Mansi, t. tL p. 127 sqq. 

' EpUL 91, in Bailer, /.c. p. 1065 ; in Mansi, t. tL p. 129. 

' Epi9t. 92, in Bailer. Le, p. 1066 ; in Mansi, t yl p. 180. 

* As Leo was convinced, and with justice, that his letter to Flavian contained 
the true doctrine, so he was bound to wish that the Sjmod should receive it, and 
not dispute against the truth. But he did not wish in this way to withdraw 
from individual bishops the right of personal examination, as he says expressly 
in his letter (120) to Theodoret of Cyrus : The auctoritas tummorum {Le. of the 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE EMPEROR MARCIAN SUMMONS AN (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 281 

assist those bishops to regain their rights who had been un- 
justly persecuted and deposed on account of their resistance to 
heresy. The resolutions of the earlier Synod of Ephesus under 
CyvTl must remain in force, and the Nestorian heresy must 
gain no advantage from the condemnation of the Eutychian."^ 

It has been wondered why Leo no longer declares urgent 
the Synod which had been previously so earnestly desired 
by him — why, in fact, he perhaps no longer wished it to be 
held. Various motives have been attributed to him on this 
subject, as though he had some doubts as to the presidency of 
the Synod, and perhaps also had thought that his Epistola 
dogmatica was now near to being universally received, and 
to attaining high authority, as was the case in former times 
with some of the writings of Cyril ; and that the Synod might 
perhaps diminish the consideration in which his doctrinal letter 
was held.* — ^The matter can, however, be explained quite 
naturally and easily in the following manner: 

(a) At the time when Leo desired a Synod in Italy, 
orthodoxy had been brought into doubt by the falling away of 
most of the bishops of the Byzantine Empire. A great 
Synod was therefore needed to set forth the true doctrine of 
the Person of Christ 

Q>) Since the change in the throne, however, almost all the 
bishops of the East who had previously erred, had again re« 
turned in penitence to the conmiunion of the Church, had 
pronounced anathema on Eutychianism and Nestorianism, and 
had agreed to the famous doctrinal letter of the Pope. Thus 
orthodoxy was secured, and the principal question solved, and 
the chief ground removed, for the convocation of a new Synod 
(cf. above, p. 267 t). 

(e) Only the secondary point still remained : the complete 
reconciliation of the penitent bishops and the pimishment of 
the obstinate. This matter could be arranged by the papal 

Pope) must be so preserved that the liberty of the inferiors shaU not be 
abrid^ (ut in nuUo inftrioTum puieiur immmuia libertcis), Cf. Bailer, t. L p. 
12S0, and their note 14. 

^ Mpi$t. 98, p. 1067 8(xq. ed. Bailer. ; in Hardonin, t. il p. 47 ; Mansi, t. yL 
p. 181 sqq. 

* Walch, le. S. 824 ; Perthel, Papst Leo'a Ltben und Lthren, Jena, 1843, 
S. 69. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



282 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

legates at Constantinople, in union with Anatolius, and with 
the support of the Emperor, without a Synod. 

(d) If, however, a new Synod, and that in the East, should 
assemble, Leo feared nothing from the Eutychians, but some- 
thing from the Nestorians, since a good many bishops of Syria 
were still suspected of Nestonanism. Leo was afraid that 
they, or others in their name, would take advantage of the 
rejection of Eutychiamsm, and would originate a new discus- 
sion on orthodoxy in favour of Nestorianism. That this was 
his chief fear, is clear especially from his 93d letter (see 
p. 281). And in order to remove this danger, he repeats so 
often in his letters to the Emperor and the Empress, that the 
faith must in no wise again be called in question at the 
Synod. 

(e) This fear lay the nearer to the Pope that at thia very 
time, in the year 451, the Latin kingdom was seriously 
harassed by the migration of nations and by wars (Attila), and 
therefore but few Latin bishops could come to the Synod. 
From this cause its chief supports and those of orthodoxy 
would be wanting, in opposition both to Nestorianism and to 
Eutychianism. How easily misled, however, and how un- 
certain in doctrine, many Greek bishops were, the Robber- 
Synod had already more than sufficiently shown. The desire 
of the Pope, that the Synod should be held in the West, that 
is, should be attended by many Latin bishops, was therefore 
quite legitimate, and dictated by his interest in orthodoxy. 

(/) At the same time it is not to be forgotten that from a 
Synod in the Byzantine Empire, there was to be feared a 
derangement of the relative positions of bishops established by 
the sixth canon of Nicsea, not as though the Bishop of 
Byzantium would now have wished to be raised above the 
Bishop of Bome, but because, since the second (Ecumenical 
Council, Constantinople had often endeavoured to take pre- 
cedence of the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, 
and to place himself immediately by the side of the Bishop of 
Rome — an assumption which the Pope, in his own interest 
and in that of the other ancient patriarchs, was bound to 
resist That Leo had in fact given his legates instructions in 
reference to this point, we shall presently see. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE EMPEROR MARCUN SUMMONS AN (ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. 283 

In the month of July 451, the papal legates already men- 
tioned took their journey from Kome, and Leo gave them 
letters of commendation to the Emperor and the Empress, dated 
July 20, 451. In both he speaks again of his having wished 
for a Synod in Italy, and that it should be held at a later time ; 
in order, however, to respond to the imperial zeal, he had 
nominated legates for the approaching Synod. In the letter 
to Pulcheria he expresses also with considerable fulness his 
view, with which we are acquainted, as to the forgiveness to 
be extended to the penitent bishops.^ 

The special instruction which Leo gave to his legates has 
been lost, and we find only two fragments of it preserved in the 
transactions of the Synod of ChsJcedon. In the first session 
of the Synod, the papal legate, Bishop Paschasinus declared : 
''We have a command from the apostolic Bishop of Rome, 
who is the head of all the churches. It is there ordered that 
Dioscorus shall have no seat in the assembly." * — ^The second 
fragment is embodied in the Acts of the 16th session of 
Chalcedon, where the papal legate, the priest Boniface, read 
from his instructions the words : " The decision of the holy 
fathers (at Nicsea in regard to the rank of the great metropoli- 
tans) you must in no wise allow to be interfered with, and you 
must in every way preserve and defend my prerogative in 
your person. And if any, presuming upon the importance of 
their cities, should try to arrogate anything to themselves, you 
must resist this with all stedfastness." ^ 

In accordance with the imperial command, many bishops 
had come to Nicsea in the summer of 451, but Marcian him- 
self, through war and other hindrances, was prevented from 
appearing in person, and therefore, in a letter (without date) 
which still exists in Latin, he prayed the assembled fathers to 
have patience and to postpone the proceedings, until it should 
be possible for him to arrive, as he hoped soon to do.* It was 
probably about the same time that Pulcheria gave the governor 

^ Epist. 94, 95, in Bailer. Lc p. 1075 sqq. ; in Mand, t. tl p. 185 sqq. 

' ConeiL Choked, Act L in Mansi, t. vi pp. 580, 581 ; Hardooin, t IL p. 68. 

' Mann, t. Tii p. 443 ; Hardonin, t iL p. 688. On both fragments cf. the 
diaiertation of the Ballerini De epistoHs deperditls in the first volume of their 
edition of the Works qfLeo, 1450, 1451. 

* Hansi, t tL p. 553 sq. ; Hardooin, t ii p. 47. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



284 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

of Bithynia the command, that as very many bishops had 
already arrived at Nicaea, and she herself hoped soon to be 
able to appear in person, he should in the meantime remove 
from the city those clerics, monks, and laymen who were 
neither summoned by the court to the city, nor were brought 
with them by their bishops, but appeared to have come of 
their -own accord, to excite diBorder.^ 

As, however, the arrival of the Emperor and Empress was 
still longer delayed, the assembled bishops addressed a letter to 
Marcian, in which they informed him how painful this was for 
them, and especially for the weak and sickly among them. 
In consequence of this the Emperor commanded the trans- 
ference of the Synod to Chalcedon, and therefore wrote to the 
bishops : ** As the delay fell so heavily upon them, and as the 
l^ates of the Pope awaited his personal presence, and made 
their own arrival at Nicsea dependent upon it, the bishops 
might, if they pleased, remove to Chalcedon, because this was 
so near the capital that he could attend in person both to the 
business in Constantinople and to that of the CoundL" ^ In 
a second letter of the 2 2d of September 451,^ the Emperor 
requested the bishops to hasten their departure for Chalcedon, 
assuring them that, in spite of the recent occurrences in 
lUyria (invasions of that province by the Huns), he would be 
present at the Synod, and dispelled any doubt they might have, 
lest, from the nearness of Chalcedon to Constantinople, they 
should there be in danger from the adherents of Eutyches.^ 

' In Mansi, t,.vi. p. 666 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 43. 

' In ManBi, t. vi. p. 667 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 49. Like many other imperial 
decrees, this was probably published in Latin and in Greek at the same time, 
and the Ballerini believed that they had discovered the Latin original in a Vatican ^ 
Codex (No. 1822), whilst hitherto only the Greek text with a Latin trcinitowm* 
was known. Bailer, edit. Opp, S. Leonis, t ii. p. 1218. 

* This date is given only in the old Latin translation of the document. If it 
is genuine, it is probable that even before the Ist of September (on which day the 
Synod had to be opened) many bishops had arrived at Niceoa ; for there certainly 
elapsed a considerable interval between their arrival and this new letter from the 
Emperor. 

* In Mansi, t. vi. p. 660 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 62. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



BOOK XL 

THE FOURTH (ECUMENICAL SYNOD AT CHALCEDON, a.d. 451.^ 

Sec. 186. Nvmber and Place of the Sessions. 

AFTER these preparations the Council of Chalcedon, which 
had been summoned by the Emperor Marcian at the 
suggestion, and with the subsequent consent^ of Pope Leo the 
Great (see above, p. 265 f. and p. 278), was opened on the 8th 
of October 451, and it lasted till the 1st of November of the 
same year, inclusive. As to the number of sessions held 
during those three weeks, even in ancient times there was 
no agreement, either in the existing copies of the synodal 
Acts themselves, or among the historians who refer to this 

' The litenitare respecting the Cotmcil of Chalcedon is rich, and so early as 
the sixth oentmy, the Church historian Evagrius treated of this Synod in his 
Hktoria Ecdu, lib. ii c. 2, 4, 18 ; also Bishop Facondus of Hermiane in Africa, 
in his work Pro de/ensione trium capUulorum, lib. y. c 8, 4, and lib. viii c. 4 
(inOalland. Biblioth. PP. t, xi. p. 718 sqq.), and the Carthaginian archdeacon 
liberstos, in his Breviarittm cau9CB NetUnianorvm et EiUychianorum, c. 18 (in 
Gtlland. 2.c t xiL p. 142 sqq.). To the more recent literature respecting the 
Synod of Chalcedon belong : (1) Baron. Armal. ad ami, 451, n. 55 sqq. (2) 
^cher, HisL ConciL general, lib. i. c. 8. (8) Tillemont, Mimoires etc, t. 
XT. p. 628 aqq. in the article on S. Leo the Great (4) Katalis Alexander, HisL 
Bed. sec ▼. t. y. p. 64 sqq. and p. 209 sqq. ed. Venet 1778. (5) Da Pin, 
'^ouveUe Bibliothfque etc t. iv. pp. 827-866. (6) Remi Ceillier, Hiatoire des 
^hOeurs micrds, t. xiv. p. 651 sqq. (7) Quesnel, Synopsis Actorum ConciUi 
Choked, in his Dissert de vUa etc. 8, Leonis in the ed. of Ballerini of S. Leo's 
Wcrks (t. iL p. 501 sqq.). (8) UUlsemann, SzerciUU. ad CondL Chalcedon, 
Lipe. 1651. (9) Cave, Historia LUteraria etc. 811 sqq. ed. Genev. 1705. 
(10) Benzelii Vindkioi ConciUi Chalcedon. contra Ootho/red. Arnold, 1739 and 
1745. (11) Bower, History of the Popes, var. edd. and in German, by Rambach, 
voL it (12) Van Espen, Commentar, in eanones et decreta juris veteris etc 
CoUm. 1755, pp. 209-258. (13) Walch, KetzerJustorie, Bd. tl S. 829 ff. (14) 
Walch, Historic dcr KirchenversamnUungen, S. 807 ff. (15) Arendt, Papst Leo 
der Orosse, Mainz, 1885, S. 267-822. (16) Domer, Lehre von der Person Christi, 
1853, 2te Anfl. 2ter Theil, 1 Abtheilnng, a 117 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



286 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Synod. Many old manuscripts contained only the first six 
sessions, which treated the question of faith, and have special 
reference, as we shall see, to the character of an (Ecumenical 
CounciL Other manuscripts added to these in a seventh 
session the canons or disciplinary arrangements of our Synod ; 
others again were more complete, and contained also the 
transactions referring to personal and special subjects, which 
came to be discussed in the later sessions. But even among 
manuscripts of the last kind there is again a great difference, 
since none of them contains the whote of the special trans- 
actions, and in one certain parts are wanting, and in others 
others.^ 

A similar want of agreement is found among the old 
historians. Evagrius numbers fifteen sessions {Hid. Ecd. ii. 
18), Liberatus, who had before him an Alexandrian manu- 
script of the Synodal Acts, divided (c. 13) the whole into 
twelve Secretaria with sixteen Actianes, so that to him, as well 
as to Evagrius, several of the transactions on special subjects 
had remained unknown; for example, those on Photius of 
Tyre and on Carosus. The ordinary division, and that which 
has also been received universally in the West, since the work 
of the Soman deacon Busticus, of which we shall have to 
speak presently (p. 292), makes sixteen sessions; and this 
division we must also retain, although the Ballerini long 
ago correctly remarked that properly twenty-one sessions 
should be counted, which were held on fourteen (according to 
the Latin Acts, thirteen) different days. The resrdt of our 
examination on this point, as to the number, time of holding, 
and object of the particular sessions, we give, with some varia- 
tions, from the brothers Ballerini, in the following table, p. 287. 

The whole of the sessions were held in the Church of S. 
Euphemia the Ms^rtyr, which was situated in front of the 
town on the Bosporus, only two stadia or twelve hundred paces 
from it, on a gentle slope opposite Constantinople, and offered 
a magnificent view over the sea and the fields. Evagrius has 
a whole chapter (il 3) devoted to the description of this 
beautiful church and to the miracles which were often repeated 

' Of. the note of the Ballerini in t. il p. 501 of their edition of the Works qf 
Leo the Great. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NUMBER AND PLACE OF THE SESSIONS. 



287 



each Session. 



Oct. 8, 451, 
Oct. 10, 



Oct. 18, 
Oct. 17, 



Oct 20, 
Oct. 22, 



Oct. 25, 



Oct. 26, 

Eodemj 
Oct. 27 
(aooording 
to the Latin, 
26), 
Oct. 28 

(Lat. 27), 
Oct.27(Lat.), 

Oct. 29, 

Octao, 

Eodem^ 
Oct. 31, 



Eodem, 
Eodcm^ 

Eodem, 
Nov.l, 



Object of each Session. 



Inquiry respecting DioBOoruB, and reading of the 
earlier Ajots, 

The Greeds of Nic»a and Constantinople, two 
letters of Grril, and the Epittola dognuUiea of 
Leoareread, 

Deposition of Dioscnms, 

Beception of the letter of Leo. Admission of 
Javenal of Jerusalem and other former assis- 
tants of Dioscnms. Transactions respecting 
the Egyptian bishops. Memorial of several 
archimandrites, 

Transactions respecting Carosos and Doro- f 
thens, \ 

Transactions respecting Photios of T^re, . 

Sketch of a decree concerning the faith by a 
synodal committee (in an oratory), and general 
confirmation of the same, .... 

Presence of the Emperor. The decree concern- 
ing the faith approved in the former session 
is solemnly read and subscribed. The Em- 
peror proposes some canons, .... 

Tnnsaotions respecting the patriarchal pro- 
vinces of Antioch and Jerusalem, . 

Theodoret of Gyms is declared justified, . 

TransactionB respecting Bishop Ibas of 
Edessa, 



Number of 
each Session, 
according to 
the ordinary 

reckoning. 



Appendix to 



Sei 



ission 
Do. 



il 



Continuation of proceedings respecting Ibas, 

Transactions respecting the deposed Domnus of J 
Antioch (extant only in Latm), . . 1 

Quarrel between Bassianus and Stephen of 
Ephesus, 

Besolution to elect a new Bishop of Ephesus, . 

Decision of the quarrel between the Bishops of 
Nic»a and Nicomedia, 

The question as to whether Sabinian or Athan- 
asius is the rifhtf ul Bishop of Perrha, is to 
be examined by an Antiochene patriarchal 
Synod, 

Beading of EpUt, 98 of Leo (known only from ( 
BaUerini, t. L p. 1490), . . . . ) 

Confirmation of the agreement which Maximus ( 
of Antioch had made with Juvenal of Jeru- ) 
salem and with Domnus (known only from j 
Ballerini, t. ii p. 1227 sqq.), . . . v 

Drawing up of the Canons (the Ballerini trans- 
fer tms to the seventh session). 

Protest of the papal legates against Canon 28. 
Close of the Synod, 



10 

Appendix to 
Session 10 

11 
12 

18 



14 
Formerly 
wanting. 

Formerly 
wanting. 



15 
16 



12 

14 
15 

16 



17 

20 
21 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



288 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

in it ; and Baronius, who borrowed this, adds still more from 
Paulinus of Nola {ad ann. 451, n. 60). But when he 
maintains that the members of the Synod had their seats in 
the presbytery of this church, he is in this led astray by a 
false reading in his copy of liberatus' Breviarium (c. 13). 
Baronius read : Adveniens Marcianus imperator ad Secretarium 
cum Judicibus etc. He knew quite well that by Secretarium 
was generally understood a building attached to a church, and 
that many Synods had taken place in such Secretaria (see 
above, p. 163). But as the Acts of Chalcedon say expressly 
that the bishops were seated near the altar, Baronius thought 
himself obliged on this occasion to consider the expression 
Secretarium as identical with Sanettuirium, and to refer it to 
the presbytery. But the genuine text of liberatus removes 
all difficulty. It runs thus : Sexto atUem Secretario adveniens 
Marcianus imperator ad concilium cum jtfdicibus, eta ; that is, 
" Marcian appeared at the sixth session (for in this sense, as 
we saw (p. 286), Liberatus uses tiie word Secretarium) of the 
Council"^ But as the number of the members of the Synod 
extended to about six hundred, it is probable that so large a 
multitude would better find space in the nave and aisles of 
the church than in the presbytery.' 

Sec. 187. Ths Syrunial Acts and the Translations of them^ 

The Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, which are given most 
fully by Mansi in the sixth and seventh folio volumes of his 
great collection of the Councils (and somewhat less fully by Har- 
douin, t. ii), are very numerous and extensive, and are divided 
into three parts, in accordance with the usual division adopted 
since the Boman edition of the Councils, of the year 1608 : 
(1) The Acts which have reference to the CouncQ of Chalcedon; 
but to this are pi^fixed, for example, the letters of Pope Leo, 
and of the Emperors Theodosius n. and Marcian (these are 
the documents of which we have already made very frequent 
use). (2) The minutes of the sessions at Chalcedon, with a 
great many supplements which had been read there. To 

1 In Galland. Bmioth. PP. t xii p. 143. 

' Cf. TiUemont, Mimoires^ t, xv. p. 916, note ii Sur 8, Le<m, 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE SYNODAL ACTS AND THE TBANSLATION OF THEM. 289 

these belong particularly the Acts of the Synod under Flavian 
in tlie year 448 and those of the Kobber-Synod. (3) Docu- 
ments which refer to the period which followed immediately 
upon the Synod of Chalcedon and its ratificatioa Into this 
third part Mansi has also woven that collection of letters 
which under the name of Codex encyclicm forms a special 
appendix to the Acts of the Synod, and which will be more 
particularly discussed by us later on. The Ballerini in their 
edition of Leo's works (t. i p. 1491 sqq., t. ii p. 1223 sqq., 
t. iii. pp. 213 sqq. and 518) and Mansi (t. vii. p. 773 sqq.) 
have given some further documents relating to our Synod. 

Whether a properly official collection of these Acts, parti- 
cularly of the principal documents and synodal protocols, 
was given is doubtful. Baluze and others deny it, and are of 
opinion that as each of the bishops of highest importance had 
his own notaries, each one would therefore cause a special 
coUection to be compiled for himself. The fact that even in 
early times, in the various manuscripts, the particular minutes 
of the sessions were separately arranged and numbered, they 
think is only explained by the acceptance of these diverse 
semi-official collections. This is true ; but, on the other hand, 
(1) all these copies give one and the same text, which would 
not be possible if they were derived from different shorthand 
writers ; (2) the difTerent arrangement of particular documents 
cannot be explained simply by an originsd difTerence in the 
Acts, but must also have a secondary difference, arising from 
the transcribers ; besides, (3) the Synod itseK, in its letter to 
Pope Leo, says: "It has communicated to the Pope iraa-av 
T7JV hwafjuv t£v 7rejrpayfi€va>p for the purpose of ratification."^ 
This presupposes an offimal collection of the Acts; but it 
might not yet have been complete, for soon afterwards, in 
March 453, Leo commissioned his Nuntius in Constantinople, 
Bishop Julian of Cos, to arrange a complete collection of the Acts 
of the Synod, and to translate them into Latin.* We see from 
this that Pope Leo also wished to secure an official collection. 

Most of the documents in question, particularly the minutes 

^ In Mansi, t. vi. p. 155; Hardonin, t ii. p. 659; and in the Ballerini 
edition of Leo*8 works, t. i. p. 1099. 

' Leonis Epist. 113, in Bailer, t i. p. 1194 ; in Mansi, t. vi p. 220. 

m. T 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



'290 HISTORY OF THE COUNaLS. 

of the sessions, are drawn up in Greek, others are in both 
Greek and Latin, for example, the imperial letters; while 
others again, like the papal letters, have only a Latin original 
All the Greek documents were translated into Latin, and many 
of the Latin into Greek. Nearly all these translations come 
down from ancient times, many from that of the Synod itsel£ 
Only the Latin translation of the transactions relative to 
Carosus and Photius (fourth session) were first made by the 
Boman editors in 1608. By means of the old Latin transla- 
tions some portions of the synodal transactions have been 
preserved which were unfortimately lost in the Greek original 
For example, those respecting Domnus of Antioch at the close 
of the tenth session, and the ratification of the agreement 
between the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem in the four- 
teenth session. Moreover, these translations, since they were 
partly made from very old and good manuscripts, also furnish 
the opportunity of here and there correcting the Greek text 
by their help. Most of these Latin translations, before the 
Greek documents were accessible to us, were already more or 
less fully printed in the Collections of the Councils by Merlin, 
Crabbe, Surius, Nicolinus, and Severin Binius. The first 
persons who also edited the Greek text were the scholars 
whose duty it was to draw up the Roman collection of Councils 
of 1608, particularly the celebrated Jesuit Sirmond ; and from 
that time forth the text derived from Greek manuscripts passed 
into all later collections. In some of these use was further 
made of some codices not known to the Boman editors, par- 
ticularly in the collection of Hardouin, yet it is to be wished 
that a new edition of the Greek text should be prepared, 
and many manuscripts, already enumerated by Fabricius, but 
not yet collated, would render good service in this work.^ 

With regard to the Latin translation of the Acts of Chal- 
cedon, the question first arises. Who was its author? and 
Quesnel had no hesitation in attributing the authorship to those 
persons whom, as we have seen. Bishop Juliam of Cos had to 
employ at the command of Leo. Yet that this is not correct, 

^ On the Codex Ccea, Ko. 57 at Yienna, and on other codices of the Acts of 
Chalcedon, or of single documents respecting it, cf. Fabricius, Biblioth. Oraeca, 
ed. Harless, t. xiL p. 650. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE SYNODAL ACTS AND THE TBANSLATION OF THEM. 291 

Baluze and the BaUerini have emphatically pointed out, and 
they have proved that the translation in question must be at 
least fifty years later in date than Julian of Cos, and perhaps 
originated with Dionysius Exiguus, whose translation of the 
canons of Chalcedon is adopted in our versio arUiqucu It 
also remains undecided whether Julian of Cos ever really 
furnished the translation required of him or not As the 
BaUerini have found Latin translations of some of the docu- 
ments of Chalcedon which are decidedly older than our 
versio aiUiqua (a version of the minutes of the sixth session, 
and of the transactions relating to Domnus of Antioch, as 
well as the agreement between the patriarchs of Antioch and 
Jerusalem), it may perhaps be assumed that Julian had at 
first translated only some of the most important Acts, and that 
some circumstance prevented the completion of the whole. 
But about the middle of the sixth century the Soman deacpn 
Busticus, when he was at Constantinople with his unde, Pope 
Vigilius, in the years 549 and 550, prepared a correction of the 
versio antiqua, comparing it with several Greek manuscripts 
of the Acts of Chalcedon, particularly with those of the mona- 
stery of the Acoimetse.^ He says t^is himself repeatedly in 
the annotations which he appended at the dose of the 
minutes of the first, fourth (of the Actio de Caroao eta), fifth, 
seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth sessions,^ 
and it only remains undecided whether the monastery of the 
Acoimetee, of which he speaks, and to which the codices 
belonged, was the well-known one at Constantinople or the 
less famed one at Chalcedon. Baluze decides in favour of 
the latter, on the ground of the note which Kusticus added 
at the end of the minutes of the first session.' But what the 



^ [An order of monks (antfinreu, the "sleepless"). Cf. Suicer, S.A.V.] 
* In Mansi, t tL p. 038, t viL pp. 79, 118, 188, 194, 203 sqq. ; in Hardouin, 
t. iL pp. 248, 481, 455, 495, 502, 507 sqq. ; in Baluzii Nctva CoUectio ConciL 
pp. 1165, 1251, 1258, 1285, 1291, 1296 ; also printed in Mansi, t vii p. 707. 
Also made clear by the declaration of Rusticus himself, that he did not merely 
compare the minutes of the first session and correet them, as Quesnel supposed, 
in Bailer., edit Opp, 8, Leonis, t. ii. p. 1519. Cf. Baluz. Le, p. 971, n. 22, and 
Mansi, t viL p. 661, n. 22. 

' Baluz. tc, in the Pr^f, to his restoration of the verm antiqtta, p. 971, 
n. 21 ; also printed in Mansi, t. vii p. 661, n. 21. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



292 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Boman deacon accomplished by his comparison and correction 
is the following: — (a) In the places in the versio antigm 
touched on, he remarked where and how the Greek codices 
used by him dififer from one another altogether or in part, and 
he appended these variations, which were frequently great, to 
the existing Latin text; (h) he arranged and numbered the 
particular minutes of the sessions according to the order 
found in the Greek copies ; in particular, what was in the 
versio antiqua the second Actio was made the third, and 
inversely, and the canons which stand after the sixth session 
were transferred to the fifteenth ; (c) he translated anew the 
transactions of the seventh session respecting the agree- 
ment between Antioch and Jerusalem, although the versio 
antiqua already had this document, and omitted from it one 
little sentence : Qua interhcutione . . . Tnox sequentia, which 
is now supplied to us from the antiqtui} 

From this point there were partly manuscripts which con- 
tained the uncorrected versio antiqua, and partly others 
which reproduced the edition of Rusticus. Of the former 
only two copies are still existing — a codex in Paris, and one 
at Kome which formerly belonged to Queen Christina, whilst 
the work of Eusticus is still extant in a great many manu- 
scripts which also vary much from one another.* 

The versio antiqua corrected by Eusticus was printed for 
the first time in the years 1538 and 1557, in the two editions 
of the Councils by the Franciscan Crabbe (in Mechlin), and 
thence it passed into the editions of Surius, Nicolinus, and 
into the first of Binius (1606). The editors of the Eoman 
collection of Councils of 1608 have, on the other hand, after 
due consideration, altered this translation here and there, in 
order to make it correspond with the Greek text which they 
edited for the first time, and this altered versio Bustiei passed 
into the subsequent editions of Binius as well as into the regia 
and that of Labbe.^ But soon after the appearance of the 

^ The new translation of this document by Rnsticus is to be found in Har- 
donin, t ii. p. 491 sq. ; Mansi, t vii. p. 178 sq. ; while the translation of the 
versio antiqua is found in Baluz. l.c, p. 1285, and in Mansi, t. vii. p. 731. 

' Cf. the note of the BaUerini, t ii. pp. 1518, 1519. 

' CI vd. I. p. 68 of our History of the Councils. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE SYNODAL ACTS AND THE TRANSLATION OF THEM. 293 

latter, Baluze, with extraordinary industry, and by comparing 
all the codices accessible to him, endeavoured again to dis- 
cover the genuine text of the versio arUiqua and the genuine 
form of the emendation of Busticus, and he published the 
result of these studies in his Nova Callectio Conciliorum, 
pp. 953-1398, which formed a supplementary volume to 
the collection of Labbe, and appeared in Paris in 1683 
(often printed subsequently, and in 1707). But from 
motives of economy he did not have the entire text printed, 
as after his researches he should have done, but gave only 
an outline or summary of all the particular portions of the 
Acts of Chalcedon, marking each portion only by the words 
at the beginning, and referring to the corresponding page in. 
the edition of Labbe, where it had been already printed 
(according to the text of the Boman edition of 1608). He 
arranged that after this should follow the variations found in 
the different manuscripts as well from the original as from the 
amended versio arUiqua^ with frequent indications as to their 
value, and he further added all the annotations, correc- 
tions, and observations of Busticus ; so that we may learn 
from it the two different texts, both the purely antiqua 
and also the original form of the edition put forth by 
Busticus. Moreover, he prefixed an excellent and very 
learned dissertation on the Latin tmnslations of the Acts of 
Chalcedon. 

This work, naturally, has not remained without influence 
upon the later collections and editions of the Acts of Councils. 
Hardouin, who began his comprehensive collection of Councils 
soon after the appearance of the work of Baluze (1685), 
generally speaking adopted the text of Labbe as the foundation 
of his own, and thus the text of the work of Busticus as 
altered by the Boman editors, but he corrected it in numberless 
places in accordance with the results arrived at by Baluze, and 
at the same time, as it would appear, in consequence of a 
collation of particular manuscripts made by himself. Un- 
fortunately he says nothing as to the manner in which he 
amved at his Latin text of the Acts of Chalcedon, and even 
to the work of Baluze he makes no reference until p. 543 
(voL iL), although he had used it throughout the whole 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



294 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

volume.* That he had done so, and that the text given by 
him was thus an improvement of the text of Labbe based upon 
Baluze, will be clear from a few proofs which I will adduce. 
T. ii p. 54, Hardouin, after Baluze, gives correctly sexies 
conmle ordinario . . . Florentio, while Labbe and even Mand 
(t. vi. p. 563) incorrectly omit the sexies; only that Hardouin 
ought to have put the more correct exconsule instead of consuU, 
Even in this case we see that Hardouin took the one correction 
from Baluze, and not the other. On the same page he further 
put Nommo, with Baluze, while Labbe and Mansi have Mowm, 
On p. 6 7, line 9, he writes, with Baluze, cum aliis viris ; and on 
the same page, line 13, he omits, after Dioscurm, the words 
Alexandrinorum archiepiscopus, and, on the other hand, retains 
quibus censuit interloqiiendum, although Baluze had not found 
this in any of his manuscripts. 

In some respects Mansi made more use, and in some re- 
spects less, of the labours of Baluze, in his great edition 
of the Councils. Less in the sense that he never corrected 
the text from them, as Hardouin, at least here and there, 
had done, but simply repeated the text of Labbe ; but, on 
the other hand, more, inasmuch as he printed literally in 
his collection the dissertation of Baluze on the old Latin 
translations of the Acts of Chalcedon (t. vii. p. 654 sqq.), 
borrowed the outline of the whole (at least partially), and also 
placed the variations collected by Baluze in the notes below 
the passages of- the synodal documents to which they refer. 
(From t. vi p. 541 to t vii. p. 455, and in part, still further.) 
When, however, the notes of Baluze extend even to p. 627 of 
the seventh volume of Mansi, this arises from the fact, already 
noted p. 289, that Mansi amalgamated the so-called Codex 
encycltcus with the third part of the Acts of the Council, as 
the Eoman editors had akeady done, and then also transferred 
to his collection the notes of Baluze belonging to this codex. 

This Codex encydicus is, however, nothing else but a col- 

^ Even in the Preface to vol. i. p. vi., where Hardomn enumerates the older 
collections of Councils, he does not mention the supplementary volume of fialoxe ; 
and although he acknowledges, p. vii sqq. and p. xii., that he has borrowed 
much from Baluze and has made use of his examination of manuscripts, etc, he 
does not give the title of Baluze's work. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THE IMPERIAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE PAPAL LEGATES. 295 

lection of letters made by command of the Emperor Leo, the 
successor of Marcian (457-474), which had been addressed, 
in the year 458, mostly by provincial Synods, to that Emperor 
in defence of the Council of Chalcedon against the attacks of 
the Monophysites. The proper Corpus of this collection con- 
sists of forty-one letters, and only to these is the title Codex 
eneyclicus prefixed ; but a kind of introduction to it is formed 
by four other letters ; two from the Emperor Marcian and one 
each from the Empress Pulcheria and from Bishop Juvenal of 
Jerusalem, which already appestr in the second part of the 
principal Acts. The Greek original of the forty-one letters, 
as well as of the letter of Juvenal, has been lost ; but the 
Latin translation, which Cassiodorus, in the beginning of the 
sixth century, had prepared by his learned assistant Epiphanius 
Scholasticus, still exists, and was edited and revised by Baluze 
in the same way as the translation of the three parts of the 
principal Acts by Kusticus.^ Mansi's predecessor Hardouin 
had acted differently (t ii p. 690 sqq.). He also made use of 
the labours of Bsduze on the Codex encycL, but he did not weave 
it into the pars tertia of the principal Acts, but retained it as a 
special whole : he only struck out those letters which are pre- 
fixed to the Codex encycl., because he had already given them in 
the pars tertia, and for the sake of brevity omitted also the notes 
of Baluze and some other less important matter, e,g. the Prce/atio 
of Epiphanius Scholasticus. He also retained the arrangement 
of the forty-one letters which the Roman editors had introduced. 

Sec. 188. TJie Imperial Commissioners and the Papal Legates. 
Presidency and Number of those present. 

As imperial commissioners (apxovr€<: or jvdices^) at the 
Council of Chalcedon, there were present : The patrician and 

' Balnzii Nova Collectio CaneiL p. 1400 sqq. His preface to it, and the out- 
line of the whole which he gave, were also printed by Mansi (t. viL p. 777 sqq.) ; 
but without the notes which he placed below the text of each particular docu- 
ment of the Codex eneycUcus, as he had done with the veraio Bustici. 

* Judex was the title of high state officials, even of those who had no precisely 
judicial factions = magTiaUs and proceres. See Dn Cange, Olossar. t, iii. 
p. 1670. Many such Judices are also mentioned in the Acts of the fifth 
(Ecumenical Council. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



296 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

former consul Anatolius, the prefect of the praetorians Palladius, 
the prefect of the city Tatian, the magister officiorum Vin- 
comsdns, the comes domesticorum Sparacins, and the comes 
privatorum GenethKus. Besides, as representing the Senate 
there were present the ex-consuls and patricians Florentius, 
Senator, Monnus (Nommus) and Protogenes, the former pre- 
fects Zoilus and Apollonius, the former prefect of the city 
Theodore, the former prepodti sacri mbicidi, Bomanus and 
Artaxerxes, the former prefect of the praetorians Constantinus, 
and Eulogius, ex-prefect of lUyricum.^ All these, the imperial 
commissioners, and the senators, had their places near the centre 
of the church, before the rails of the holy altar ; next to them, 
on the left side, sat the representatives of Kome, the Bishops 
Paschasinus and Lucentius with the priest Boniface.* Bishop 
Julian of Cos also frequently appears as a iburth legate, but 
he had his seat not with the papal legates, but among the 
other bishops. 

In what relation the legates stood to the Synod and to the 
imperial commissioners, may be ascertained with sufficient 
certainty from the detailed history of the CounciL We shall 
see that the officisd arrangement of the business was managed 
by the commissioners. They took the votes, they consented to 
this or that being brought forward, and they closed the sessions; 
they thus discharged those functions which belong to the 
business management of an assembly. Still their management 
of the business had reference only to that which was external, 
so to speak, to the economy and business arrangements of the 
Synod : with that which was internal they did not interfere, 
but here left the decision to the Synod alone, and repeatedly 
distinguished quite expressly between themselves and it. At 
the head of the latter, the Synod in the proper and narrower 
sense, stood the papal legates.' As, however, the direction of 
business was managed by the imperial commissioners, the 
papal legates appeared in the transactions rather as the first 

^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 563 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 53. 

^ The left was the place of honour. See Baron, ad ann, 213, 6, and 325, 58. 

' On the convocation and presidency of the Synod of Chalcedon, of. my 
treatise in }/Loy's Archiv fur hath, K,'R, Bd. ii Heft 9, 10. Cf. also HUtofyof 
Councils, vol. i. p. 31 ff. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THE IMPERIAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE PAPAL LEGATES. 297 

voters than as the presidents, but with an unmistakable superi- 
ority over all the other voters, as representatives of the head 
of the whole Church, as they expressly said, and firm in the 
conviction that every resolution of the Synod to which they 
did not assent was null and void. (Of. session 16.) In the 
external form of the Synod, and also in the order of seating, 
they were only the first voters, but they were in fact the 
spiritual presidents. This view of ours is founded upon the 
words of the Synod itself to Pope Leo, which writes: &v 
(that is, of the bishops at Chalcedon) ah fikv, cJ)9 K€<l>a\rf fjueK&p, 
rjyefjLOveve^ iv T0Z9 Tr}v (rrjv rd^iv iire^ovaL, that is, " In thy 
representatives thou didst take the hegemony (presidency) over 
the members of the Sjmod, as the head over the members." 
By way of completion, the Synod adds still further : fiaaiKeU 
Be irurroX irpo^ ev/coa-fiiav i^px^^> t'^^t is, "the believing 
Emperors presided for the sake of order, that all might proceed 
in good order." ^ In the same way the Synod recognized the 
superior position of the Pope by this, that they requested him 
to confirm their decrees ; ^ and Leo said of his legates with the 
greatest decision : Vice mea Orientali Synodo PRiESEDERUNT.^ 

Near and after the papsd legates sat Bishops Anatolius of 
Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Caesarea in 
Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, and the other bishops of the 
East and of the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, with 
the exception of Palestine On the other side, to the right, 
were Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvensd of Jerusalem, Quintillus 
of Heradea in Macedonia Prima (representative of Bishop Anas- 
tasius of Thessalonica), Peter of Corinth, and the other bishops 
of the Egyptian province, of lUyricum, and of Palestine. In 
the midst of the great assembly were placed the holy Gospels.* 

The catalogues of those present still existing are not quite 
complete.* The Synod itself says, in a letter to Pope Leo, that 

^ In the collection of the letters of Leo, Ko. 98, in Bailer, t. i. p. 1087 ; Mansi, 
t. tL p. 147 ; Hardooin, t. ii p. 655. 

* Among the letters of Leo, Nos. 98, 100, 110, and 182, in Bailer. Ic, pp. 1097, 
1100, 1114, 1120, 1182, and 1268. 

^Ep, 108, in Bailer. l,c, p. 1141 ; Mansi, t. vL p. 185. 

* Mansi, t. vi. p. 579 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 66. 

* Mansi, t tL p. £66 sqq., and t. vii. p. 429 sqrj. ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 53 sqq. 
and 627 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



298 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

520 bishops have been present.^ Pope Leo, however, speaks of 
about 600 brethren {JEjpist. 102); and generally the number of 
all who were present, the representatives included, is reckoned 
at 630. In any case, none of the previous Synods had been 
nearly so numerous, and even among all that were subsequently 
held, but very few can in this respect be placed beside the 
Council of Chalcedon. Yet all these many bishops who were 
present, with the exception of the Roman legates and two 
Africans (Aurelius of Adrumetum and Rusticianus), were purely 
Greeks and Orientals, and even the two Africans seem not 
to have been properly representatives of their ecclesiastical 
provinces, but rather to have been present at the Synod as 
fugitives (expelled by the Vandals).^ 

Sec. 189. First Session, October 8, 451. 

As already remarked, the first session took place on the 
8th of October 451.' The first to rise was the papal legate 
Paschasinus, with his colleagues, who stepped forward and 
said : " We have a commission from the most holy and most 
apostolic Bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, 
to see that Dioscurus shall have no seat (or vote) in the Council, 
and if he shall venture upon this, that he be expelled. This 
commission we must fulfil If it seems well to your high- 
nesses (the imperial conmiissioners), either he must retire or 
we depart." The secretary of the holy (that is, the imperial) 
consistory, Beronicianus, translated into Greek these words 
which had been spoken in Latia To the question of the 
commissioners and senators as to what accusation in specie 
was brought against Dioscurus, Paschasinus gave at first no 
satisfactory answer, therefore the question was repeated, and 
now the second papal legate Lucentius explained that 
Dioscurus had assumed to himself a jurisdiction which did not 

^ Among the letters of Leo, No. 98, in BaUer. t L pp. 1089 and 1100 ; 
Mansi, t vL p. 148 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 655. Only in the Greek text, not in 
all the Latin translations, of the synodal letter is the nomber 520 given. 

• TiUemont, Mimoirea etc., t. xv. p. 641. 

' Its Acts are found in Mansi, t. Ti. pp. 563-938 ; Hardotiin, t iL pp. 54-274 ; 
abridged in German, Fnchs, Bibliotkek de Kirchenvtrs, Bd. iv. S. 831 ff., and 
Walch, Ketzerkist. Bd. vi S. 334 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 461. 299 

belong to him, and had ventured to hold an ((Ecumenical) 
Synod without the consent of the apostolic see, which had 
never been done before, and ought never to be done.^ His 
colleague Paschasinus added that they, the legates, did not dare 
to depart from the commission of the apostolic bishop, from 
the ecclesiastical canons, and the traditions of the Fathers. 
The commissioners and the senators asked anew what was 
brought against Dioscurus, and when Lucentius remarked 
that " it would be an offence for them to see him whose case 
had to be inquired into sitting near them," they replied: " If 
you wish to sit as judge, you must not at the same time be 
accuser." Still they ordered Dioscurus to leave his place, 
and to sit in the middle (so that he was not absolutely to go 
out, but only to leave the ranks of those entitled to vote), by 
which means the papal legates were pacified. 

Upon this Bishop Eusebius of Dorylseum came forward and 
declared that Dioscurus had ill-treated him and the faith, and 
had killed Bishop Flavian, and he requested that a petition, 
should be read which he had addressed to the Emperors Marcian 
and Valentinian m. The commissioners and senators gave their 
consent, and Beronicianus now read the memorial, to the effect 
" that at the last Synod at Ephesus, which had better not have 
been held, Dioscurus had injured the true reUgion and con- 
firmed the heresy of Eutyches by a mob of unruly people and 
by bribery. The Emperors should therefore command him to 
answer the accusations of Eusebius, and that the Acts of the 
Ephesine Sjrnod (Robber-Synod) should again be read in the 
present Sjoiod. From these he could bring proof that Dioscurus 
was opposed to the orthodox faith, that he had confirmed an 
impious heresy, and had unjustly condemned and ill-treated 
him the accuser." ^ 

' Arendt {Leod. Or. u. «. ZeU, S. 270) says : ** 2iJ»#J«» IriXfin^t ^tn^au WivfirKt 
VtX» «-•» mvwrpXixw ififv meant only that he had, without the permission of 
the Pope, taken the presidency there and conducted the proceedings, for Leo 
himself had acknowledged the Synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to 
be present at it. *' A similar yiew was taken by the Ballerini in their edition of the 
works of Leo, t. \L p. 460, note 15. Cf. vol. i. of this History, p. 7. [It should 
be remarked that there is no trustworthy evidence whatever ^t the Pope either 
joined in convoking the Synod of Nicsa, or was represented by the president] 

' Mansi, t. vi. p. 584 sqq. ; Hardouin, t iL p. 69. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



300 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Required to reply to this by the imperial commissioners 
and senators, Dioscurus first demanded that they should read 
the Acts of the Council at Constantinople under Flavian. 
When his opponents also presented this petition, he changed 
his plan and wished first to introduce a doctrinal discussion 
on the question, what was the true Christological faith ; but 
the imperial commissioners and senators persisted in the 
reading of all the previous Acts, and at their command the 
imperial consistorial secretary, Constantine, read first the letter 
despatched to Dioscurus on the 30th March 449, by the 
deceased Emperor Theodosius n., respecting the summoning of 
the Robber-Synod.^ When the secretary had further remarked 
that similar decrees had been despatched to other bishops, 
the commissioners and senators gave command that Bishop 
Theodoret of Cyrus should be introduced into the Synod, 
because Archbishop Leo (of Rome) had reinstated him in his 
bishopric, and the Emperor had commanded his presence. 

The actual introduction of Theodoret caused a frightful 
storm. The p^rty of Dioscurus, that is, the bishops of I^ypt, 
lUjTicum, and Palestine, cried out : " The faith is destroyed ; 
the canons do not tolerate Theodoret; cast him out, this 
teacher (?) of Nestorius." The opposite party, the Orientals, 
those from Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, replied : " We were com- 
pelled by blows (at the Robber-Synod) to subscribe ; we were 
forced to subscribe a blank paper ; cast them out, the Mani- 
chaeans, the enemies of Flavian, the opponents of the fidtL" 
Then Dioscurus cried again : " Theodoret anathematized the 
holy Cyril ; shall Cyril now be cast out ? " The other party 
immediately answered again: "Cast out the murderer Dioscurus: 
who is ignorant of his crimes?" The party of Dioscurus then 
drew in the name of the Empress Pulcheria, and cried out : 
" Prosperity to the Empress, she drove out Nestorius, therefore 
the orthodox Synod cannot receive Theodoret." Taking advan- 
tage of a momentary interruption, Theodoret himself stepped 
forward, and requested that his petition to the Emperors, which 
was at the same time a complaint against Dioscurus, should be 
read, upon which the commissioners and senators, in order to 
quiet men's minds, declared they would now proceed with the 
* Mansi, t. vi. p. 586 sq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 70 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 301 

presentation of the previous Acts, and that no one should draw 
the presence of Theodoret into a prejudice. From himself and 
his opponents, until later, the right of speech and of reply 
should be expressly withheld. Besides, the bishop of Antioch 
had testified to Theodoret's orthodoxy. But the tumult was 
renewed. The Orientals cried : " Theodoret is worthy to sit 
here ; " the Egyptains replied : " Cast out the Jew, the enemy 
of God, and call him not bishop." Then the Orientals shouted: 
" Cast out the disturbers of the peace, cast out the murderers ; 
the orthodox man belongs to the Synod." And thus it went 
on for some time, until at last the commissioners and senators 
declared : ** Such vulgar shouts {i/cjSorjaet^; hrjfjLoriKaX) were not 
becoming in bishops, and could do no good to either party ; 
they should therefore quietly listen to the continuation of the 
reading of the Acts." Still the Egyptians shouted : " Cast only 
one (Theodoret) out ; '* but they were brought to silence,^ and 
the secretary Constantine now read a series of other documents: 
(a) A second letter of the deceased Emperor Theodosius n. 
to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May 449; Qi) one to the 
same effect to Juvenal of Jerusalem; (c) a third to Abbot 
Barsumas; {d) the instructions which Theodosius had given 
to Elpidius and Eulogius, his commissioners at the Bobber- 
Synod; (e) a decree to Proclus the resident proconsul at 
Ephesus ; (/) a third imperial letter to Dioscurus ; and 
{g) one to the Robber-Synod, merely consisting of docu- 
ments, the contents of which have already been given above, 
p. 223.2 

Dioscurus then spoke and asked why he alone should be 
held responsible for the deposition of Flavian, of Eusebius of 
Dorylaeum, and others, since, according to the Acts which had 
been read. Bishops Juvenal and Thalassius had been nominated 
by the Emperor as judges at the same time with him, and the 
whole Synod had consented to the decrees, and had subscribed 
them ? The Orientals (=* those from the patriarchate of 
Antioch) and their friends, however, denied the liberty of their 
assent, and complained that they had been forced by violence 
to subscribe a paper on which nothing was yet written. In 

* Mansi, t. vi. p. 590 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 71 eqq. 

* Mansi, t. vi. pp. 693-600 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 75-80. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



302 HISTORY OF THE COUNCttS. 

particular, they had been threatened with deposition and exile, 
and soldiers with sticks and swords had surrounded them 
until they subscribed. They concluded their relation with 
the cry: "Out then with the murderer" (Dioscurus). The 
Egyptians replied : " They subscribed before us, why then do 
their clerics (whom they brought with them) now raise a ciy ? 
Clerics do not belong to the Synod, out with them ! " Upon 
this Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, to show the character of the 
Hobber-Synod, related the following incident Because he 
had received some of Flavian's clergy and Eusebius of Dory- 
Iseum into conmmnion, the imperial commissioners at that 
Synod, Elpidius and EtJogius, with about three hundred 
soldiers and monks of Eutyches, had come into his episcopal 
residence, and had threatened him with death, because he had 
received the enemies of the Emperor. But the adherents of 
Dioscurus had not allowed him to leave the Secretarium of the 
Church until he had subscribed. 

After him Thalassius spoke : He had certainly been entered 
in the Emperor's letter as judge (and president of the Bobber- 
Synod),^ he knew not why; but when he saw that things 
which were unbecoming were taking place, he had earnestly 
endeavoured to prevent this, and he could bring witnesses to 
prove it — Bishop Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria affirmed 
that he and others had understood little of the whole Synod, 
and had been imposed upon by Dioscurus and JuvenaL 
Besides, they had been alarmed by the exclamation : " They 
are neighbours of the Nestorian heresy," and, " He who rends 
Christ (into two natures) shall himself be rent Bend 
them, kill them, cast them out!" Thus they had been 
alarmed for themselves and on account of those whom they 
had baptized, and therefore had been forced to hold their 
peace. 

He added further, that the Emperor had commanded that 
the Synod should judge respecting Flavian, but Dioscurus and 
his friends had held many private meetings, and communicated 
their decisions to no one ; but, on the contrary, a blank paper 
had been brought, and they had been surrounded by rough, 

^ The old Latin translation has here misunderstood the original, giving : in 
secretarh/ueram pasUus. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451. 303 

tumultuous mobs, and required to subscribe. Altogether one 
hundred and thirty-five bishops had been present, forty-two 
had been commanded to be silent, the rest had belonged to 
the party of Dioscurus and Juvenal, with the exception of 
him (Theodore) and fourteen others. " What," he said, " could 
we now have done ? They played with our life and abused 
us as heretics," etc. 

The Orientals and their friends testified to the truth of 
this statement ; the Egyptians, on the other hand, remarked 
scornfully, " A true Christian does not allow himself to be 
frightened ! " and Dioscurus said he thought " if they did not 
agree, they ought not to have signed, for it concerned the 
faith in which nothing should be surrendered." In order to 
weaken their statement with respect to the blank paper, he 
begged further to ask them: "How in that case their re- 
monstrances could appear in the minutes ?"^ 

The imperial commissioners and the senators wished for the 
present to leave all special questions aside until the whole of 
the previous Acts should have been read, and at their com- 
mand the secretary Constantino now began with the minutes 
of the Kobber-Sjmod (compare above, p. 241 flf.). Immediately 
on the reading of the first words of these, it came out that 
Pope Leo — that is, his letters — ^had not been received at 
Ephesus, and that only the fifth place (see above, p. 241) had 
been accorded to the bishop of Constantinople.^ As a cry 
again arose at this, Dioscurus demanded anew that all who 
were not bishops should be required to leave, as the noise 
proceeded from them ; but Theodore of Claudiopolis said he 
thought that it was the notaries of Dioscurus himself who so 
cried, upon which he gave assurance that he had only two 
notaries with him.* 

Constantino then proceeded with the reading of the Acts of 
Ephesus up to the place where the papal legates stated that 

^ Mansi, t Ti. pp. 601-606 ; Hardonin, t. ii. pp. 79-88. 

' The papal legate Paschasinos expressed himself on this subject in sach a 
manner tiiat Quesnel concluded from it that he had recognized the precedence 
of the see of Constantinople over those of Alexandria and Antioch (in contra, 
diction to other declarations of Rome). Compare on this subject our commentary 
on canon 28 of Chalcedon, below, § 200. 

» Mansi, t vi pp. 606, 607 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 83. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



304 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

they had with them a letter of Leo's (see above, p. 242).^ 
Upon this archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked 
that Leo's letter had not been read at the Bobber-Synod, and 
all the Oriental bishops and their friends agreed with him. 
He further maintained that Dioscnrus had seven times pro- 
mised on oath to have the letter read, but had not kept his 
oath, and Theodore of Claudiopolis confirmed this statement 
On being interrogated by the commissioners, Dioscnrus 
asserted that he had himself twice called out that this letter 
should be read ; but Juvenal and Thalassius must have known 
why it was not done, and they ought to be asked. When the 
commissioners replied that he above all should defend himself, 
he merely repeated his former statement, upon which Euaebins 
of Dorylseum gave him the lie. Juvenal, on the other side, 
maintained that it took place in this manner, namely, that 
John, the primicerius of Dioscnrus, instead of reading Leo's 
letter, had hastily taken in his hand a letter of the Emperor's 
(naturally by understanding with Dioscnrus), and had read 
this with his (Juvenal's) permission (p. 243). When the 
commissioners asked Thalassius for an explanation, he contented 
himself with the statement that he had ordered neither the 
communicating nor the withholding of the papal letter, and, in 
fact, he had not been of sufficient importance to do sa' 

The secretary Constantino then proceeded with the reading 
of the Ephesine minutes up to the place where they speak 
of the applause which Dioscnrus had gained by his speech 
(see above, p. 244).' The Orientals and their friends now 
denied that they had taken part in those acclamations, etc. ; and 
Theodore of Claudiopolis asserted, besides, that at this point 
Dioscnrus had driven away the notaries of the other bishops, 
and had everything taken down by his own notaries (who 
might easily have ascribed the acclamations of individual 
bishops to the whole Synod). Dioscnrus could, indeed, prove 
that not he alone, but also Juvenal, Thalassius, and the bishop 
of Corinth had notaries (each of these one) ; but that he 

' The documents read are found in Mansi, t. vL pp. 607-615 ; Hardouin, t ii. 
pp. 83-87. 
« Mansi, t vi. pp. 615-618 ; Hardonin, t. ii. pp. 87-90. 
^ The Acts read are given in Mansi, Lc, pp. 618-628 ; Hardonin, Lc pp. 90-94. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



FIKST SESSION, OCTOBEH S, 451. 305 

allowed no notary at all to those bishops who did not belong 
to his party, was proved by Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, who 
testified that their manuscripts had been taken away from 
his notaries, and their fingers had almost been broken at the 
same time (see above, p. 253). So Stephen of Ephesus and 
Acadus of Ariarathia pressed the point with reference to the 
enforced subscription of a blank paper, the latter adding : '' We 
were kept shut up in the church until night-time, and even the 
sick were not allowed to refresh themselves or to go out, but 
soldiers, with sticks and swords, and monks were placed near 
us, and thus we were compelled to subscribe."^ C£ p. 253. 

Again, without going into these points, the imperial com- 
missioners ordered the further reading of the Acts in which 
mention was made of the introduction of Eutyches into the 
Bobber-Synod, and of his confession (see above, p. 244). The 
first two remarks in reply, which were now made, were of no 
significance ;^ more important was it that Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
declared the statement of Eutyches in the minutes to be untrue ; 
that the third CEcumenical Council had directly forbidden every 
addition to the Nicene Greed. Dioscurus appealed to four 
manuscripts, but Diogenes of Cyzicus, on the other hand, 
remarked that Eutyches had not repeated the creed com- 
pletely, for even at Constantinople (in the second (Ecumenical 
Synod), on account of ApoUinaris and Macedonius, there had 
been added : " He came down and was made man by the Holy 
Ghost and of the Virgin Mary," and that this was properly an 
explanation and not an addition. But the Egyptians and 
their friends cried : ** Nothing from it, and nothing to it (the 
Nicene Creed), the Emperor will thus have it," and the like.* 

A longer debate was occasioned by the reading of the sub- 
sequent words of Eutyches: "I anathematize Manes, etc., 
and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ 
came down from heaven " (see above, p. 245). Eusebius of 
Dorylseum remarked that Eutyches had indeed (in his teach- 
ing) purposely avoided the expression "from heaven;" but 
he had not expressed himself on the point as to whence Christ 

1 Mansi, t. tI. pp. 623-626 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 94. 

* Mansi, l.c. pp. 626, 627 ; Hardouin, l.c. p. 95. 

* Mansi, Ic p. 681 ; Hardouin, Lc, p. 98. 

UU V 



Digitized by LjOOQiC 



306 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

had taken His humanity. Diogenes of Cyzicus and Basil of 
Seleucia in Isauria likewise testified that Eutyches, although 
interrogated, had not expressed himself on this point and on the 
manner of the Incarnation before the Synod (of Constantinople). 

Dioscurus here took the opportunity to assert his own 
orthodoxy, and to reproach Basil for having afterwards repre- 
sented at Ephesus that the words which he addressed to 
Eutyches on this matter at the Sjrnod of Constantinople had 
been incorrectly reported (p. 248 f.). Basil replied, amidst 
interruptions of approval and disapproval from the two parties, 
that his assertion was, and always had been, that he worshipped 
one Lord Jesus Christ, who was acknowledged in two natures 
even after the Incarnation, namely, in His perfect manhood 
and in His perfect Godhead. The one He had from the Father 
before all eternities, the other from His mother according 
to the flesh, and He had united this hypostatically {koB' 
xmooTaaiv) with Himself. 

This explanation, which he had first given at the Synod at 
Constantinople, he had also read at Ephesus, and for that reason 
he had been rebuked by the Eutychians as a Nestorian. On 
the further expression of Eutyches (at Constajitinople) that he 
acknowledged two natures before the Incarnation, but only one 
afterwards, he had replied to him : " If thou dost not aclmow- 
ledge two undivided and unmingled natures even after the 
union, then thou dost assert a mingling and confusing." When 
these words also were read in Ephesus, a more violent tumult 
had arisen, and in the confusion and distress he had then said, 
half-unconsciously : " I do not remember to have employed this 
expression, but my words meant : if thou speakest absolutely 
only of one nature after the union, then thou teachest a 
mingling; but if thou speakest of one (recrapKODfjkepff and 
ivavOpcoTr^a-aira 6vai<: in the sense of Cyril, then thou teachest 
the same as we" (cf. p. 248). 

To the question of the commissioners, why, then, with his 
orthodox opinions, he had subscribed the judgment against 
Flavian, Basil answered^ that he had been constrained to do 
80 by the fear of the majority, who could have condemned 
him also. Dioscurus did not fail to reproach him with this 
weakness ; and the answer of Basil, " that he had always shown 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 461. 307 

the courage of martyrdom before secular judges, but that one 
did not venture to resist the fathers (bishops)," shows that in 
fact he was unable to justify himself. And now the Oriental 
bishops who were friendly to him exclaimed more openly: 
"We have all failed (at Ephesus), we all ask for pardon." 
In this admission the commissioners thought they discovered 
a contradiction of the earlier statement of the Orientals and 
their friends, that they had subscribed a blank paper only by 
constraint ; but certainly with injustice, for that very yielding 
to constraint was certednly a fault on the part of the bishops. 
They did not, however, allow themselves to be drawn into a 
discussion of this point, but renewed the cry : " We have all 
failed, we all ask for pardon,"^ and Beronicianus again read a 
portion of the Ephesine Acts, containing the further declara- 
tion of Eutyches (see above, p. 245).* 

Upon this Eusebius of Dorylseum brought forward the 
complaint that he had not been allowed at Ephesus to proceed 
with his accusation against Eutyches ; and Dioscurus, Juvenal, 
and Thalassius, when questioned by the commissioners on this 
point, could only excuse themselves by saying that it was not 
they, but the Emperor and lus representative Elpidius, who 
had ordered this exclusion. The imperial commissioners 
replied that this excuse was not valid, for it had been a 
question of judging as to the faith, on which the Emperor's 
representative had not had to decide. But Dioscurus ex- 
claimed : " How can you blame me for having violated the 
canons by yielding to the demand of Elpidius, since you violate 
them yourselves by the admission of Theodoret V* The com- 
missioners replied: "Theodoret has entered as an accuser, 
and sits among the accusers, even as you (Dioscurus, etc.) 
among the accused."' Constantino then again read a portion 
of the minutes of Ephesus, together with the Acts of the first 
session at Constantinople under Flavian, which were embodied 
in them (see above, pp. 189 and 246).* 

> Mansi, t vi. pp. 684-689 ; Hardouin, t ii. pp. 99-102. 
' The Acts read are giyen in Mansi, Lc, pp. 689-648 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 
102-106. 
^ Mansi, lc. p. 648 ; Hardonin, lc. p. 106. 
* Mansi, 2.e. pp. 646-655 ; Hardooin, lc. pp. 106-114. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



308 HISTOBY OP THE CX)UNCILS. 

At the close of the reading of these minutes, the imperial 
commissioners and senators renewed the question, so disagree- 
able to Dioscurus, why at Ephesus Bishop Eusebius of Doiy- 
laeum had not been admitted, since he had been so fair in 
demanding a hearing for Eutyches at the Synod of Clonstanti- 
nople. Dioscurus persisted in silence, and the commissioners 
therefore allowed the reading to proceed. They now arrived 
at the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, em- 
bodied in the Acts of Ephesus, together with the documents 
belonging to it and the interruptions introduced at Ephesus 
(see pp. 190 and 246).* When the letter of Cyril to John of 
Antioch was read, a pause took place at Chalcedon, filled up 
with acclamations of various kinds.' Both parties simul- 
taneously entered the conflict with shouts : " Honour to Cyril, 
we believe as he did." When the Orientals added : " Thus 
also Flavian believed, and was condemned for it : Eusebius 
of Dorylaeum deposed Nestorius, but Dioscurus falsified the 
faith," the Egyptians replied : " God deposed Nestorius." In 
the same way, when the OrienteJs cried out, "Thus Leo 
beKeves, thus Anatolius," they added : " We all believe thus ;" 
and all the bishops, together with the imperial commissioners 
and senators, shouted together : '' Thus the Emperor believes, 
thus the Empress believes, thus we all believe." 

There was still, however, another bitter pill for Dioscurus, 
for the Orientals and their friends again exclaimed : " Cast 
out the murderer of Flavian ;" and the commissioners, in con- 
sequence of the I^3rptians protesting their orthodoxy, put to 
them the question : " If you thus believe, why have you then 
received Eutyches, who teaches the opposite, into communion, 
and, on the other hand, have deposed Flavian and Eusebius ?** 
Diosciurus knew of nothing better to do than to point to the 
Acts, and Beronicianus now read what Eustathius of Berytus 
had brought forward at Ephesus, in order to show that Cyril 
too acknowledged only one nature in Christ (see p. 246). 
The Orientals exclaimed : " That is Eutychian and Dioscurish." 

^ Mansi, t. vi. pp. 658-674 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 114-126. 

' Hardouin, t. ii. p. 126 ; Mansi, t. vi. p. 674, where, at the words : ^ cum 
Ugeretur epistola sanctce memoricB Cyrillic it should be noted that that which 
follows took place at Chalcedon. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIBST SESSION, OCTOBEB 8, 451. 309 

Bat Dioscuros asserted that he too admitted no mingling of 
the natures. Upon this Eostathios endeavoured to show that 
his quotbttion firom Cyril, which he had brought forward at 
Ephesus, was correct This was true ; but while he had at 
Ephesus attributed a Monophysite meaning to the words of 
Cjrril, he now interpreted them in a sense quite orthodox, to 
this effect : " If any one speaks of only one nature in order 
thereby to deny that the humanity of Christ is of the same 
substance with us, and if any one speaks of two natures, in 
order thereby (like Nestorius) to divide the Son of God, let 
him be accursed." He added also, that he must say, in defence 
of Flavian, that he too had made use of the same words, and 
had thus expressed himself in his letter to the Emperor. This 
made the commissioners ask : " If this be so, why then did 
you agree to the condemnation of Flavian ?" And to this 
Eustathius had no other answer than the confession : " I have 
been in fault" ^ 

Beronicianus then read how Flavian at the Synod at Con- 
stantinople had declared the true faith (on the two natures), 
and had required all the bishops who were present to put 
down their view in the minutes (see above, p. 191). Upon 
this the commissioners and senators asked if this confession of 
Flavian was orthodox, and they requested the members of 
the Synod to make a declaration on this point The first who 
dedared for the orthodoxy of Flavian was the Eoman legate 
Paschasinus. To him followed Anatolius of Constantinople, 
the second legate Lucentius, Bishop Maximus of Antioch, 
Thalassius of Csesarea^ Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of 
Berytus. Thereupon all the Orientals and their friends cried 
out together : " The maityr Flavian explained the faith cor- 
rectly."* Dioscurus, however, demanded that the statement of 
Flavian should be read completely, and then he would answer 
the question which had been proposed. This demand was 
supported by Juvenal and his bishops from Palestine, but they 
at the same time acknowledged the orthodoxy of Flavian, and 
now left their places by the side of Dioscurus, so that they 
finally passed over to the other side amidst a shout of 

^ Mansi, t. vL pp. 674-678 ; Hardonin, t ii pp. 126, 127. 
' Mansi, Lc, p. 678 sq. ; Hardooin, Lc. p. 127. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



310 ' HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 

applause from the Orientals. The same was done by Peter 
of Corinth and Irenseus of Naupactus, who remarked that they 
had certainly not been members of the Ephesine Synod (as 
they were not bishops at that time), but what had been r^ 
had convinced them that Flavian had agreed with S. CyriL 
They were followed by the other bishops of Hellas, and also 
by those of Macedonia and Crete, and by Nicolas of Stobi 
in Macedonia u., Athanasius of Busins in the £g}rptian Tripoli, 
Ausonius of Sebennytus, Nestorius of Phlagon, Macarius of 
Cabassi, Constantino of Demetrias in Thessaly, Eutychius of 
Adrianople, Cladseus of Anchiasmus, Marcus of Euroia, Pere- 
grinus of Phoenicia, and Soterichus of Corcyra. These passed 
over together to the other side. Dioscurus, on the contrary, 
declared: ''Flavian was justly condemned, because he main- 
tained that there were two natures after the union. I can 
prove from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril that after the 
union we should speak only of one incarnate nature of the 
Logos (jua aeaapKcofjUinf rov Aoyov <f>vai^). I am rejected 
with the fathers ; but I defend the doctrine of the fathers, 
and give way in no point Moreover, I must request, like 
many others, that the reading may go on."^ 

This was done, and they came now to the particular votes 
which had been given at the Synod of Constantinople on the 
point of faith in question (see p. 191), together with the 
objections and exclamations brought forward on the other side 
at Ephesus (see p. 247).' Bishop ^Ethericus of Smyrna, 
who had denied at Ephesus the vote which he had given at 
Constantinople, and had professed to have spoken differently, 
now endeavoured to present his conduct at Ephesus in another 
light For this he was compelled to hear bitter comments, 
not only from Dioscurus, but also from Thalassius, the latter 
of whom said : " You made your statement at Ephesus with- 
out any compulsion whatever, why do you now wish to with- 
draw it ?"' After Beronicianus had read some further votes, 
those of Bishops Valerian and Longinus, Dioscurus interposed 
with the remark : " I accept the expression, ' Christ is of two 

^ Maud, t. vL pp. 679-683 ; Hardooin, t iL p. 130 8(^ 
' Mansi, Lc, p. 686 sq. ; Hardouin, Lc* p. isi sq. 
^ Mansi, lc, p. 690 ; Hardonin, l.c p. 135. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



HfiST SESSION, OCTOBEB 9, 451. 311 

natures' (ix Svo), but not, 'there are two natures' (to Svo ov 
Bixofiai), I must stand forth boldly, for my life is in ques- 
tion." Eusebius of Dorylseum retorted, that this was only a 
just recompense, for he had almost destroyed him, and Flavian 
actually.* Dioscurus replied, that he would defend himself 
before God. " Will you also before the laws ?" asked Eusebius, 
adding that '' it was necessary to defend himself also before 
these, for he had come forward here not as his encomiast, 
but as his accuser." The legate Paschasinus again made the 
remark that at Ephesus Dioscurus had not permitted Flavian 
to speak so much as he himself spoke here ; but the imperial 
commissioners turned aside the reproach possibly implied in 
the words, with the remark that " the present Synod would be 
a just one;" and the second legate, Lucentius, agreed to this.* 

Then Beronicianus read the close of the minutes of the 
second session at Constantinople, and only two slight interrup- 
tions occurred here, Dioscurus once exdaiming: "After the 
union there are no longer two natures;" whilst Eustathius 
of Berytus found fault with the expression : " He assumed 
man," saying that we ought instead to say : " He was made 
man and assumed our flesh«"^ 

In perfect quiet, and without any interruption or objection, 
as at the Bobber-Synod so also at Chalcedon, they proceeded 
with the reading of the minutes of the third, fourth, fifth, and 
sixth sessions of Constantinople.^ Immediately after these 
came those of the seventh session, together with the speeches 
occasioned by this reading at Ephesus (see above, pp. 199 ff. 
and 248). As we have already seen (p. 199), in the seventh 
session at Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylseum and Eutyches 
were opposed to each other as accuser and accused ; and after a 
protracted discussion, Eusebius had put to Eutyches the decisive 
question : " Dost thou acknowledge the existence of two natures 
even after the Incarnation ?" At this question the Bobber- 
Synod, when the Acts of Constantinople were read, became 

^ The present Greek text says nothing here of Flavian. 

* Mansi, t vL p. 690 sq. ; Hardooin, t. IL p. 135. 

> Mansi, t vi. pp. 691-698 ; Hardooin, t u. pp. 135-139. 

* Mansi, l.c, pp. 698-730 ; Hardouin, l.c pp. 139-158. Cf. above, pp. 191 and 
248. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



312 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

80 enraged that they cried out: " Take and bum Eusebius';" 
and the whole Synod (according to the minutes) shouted : 
" Let him who confesses two natures be anathema " (p. 248). 
At Ghalcedon the Oriental and other bishops who had been 
members of the Bobber-Sjrnod denied this emphatically, and 
even Dioscurus was forced to confess that only his Egyptians 
had thus exclaimed.^ 

The minutes of Ephesus said further that the whole Synod 
had confirmed by acclamation the confession of faith of 
Eutyches, that ** before the Incarnation our Lord was of two 
natures, but afterwards He had only one." Against this, 
too, the Orientals and their friends protested, and declared : 
"Only the Egyptians thus exclaimed: it is the doctrine of 
Dioscurus. Prosperity to the Emperor, many years to the 
Empress, many years to the Senate ! " Bishop Eustathius of 
Berytus then offered the suggestion that the Synod should at 
the same time guard itself against the possible rejoinder, that 
it divided (like Nestorius) the natures in Christ ; and Basil of 
Seleucia then declared (with the silent acquiescence of all) : 
" We confess, but do not divide the two natures ; we divide 
them not (like Nestoiius), nor confuse them (like the Mono- 
physites)."* 

There now followed long readings without interruption. 
First came the close of the minutes of the seventh session of 
Constantinople (see above, p. 203 £), and then the Acts of 
that synodal assembly which the Emperor Theodosius n. had 
appointed at the request of Eutyches for the verification of the 
minutes of the Synod of Constantinople (see p. 211 ff.). A 
second smaller commission of inquiry had, as we know, had 
to examine the statement of Eutyches, that the sentence of 
deposition pronounced against him had not been drawn up at 
the seventh session of the Council at Constantinople, but before- 
hand (see above, p. 219 f.),and the Acts of this assembly were 
again read at Chalcedon, as at Ephesus.' Immediately after 
this came the explanation given by Basil of Seleucia at the 
Bobber-Synod, in which he took back again the vote which, 

^ Mansi, t vi p. 739 ; Hardouln, t ii p. 163. 

• Mansi, l,c p. 743 ; Hardoain, l.c. p. 166. 

' These Acta read are in Manai, /.c. pp. 743-827 ; Hardouin, Lc pp. 167-214. 



/ 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIB8T SESSION, OCTOBEB S, 451. 313 

in common with others, he had given at Constantinople: 
" That two natures were to be confessed."^ Now at Chalcedon 
he asserted : " It is true that I presented a petition at Ephesus 
through the sainted Bishop John, that I might alter my state- 
ment made at Constantinople, but I did it from fear of thee, 
Dioscurus; for thou laidest great constraint upon us, as 
well by thy words as by the troops placed inside and outside 
the church. Soldiers with weapons were thrust into the 
church, and the monks of Barsumas stood round us, and the 
Parabolani,' and a multitude of people. Bishop Auxanius 
from Egypt, Athanasius, and all the others, if put upon their 
oath, must confess that I said to Dioscurus: 'Do not, sir, 
nullify the judgment of the whole world.'" 

Then Dioscurus answered with the question : '' Did I force 
you ? " Basil answered : " Yes ; by the threats of your troops 
you compelled us to such blood-guiltiness (towards Flavian). 
Consider yourselves how violent Dioscurus must then have 
been, when even now, when he no longer has more than six 
adherents, he insults us alL" Dioscurus replied : " My 
notary Demetrian can certify that you asked him privately (and 
so not by compulsion) to alter your words." Basil replied : 
"I pray your highnesses (the commissioners and senators), 
ask all the metropolitans to declare upon the gospel whether, 
when we were sad and refused to vote, Dioscurus did not stand 
up and cry : Whoever does not subscribe has to do with me. 
Ask especially Eusebius (probably the bishop of Ancyra) on 
his oath, whether he was not almost condemned because he 
delayed his vote only a veiy short time." Dioscurus replied 
that Basil had not then for the first time, but at an earlier 
period, had his words altered ; but without allowing this, Basil 
now requested that Dioscurus should bring forward every- 
thing which he knew against him, so that he might be able 
to answer for himsell' 

In order to the further clearing up of the acts of violence 

^ Hansi, t yL pp. 747, 827 ; Hardonin, t ii. pp. 167, 214. CL above, p. 
246 and p. 306. 

'[''An inferior ord^ of church-officers who folfilled the duty of hospital 
attendants and nurses to the sick poor, whom they relieved from the alms of the 
faithful."— i>tc^. qfChr. AnUq,] 

' Mansi, t. vi p. 827 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. 11. p. 214 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



314 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

at Ephesus, Bishops Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianos of 
Synnada related what we have mentioned above (p. 254), how 
they and other bishops had clasped the knees of Dioscurus and 
had entreated him on their knees not to ill-treat Flavian, and 
how he h^ threatened them, and had called in the counts with 
military and chains, and thus had compelled all to subscribe.^ 
Then were read (a) the vote taken at the Robber-Synod on 
the orthodoxy of Eutyches and his restoration ;* (b) the lettef 
of the Eutychian monks to the Bobber-Synod, and the approval 
of it given at Ephesus ;' and (c) those extracts from the Acts 
of the third (Ecumenical Council which had also been repeated 
at the Bobber-Synod.* 

In the meantime night had come on, and the rest of the 
Acts of Ephesus, the voting on the condemnation of Flavian 
and of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, had therefore to be read by- 
candle light* After this had been done, the imperial com- 
missioners and senators spoke and said : *' The question re- 
specting the right faith can be more carefully considered in 
the next session.* As, however, it has now been shown by 
the reading of the Acts and by the avowal of many bishops 
who confess that they fell into error at Ephesus, that Flavian 
and others were unjustly deposed, it seems right that, if it so 
pleases the Emperor, the same punishment should be inflicted 
upon the heads of the previous Synod, Dioscurus of Alex- 
andria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius 
of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, and 
that their deposition from the episcopal dignity should be 
pronounced by the Council." 

The Orientals and their friends exclaimed : " That is quite 
right." The lUyrians, on the contrary, cried out : " We have 
all erred, we all ask for pardon." Upon this the Orientals 
and others also demanded only the deposition of Dioscurus, 
and cried out : " Many years to the senate ! holy God, holy 

' Mansi aud Hardouin, U,cc, 

' Mansi, Lc. pp. 831-862 ; Hardouin, Ic pp. 215-234. Cf. above, p. 249. 
3 Mansi, lc pp. 862-870 ; Hardouin, Z.c pp. 234-238. Cf. abore, p. 250. 
* Mansi, I.e. pp. 871-902 ; Hardouin, lc pp. 238-254. Cf. above, p. 250 1 
■ Mansi, lc, pp. 902-936 ; Hardouin, lc, pp. 254-271. Cf. above, p. 251. 
" In this they went against the demand of the Pope, that there should be no 
more discussion on the faith. Cf. KathoUk, 1872, Febr. S. 139. 



Digitized by 



Google 



SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 461. 313 

Almighty, holy Immortal, have mercy upon us ! Many years 
to the Emperors ! The impious must ever be subdued ! 
Dioscurus the murderer Christ has deposed! This is a 
righteous judgment, a righteous senate, a righteous Council ! " 
At the close, the commissioners demanded that each indi- 
vidual bishop should set forth his faith in writing (on the 
controverted point), without fear, having only Grod before his 
eyes. They should at the same time know that the Emperor 
would stand fast by the declarations of the 318 fathers at 
Xicsea and the 150 at Constantinople, as well as by the 
contents of the writings of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, 
Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril, which had been read 
and approved at the first Synod at Ephesus. Moreover, it 
was well known that Archbishop Leo of Rome had also written 
a letter against the Eutychian heresy to the sainted Flavian. — 
Many voices cried: "We have read it;" and then Aetius, 
Arcbdeaoon of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, 
declared the first session ended.^ 



Sec. 190. Second Session, October 10, 451. 

At the second session ' which, like all those which followed, 
likewise took place in the church of S. Euphemia, there were 
already absent Dioscurus, Juvenal, and the four other bishops 
whose deposition had been pronounced by the imperial com- 
missioners. They opened the new session with the request, 
that the Synod would now declare what the true faith was, so 
that the erring might be brought back to the right way. The 
bishops replied, protesting that no one could venture to draw 
up a new formulary (exOeais:) of the faith, but that which had 

* Manai, t. vL p. 935 aqq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 271 sqq. 

' The second and third sessions are in many mannscripts exchanged ; that the 
ordinaiy nombering, however, which we foUow, is the right one, was shown by 
HUemont (t. xv. note 45, Sur 8. Lion, p. 916), from the chronological dates 
connected with each session. The Ballerini, on the contrary, wonld maintain, 
lopporting themselves npon Facundas (see p. 285, note), that these dates are 
also donbtful and of more recent origin ; that our second session is in reaHty the 
third, and vice versa. Of. BaUer. ed. Opp, 8, LeofM, t ii. p. 502, nota. The 
Acts of the second session are in Mansi, t. vi. pp. 988-974 ; Hardouin, t ii. pp. 
274-310. Abridged in German, Fuchs, Bibliothek der Kirchenvers, Bd. iv. S. 
411 ff., and Walch, Ketzerfust. Bd. vi S. 341 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



316 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

been laid down by the fathers was to be held fast This 
must not be departed from. Universal approval was accorded 
to the words of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopol : *' On the 
Eutychian questioji a test had already been given by the 
Koman archbishop, which they (that is, he and his nearest 
colleagues) had all signed," and all the bishops exclaimed: 
''That we also say, the explanation already given by Leo 
suffices ; another declaration of faith must not be put forth.** 

The imperial commissioners and senators, however, were not 
contented with this, but, holding to their previous demand, 
they proposed that all the patriarchs (pi oa-uorraroi irarptApx^u 
SioiKi^ea^ itcaoTfj^) should come together, along with one or 
two bishops of their province,^ and take common counsel 
respecting the faith, and communicate the result, so that, by 
its universal acceptance, every doubt in regard to the faith 
might be removed, or in case that, contrary to their expecta- 
tions, those believing otherwise should be present, these would 
immediately be made manifest — ^Again the bishops replied : 
" A written declaration of faith we do not bring forward. This 
is contrary to the rule " (the prescription of the third CEcu- 
menical Council, Actio vL, see above, p. 7 £). Bishop Florentius 
of Sardes added by way of mediating : '' As those who have been 
taught to follow the Kicene Synod, and also the regularly and 
piously assembled Synod at £phesus,in accordance with the fiedth 
of the holy fathers Cyril and Coelestine (the Pope), and also with 
the letter of the most holy Leo, cannot possibly draw up at 
once a formula of the faith, we therefore ask for a longer delay ; 
but I, for my part, believe that the letter of Leo is sufficient-** 

At the suggestion of Cecropius, the older documents, in 
which the true faith had already been set forth, were publicly 
read, and (a) before all the Nicene Creed with the anathema 
against the Arian heresy. The bishops then exclaimed : 
'' That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we 
were baptized, into that we also baptize ; thus Cyril taught, 
thus believes Pope (6 Tldirasi) Leo." * (6) With similar accla- 

' Mansi, t vL p. 958 ; Hardonin, t ii p. 285. Here the superior metropoli- 
tans of the great districts (^ dvil dioceses) are already named patriarchs, cL voL 
i. p. 891. 

* Mansi, t vl p. 955 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 286 s(\. 



Digitized by 



G ooole 



SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 451. 317 

mations the Creed of Constantinople was received, (c) To 
this succeeded the reading of that letter from S. Cyril to 
Nestorius, which had been approved at Ephesus (see above, 
pp. 20 f. and 47), and of his subsequent letter (the pacificatory 
document) to Bishop John of Antioch (see above, p. 137), both 
of which documents, besides, had already been read in the 
first session of our Council, among the Acts of Constantinople 
(see above, p. 307). After further acclamations (d) it came to 
the turn of the celebrated letter of Leo to Flavian, the contents 
of which we have already communicated (see above, p. 225 flf.), 
and which was now read in a Greek translation, and without the 
patristic proofs which had been appended to it (although not 
at the beginning) by Leo himself.^ After this was done, the 
bishops exclaimed : " That is the faith of the fathers, that is 
the faith of the apostles ! We all believe thus, the orthodox 
believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! 
Peter has spoken by Leo : thus Cyril taught ! That is the 
true faith ! Why was that not read at Ephesus (at the Eobber- 
Synod) ? Dioscurus kept it hidden." * 

Three passages in the letter of Leo had, however, raised 
doubts among the bishops of Ulyricum and Palestine In 
what these doubts consisted, we learn for the first time from 
the acts of the fourth session. The wording of these passages 
appeared to imply a certain kind of division of the divine and 
human in Christ, and thus not to keep sufficiently clear of 
ITestorianism. These passages are (a) in chap, iii : ''In order 
to pay our debt, the invisible nature united itself with the 
passible, so that, as our salvation required, the one Mediator 
between God and man on the one side could die, on the other 
could not" In order to pacify them. Archdeacon Aetius of 
Constantinople read a passage from the second letter of Cyril 
to Nestorius, in which it was similarly said, " because the 
adp^ (manhood) of the Lord died for us, therefore it is Said : ffe 
died, not as though He could taste death in His proper divine 

^ Mansi, t. vi. p. 062 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 299 sqq., have even given these 
patristic passages, bat note that they are wanting in most manuscripts. That 
they were not read in our second session, is shown by the Ballerini, l.c. t i. p. 
798, n. 8. 

« Mansi, t. vi. p. 971 ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 806. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



318 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

nature, but because His adp^ tasted deatli." ^ (fi) The same 
bishops then took exception, in the second place, to the passage 
in chap. iv. : " Each of the two forms (natures) does in com- 
munion with the other that which is proper to it, since the 
word (of God) performs that which belongs to the word, and 
the flesh accomplishes that which belongs to the flesh. The 
one flashes forth gloriously in miracles, the other submits to 
insults." As parellels to this, Aetius again read an expression 
of S. Cyril from the synodal letter to Nestorius, which was 
connected with the twelve anathematisms, as follows : " Some 
expressions in the Holy Scriptures apply best to God, others 
to the manhood, £Lnd others again hold a middle position, 
showing that the Son of God is both Grod and man."' (7) 
Finally, they were struck with another passage in the same 
chap. iv. : "Although in Christ there is only one person of 
God and of man, yet the glory and the shame which are 
common to the two natures have a diflTerent source. From 
us He has the manhood, which is inferior to the Father ; from 
the Father He has the Godhead, which is equal to the Father." 
Thereupon Theodoret remarked, that S. Cyril also had similarly 
expressed himself, and quoted the passage : " He became man, 
and changed not His properties, but remained what He was. 
The one, however, is comprehended as thoroughly dwelling in 
the other, that is, the divine nature in the manhood." ' 

The imperial commissioners and the senate now put the 
question : " Has any one still any doubt ? " They replied with 
acclamation : " Ko one doubts." Notwithstanding, the bishops 
of Illyricum were not quite satisfied, for one of them, Atticus of 
Nicopolis (in Epirus), requested that they would allow a few 
days* delay, during which the members of the Synod might 
quietly consider and settle the question. And as the letter of 
Leo had been read, they should also have a copy of that 

^ Mand, Z.c. p. 668, t. vn. p. 971 ; Hardouin, t. i p. 1275, t. iL pp. 118 and 
807 ; cf. above, p. 21. 

' Mansi, t. yi. p. 971 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 807. This is the substance of 
a longer exposition in Cyril, Ic ; Hardouin, t. i. p. 1290 ; Mansi, t It. p. 1078 ; 
see above, p. 80 1 Exactly the same words were used by Cyril in a letter to 
Acadus of Melitene. See Mansi, t. v. p. 822 ; see above, p. 144. 

' Cyril says the same in the synodal letter quoted above. See Hardouin, t. 
i. p. 1286 ; Mansi, t. iv. p. 1071 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SECOND SESSION, OCTOBEB 10, 4M. 319 

letter of Cyril to Nestorius, to which the twelve anathematisms 
were appended, so that they might be able to prepare for the 
proceedings on the subject. The other bishops exclaimed: 
"If we are to have delay, we must request that all the 
bishops in common shall take part in the desired consultation;" 
and the imperial commissioners and' the senators, agreeing to 
this, declared : " The assembly is put off for five days, and 
the bishops shall, during that time, meet with Anatolius of 
Constantinople, and take counsel together concerning the faith, 
so that the doubting may be instructed." They were in- 
terrupted by the cry : " None of us doubts, we (but certainly 
not all) have already subscribed," and then they went on: 
"It is, however, not necessary that all come together, but 
Anatolius may choose out of those who have already sub- 
scribed Leo's letter such as he thinks fitted to instmct the 
doubting." (Cf. below, § 192, p. 330 f.) 

When the session was about to terminate, some bishops, 
probably of those from lUyricum, took advantage of this 
moment in order to intercede for the heads of the Kobber- 
Synod. They cried : " We petition for the fathers, that they 
may be allowed again to enter the Synod. The Emperor and 
the Empress should hear of this petitioa We have all erred; 
let all be forgiven ! " Thereupon a great commotion arose, a 
contest of shouts and counter-shouts between the two parties. 
The clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: "Only a few cry 
for this, the Synod itself says not a syllable." Thereupon the 
Orientals and others cried out : " Exile to the Egyptian ; " and 
the Illyrians : " We beseech you pardon all ! " The Orientals : 
" Exile to the Egyptian ; " the Illyrians : " We have all erred ; 
have mercy on us all. These words to the orthodox Emperor : 
'The Churches are rent in pieces'" (that is, schisms are 
arising through that deposition). And again the clergy of 
Constantinople exclaimed : " To exile with Dioscurus ; God has 
rejected him," £Lnd, " whoever has communion with him is a 
Jew." The Illyrians and Orientals continued their exclama- 
tions, until at last the commissioners put an end to the 
subject with the words: ''The consultation with Anatolius, 
which we have already required, must now be taken in hand."^ 

^ Mftnsi, t Ti p. 974 sq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 807 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



320 HISTORY OP THE COUNCILS. 



Sec. 191. Third Session, October 13, 451. 

Before the expiry of the appointed interval of five days, the 
third general session was held on the 13th of October in the 
same church.^ It is nowhere intimated that the imperial com- 
missioners and the senators were present, and on this occasion 
their names are found neither in the catalogue of those present 
which is prefixed to the Acts, nor in the text among those who 
speak. They said subsequently that the condemnation of 
Dioscurus (at this session) had taken place without their 
knowledge; and from this we might perhaps conclude that 
the holding of this third session had not been announced to 
them. But this is not the case ; it appears, on the contrary, 
more probable that they purposely remained away from this 
session, in order to avoid the appearance of the imperial 
authority having brought about the condemnation of Dioscurus 
and deprived the bishops of their full liberty.* The number 
of the bishops who were present at this session was also 
smaller, as those who were friendly to Dioscurus did not 
appear. The list, which is, however, imperfect, has the names 
of only two hundred as being present. 

This new session was opened by Archdeacon Aetius of Con- 
stantinople, as first notary of the Synod, with the intelligence 
that Eusebius of Dorylseum, besides the complaint against 
Dioscurus, which he had read at the first session, had given in 
a second which he was ready to communicate. The papal 
legate, Paschasinus, remarked that, as Leo had given him com- 

^ The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t yi. pp. 975-1102 ; Hardonin, t. iL pp. 
810-382. Arendt thinks {Pap9t Lto u. «. Z^, S. 279) that this session took 
place in a chapel of the church of S. £uphemia, because the Acts say, it rf 
fiaprvpltjf rns ayiaf . . . 'Ei^nfAttts. . . . But it is the church itself of the Holy 
Martyr which is thus designated. 

' Arendt says (S. 279} : " The absence of the senate seems astonishing ; but 
it is not so in fact, for the chief work of the session was, as is clear from the 
contents of the Acts, the definite pronouncing of the judgment on Dioscurus. 
The reasons involved were half ecclesiastical, half political In regard to the 
political element, the senate had already given their judgment ; in regard to 
the other, the ecclesiastical, which lay entirely outside their sphere, the senate 
had no need to be present, and their absence only shows how fully the State 
recognized the necessity that the purely ecclesiastiotd proceedings should be free 
and independent, and as little as possible influenced, but left to the spiritualty." 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 18, 451. 321 

mission to preside in his place, therefore all that was brought 
forward at the Sjmod most go through him, and that he now 
ordered the reading of this accusation. The principal contents 
were : " I have brought against Dioscurus the accusation that 
he holds the same opinions with Eutyches, the condemned and 
anathematized heretic; but at the recently held Synod at 
Ephesus he obtained power by the violence of his troops and 
by money, he violated the true faith, he introduced a heretical 
leaven into the Church, and robbed me of my spiritual office. 
As it has already been shown in the previous transactions 
(first session) that Dioscurus taught hereticaUy, that he 
excluded me firom the Synod at Ephesus (the Bobber-Synod), 
and prevented both me and Bishop Flavian from defending 
our just allegations ; as it has further been shown that he 
had the minutes entered differently from what was spoken, 
and enforced the subscription of a blank paper : I therefore 
pray that you will have pity upon me and decree that all 
which was done against me be declared null, and do me no 
harm, but that I be again restored to my spiritual dignity. 
At the same time anathematize his evil doctrine and punish 
him for his insolence according to his deserts."^ 

Eusebius added orally the petition that he might be per- 
sonally confronted with his opponent Aetius stated that the 
session had been announced to Dioscurus, as to all the other 
bishops, by two deacons, and he had answered them that '' he 
would willingly appear, but his guards prevented him." Pas- 
chasinus immediately sent out first two priests, Epiphanius 
and Elpidius, from the church, to see whether Dioscurus 
was in the neighbourhood; and as this had no result, at 
the suggestion of Anatolius of Constantinople, three bishops, 
Constantine, Metropolitan of Bostra, Acadus of Anarath, and 
Atticus of Zele, together with the notaiy Himerius, were sent 
to Dioscurus at his lodging, to require his appearance. 
Dioscurus answered them also that he would willingly come, 
but that he was prevented by his guards, the Magistriani and 
Scholarii (imperial officers). — The synodal deputies were on 
their way back with this answer when Eleusinius, the assistant 
of the Magister sacrorum ojiciorum, met them, and as he 

^ Mansi, t. vi p. 986 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 311. 

ni. X 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



322 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

asserted that Dioscoras might appear at the Synod if he 
wished,^ thej returned to him and renewed their demand. 
Deprived now of his previous excuse, Dioscurus replied that 
" it had been decided respecting him in the previous (first) 
session by the imperial commissioners, and now they wished 
to annul this. He demanded that his affair should again be 
brought forward in the presence of the commissioners and 
senators." The deputies did not fidl to represent to Dioscurus, 
that, consequently, that was not true which he had at first 
said to them, and then reported to the Synod the result of 
their mission.* 

Then three bishops^ Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia» 
Cecropius of Sebastopolis, and Rufinus of Samosata, together 
with the notary Hypatius, were sent with a written invitation 
to Dioscurus, to the effect, ^ that it was not in order to annul 
anything which had been decreed in the first session, but to 
examine new matters of complaint which Eusebius of Dory- 
laeum had brought forward, that the Synod had invited Dio- 
scurus, and he was bound to appear, in accordance with the 
canonical rules.'* Dioscurus now declared that he was ill; 
and when the deputies met him, he said he had just recovered, 
but he returned to his former excuse that he would now 
appear if the imperial commissioners were present, and added, 
that then the other heads of the Synod of Ephesus — Juvenal, 
Thalassius, Eusebius, BasU, and Eustathius (see above, pp. 224, 
301, 314) — ^would also be forced to appear with him. The 
deputies replied that the new complaint of the Bishop of Dory- 
laeum was directed against Dioscurus alone, and not dso against 
the five others, and that therefore their presence was not 
necessary ; but Dioscurus adhered to his refusal' 

When the synodal deputies had again returned and given 
information, respecting their mission, Eusebius of Dorylseum 
proposed to send a third invitation to Dioscurua Before this 
was prepared, some clerics and laymen who had come from 
Alexandria were allowed to appear before the Synod, in order 

' This incident is brought forward by the synodal deputies somewhat later. 
Mansi, t vi p. 995 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 815 D. 
' Mansi, t yi. pp. 987-995 ; Hardonin, t iL p. 814 sqq. 
> Mansi, t vi pp. 995-1008 ; Hardonin, t ii pp. 815-819. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 15, 451. 323 

to present complaints against Dioscurus. The papal legate 
Paschasinus asked these new complainants whether they were 
ready to prove their accusations against Dioscuros, and when 
they said they were, their complaints were read. They were 
four in number, and were all addressed to *' the Archbishop 
and Patriarch of great Eome, Leo, and to the holy and (Ecu- 
menical Synod," and the first of them, from the Alexandrian 
deacon Theodore, said that " he (Theodore) had served for two 
and twenty years among the Magistriani (imperial bodyguard), 
that then the holy Cyril of Alexandria had taken him into his 
service about the time of the Synod of Ephesus, and had 
advanced him to be a cleric. For fifteen years he had been 
in this position, and then Dioscurus, after entering upon his 
ofi&ce (a.d. 444), without any written or oral complaint having 
been brought against him, had deposed him from his spiritual 
office, and threatened him with expulsion from the city, and 
this for no other reason than that he had enjoyed the confi- 
dence of Gjrril. He had persecuted in a similar manner all 
the relations and servants of CyriL In Cjrril, however, this 
heretic, this Origemst hated the true faith. He had thrown 
out insults against the holy Trinity, and had taken part in 
murder, in cutting down the trees of others, in burning and 
in destroying houses. Further, he had always lived in a dis- 
graceful manner, as he was ready to prova He had done even 
worse than the things which he had practised against Flavian. 
He had ventured to pronounce a sentence of excommunication 
against the apostolic see of Borne, and by threats had com- 
pelled the ten bishops who had come from Egypt with him, 
for several refused to accompany him, to subscribe this ex- 
communicatioa They had subscribed weeping and lamenting. 
In order that the proof of all this might be possible, the Synod 
should have the following persons brought under guard: Agorast, 
Dorotheus, Eusebius, and the notary John.^ He himself would 
bring forward upright witnesses at the proper time." * 

The second complaint was presented by the deacon Ischyrion. 

^ That these were friends and assistants of Dioscnros, is clear from the close of 
the complaint of Ischyrion. See below, p. 825. Walch, ^c S. 850, has erroneously 
eonfonnded them with the witnesses whom Theodore was ready to bring forward. 

' Mansi, t. vi. p. 1006 sqq. ; Hardooin, t iL p. 322 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



324 BISTORT OF THE COUNCILS. 

He declared how violently DioBCuros had behaved, how he had 
destroyed the goods, trees, and dwellings of his opponents, had 
driven some away, had punished others, and had also been 
disrespectful towards the holy relics. All this was known in 
Alexandria by the people, the clergy, and the monks. When 
the Emperors had granted com to the poor churches of libya, 
in order that they might make from it bread for the EuchariBt 
and feed the poor, he had forbidden the bishops of those 
r^ons to receive it, and had bought it himself and stored it up, 
in order to sell it again, in a time of dearth, at huge prices. 
In the same way, he had not permitted the institutions to be 
completed, which the pious matron Peristeria had set up for 
convents^ hospitals, and the like, but had squandered the 
money given for the purpose on persons connected with 
theatres. His dissolute life was generally kno¥ai» and women 
of evil reputation- went out and in to the dwelling of the 
bishop, and his bath, particularly the celebrated Pansophia, 
sumamed ^Opetvif (that is, Montana, Montez!), so that a 
popular song had even been circulated about her and her lover 
(Dioscurus), as would be shown. Moreover, Dioscurus had 
also murders on his conscience. Ischyrion further speaks of 
himself, how Cyril had shown him confidence, and how many 
troublesome journeys and pieces of business he had accom- 
plished as his agent, so that, as they could see, his health had 
been weakened by them. But Dioscurus had immediately 
expelled him &om the holy service, and had allowed his 
property to be burned, and his trees to be cut down by monks 
and others, so that he was now a b^gar. Kay, he had even 
given it in charge to the presbyter Mennas, and the deacons 
Peter and Harpocration, with other officers, to put him to 
death, and it was only by timely flight that he had then saved 
his life. Subsequently he had actually been laid hold of by 
this Harpocration, the most cruel of the assistants of Dio- 
scurus,^ and imprisoned in a hospital without any charge having 

^ The complaint adds, "The cruelty of Harpocration had been seen at the 
Robber-Synod in Ids ill-treatment of Flavian and of Proterins, then a priest, 
now a bishop." As Proterius did not become Bishop of Alexandria nntil after 
the deposition of Dioscuros, the words, ''now a bishop," most be a later 
addition. Cfl Walch, ^c S. 852. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



THIBD SESSION, OCTOBER 18, 451. 325 

been brought against him. And even in this prison Dioscums 
had made attempts npon his life, and finally had set him at 
liberty only npon grievous conditions, for example, that he 
should leave his native city Alexandria. He requested that 
the Synod would have pity upon him, and admit him to prove 
his accusations, and after examination, restore him again to 
his spiritual offica In conclusion, he prayed that they would 
have Agorast, Dorotheus, Eusebius, Didion, Harpocration, 
Peter, and the bishop's bathmaster, Gaianus, apprehended, so 
that they might be heard. At the proper time he would then 
bring forward upright witnesses.^ 

The third complaint was preferred by the Alexandrian 
presbyter Athanasius. Immediately at the beginning he says : 
" He and his departed brother Paul were sons of Isidora, a 
sister of CyriL In his testament, Cyril had left great legacies 
to his successor, and h^ at the same time adjured him to be 
friendly to his relatives. Dioscurus, however, hating Cyril on 
account of his orthodoxy, had done the contrary, and had 
persecuted his relativea He had immediately threatened him 
and his brother Paul with death and had driven them from 
Alexandria, so that they had gone to Constantinople to seek 
for protection. At the instigation of Dioscurus and his friends 
Chrysaphius and Nomus, they had, however, been arrested in 
Constantinople, and had been so long ill-treated that they 
were at last reduced to purchase their liberty by the sacrifice 
not only of all their moveable property, but also by additional 
sums, which they had to borrow from usurers. In consequence 
of this, his brother Paul had died, but he himself (Athanasius) 
and his aunts, and the wife and children of his brother, had 
fallen into debt to such an extent, that, on account of the 
demands of the usurers, they had no longer ventured to go out 
The very houses of the family (in Alexandria) had been seized 
by Dioscurus and turned into churches, and even his (the 
complainant's) own had been taken, although, as being removed 
four houses from the others, it could not be used for that 
purpose. Moreover, without any charge having been brought 
against him, he had deprived him of his priestly office, and 
had struck him off the church register. For seven years he had 

' Hansi, t. vi. pp. 1011-1019 ; Hardooin, t. ii. p. 826 sqq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



326 BISTORT OF THE COUNCILS. 

wandered about, fleeing sometimes from Dioscums, sometimes 
from his creditors. Not once in convents or churches had 
Dioscurus allowed him to find rest, and he had forbidden that 
he should have a loaf or a bath, so that he had almost died of 
hunger and misery. The sum which he had been compelled 
to give to Komns amounted to about 1400 pounds of gold ; 
and as he had also been robbed of his other property, he was 
forced, with the two or three slaves who still remained to him, 
to support himself by begging. Moreover, Dioscurus had also 
extracted great sums of money from Cyril's other relatives. 
He (the complainant) prayed tiierefore for as s istance, and for 
the restitution of that which Komus had taken from him, so 
that he might be able to repay his creditors. He was ready 
to prove everything." ^ 

The fourth complainant from Alexandria was a layman 
named Sophronius. He had also been plunged into poverty 
by Dioscurus. The occasion was quite peculiar. Macarius, 
an official of Alexandria, had robbed Sophronius of his wife 
Theodota^ and this, although no separation or quarrel had 
taken place between the husband and wife. On this account 
he had made his complaint before the Emperor and the chief 
ministers, and the chief judge Theodore had been sent from 
Constantinople to examine the matter. Dioscurus had declared 
that this whole trial belonged to him and not to the Emperor, 
and sent the deacon Isidore to him with officers to require the 
departure of the judge Theodore. Kot contented with that, this 
deacon, at the command of Dioscurus, had taken everything 
away from Sophronius, who had fled. He now asked for 
assistance, and was ready to prove that Dioscurus had insulted 
the holy Trinity, had been guilty of adultery, and even of 
treason ; and when the Emperor Marcian was at Alexandria, 
he had, by Agorast and Timothy, distributed money among 
the people, to induce them to drive the Emperor away. This 
could be proved by the tribune and notary John, and if 
Theodore had not then been administering the province of 
Egypt, the city of Alexandria would have been plunged into 
great misfortune through the fault of Dioscurus. Finally, 
Sophronius affirmed that many others had to complain of 
^ Mansi, t. yL p. 1022 sqq. ; Hardooin, t. iL p. 381 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



THIRD SESSION, OCTOBER 18, 451. 327 

Dioscurus, but were too poor to appear personally, and he 
asked that Agorast might be arrested.^ 

The Synod resolved to embody all these complaints in the 
minutes, and then caused Dioscurus to be invited a third time 
by Bishops Francion of Philippopolis in Thrace, Lucian of 
Byzia in Thrace, and John of Grermanicia in Syria. The 
deacon Palladius accompanied them as notary. They were 
entrusted with a letter to Dioscurus, in which his previous 
excuses were represented as false, and he was required to 
defend himself against the accusations brought forward by 
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and by the clerics and laymen from 
Alexandria. If he still refused to appear after this third 
invitation, he would be subject to the punishments which were 
pronounced by the canons against the despisers of the Synods.* 

This third citation also remained without result, for Dio- 
scurus simply declared that *' he adhered to that which he had 
previously said, and he could add nothing more," and all the 
efforts of the deputies to induce him to yield, and to touch his 
conscience, were in vain. — After they had again informed the 
Synod of this, the papal legate Paschasinus put the question, 
what was now to be done, and whether they should proceed 
with the canonical punishments against Dioscurus. After 
several bishops had given their views, and had specially asked 
the legates to pronounce judgment, these summed up the 
accusations which had been presented against Dioscurus : " It 
had been shown," they said, ** by to-day's and the previous 
(first) session, what Dioscurus had dared to do against holy 
order and Church discipline. To pass over much dse, he had 
received back into communion Eutyches, as being of the same 
opinions as himself, although he had been justly deposed by 
his Bishop Flavian, and this he had done in an irregular 
manner, before he united with the other bishops at the 
Ephesine Synod. These other bishops and members of the 
(Eobber) Synod had received forgiveness from the apostolic 
see for that which they did there against their wiU, and they 
had also shown themselves obedient to the holy Archbishop 
Leo and to the most holy (Ecumenical Synod. Dioscurus, on 

^ Mansi, t. vi p. 1080 aqq. ; Hardoain, t iL p. 885 sqq. 
* Mansi, t vi p. 1085 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 839. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



328 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the contrary, had, up to the present moment, proudly persisted 
in that for which he ought to have lamented earlier. More- 
over, he had not allowed the letter of Leo to Flavian to be read 
at Ephesus, although he had often been requested, and although 
he had promised upon oath to do so. Instead of repenting 
afterwards, like the other bishops, he had even ventured to pro- 
nounce a sentence of excommunication against the holy Arch- 
bishop Leo. Several complaints against him had been presented 
to the holy Synod, and as he had not appeared after an invi- 
tation had been sent to him three times, he had thereby practi- 
cally pronounced judgment upon himsel£" To this the legates 
added their sentence in the following form: Therefore the 
most holy Archbishop of Bome, Leo, has, by us and the present 
most holy Synod, in communion with the most blessed Apostle 
Peter, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church 
and the foundation-stone of the orthodox faith, declared this 
Dioscurus to be deprived of his bishopric, and that he shall 
lose all spiritual dignity. In accordance herewith, this most 
holy and great Synod will decide respecting the aforesaid 
Dioscurus, what appears to be agreeable to the canons." ^ 

All those present, the Patriarchs Anatolius of Constanti- 
nople and Maximus of Antioch at their head, assented to this 
judgment,' and subscribed the deposition of Dioscurus.' 

The document, which was directly afterwards handed to 
Dioscurus, is as follows : " The holy and great and (Ecumenical 
Synod ... to Dioscurua Learn tibat, on account of despising 
the divine canon's, on account of thy disobedience to the Synod, 
since, besides thine other offences, thou didst not respond to 

^ Mand, t vi. pp. I088-I047 ; Hardonin, t ii pp. 889-846. 

> Their votes are given in Hand, t vi. pp. 1047-1080 ; Hardonin, t. iL 
pp. 846-865. The old Latin translation has preserved 186 votes, with reasons 
assigned. The reasons given vary ; bnt least freqnently is disobedience to the 
Synod given as a reason for Ms condemnation. 

> The subscriptions are given in Mansi, t. vL pp. 1080-1094 ; Hardonin, t. iL 
pp. 865-876. The list here given has 294 subscriptions of bishops (or their 
representatives), among them those of Juvenal, Thalassius, Eustathios of 
Berytus, and Eusebius of Ancyra (not, however, of Basil of Seleuda). As, 
however, the four former associates of Dioscurus just named were not present at 
the third session (see above, p. 822), it appears that they and the other forty- 
nine bishops (and priests) whose names stand after theirs, did not subscribe until 
afterwards. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 461. 329 

their thieefold invitation, thou wast, on the 13th of October, 
deposed by the holy (Ecumenical Synod from the episcopal 
office, and deprived of all spiritual functions." ^ 

The deigy of Dioscurus, who were present at Chalcedon, 
particularly his steward Charmosynus and his archdeacon 
Euthaliua, were made acquainted with this judgment, and 
with the requirement of the Synod that all the property of the 
Church of Alexandria which they had in their hands should 
be carefully preserved, as they would be required to give an 
account of it to the future Bishop of Alexandria. — In a sub- 
sequent document, an official placard, which was destined for 
the cities of Chalcedon and Constantinople, the Synod contra- 
dicted the report that Dioscurus would be again reinstated in 
his office; to the Emperors Yalentinian m. and Marcian, 
however, they sent a copy of the minutes with a letter, in 
which the reasons for the deposition of Dioscurus (that he 
had suppressed the letter of Leo, had received Eutyches into 
communion, had ill-treated Eusebius of DorylsBum, had ex- 
communicated the Pope, and had not obeyed the Sjmod) were 
briefly given, and the hope expressed that the Emperors would 
approve of what had been done. — ^The synodal letter to 
Pulcheria is composed in a more flowing style, and in it her 
great merit in obtaining the triumph of orthodoxy is com- 
mended, and intelligence given of the deposition of Dioscurus. 
The bishops in this assume that the Empress will also give 
her approval, and dose with the assurance that one who is so 
zealous for the cause of God as Pulcheria cannot miss the 
divine reward.* 



Sec. 192. Fmrth Session, October 17, 451. 

At the fourth session, on the 17th of October 451, the 
imperial commissioners and the senate were again present,* 

> Mansi, t vL p. 1094 ; Hardooin, t ii. p. 878. 

' Maofli, t vi pp. 1095-1102 ; Hardonin, t ii p. 878 sqq. The two latter 
doenmeDts, the two letters to the Emperors and to Pulcheria, are now extant 
only in Latin. It is remarkable that, in the letter to Pulcheria, only a single 
reason is specially assigned for the deposition of Dioscnros, his withholding of 
the papal letter. 

' The Acts of this session are given in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 1-97 ; Hardonin, t iu 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



330 HISTORY OF THB COUNCILS. 

and first of all had those passages read from the minutes of the 
first session, in which they had pronounced for the deposition of 
Dioscurus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eustathius, Eusehius of Ancjrra, 
and Basil, and had required written confessions of faith from 
the bishop& There was then read from the Acts of the second 
session the decree that a delay of five days should be allowed 
for the discussion of the dogma, and following upon this, the 
commissioners and senators put the question, *' What had the 
reverend Synod now decreed concerning the faith ?"* In his 
own name and in that of his colleagues, the papal l^ate 
Paschasinus replied to this : " The holy Synod holds fast the 
rule of faith which was ratified by the fathers at Nicssa and 
by those at Constantinople. Moreover, in the second place, it 
acknowledges that exposition of this creed which was given by 
Cyril at Ephesus. In the third place, the letter of the most 
holy man Leo, Archbishop of all Churches, who condemned 
the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shows quite clearly 
what is the true faith, and this faith the Synod also holds, and 
allows nothing to be added to it or taken from it" * 

After the secretary Beronicianus had translated this declara- 
tion into Greek, all the bishops exclaimed: ''We also all 
believe thus, into that we were baptized, into that we baptize, 
thus we believe" (cf. p. 316). The commissioners and the 
senate required that all the bishops should swear by the 
Gospels placed in the midst of them whether the declarations 
of faith of Nicaaa and Constantinople agreed with Leo's letter 
or not. First Anatolius of Constantinople affirmed it, adding 
that Leo's letter also harmonized with the declarations and 
decrees of the first Synod at Ephesus. The three papal legates 

pp. 882-446. An abridgment in German by Fnchs, Le, 8. 437 ff. ; Walch, Lc. 
S. 360 ff. The list of those present, which is placed at the head of the Acts, is 
very defective. 

' As we saw (p. 819), a commission of bishops were within the five days to 
confer with Anatolius concerning the faith. That they held meetings for this 
purpose is expressly said by the bishops of lUyricum (381) ; besides, it may 
be concluded from the subsequent expressions of Paschasinus that they had had 
a conference, and had thus taken the very resolution which Paschasiniis now 
announces to the commissioners, and which is in conformity with the results of 
the second session. We shall meet with a later and important transaction of this 
commission in the introduction to the fifth (Ecumenical Synod. 

' Mansi, t vii. p. 7 sqq. ; Hardouin, t ii. p. 386. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 331 

affiimed the same, and after them came all the other voters in 
turn, sometimes in shorter, sometimes in fuller declarations.^ 

With very few exceptions, all likewise remarked that they 
had already subscribed Leo's letter.^ What is most important 
for us is the manner in which the bishops of Ulyricum and 
Palestine comported themselves, who, as we know, had raised 
some objections to Leo's letter at the second session. The 
bishops of niyricum, through Bishop Sozon of Philippi, now 
had the written declaration read : " That they were inviolably 
devoted to the faith of the fathers of Nicsea and Constantinople, 
and to the decrees of the first Synod at Ephesus, and that 
they were also fully convinced of the orthodoxy of the most 
holy father and Archbishop Leo. But that which in his letter 
appeared to them not quite clear, and liable to be misunderstood, 
the papal legates had explained quite satisfactorily when they 
were all assembled with Anatolius, and had anathematized 
eveiy one who separated the manhood of our Lord from His 
Godhead, and did not confess that the divine and the human 
attributes existed in Him unmingUd and unchanged and nn- 
divided (aavy^fyrm^ /caX arpiirrto^ koX oBunpira)^). On this 
they had in a body signed Leo's letter and had agreed with him." * 

An expression to the same effect was read by Bishop 
Anianus (Ananias) of Capitolias, in Palestina u., instructed 
by the bishops of Palestine : " We all hold fast by the faith 
of the 318 fathers of Nicaea and of the 150 of Constantinople, 
and agree with the decrees of the first Synod of Ephesus. 
When the letter of Leo was read to us, we gave our assent 
to the greatest part of its contents. But some parts of it 
seemed to us to express a certain separation of the divine 

^ Mansi, t yii p. 10 aqq. ; Hardonin, t iL p. 386 sqq. 

* This had taken place at the assembly and council which they held with 
Anatolius, as the bishops of Illyricum explain in what follows. 

'Mansi, t viL p. 27 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 399 sqq. Fuchs(i.c S. 438) 
maintains that only two bishops, one from Illyricum and one from Palestine, 
had given special declarations. This error of his was caused by the incorrect 
printing in the editions. The votes of Euphratas and Marcianus, the former of 
whom finaUy voted among those of Illyricum, the latter among those of Palestine, 
should evidently be separated from the collective declarations which followed by 
a point and an interval. But that on the one side the whole of the lUyricans, 
on the other the whole of those of Palestine, gave the statement in question is 
clear from the use of the plural at the beginning and from the whole context 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



332 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and human in Christ, and we therefore hesitated to accept 
them. We learnt, however, from the Roman l^ates that 
neither do they admit any such separation, but confess one 
and the same Lord and Son of God. We have therefore 
assented, and have subscribed Leo's letter. It would be well, 
however, if the legates would now, for the good of the world, 
publicly repeat that explanation."^ 

After these explanations of the bishops of lUyricum and 
Palestine, the individual voting was again continued, until at 
last the imperial commissioners, after a hundred and sixty-one 
votes had been given, invited all the rest to give their votes 
in union. Upon this all the bishops exclaimed : ** We are all 
agreed, we all believe thus ; he who agrees belongs to the Synod! 
Many years to the Emperors, many years to the Empress ! 
Even the five bishops (Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Eusta- 
thius, and Basil) have subscribed, and believe as Leo does ! 
They also belong to the Synod !" The imperial commissioners 
and others replied : " We have written on their account (those 
five) to the Emperor, and await his commands. You, how- 
ever, are responsible to God for these five for whom you inter- 
cede, and for all the proceedings of this Synod." The bishops 
exclaimed : " God has deposed Dioscurus ; Dioscurus is rightly 
condemned ; Christ has deposed him !"* 

The Synod now waited for several hours, until a decree 
arrived from the Emperor, who was dose at hand in Constan- 
tinople, respecting the five bishops. It was to the effect that : 
" The Synod itself should decide as to their admission ;** and 
as it now declared strongly for this by acclamations, they 
were immediately allowed to enter and take their places while 
their colleagues exclaimed : *" God has done this. Many years 
to the Emperors, to the senate, to the commissioners ! The 
union is complete, and peace given to the Churches !"* 

The commissioners then made the communication that 
yesterday a number of i^ptian bishops had handed in a 
confession of faith to the Emperor, and the latter wished that 
it should be read before the Synod. They therefore allowed 

^ Mansi, t vii. p. 81 sqq. ; Hardoain, t. ii. p. 402. 

> Mand, t. vii. pp. 84-47 ; Hardoain, t ii. pp. 408-414. 

' Mansi, t viL p. 47 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 414. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOUBTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 333 

the Egjrptian bishops, thirteen in number, to enter and to take 
their place, and the secretary Constantine read their short 
memorial addressed to the two Emperors in the name of all 
the bishops of Eg3rpt, but signed only by the thirteen, in 
which they expressed their agreement with the orthodox faith, 
and anathematized all heresy, particularly that of Arius, 
Eunomius, the Manichseans, the Nestorians, and those who 
maintain that the flesh of Christ, which is like ours, with the 
exception of sin, came from heaven and not from the Virgin 
Maty.^ As the heresy of Eutyches was not mentioned here, 
there immediately arose great discontent in the Synod on this 
account Some even accused the Egyptians of dishonesty ; 
but the papal legates desired from them a declaration as to 
whether they agreed with the letter of Leo, and would pro- 
nounce an anathema on Eutyches or not. They replied by 
their spokesman Hieracus, bishop of Aphnseum : '' If any one 
teaches differently from what we have indicated, whether it 
be Eutyches or whoever it be, let him be anathema. As to 
the letter of Leo, however, we cannot express ourselves, for 
you all know that, in accordance with the prescription of the 
Nicene Council (canon 6), we are united with the Archbishop 
of Alexandria, and therefore must await his judgment (that 
is, of the future archbishop who should be chosen in the 
place of Dioscurus) in this matter." 

Those who were present were highly displeased with this 
evasion, and expressed their feelings in various exclamations, 
so that the thirteen Egjrptians after a short time pronounced 
an anathema openly and positively at least on Eutyches. But 
again they were adsed to subscribe the letter of Leo, and when 
the Egyptians again said : " Without the consent of our Arch- 
bishop we cannot subscribe," Bishop Acacius of Ariarathia 
replied : " It is inadmissible to allow more weight to one single 
person who is to hold the bishopric of Alexandria, than to the 
whole Synod. The Egyptians only wish to throw everything 
into confusion here as at Ephesus. They must subscribe Leo's 
letter or be excommunicated." To the same effect spoke 
Bishop Photius of Tyre, and all the other bishops gave their 
approval. The Egyptians now explained that " in comparison 

1 Mansi, t vii p. 50 ; Hardoain, t ii. p. 415. 



Digitized by LjOOQiC 



334 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

with the great number of the bishops of Egypt, there were 
only a few of them present, and they had no right to act in 
their name (to do what was required of them). .They there- 
fore prayed for mercy, and that they might be allowed to 
follow their Archbishop. All the provinces of Egypt would 
otherwise rise up against them." They even cast themselves 
upon their knees, and repeated their request for forbearance. 
But Cecropius of Sebastopol again reproached them with heresy, 
and remarked that it was from themselves alone that assent 
was demanded to the letter of Leo, and not in the name of 
the rest of the Egyptian bishops. They replied : " We can no 
longer live at home if we do this." The papal legate Lucen- 
tius said : " Ten individual men (the thirteen Egyptians) can 
occasion no prejudice to a Synod of six hundred bishops and 
to the Catholic faith." The Egyptians, however, went on 
crying: "We shall be killed, we shall be killed, if we do it 
We will rather be made away with here by you than there. 
Let an Archbishop for Egypt be here appointed, and then we 
will subscribe and assent. Have pity upon our gray hairs ! 
Anatolius of Constantinople knows that in Egypt all the 
bishops must obey the Archbishop of Alexandria. Have pity 
upon us ; we would rather die by the hands of the Emperor 
and by yours than at home. Take our bishoprics if you will, 
elect an Archbishop of Alexandria, we do not object ;" and so 
forth. In the midst of this the cry again broke out: ^The 
Egyptians are heretics ;" and "they must subscribe the con- 
demnation of Dioscurus ;" but the imperial commissioners and 
the senate suggested that they should remain at Constantinople 
until an archbishop was elected for Alexandria. The legate 
Paschasinus agreed, adding : " They must give security not to 
leave Constantinople in the meantime;" and the commis- 
sioners and senators confirmed this demand.^ 

Then, after permission obtained, there entered eighteen 
priests and archimandrites: Faustus, Martin, Peter, Manuel, 
Abraham, Job, Antiochus, Theodore, Paul, Jacob, Eusebius, 
Tryphon, Marcellus, Timothy, Pergamius, Peter, Asterius, and 
John, and were first asked whether Carosus, Dorotheus, and 
those others of Eutychian opinions who had presented a peti- 

^ Maiisi, t yii. pp. 61-62 ; Hardonm, t ii. pp. 415-422. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 461. 335 

tion to the Emperor Marcian before the opening of the Synod 
of Chalcedon, were really archimandrites or not They 
affirmed it in reference to some, and denied it with regard to 
others ; and requested that those should be punished who had 
falsely given themselves out for archimandrites and had no 
convents, but lived in martyrs* chapels and tombs {in memoriis 
d monumentis). These ought all to be driven out of the 
city, for they were not even monks. 

The commissioners then gave orders for the introduction of 
the Eutychian petitioners in question, and these were the 
Archimandrites Carosus, Dorotheus, Elpidius, Photinus, 
Eutychius, Theodore, Moses, Maximus, Gerontius, Nemesinus, 
Theophilus, Thomas, Leontius, Hypsius, Gallinicus, Paul, 
Gaudentius and Eugnomenes, together with the monk 
Barsumas and the eunuch Calopodius. They declared them- 
selves to be the authors of the petition to the Emperor 
which was produced ; but Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople 
pointed out among them Gerontius and Calopodius as having 
been previously condemned for heresy, and required that 
they should be removed. Whether this was carried out the 
Acts do not say; but, on the contrary, we know that the 
petition of these Eutychian monks was now read. In it they 
say that " now everything is in confusion through self-seeking 
and the lack of brotherly love, and the apostolic faith is 
placed in doubt, while Jews and heathens, however bad they 
may be, are permitted to hold their position. These have 
peace, but Christians are in conflict with one another. To 
improve this state of things was the object of the Emperors ; 
and they ought to prevent the outbreak of a schism. It was 
their duty to promulgate that which was right as a law, and 
to that end they should bring about the meeting of the Synod 
which had already been ordered. In the meantime, however, 
all disturbances should cease, particularly the enforcement of 
subscriptions and persecutions, which clerics were promoting 
against each other without the knowledge of the Emperor. 
In particular, the Emperor should not allow that any one 
should, before the sentence of the Synod, be driven from his 
convent, or his church, or his martyrs' chapel (airo iiafyrvplov)y^ 

1 Mdnsi, t Tii p. 66 ; Hardooio, t iL p. 423. 



Digitized by VjOOQIC 



336 BISTORT OF THE COUNCILS. 

Among the Eutychian monks who had entered was that 
Barsamas, who had so greatly advanced the Eutychian cause 
in Syria, and had put himself so prominently forward at the 
Eobber-Synod. Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus therefore ex- 
claimed : '' This Barsumas> who is among them, killed Flavian;" 
and the other bishops added : " He threw all Syria into 
confusion, and brought a thousand monks against us." The 
imperial commissioners etc., immediately put the question to 
Carosus and his companions, " Whether they were inclined to 
learn the right faith from the Synod." They replied that, 
first of all, their second letter, addressed to the Synod itself, 
should be read ; and the commissioners and senators agreed to 
this, whilst from many sides the cry broke forth : " Out with 
the murderer Barsumas." 

In the letter to the Synod the Eutychians first excused 
themselves for not having appeared earlier in answer to the 
invitation, saying, "that the Emperor had not wished it, as 
they had already shown in writing. Now, however, they 
requested that the holy archbishop Dioscurus and his bishops 
shoidd be admitted to the council" — ^Enraged at this boldness, 
the bishops interrupted the reading of the document, and 
cried : ** Anathema to Dioscurus : Christ has deposed him, cast 
these out, wipe out the insult which they have offered to the 
Synod ; their petition should no further be read, for they still 
call the deposed Dioscurus bishop, etc." The commissioners 
and senators, however, remarked that this would not create the 
slightest prejudice, and ordered the reading of the memorial to 
be continued. The archimandrites in question further main- 
tained in it that '' the Emperor had assured them that at the 
Synod only the faith of Nicaea would be confirmed, and that 
before this nothing else should be brought forward With this 
imperial promise the condemnation of Dioscurus was irrecon- 
cilable, and therefore he and his bishops should again be 
summoned to the Synod, that thus the discord among orthodox 
people might cease. If, however, the Synod would not consent 
to tins, then they would themselves have no communion with 
it, no communion with such as opposed the creed of the three 
hundred and eighteen fathers of Nicsea. Finally, in proof of 
their orthodoxy they had appended to their letter the Nicene 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOURTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 337 

Creed, together with the Ephesine decree which confirmed 
it"^ 

Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, remarked that, 
according to the ecclesiastical rule, all deigymen and monks 
were bound to accept guidance in the faith firom the bishops, 
and in proof of this he read from the collection of canons which 
was then made, the fifth Antiochene ordinance, which punishes 
with deposition a clergyman who separates from the com- 
munion of his bishop, without any hope of future restitution.^ 
The imperial commissioners and the senate hereupon asked 
whether the archimandrites were now inclined to acquiesce in 
the doctrine of the present holy Synod. They replied that 
they would simply hold by the creed of Nicsea and the decree 
of the Synod of Ephesua Aetius then stated that all who were 
present also observed most fiedthfully the declarations of faith 
of Nic8Ba and Ephesus ; but as subsequently controversies had 
again broken out, and in opposition to these Cyril and Leo 
had in their writings explained (ipfi^jveveiv) that creed, but had 
not extended {hcrlOriiu) the faith and the dogma, but the whole 
Synod defined this, and imparted their explanation (that is, 
put it forth as a doctrinal form) to all who were desirous of 
learning, so they should also now declare whether they would 
consent to this decree of the Synod or not, 

Carosus answered evasively, that ''it certainly was not 
necessary for him to pronounce an anathema upon Nestorius, 
as he had pronoimced it so often already ; " but when Aetius 
requested him to pronounce an anathema on Eutyches, he 
replied : " Is it not written. Thou shalt not judge ? " and " why 
do you speak, while the bishops sit silent ? " Aetius then, 
in Uie name of the Synod, repeated the question: ''Do you 
agree to their sentence ? " Carosus replied again : " I hold by 
the creed of Nic»a ; you may condemn me, and drive me into 
exile, but Paul has said : ' If any man preacheth unto you 
any other gospel than that which ye received, let him be 
anathema.'" By way of conciliating the Synod, he added 

^ Mansi, t vii pp. 67-71 ; Hardoain, t ii. p. 428 sqq. 

'See YoL ii. p. 68. On the coUection of canons which the Synod of 
Chalcedon had before it, and which they received into their own first canon, cf. 
Drey, DU Constit. ti. Canones der Apaiel, 8. 427 ff. 

III. Y 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



838 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

further : " If Eutyches does not believe what the Catholic 
Church believes, let him be anathema."^ 

The commissioners and senators then ordered that the 
memorial of the anti-Eutychian archimandrites, Faustos, 
Martinus, and others already mentioned, should also be read. 
These in their memorial conmiended the Emperor for having 
taken measures to suppress the Eutychian heresy, but at the 
same time complained of those monks who obstinately persisted 
in this heresy, and asked for permission to treat them in 
accordance with the rules of their order, and in this way to 
attempt to correct them. If this did not succeed, then it 
would be necessary that they should be suitably punished. 
Finally, they asked that the Emperor would allow them to 
give orders respecting the holes in which these beast-like men 
lived, and in which they daily insulted the Saviour. 

The Archimandrite Dorotheus now took up the word and 
maintained the orthodoxy of Eutyches. The commissioners 
and the senate answerod him: "Eutyches teaches that the 
body of the Saviour was not of our substance : what do you 
confess in this respect ? " Instead of answering definitely, he 
recited the passage of the creed of Constantinople: ackptcm- 
OipTCL eK rrj^ irapOevov koX ivapOpoainja'avTa, and added, in 
opposition to Nestorianism, " He in whose face they spat is 
Himself the Lord : we therefore confess that He who suflfered 
is of the Trinity." The demand that he would subscribe the 
letter of Leo, he declined, however, and naturally, because 
from his point of view he was forced to avoid every more 
exact definition of the general expressions aaptuoOhra and 
ivavOpayirrjaavTa (incarnate and made man). So they did not 
care to avail themselves of the offer of a respite of two days, 
after the expiry of which they were to decide, and the 
commissioners and senators therefore invited the Synod to 
pronounce a judgment upon Carosus and his associates.^ 

In order to avoid this result, they now maintained that the 
Emperor had promised them to hold a disputation between 
them and their opponents, and thus to hear both sides. The 
commissioners and the Synod therefore sent the priest and 

' Mand, t. tu. pp. 71-75 ; Hardouin, t ii. pp. 426-430. 
' Mansi, t. vii pp. 75-79 ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 430 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOUKTH SESSION, OCTOBER 17, 451. 339 

periodeutes* Alexander to the Emperor, to learn the truth of 
the matter, and when he returned, the bishops assembled on 
the 20th of October for a new session, which, however, is not 
generally reckoned in the number of the great sessions.^ That 
the imperial commissioners and the senate were present there 
is dear from the Acts in the case of Bishop Photius of Tyre, 
which was considered at the same session. Alexander first 
gave information respecting the results of his mission, 
namely, that the Emperor had sent him and the decurion 
John to those monks, to say to them : ** If I had myself 
wished to decide the controversy, I should not have called a 
Synod. As this, however, has assembled, and has given me 
information respecting you, I give command that you be 
present at it, and that you learn from it what you do not yet 
know. For what the holy and (Ecumenical Synod decrees, 
that I follow, with that I am satisfied, that I believe." 

On hearing these words of the Emperor, the Synod 
broke forth into acclamations. Then the memorial, already 
mentioned, of Carosus and his associates (p. 335) to the 
Emperor was read again as corptcs delicti, and also some earlier 
canons, Nos. 4 and 5 of the Synod of Antioch of 341, which 
were the 83d and 84th in the collection used at Ghalcedon. 
These were chosen as starting-points for the judgment to 
be pronounced. The well-known 4th canon of Antioch, for 
instance, is thus expressed : '' If a bishop is deposed by a 
Synod, or a priest or deacon by his bishop, and he presumes 
to perform any function whatever in the Church as before, he 
may no longer hope for reinstatement." And canon 5 of 
Antioch says : " If a priest or deacon separates himself from 
his bishop, and holds a private service, and sets up a private 
altar, he shall be deposed without hope of restitution."* 

In accordance with the wish of the imperial commissioners 
and the senate, the Synod did not immediately pronounce 
sentence of condemnation, but allowed the incriminated 
persons a respite of thirty days, reckoning from the 15th 
of October to the 15 th of November, On the last day of 
this period, at the latest, they were required to declare their 

^ On this ecclesiastical office see voL ii. p. 821. 

* See the table given above, p. 287. • Cf. vol. ii. p. 68. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



340 HISTORY or THE COUNCILS. 

assent to the faith of the Sjmod, or they would be deposed firom 
their rank, their dignity, and their office of archimandrites.^ 

The Synod occupied itself no further with this matter ; 
but we learn &om Leo the Great that Garosus persevered in 
his Eutychian opposition, and was, by the Pope's advice, 
together with Dorotheus, expelled by the Emperor Marcian 
from lus convent* 

On the same 20th of October the case of Bishop Fhotius of 
Tyre came before the Synod. Photius had at an earlier period 
appealed to the Emperor, but had by him been directed to 
the Synod* His memorial was as follows : ' That Bishop 
Eustathius of Berytus had violated the rights of the Ghurch 
of Tyre, and had procured permission under Theodoeius n., by 
means of which he had ventured to consecrate bishops in certain 
cities of the ecclesiastical province of Tyre (subsequently he 
added that these had been the six following : BiUus, Botrys, 
Tripolis, Orthosias, Areas, and Antaradon). At the same time, 
he had compelled him by threats to subscribe a synodal letter 
with reference to this. He now prayed that this act might 
be annulled, which had been extorted by violence, and there- 
fore was void (even when he subscribed he had added that it 
was only extorted), and that the Ghurch of Tyre might again 
be restored to the undisturbed enjoyment of her privileges." 

Eustathius, in opposition to this, would willingly have 
supported himself upon the decree of the Emperor Theodoeius ; 
as, however, the commissioners and the Synod declared that 
not a decree, but the canons of the Ghurch were the standard 
in such a case, he altered his plan of defence, and accused 

1 Mansi, t yH pp. 79-88 ; Haidoain, t il pp. 481-485. The two series 
of transactioiia, that now related conoeming Caroeus, and the following in regard 
to Photina of Tyre, are not in the old Latin translation of the synodal Acts 
(the Latin translation printed in Hardonin, Mansi, eta, is from the editors of 
the Roman Collection of Councils. Cf. above, p. 290, and Bains, in AUnst, t. 
Tii p. 668, n« xzvii.), and therefore their genuineness has been contested 
by some scholars. Cf. Tillemont, M^moires, t. xr. note 47, Sur 8L L^on, p. 
917 sq. There are no valid grounds for this objection, and the Ballerini are quite 
right when they {Lc t iL p. 610, nota 23) maintain thst the two series of 
transactions on the 20th of October should properly be reckoned as the fifth 
(properly the fifth and sixth) session. Cf. above Uie table, p. 287. 

* Leonis Ep. 186, n. 4, Ep. 141, n. 1, and £p, 142, n. S. In Mansi, t vL 
pp. 298, 804, 805. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOUBTH SESSIOir, OCTOBEB 17> 451. 341 

Photiaa of slander. It was untiue, he said, that he had 
endeavoured to infringe the rights of the Church of Tyre ; 
on the contrary, the Emperor Theodosios had freely raised 
Berytns to be a metropolis, and a Synod at Constantinople, 
under Anatolius (see above, p. 271 £), had assigned those six 
cities to this new metropolis, and Maximns of Antioch had 
signed this decree.^ The latter replied, in order as much as 
possible to diminish his share in the business, that '' he himself 
had not, at that very time, been present in the Synod at Con- 
stantinople, but that the document referring to this matter had 
been brought to him in the house, and he, following Anatolius, 
had subscribed it" (see above, p. 272). Photius further 
complained that from the beginning he had not accepted 
this new arrangement, and in accordance with ancient right 
had consecrated three bishops ; but for this he had been ex- 
commimicated, and the bishops consecrated by him had been 
deposed, and degraded to the priesthood. Anatolius did not 
deny this, but maintained that Photius had, by his disorderly 
conduct, caused the Synod (of Constantinople) to pronounce a 
sentence of excommunication against him. At the same time, 
he found it necessary to defend against various attacks the 
custom of Constantinople of holding a a-vpoBo^ ivSrjfiovo'a (cf. 
vol. i p. 4) with the bishops who were at any particular time 
present in the city. After some further discussions, it was 
decided, on the ground of the fourth Nicene canon,^ that in the 
oue ecclesiastical province of Phoenicia L there should be only 

> There is no question that the Emperor had the power to raise Berytns, 
which had previously belonged to the civil and ecclesiaBtical province of Tyre, 
to be a special dvil metropolis, which might easily have had as its result the 
founding of an ecdeakutical province of Berytus (cf. voL L p. 881 £, and voL 
IL p. 69, canon 9 ; and below, the remarks on canon 12). But it appears that, 
in the case before us, the Emperor had by his own authority declared the dty of 
Berytus an eedencuUcal metropolis, without at the same time raising its civil 
rank. That he had intruded improperly into the ecclesiastical sphere is clear 
from the expression above : " Not an imperial decree, but the canons of the 
Church were the standard in such a case," and from the resolution that all 
imperial decrees which were opposed to the canons should be invalid (p. 842). 
Moreover, it is also clear from the above that a Synod of Constantinople in true 
Byzantine fiashion had lent a helping hand to give practical effect to the 
assumption of the Emperor. 

' The same Nicene canon was read also in the thirteenth session, but from 
another codex. Cf. Ballerini, 2.c t iii. p. xxxvL sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



342 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS* 

one metropolis, Tyre, and that only the Bishop of Tyre should 
undertake the ordination of the other bishops. The Bishop 
of Berytus must not appeal to the rights which Theodosius 
had accorded to him, and those three bishops whom Iliotius 
had ordained were to be recognized as bishops, and reinstated. 
— ^The papal legates added : " To degrade a bishop to the 
presbyterate is a sacrilege. If a bishop has committed a 
crime which deserves his deposition, he ought not to be even 
a priest." Anatolius wished to excuse what had been done, 
but the Synod agreed with the papal legates, and declared, on 
the suggestion of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopolis, that all the 
imperial pragmatics (decrees) which are in opposition to the 
canons must be without effect^ 

Sec. 193. Fifth Session, October 22, 451. The Decree 
concerning the Faith. 

At the fifth session, on the 2 2d of October, there were 
only three imperial commissioners, Anatolius, Palladius, and 
Vincomalus, and no senator present.* Among the bishops 
who were present, besides the Roman legates, the Greek 
Acts mention by name only the three of Constantinople, 
Antioch, and Jerusalem ; while the Latin translation mentions 
by name forty-seven more. The presence of the rest is 
expressed by the formula xal rrj^ Xonnj^ ayUt^ teal oltcovfLevnc^^ 
awoBov. The object of the proceedings on this occasion 
Wits the establishment of the faith, and therefore this session 
is one of the most important in Christian antiquity. First, 
the deacon Asdepiades of Constantinople read a doctrinal 
formula, which had been unanimously approved on the 
previous day, October 21, in the commission appointed by 
Anatolius for that purpose (see p. 318 f.), which Anatolius also 
seems to have drawn up, as he afterwards defended it most 
warmly. This formula is not embodied in the Acts, and so 
has not come down to us ; but Tillemont infers, from the 

' Mansi, t. vii. pp. 86-98 ; Hardonin, t ii. pp. 485-446. 

' The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t. vii. pp. 97-118 ; Hardonin, t. ii. 
pp. 446-456. Abridged in German in Fuchs, l.e, S. 452 ff. ; Walch, ^c S. 
370 ff. That the senators were not present at this session is clear and evident 
from the fact that in the Acts there is mention always made only of the 
fnyktwfiwirrmru *m li^tSitirmras «^;t;«frif, that is, the Commissioners. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



nFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 451. 343 

indications found in the Acts, that it contained the orthodox 
fjBdth, but that, through a certain indefiniteness of expression, 
it had not suflBciently excluded heresy.^— As soon as it was 
read in the fifth session, objections were raised against it, and 
Bishop John of Grermanicia declared that this formula was not 
good, and that it must be improved. Anatolius replied, 
asking "whether it had not yesterday given universal 
satisfaction," which produced the acclamation : " It is 
excellent, and contains the Catholic faith. Away with the 
Nestorians ! The expression BeoroKo^ must be received into 
the creed "^ The Eoman legates judged otherwise. They, 
too, were dissatisfied with the formula which had been drawn 
up, and they had probably not been present at the session 
of the commission held for its confirmation. They now 
declared : " If the letter of Leo is not agreed to,® we demand 
our papers, so that we may return home, and that a Synod 
may be held in the West." 

The imperial commissioners saw at once that the departure 
of the legates would necessarily frustrate the whole object of 
the Synod, the restoration of unity of faith in the Church, 
and therefore made the suggestion, for the satisfaction of both 
sides, that there should meet, in their presence, a commission 
of six Oriental bishops (from the patriarchate of Antioch), 
three Asiatic (from the exarchate of Ephesus), three lUyrian, 
three Pontic, and three Thracian bishops, with Anatolius and 
the Boman legates in the oratory of the Church of the 
Martyr (that is, S. Euphemia's Church, c£ p. 286), and 
communicate their decisions on the faith to the other bishops. 
The majority, however, wished to retain the doctrinal formula 
which had been read, and demanded in many acclamations 
that it should be subscribed by aU, and that whoever did not 
agree to it should be excluded. At the same time, they 
charged Bishop John of Germanicia with Nestorianism. 

^ TiDemont, 2. c t xy. p. 677. ' Mansi, t vii p. 99 sqq. ; Hardoain, t ii. p. 447. 

* As this letter of Leo's had ahready been approved by the Synod (see pp. 817 
and 881), this new demand ninst be understood to mean, "If they were not 
satisfied with this letter, and pat forth another formula," or ''If, in the 
formula of ialth to be put forth, they did not adhere closely enough to the 
contents and meaning of this letter." According to what foUows, the latter is 
the true meaning. (See below, p. 844.) 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



344 HISTORY OF THE COX7NCIL8. 

The commissioners remarked : ^ Dioscurus asserts that he 
condemned Flavian for having maintained that there are two 
natures in Christ; in the new doctrinal formula, however, 
it stands : Christ is of two nature&" They meant hj this to 
say that the veiy term which had already been used by 
Flavian for the refutation of Monophysitism ought to have 
been adopted in the new formula, since the expression selected 
in it, " of two natures/' although certainly orthodox, yet might 
also be understood in the sense of Dioscurus, and therefore 
would necessarily give ofTence. — ^How correct this criticism 
was^ is shown by the remark of Anatolius, made directly 
afterwards, that Dioscurus had been deposed, not on account 
of false doctrine, but because he had excommunicated the 
Pope, and had not obeyed the Synod.* Without going further 
into this question, the commissioners again endeavoured to 
bring the Synod into the right path, by the remark that the 
Synod had already approved of Leo's letter; and if this had 
been done, then that which was contained in the letter (that 
there were actually two natures in Christ unmingled) must be 
confessed. — As, however, the majority, and even Eusebius 
of Dorylaeum, persisted in their acclamations in favour of 
the formula of Anatolius, the commissioners immediately 
acquainted the Emperor with it,' and the latter speedily sent 
a decree, saying that "either the proposed commission of 
bishops must be accepted, or they must individually declare 
their faith through their metropolitans, so that all doubt might 
be dispelled, and all discord removed If they would do 
neither of these things, then a Synod must be held in the 
West, since they refused here (at Chalcedon) to give a definite 
and stable declaration respecting the faith." ^ 

Again the majority exclaimed : " We abide by the formula 
(of Anatolius) or we go I " Cecropius of Sebastopolis in par- 

1 Perhaps the imperial commissioners, who here and in what followed united 
to much practical skill also theological insight, may hare been advised by the 
papal legates. 

' In the synodal decree despatched to Dioscoms (p. 828 1 ) there is certainly no 
express reference to his heresy, nor yet in the sentence which the papal legates 
pronoonced against him. (See p. 828. ) 

' Mansi, t. yii pp. 102, 108 ; Hardouin, t ii p. i7 sqq. 

* Mansi, t viL p. 103 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii p. 460. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22> 451. 345 

ticular said : " Whoever will not subscribe it can go (to Rome 
to the intended Synod)." So the bishops of lUyricmn cried 
out: "Whoever opposes it is a Kestorian; these can go to 
Kome ! " Again the commissioners explained : '' Dioscurus has 
rejected the expression, ' there are two natures in Christ/ and, 
on the contrary, has accepted, ' of two natures ; ' Leo, on the 
other hand, says : ' In Christ there are two natures united, 
aavyxyroi>^9 aTpiirrco^, and aSuiiperm^; ' * which will you follow, 
the most holy Leo or Dioscurus ? " At this alternative all 
the bishops exclaimed: •'We believe with Leo, not with 
Dioscurus; whoever opposes this is an Eutychian.'' The 
commissioners immediately pressed the logical consequence: 
" Then you must also receive into the creed the doctrine of 
Leo, which has been stated." ' 

Whether anything, ahd if so what, was here objected by the 
majority we do not know. It is apparent that there is here 
a break in the minutes, since, without anything more and 
without any indication of the reason for the alteration which 
was introduced, they go on to relate that the whole of the 
members of the Synod now asked for the meeting of the 
commission which they had previously opposed. As members 
of the commission were Anatolius of Constantinople, the three 
l^ates, Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, Bishop Julian 
of Cos also representing the Pope (see p. 296), Maximus 
of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, 
Eusebius of Ancyra, Quintillus, Atticus, and Sozon from 
niyria, Diogenes of Cyzicus, Leontius of Magnesia, 
Florentius of Sardis, Eusebius of Dorylseum, Theodore 
of Tarsus, Cyrus of Anazarbus, Constantino of Bostra, 
Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria, Francion, Sebastian, 
and Basil of Thrace. It may be seen that there were 
many among these who formerly had vehemently supported 
the formula " of two natures," as Anatolius and the Illyrians, 
and some had even been heads of the Robber-Synod and 

' In Leo's letter thia expreesioii does not occur verbally, bnt the legates had 
previously (see p. 381) explained this as the chief point of the letter, which at 
that time had been very readily accepted by those bishops who had still some 
objections to the letter. 

s Mansi, t. viL p. 106 ; Hardouin, t iL p. 450. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



346 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

friends of Dioscurus. How long they consulted in the 
oratory of S. Euphemia the Martyr is unknown ; the Acts 
only mention that they returned again to the church, and that 
Aetius then read the formula which they had drawn up. It 
says : " The holy and great and (Ecumenical Synod, ... at 
Chalcedon in Bithynia, . . . has defined as follows: Our 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when confirming the faith 
in His disciples, declared: 'Peace I leave with you; my 
peace I give unto you,' so that no one might be separated 
from his neighbour in the doctrines of religion, but that the 
preaching of the truth should be made known to all alike. 
As, however, the evil one does not cease by his tares to 
hinder the seed of religion, and is ever inventing something 
new in opposition to the truth, therefore has God, in His care 
for the human race, stirred up zeal in this pious and orthodox 
Emperor, so that he has convoked the heads of the priesthood 
in order to remove all the plague of falsehood from the sheep 
of Christ, and to nourish them with the tender plants of truth. 
This we have also done in truth, since we have expelled, by 
our common judgment, the doctrines of error, and have 
renewed the right faith of the fathers, have proclaimed the 
creed of the 318 to all, and have acknowledged the 150 of 
Constantinople who accepted it, as our own. While we now 
receive the regulations of the earlier Ephesine Synod, under 
Coelestine and Cyril, and its prescriptions concerning the 
faith, we decree that the confession of the 318 fathers at 
Nicsea is a light to the right and unblemished faith, and 
that that is also valid which was decreed by the 150 
fathers at Constantinople for the confirmation of the Catholic 
and apostolic faith." ^ 

After a literal insertion of the Creed of Nicsea and Con- 
stantinople, it goes on : " This wise and wholesome symbol of 
divine grace would indeed suffice for a complete knowledge 
and confirmation of religion, for it teaches everything with 
reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, 
and declares the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive 
it in faith ; as, however, those who would do away with the 
preaching of the truth devised vain expressions through their 
^ Mansi, t. tu. p. 107 ; Hardonin, t. iL p. 451. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBEK 22, 451. 347 

own heresies, tod, on the one side, dared to destroy (7ra/oa<^- 
Oelpeiv) the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord (t^9 tov 
Kvpiov oUovofiia^ fivanqptov), and rejected the designation of 
God-bearer, and, on the other side, introduced a avyj(y<n^ and 
KpatTii;, that is, a mixture and confusion (of the natures), and, 
contrary to reason, imagined only one nature of the flesh and 
of the Godhead (jilav elvcu ^vaiv Trj<; aapKo^ koX t^9 ^€ot7;to9 
avoriroa^ avairXdrrovresi), and rashly maintained that the divine 
nature of the Only-begotten was, by the mixture, become pass- 
ible {'jradryrifv rod fiovoyevoih rtfv Beiav <f>vai,v rf) avyxyaei 
reparojofievoi), therefore the holy, great, and Qicumenical 
Synod decrees that the faith of the 318 fathers shall remain 
inviolate, and that the doctiine afterwards promulgated by the 
150 fathers at Constantinople on account of the Pneumatomachi 
(SiA Toif^ T^ TTvevfuiTi T^ dyi^ fia'xpfiAvov^) shall have equal 
validity, being put forth by them, not in order to add to the 
creed of Nicsea anything that was lacking, but in order to 
make known in writing their consciousness (hvoiav) concern- 
ing the Holy Ghost against the deniers of His glory. On 
account of those, however, who endeavoured to destroy the 
mystery of the Incarnation {ol/covofiia^ fivon^piov), and who, 
boldly insulting Him who was bom of the holy Mary, 
afiirmed that He was a mere man, the holy Synod has 
accepted as valid the synodal letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius 
and to the Orientals in opposition to Nestorianism, and has 
added to them the letter of the holy Archbishop Leo of 
Eome, written to Flavian for the overthrow of the Eutychian 
errors, as agreeing with the doctrine of S. Peter and as a 
piUar against all heretics, for the confirmation of the orthodox 
dogmas.^ The Synod opposes those who seek to rend the 
mystery of the Incarnation into a duality of Sons, and 
excludes from holy communion those who venture to declare 
the Godhead of the Only-begotten as capable of sufiTering, and 
opposes those who imagine a mingling and a confusion of the 
two natures of Christ, and drives away those who foolishly 
maintain that the servant-form of the Son, assumed from us, 
is from a heavenly substance (oucr/a), or any other (than ours), 

^ From here to the end, on account of the great importance of this formula, 
will be added the Greek text (see p. 849). 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



348 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and anathematizes those who fable that before the union there 
were two natures of our Lord, but after the union only one. 
Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all teach with one 
accord one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect 
in His Godhead and perfect in His manhood, true God and 
true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and of a body, of one 
substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, and of 
one substance with us as touching the manhood, like unto us 
in everything, sin excepted, according to the Godhead b^otten 
of the Father before all time, but in the last days, for us men 
and for our salvation, according to the manhood, bom of the 
Virgin Mary, the Gk)d-bearer, one and the same Christ, Son, 
Lord, — only-begotten, confessed in two natures,^ without con- 
fusion, without change, without rending or separation ; while 
the difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of 
the union, on the other hand, the peculiarity of each nature 

^ The present Oreek text haa U }m ^v^un, while the old Latin translatioii has, 
IN duabm naiwr%» (see p. 290). After what had been repeatedly said in this 
session on the difference between '* tfi two natures ** and " qf two natures,** and 
in opposition to the latter formula (see p. 848), there can be no doubt whaterer 
that the old Latin translator had the more accurate text before him, and that 
it was originally U )v« ^i^t^iv. This, however, is not mere supposition, but is 
expressly testified by antiquity : (1) by the famous Abbot Euthymius of Pales- 
tine, a contemporary of the Council of Chaloedon, of whose disciples several weone 
present as bishops at our Council (cf. Baron, ad ann. 451, n. 152 sq.). We stiU 
have a judgment of his which he gave respecting the decree of Chalcedon con- 
cerning the faith, and in which he repeats the leading doctrine in the words of 
the Synod itself. At our passage he remarks : l» M« f vrc#i yftfXlitHm i/uKtyu r^w 
X*M x^/r«-o s.r.x. The fragment of his writings on the subject is found in the 
Vita 8. JShUhymii AbbcUia, written by his pupil Cyril in the Jnalecta Gneea of 
the monks of S. Maur, t. i. p. 57, printed in Mansi, t. viL p. 774 sq. (2) The second 
ancient witness is Severus, from a.d. 518 Monophysite patriarch of Antioch 
who represents it as a great reproach and an unpardonable offence in the fathers 
of Chalcedon that they had declared: iv ^« ^Ui^n itiuufWtt yfmfi^t^imt rit Xfirriw 
(see the SententicB Seven in Mansi, t. vii p. 889). (8) Somewhat more than a 
hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, Evagrius copied its decree con- 
cerning the fiedth in extenao into his Church History (lib. ii. 4), and, in fact, with 
the words : Iv }y* ^iet^it A^uy^^iratt x,r,k, (ed. Mog. p. 294). (4) In the con- 
ference on religion held between the Severians and the orthodox at Constanti- 
nople, A.D. 558, the former reproached the Synod of Chalcedon with having put 
IN duahuM ntUuria, instead of ex duabtu naiuriSf as Cyril and the old fathers 
had taught (Mansi, t. viiL p. 892 ; Hardouin, t ii. p, 1162). (5) Leontius of 
Byzantium maintains quite distinctly, in the year 610, in his work De Seeti$^ 
that the Synod taught U* X^rr» Iv iv§ ^i/rir/» lU'vy^*'**' *.r.A. It is clear tiiat, 
if any doubt had then existed as to the correct reading, Leontius could not have 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



nFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 45L 349 

is preserved, and both concxir in one Person and Hypostasis. 
We do not confess One separated into two persons, but one 
and the same Son and only-begotten and Gkxl the Logos, the 
Lord Jesus Christ ... as the prophets announced of Him, and 
He Himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has 
handed down to us. As we have defined this distinction 
with great and universal exactness and care, the holy and 
CEcumenical Synod decreed, that none shall advance or write 
down or encourage another faith, or teach it to others ; and 
those who, passing over from heathenism or Judaism, or from 
any heresy, give another &ith or another creed, if they are 
bishops or clerics, shall be deposed from their bishopric or 
clerical office, and if they are monks or laymen, shall be ex- 
conmiunicated." (T0Z9 re yctp eh vl&v SvdSa to 1% olKovofilof; 
Suunrav iwv)(eip6v<ri fw<mjpu)v irapaTdrreraiftcal roif^ 'jradffTffp 
rev fiopoyepov^ \eyeip ToXfA&vra^ rifv Oeorrfra, tov t&v Up&v 

opposed the Monophysites with such certainty. The passage adduced by him 
is Act^ iv. c. 7, in Galland. Bibliotheea PP. t xii p. 688. Oieaeler 
{Kirehengesch. I 8. 46S), and after him Hahn (BibUoth. der Symbole, a 118, 
note 6), cites incorrectly the fourth instead of the fifth Actio. Perhaps neither 
of them had consulted the passage itself. (6) No less weight is to be attached 
to the fkct that aU the Latin translationa, that of Rusticus and those before 
him, have in duainu ruUuris ; and (7) that the Lateran Synod, a.d. 049, had the 
same reading in their Acts (Hardouin, t. iiL p. 885). (8) Pope Agatho, also, in 
his letter to the Emperor Constans 11., which was read in the sixth (Ecumenical 
Synod, adduced the creed of Chalcedon with the words m duahtu ntUurk (in 
the Acts of the sixth CBcumenioal Council, Actio iv. ; in liansi, t zL p. 256 ; 
Hardouin, t. iiL p. 1091). — In consequence of this, most scholars of recent 
times, e.g. Tillemont, Welch (Biblhth, aymbol veter. p. 106), Hahn {Lc), 
Oleseler (2:c), Neander (AbthL ii. 2 of 6d. iv. S. 988), have declared U %i» 
fin^n to be the original and correct reading. Keander adds: **The whole 
process of the transactions of the Council shows this (that U )»« is the correct 
reading). Evidently the earlier creed, which was more favourable to the 
Egyptian doctrine, contained the U U» f Jri«»y, and the favour shown to the 
other party came out chiefly in the change of the U into U. The expression 
U )m f vrMr», besides, does not fit the place, the verb yffftl^ifuw points rather to 
the original in The i» )v« ^in^tv or U ius f i/Vuv? was the turning-point of the 
whole controversy between Monophysitlsm and Dyophysitism. " Cf. , on the other 
side, Baur, Trinitdtdehre, Bd. i. S. 820, and Domer (Lehre v. der Person 
Ckrieti, ThL iL S. 129), where it is maintained that U is the correct and 
original reading, but that it was from, the beginning purposely altered by the 
Westerns into m ; moreover, that i* fits better than U with yvatft^ifuv^v, and 
therefore that it had been allowed as ar concession to the ears of the Mono- 
physites. The meaning, moreover, they say, of U and U is essentially the same, 
and the one and the other alike excluded Monophysitlsm. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



350 . HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

airodetTai avWoyov, ical to2^ hrl r&v Bvo ^vcrecov tou Xpvarov 
Kpaciv fj (T\rf)(\)<nv hnvo<Aciv avBUrrarcu * koI tox>^ ovpaviov 
fj €T€pa^ Tivb^ inrdpx^iv ovcla^ Tr)v i^ fjii&v \7)<f>0€ia'av airr^ 
Tov SovXov fiop^r)v irapairalovTa^ i^eKavvei * xal roif^ Svo fiep 
Trpo Trj<; €P(o<rea><; <f}vcr€i^ tov Kvplou fivOevovra^f fiUu^ Sk p^erh 
rifp Ipoixrtv avairkarrovra^j dvaOefiaTi^ei, 'Eirofievoi rolvuv 
ToZ? arfioi,^ irarpdaw iva koI tov avrdv ofioXoyeuf viov tov 
KvpLOV fijjk&v *Ir)(rovv Xpurrov avp^fHovco^ SiravTe^ eKhtZdcKOfAev, 
TcXeiov TOV ainov iv OeoTTfTi ical TiXecov tov airrov iv avOpoy- 
TTOTTfTi, Oeov aXriOm icaX avdpayirov d\rj0S>f: tov ainov, ifc '^frvy^ff^ 
Xoytterj^ koX crdfuiTa;, Ofioovauiv t& iraTpl KaTh Ttjv OeoTrjra 
KaX ofiooiHTtov TOV avTov rifuv KaTh ttjv dvOpoyjroTrjTa, KaTcL 
irdvTa SfiOLOv Vfuv, ^w/ok dfiapTia^ • irpo aldavo^v fikv eK tov 
iraTpo^ yewfjOevra KaTh ttjv OeoTtfTa, iir ia^aToov Be t&v 
rjfiep&v TOV ainov Si fjfui^ koi Sih Tr)v '/jfieripav cfOTt^piav ex 
Mapia^ t^9 irapdhfov t^9 Ocotokov xaTcL t^v dvOptoiroTrfTa, 
€va Kal TOV ainov XpicTov, vlcv, Kvpvov, fiovoyevrj, Sk Svo 
<f>v<Te<ov \iv Svo (f>va€aiv, see p. 348, note], dcrvyxvTto^:^ 
aTpiTTTQ}^, dSiaipiTOD^t a^(k)/>/crT(k>9 yva>pi^6fi€vov' ovSapLov 
T^9 T&v <f>vae(ov Sio^opa^ dvriprjpivrj^ Sih Tr)V ivoxriv^ 
aay^ofUvT)^ Sk p>d7sXov Ttj^ ISiOTrjTo^ CKaTepa^ <f>va'€(o^, koI eZ? 
iv irpotToatrov Kal filav xmoiTTcuTW awTpeypvari^, ovk €t9 Svo 
Trpoaomra fiepi^ofievov ^ Staipofievov, akX ?va Kal tov aincp 
vlov Kal fiovoyevrj, Qelv Xoyov, Kvpiov ^Irjcovv XpioTov, KoJOdirep 
dvcodev ol 7rpo<f>7^a4 irepl aifTov, Kal aind^ rifua^ o Kvpio^ 
*Ir}aov^ Xptaro^ e^eiratSevcre koI t6 t&v iraTepmv ripSv irapa^ 
SeSooKe avp^^oXov, Tointov toIvvv /ierA irdari^ 'iravTa')(pd€v 
aKpi/Sela^ Te koI ififieXeia^ trap r\pAv SuiTV7ro>0€VTa>v, Spiaev 
97 dyia koI oiKov/ievcKrf avvoSo^, erepav itUttiv p/rfSevl i^elvcu 
'7rpo(f)€peiv ^ yovv avyypd(f>eiv fj awTidevat fj <f>pov€iv fj SiSdaKC^v 
€T€pov^ ' T0V9 Sk ToXfjb&VTa^ fj awTidivai irioTLV eTcpav ff 
yovv irpoKOfii^eiv ^ SiSdcKeiv fj TrapaSiSovai irepov avpfio7\A>v 
Tol^ eOeXovaiv €7rc(TTpiif>eiv el^ hrlyvoDaiv aXrjOela^ ef 'EXX17- 
vtafiov ^ iK ^lovSaicfjUfv fj yovv ef alpkcefo^ oUurSfjiroTovv, 
TovTov^, el fikv eUv hrlcKOiroi fj KXtfpiKol, dXXxnpiov^ elva4. tov^ 
ewiaKonrov^ t^9 irrctrKOinj^, Kal tov9 KXfjpiKov^ tov icKripov ' 
el Se /toj/afoirr€9 ff \alKol elev, dvaOepxiTt^eaOai ainov^.)^ 
After the reading of this confession of faith, all the bishops 

^ Mansi, t. vii. pp. 111-118 ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 454 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTH SESSION, OCTOBER 22, 451. 351 

exclaimed : " This is the faith of the fathers. The Metro- 
politans must immediately subscribe, and in the presence of 
the imperial commissioners. Definitions so good can allow 
of no delay : this is the faith of the apostles, we all agree to 
it, we all think thus." In consequence of these acclamations 
the imperial commissioners gave the assurance that they 
would communicate to the Emperor that which the fathers 
(that is, the bishops chosen to draw up the decree on the faith) 
had set forth, and all had approved.^ 

To this time probably belongs that cUlocutio {irpoa-ffxovr^riKhsi) 
of the Synod to the Emperor Marcian, which Mansi^ and 
Hardouin^ give only at the end of all the minutes of the 
Synod, but which decidedly belongs to the earlier times of our 
Synod, and was sent to the Emperor in vmting, either after 
the end of the fifth session (the commissioners promised to 
inform him), or was verbally brought forward in the succeeding 
sixth session, when the Emperor was personally present The 
latter theory best agrees with the title irpo(r(f){ovrjTiK6^ or 
allocutio; yet Facundus says,^ although he also uses the 
expression allocutio, that it was written to the Emperor ; and 
TiUemont ^ held this to be the more probabla In this allocutio 
it is said : " God has given the Synod a champion against 
every error, in the person of the Eoman bishop, who, like the 
fiery Peter, wishes to lead every one to God. And let no one 
venture to say, in order to avoid the refutation of his error, 
that the letter of Leo is contrary to the canons, since it is not 
allowed to set up a different confession of faith from the 
Kicene. The latter is certainly sufi&cient for the faithful, but 
those who endeavour to destroy the faith must be opposed 
and their objections must be suitably met, not in order to add 
anything new to the Nicene faith, but in order to refute the 
innovaiions of heretics. Thus, e.g., the orthodox faith in regard 
to the Holy Ghost is already expressed in the words (of the 
Nicene Creed) : ' And I believe in the Holy Ghost,' and these 
are sufficient for the orthodox; but on account of the Pneu- 

' Mansi, t. viL p. 118 ; Hardonin, t. ii. p. 455. 

« T. vii. p. 465. • T. ii. p. 648. 

* Drfeimo trium capUuhrum, lib. ii c. 2, in Galland. Lc t. zi. p. 679. 

* T. XV. p. 714 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



352 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCILS. 

matomacbi, the fathers (at the second (Ecumenical Synod) 
added besides : ' The Holy Ghost is Lord and Grod, proceeding 
from the Father/ So also, the doctrine of the Incarnation 
was contained in the Kicene Creed in the words : ' He came 
down and was made flesh and man' (KareKOovra teal 
aap/aodepra koI hfavOpwirqacana) ; ^ but Satan seduced many, 
some to deny the birth of Gh>d from the Virgin, and to reject the 
expression OeoroKO^, others to declare the Ghxihead of the Son 
to be mutable and passible (rpenrifv Koi 'jroBfir^v) ; the one to 
efface the character (rh yvcdplcfiara = characteristic marks) of 
the humanity assumed by God ; the other to assert the union 
of the Grodhead merely with the body of a man, but not with 
the soul, at least not with a reasonable soul; ^ the one to deny 
the mysteiy of the union (of the natures) and to teach that 
the manifestation (to ^xuvofjLOfop) was that of a mere man, like 
a prophet ; the other to give up the distinction of the natures ; 
therefore the fathers, Basil the Great, Pope Damasus, eta, and 
the Synods of Sardica' and Ephesus have thought new 
explanations of the old Nicene faith necessary. . But it could 
not be said : At this (the explanation of Ephesus, eta) we are 
bound to stop, because the heretics will not stop, and the holy 
Cyril in his letter to the Orientals, as well as Produs of 
Constantinople and John of Antioch, regarded new definitions 
as necessary. No one, therefore, must accuse the letter of the 
admirable Bishop of Bome of innovation. Leo has, in fact, 
altered nothing in the faith proclaimed by the fathers." 

In proof of this, the Synod added a series of more ancient 
patristic passages from Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of 
Nazianzus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others.* — Tille- 
mont and Bemi CeiUier remark that this allocution to the 
Emperor probably proceeded from the papal legates, being first 
drawn up in Latin and afterwards translated into Greek by 
others. This, they think,is dear partly from the fact that it treats 
simply and solely of the Pope's Hpistola dogmcUica, and forms 

> Cf. Tol. I p. 293. « Of. voL i. p. 288, and vol. iL p. 278. 

* They cited here the Deeretum de fide^ which had heen projected, bat not 
approved, at Sardica. Qt voL ii. p. 106 ff. 

* Mansi, t vii. pp. 455-474 ; Hardonin, t ii pp. 648-654 ; Fuchs, Bibiioth. 
der Kirchenvers, Bd. iv. S. 516 ff. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SIXTH SESSION, OCTOBER 25, 451. 353 

its apology and panegyric, and partly from the fact that the 
Latin text of this allocution, which has come down to us, does 
not bear the character of a translation, but is more el^ant than 
the Latin version of the other Acts of Chalcedon.^ 



Sec. 194. Sixth Session, October 25, 451. 

Peculiarly solemn was the sixth session,* since both the 
Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria, with a large suite, 
and with aU the commissioners and the senate, were present at 
it.* The Emperor opened the session with a speech in the first 
place spoken in Latin, in which he said : '' From the beginning 
of his reign he had had the purity of the faith peculiarly at 
heart As now, through the avarice or perversity of some 
{avarUta velpravis studiis quorundam), many had been seduced 
to error, he had summoned the present Synod, so that all error 
and all obscurity might be dispelled, that religion might shine 
forth in the power of its light, and that no one should in future 
venture further to maintain concerning the birth (Incarnation) 
of our Lord and Saviour, anything else than that which the 
apostolic preaching and the decree, in accordance therewith, of 
the 318 holy fathers had handed down to posterity, and which 
was also testified by the letter of the holy Pope Leo of Rome 
to Flavian. In order to strengthen the faith, but not at all 
to exercise violence, he had wished, after the example of 
Constantine, to be personally present at the Synod, so that 
the nations might not be still more widely separated by false 
opinions. His efforts were directed to this, that all, becoming 
one in the true doctrine, might return to the same religion 
and honour the true Catholic faith. Might God grant this !'** 

* Tilletnont, l.c, t. xv. p. 718 ; Remi Ceillier, Htatoire des autetars mcria, t. 
xiv. p. 690 ; Schrockh, Kirchengeseh, Bd. xviiL S. 491 ff. 

* The Acta of this session are in Mansi, t vii. pp. 118-178 ; Hardouin, t. iL pp. 
458-491. German ahridgment in Fuchs, U, ThL iv. S. 469 ff. ; Walcb, I.e. 8. 
875 ff. 

' Qaesnel has thrown doubt upon the presence of the Empress, because only 
the Latin Acts refer to her ; but the letter of Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople 
to Pope Leo, No. 101 among the letters of Leo, confirms the intimation of the 
Latin Acts. See the edition of the Ballerini, 2.C., and Mansi, t. vi. p. 175. 

* Mansi, t-viL p. 129 sqq^. ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 468 8q<|. 

111. Z 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



35.4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

. AH exclaimed: "Many years to the Emperor, many years 
to the Empress ; he is the only son of Constantino. Prosperity 
to Marcian, the new Constantino !" Almost the same accla- 
mation was repeated after the speech of the Emperor had 
been translated into Greek ; and then Archdeacon Aetius read, 
from beginning to end, the declaration concerning the faith 
which had been set forth in the previous session, and which 
was now subscribed by 355 bishops in their own names and 
in the names of their absent colleagues (see p. 346 ff.).^ 

The Emperor asked whether the view of all was expressed 
in the formula which had been read, and the bishops answered 
with the exclamation : " We all believe thus, there is one faith, 
Qne will; we are all unanimous, and have unanimously 
subscribed; we are all orthodox! This is the faith of the 
fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith of the orthodox ; 
this faith has saved the world. Prosperity to Marcian, the 
new Constantino, the new Paul, the new David! You are 
the peace of the world! . . . Thou hast strengthened the 
orthodox faith ! Many years to the Empress ! You are the 
lights of the orthodox faith, by which peace everywhere 
prevails ! Marcian is the new Constantino, Pulcheria the new 
Helena," etc. 

The Emperor thereupon gave thanks to Christ that unity 
in religion had again been restored, and threatened all, as 
well private men and soldiers as the clergy, with heavy- 
punishment if they should again stir up controversies respect- 
ing the faith, and proposed three ordinances on the erection 
of convents, on the worldly aflfairs of the clergy and monks, 
and on the removal of the clergy from one church to another, 
the publication of which was more suitable for the Synod 
than for an imperial law, and which he would therefore 
leave to the Synod, to show his respect for it.* The Synod 
received these ordinances into the number of its canons as 4, 
3, and 20. 

Again followed acclamations, such as: "Thou art priest 
and Emperor together, conqueror in war and teacher of the 
faith !" At the close the Emperor declared that, in honour 

^ Mansi, t. viL pp. 135-160 ; Hardoain, t u. pp. 466-486. 
* Mansi, t. vii. pp. 170-175 ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 486 sqq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



SEVENTH AND EIGHTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 26, 451. 355 

of S. Euphemia and of the Council, he would grant the title of 
metropolis to the city of Chalcedon without prejudice to the 
dignity of Nicomedia; and again all exclaimed: "This is 
just; an Easter (= unity) be over the whole world; . . . 
the holy Trinity will protect thee; we pray dismiss us." 
Marcian, however, requested that they would remain three 
or four days longer, and, in communion with his commis- 
sioners, continue the proceedings, and he forbade all earlier 
departure.^ 

With the sixth session ended the principal work of the 
Synod of Chalcedon. What was further done was only of 
secondary importance.* 

Sec. 195. Seventh and Eighth Sessions, October 26, 451, 

The occasion for the seventh session^ was furnished by 
certain controversies respecting jurisdiction between Maximus 
of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. Both had in this 
matter appealed to the Emperor, and he had charged his com- 
missioners at the Synod to settle the controversy. At their 
request the two archbishops had had an interview, and had, 
in fact, discovered a mode of compromise which, without 
putting it upon paper, they made known to the imperial 
commissioners. These, at the seventh session, at which, more- 
over, there were again only three of them present, requested 
the two archbishops to bring their agreement before the 
Synod, so that it might be confirmed by the bishops as well 
as by them (the commissioners). Besponding to this wish, 
Maximus of Antioch explained that "after tedious contro- 
versies with Juvenal, they had agreed that the see of S. Peter 
at Antioch should (besides its other provinces) have the two 
Phoenicias and Arabias, and that the see of Jerusalem should 
have the three Palestines under it. The Synod was requested 
to confirm this agreement in writing." The same was repeated 

^ Mansi, t. viL p. 178 ; Hardonin, t ii. p. 490 sq. 

' Cf. the letter of Pope Pelagios ii. to the Istrian bishops in Mansi, t. ix. 
p. 448 ; Hardonin, t ill. p. 434 sq. 

* Its Acts are in Mansi, t vii. pp. 178-184 ; Hardonin, t ii. pp. 491-495 ; 
defective extract in Fuchs, Ic, 8. 468. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



356 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

by Juvenal, and all the bisbops, the papal legates at their head, 
confirmed the understanding. So did the imperial commis- 
sioners. Subsequently the matter again came under discus- 
sion on the 31st of October, and was confirmed anew.^ 

As we know, Juvenal, trusting in the friendship of Cyril, 
bad already endeavoured, at the third CEcumenical Synod at 
Ephesus, to subject the provinces of Palestine, Phoenicia, and 
Arabia to himself. But Cjrril opposed him.* The Emperor 
Theodosius n., however, by an authoritative order had assigned 
these provinces to the patriarchate of Jerusalem. As Antioch 
was by this means prejudiced and its jurisdiction diminished, 
it protested repeatedly against the decision, but in vain, until 
the compromise described was arranged at Chalcedon.^ 

On the same 26th of October, probably in the afternoon, 
the eighth session was held, again in the presence of only 
three imperial commissioners (the same who were present at 
the seventh and fifth sessions).^ Many bishops demanded 
that the celebrated Theodoret of Cyrus, formerly the opponent 
of Cyril and the friend of Nestorius, should now pronounce 
an anathema upon Nestorius. He stepped forward and said : 
''I have presented a petition to the Emperor, and a paper 
to the Boman legates, and wish it to be read, so that you 
may know how I think.*' The bishops, however, exclaimed : 
" We will have no reading ; anathematize Nestorius at once !" 
Theodoret replied: "By God's grace I was brought up by 
orthodox parents, and received orthodox instruction, and have 
been orthodox in my teaching, and reject not only Nestorius 
and Eutyches, but every one who is not of orthodox opinions." 
When the bishops thereupon demanded that he should explain 
himself more clearly, and pronounce distinctly an anathema 

^ Mansi, t vii. p. 179 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 491 eqq. A very ancient 
Latin translation of the minutes of the agreement between Antioch and 
Jenisalem was edited by the Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, 
t. iL p. 1223. They maintain that the text which lies at the foundation of this 
ancient version (see below, p. 870, note 2) is the best Ibid, p. 1281, n. 10, and 
p. 1283. 

• Cf. voL i. p. 407 f., and vol. iiL p. 77. 

s Cf. Le Quien, Oriens ChristianuB, t. iii p. 118 sqq. ; Wiltsch, HamdL der 
KirchL Qtograpkk und StaUgtik, 1846, Bd. i. 8. 207. 

^ Its Acts are in Mansi, t vii pp. 185-194 ; Hardooin, t. ii pp. 49&-502 ; 
Fuchs, le. S. 464 t 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



SEVENTH AND EIGHTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 26, 461. 357 

upon Nestorius and his adherents, he answered : " In truth I 
say nothing, unless I know that it is pleasing to God. First 
of aU, I assure you that with me there is no question as to a 
bishopric or about honour, and I am not come here for that 
reason, but because I have been slandered. I came to prove 
that I am orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and 
Eutyches, and every one who (like Nestorius) believes in two 
Sons." The bishops again interrupted, crying: "Pronounce 
distinctly an anathema upon Nestorius ;" and Theodoret pro- 
ceeded : " If I have not already explained how I believe, I 
cannot do so," and would have begun to explain his faith. 
They then shouted again : " He is a heretic, a Nestorius ; out 
with him !" And now Theodoret declared : " Anathema to 
Nestorius, and to every one who does not call the holy 
Virgin Mary God-bearer, and who divides the one Son, the 
only-begotten, into two Sons. Moreover, I have subscribed 
the definition of faith by the Synod and the letter of Leo ; and 
thus I think." 

The imperial commissioners now took up the word, and 
said : " Every doubt in regard to Theodoret is now removed, 
for he has anathematized Nestorius in your presence, and has 
been (previously) received again by the holy Archbishop Leo; 
it now only remains that by your judgment also he receive again 
his bishopric, as Leo has already assured him." All cried 
out : " Theodoret is worthy of the bishopric ; the Church must 
again receive the orthodox teacher," and the like. And when 
the special voting, and first the legates and patriarchs, and 
after them a few of the most distinguished bishops, had pro- 
nounced for the reinstatement of Theodoret, all the others 
gave their assent by acclamation, and the commissioners 
declared that, " accordingly, by the decree of the holy Council, 
Theodoret shall receive again the church of Cyrus." At the 
demand of the Synod, Bishops Sophronius of Constantina in 
Osrhoene, John of Germanicia in Syria, and Amphilochius 
of Sida in Pamphylia were next required to pronounce an 
anathema on Nestorius.^ 

' Mansi, t. viL p. 187 sqq. ; Hardouln, t. ii. p. 498 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



358 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 



Sec. 196. NitUh aiid Tenth Sessions, October 27 and 28, 451. 

According to the Latin Acts, a third session (the ninth 
general) took place on the same 26th of October; but the 
Greek Acts, on the contrary, transfer it to the following day, 
the 27th of October.^ Again there were present only the 
three imperial commissioners whom we have already several 
times mentioned ; and Ibas^ formerly bishop of Edessa, came 
forward to complain that, at the Eobber-Synod, through the 
intrigues of Eutyches, he had been ill-treated and, although 
absent, had been unjustly deposed. The Emperor had now 
directed him to bring his petition before the Synod, in order 
to prove his case. They could therefore read the judgment 
spoken of him by Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus 
at the assemblies at Berytus and Tyre (see above, p. 179 flf.). 
Bishop Uranius of Himeria had then, from friendship for 
Eutyches, had him accused by several clerics, and had 
brought it about that the sentence should be given by him 
and the two bishops named, Photius and Eustathius. Never- 
theless, the accusations had been discovered to be false, and 
he himself to be orthodox. Therefore he asked that the 
Synod would declare invalid all that had been done against 
him at Ephesus (at the Eobber-Synod, cf. p. 259), and 
would reinstate him in his bishopric and his church. His 
orthodoxy was attested by all the clergy of Edessa, and he 
was free from the alleged heresy. The papal legates recom- 
mended that, in accordance with his request, the Acts of the 
earlier proceedings against him should be read ; and those of 
Tyre were taken first, although (as we haye already seen, p. 
181) these proceedings were probably the later, and for this 
very reason — that they contained the later decision respecting 
Ibas — ^it was thought sufficient to read the Acts of this assembly. 
The accusers of Ibas, on the contrary, demanded, as we shidl 
see, at the tenth session, that the Acts of Berytus, which were 
less favourable for Ibas, should also be read. 

From the Acts of Tyre, we see that the judges appointed to 

* Walch, Ketzerhist, Bd. vi. S. 379, and after him Fuchs, Le, S. 466, have 
here interchanged the Greek and Latin Acts in reference to the date. The Acts 
of this session are in Mansi, t vi. pp. 194-203 ; Hordouin, t ii. p. 502 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 451. 359 

consider the case of Ibas endeavoured to make peace between 
Ibas and his accusers, and succeeded in doing so. To this 
end they wished that Ibas should put forth a confession of his 
faith, and he did so to their full satisfaction. He promised 
publicly to anathematize Nestorius and his adherents in a 
sermon in his church, and declared that " he believed entirely 
the same as that which John of Antioch and Cyril had agreed 
together upon (see p. 135 ff.), and assented to all that which 
the recent Synod at Constantinople (under Flavian) and the 
Ephesine (under Cyril) had decreed ; he valued the latter as 
highly as the Nicene, and believed that there was no diflTerence 
between them." Upon this the judges (Photius and others) 
commended him, and requested that Ibas would pardon his 
accusers and love them again as sons, and that they should 
honour him as their father. Ibas promised on oath, as far as 
he was concerned, and added two other points : (a) that the 
revenues of his church should in future be administered, in 
the Antiochene manner, by clerical stewards ; and (b) that, in 
case one of his accusers should afterwards seem to deserve 
punishment, he would not himself pass judgment upon him, 
because he might still perhaps have a disinclination to him, 
but hand the matter over to the judgment of Archbishop 
Domnus of Antioch.^ 

After the reading of these older Acts, the papal legates put 
to Photius and Eustathius the question, whether they would 
still hold to their former judgment that Ibas was innocent ; 
and they asserted that it was so, and then the final judgment 
was deferred to the next session. 

This, the tenth session, was celebrated, according to the 
Greek Acts, on the 28th, according to the Latin Acts, on the 
27th of October,* and Ibas again complained of having suffered 
wrong. He had not only been unjustly deposed, but had been 
shut up in twenty prisons or more, and had first learnt, while 
in prison at Antioch, that he had been deposed. He added 
the petition that the sentence pronounced against him should 

^ The Acts referring to this matter are in the minntes of the ninth session of 
Chalcedon, in Mansi, t viL p. 198 sqq. ; Hardonin, t iL p. 503 sqq. 

' Its Acts are in Mansi, t yii. pp. 203-271 ; Hardouin, t ii. pp. 507-546 ; cC 
Fuchs, le. S. 470 ff. ; Walch, U. S. 380. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



360 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

be declared invalid. The imperial commissioners invited the 
bishops to express their view on this matter, and a great part, 
particularly the Orientals, and among them especially Patricius 
of Tyana, immediately exclaimed : " It is unjust to condemn 
any one in his absence, and we agree with the decree of Tyre, 
and declare Ibas to be a rightful bishop." Others exclaimed : 
*" We oppose," and " There are accusers of Ibas at the door ; 
they ought to be heard." The commissioners gave order that 
these should be admitted, and they were the deacon Theophilua, 
with Euphrasius, Abraham, and Antiochus (whether laymen or 
clerics is not said). Theophilus requested that the Acts of 
Berytus should be read, and it would be seen from them that 
Ibas had been justly condemned. To the question of the 
commissioners, whether he had come forward personally as 
the accuser of Ibas or in the interest of orthodoxy, he 
answered : '' To come forward as personal accuser would be 
dangerous for him as a deacon, and, besides, the witnesses 
were wanting to him for this purpose." To the further ques- 
tion, whether he could appeal to documents, he mentioned the 
minutes of Berytus and Ephesus (the Robber-Synod), and 
appealed, in reference to the latter, to Thalassius and Eusebius 
of Ancyra. But these two former leaders of the Robber-Synod 
could now only remember generally that many had then been 
deposed, but that they had taken no special active part in the 
matter. 

The commissioners asked if Ibas had then been present, and 
when they were forced to say he was not, the cry again broke 
out : " That is unjust I " Theophilus replied : " The truth must 
(first) be ascertained by the Synod ; " and Eustathius of Berytus 
now asserted that (at the investigation at Tyre, as is clear 
from what follows) three, six, and twelve witnesses had come 
forward, who declared that they had heard the scandalous 
expression of Ibas : " I do not envy Christ, that He has become 
God!" When required to make a statement in accordance 
with truth on this subject, Photius declared that " certainly 
priests and monks from Mesopotamia had charged Ibas with 
having used that expression, but he had denied it ; and we 
(the judges) assumed the office of mediators, and bid these 
priests and monks leave Tyre, as the whole city took offence 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER %1 AND 28, 451. 361 

at that assertion. Since Ibas then declared upon oath that 
he had said nothing of the kind, and that the witnesses who 
had come forward against him were friends and inmates of the 
houses of his accusers (and thus not free from suspicion), we 
reconciled the two parties, and they again entered into com- 
munion with one another." ^ 

The secretary Constantino now read the instructions which 
the Emperor Theodosius ii. had imparted to his minister (the 
tribune and notary of the Prsetorians) Damascius, who had 
been appointed to conduct the business at Berytus (see above, 
p. 179 f), and then the Acts of the proceedings at Berytus.* 
According to these. Bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius 
had met at Berytus on the 1st of September 448 or 449 (see 
above, p. 181), in the new episcopal residence of the new 
church, as judges of Ibas, in presence of the imperial tribune 
Damascius and the deacon Eulogius of Constantinople, as the 
deputy of Flavian. The accused were the Bishops Ibas of 
Edessa, John of Theodosiople, Daniel of Carrse (a nephew of 
Ibas) ; as accusers (and witnesses) were present the clerics 
Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, Maras, Ablavius, John, Anatolius, 
Caiumas, and Abibus. After the reading of the imperial 
instructions, which had been given to Damascius, and after 
Eulogius had remarked that the clerics named had already 
brought forward their complaints against the three bishops 
at Constantinople, Ibas was required by the judges to relate 
what had taken place in the Synod held also on his account 
under Domnus at Antioch (see above, p. 179). He stated 
that in Lent the four clerics excommunicated by him, 
Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogius, had gone to Antioch 
to complain of hint As Easter (447 or 448) was near, 
Domnus for the time released them from the excommunica- 
tion, but the decision of the dispute itself was put ofif to the 
largely-attended Synod which met after Easter at Antioch. 
At the same time, he had forbidden the four clerics of Edessa, 
under heavy penalties, again to leave Antioch until judgment 
should be pronounced. When the Synod began, the complaint 
of the four clerics had been read, but only two of them were 

^ Mandi, t yii pp. 208-210 ; Hardooiii, t. iL pp. 607-510. 
' Hanoi, t. vii p. 210 aqq. ; Hardouin, t ii p. 510 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



362 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

now present ; while the other two, Samuel and Cyras, had fled 
from Antioch before Ibas arrived, and had gone to Constanti- 
nople. At the request of the judges a passage had been read 
at Berytus from the Antiochene Acts, in which the two accusers 
who still remained asserted that their colleagues had fled from 
fear of the malice of Ibas ; but Domnus replied that they had 
certainly had nothing to fear from Ibas, as the latter had left 
the whole matter in his hands ; they were manifestly fugitives, 
and had set at nought the excommunication with which they 
had been threatened, and had rendered themselves liable to the 
greater excommunication. This fragment of the Antiochene 
Acts was subscribed by Domnus and ten other bishops.^ 

At Berytus was next read the paper of the four priests of 
Edessa, which had been handed in on the previous day, and 
they were then allowed to bring forward their points of 
complaint. They were : 

1. Although the city had collected 1500 gold pieces for 
the redemption of prisoners, and although 6000 or somewhat 
more lay with the treasurer, without the revenues which his 
brother drew, yet Ibas had sold the silver vessels of the 
Church, in weight 200 pounds, and had handed over no more 
than 1000 gold pieces from the sale (for the redemption of the 
prisoners) ; the rest he had spent for himself. 

2. A valuable chalice, set with precious stones, which, 
eleven years before, a holy man had presented to our Church, 
he had not put among the other vessels of the Church, and 
we know not what has become of it. 

3. He takes money for ordinationa 

4. He wished to consecrate as bishop of Bathene the 
deacon Abraham, who stood in union with a sorcerer, and 
deposed the archdeacon who opposed it. As, however, he 
could not force Abraham upon them as bishop, he made him 
^€PoB6xo^. He has besides (from him) several charms in his 
hands, which he ought to have given over to judgment 

5. He consecrated as priest a certain Valentius, who was 
held to be an adulterer and psederastian, and punished those 
who offered opposition. 

6. He made his brother's son, Daniel, bishop of a city 

^ Mansi, t vii. p. 215 sqq. ; Hordouin, t. ii p. 514 sq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



l^INTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 451. 363 

(Carwe) where there are still many heathens, and where an 
able bishop was specially needed Daniel, however, is an 
ill-regulated, luxurious young man, who, from love for a 
married woman, Challoa, very often resides in Antioch, often 
travels with her, and has improper intercourse with her. 

7. All the ecclesiastical revenues, which are very great, he 
(Ibas) spends upon his brother and his relations. We 
request that he may give an account to you. 

8. In the same way he acts with the estates of the Church, 
with the gifts in fruits, with the gold and silver crosses, and 

9. With the money destined for the redemption of prisoners, 

10. When the memory of the holy mart3nrs was celebrated, 
he provided only a small quantity of wine, and that bad and 
quite new, for the holy sacrifice, for consecration and the 
communion of the people, so that the servants of the Church 
were under the necessity of buying six pots of wine equally 
bad from a wineshop. Even this did not suffice, so that he 
(Ibas) made a sign to those who distributed the holy body 
(to Srfiov a&fm) to go out (from the church into the 
sacristy, that is, to cease with the distribution of the holy 
bread), because there was no more blood (tov atfmTo<: fitf 
evpurKOfUvov). They themselves, however (Ibas and his 
clergy), drank and always had choice wina This took place 
before the eyes of the archdeacon, whose duty it was to make 
representations to the bishop. As he would not, we were 
under the necessity of doing so. Ibas, however, paid no 
attention to them, so that many were offended. 

11. He is a Nestorian, and calls the holy Cyril a heretic. 

1 2. Bishop Daniel has ordained several clergymen, profligate 
like himself. 

13. When the priest Peirozos gave his property to the poor 
churches, Ibas was angry at this, and gave out that he had 
a transfer (security) from him for 3200 gold pieces, in order 
to hinder him from his purpose and to annoy him. 

14. When Bishop Daniel made his will, and left his large 
property, which he had accumulated from the possession of the 
Church, to Challoa and her relations, Ibas said nothing. 

15. Challoa, who before had nothing, now pi'actises usury 
with the property of the Church. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



364 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

16. A deacon named Abraham obtained a large property, 
and Daniel persuaded bim to make it over to him, swearing 
that he would give it to the poor. This condition was even 
put in the deacon's will ; but Daniel gave it to Challoa. 

17. If the heathen, contrary to the existing prohibition, 
bring sacrifices^ Daniel takes fees from them, and therefore 
will hear no complaints. 

18. In a forest which belongs to the Church of Edessa, 
building wood was cut down and conveyed to Challoa.^ 

The judges at Berytus wished that the accusers would 
confine themselves to the principal points, and these in the 
case of one in holy orders were whether he were (a) orthodox, 
(b) free from excesses, (c) did not give up religion for money. 
Besponding to this demand, Maras brought forward as the 
first point of complaint, that " Ibas was heretical, for he had 
said : I do not envy Christ that He became God, for as far as 
He became this, I dso have become the same." When interro- 
gated on this, Ibas pronounced an anathema on every one who 
should dare to use such an expression, saying that he himself 
had certainly never used it, and that he would suflfer himself to 
be put to death a thousand times rather than speak so. The 
second accuser, Samuel, then asserted that Ibas had said it 
even in the church, about three years ago, at Easter to the 
clergy, when, in accordance with the custom, he was handing 
them the festal presents. Of this there were three witnesses 
present — the deacons David, Maras, and Sabbas ; but all the 
clergy had heard it, and therefore more witnesses could be 
procured. Ibas replied, that his whole clergy, about two hun- 
dred strong, had testified to his orthodoxy in a written memorial 
to Archbishop Domnus of Antioch and to the judges; this 
testimony of so many was certainly more weighty than that of 
those three, who, besides, had already appeared as his accusers 
at Constantinople, and consequently could no longer be 
regarded as impartial witnesses. The judges thought it JQSt 
that not merely these three, but all the clergy of Edessa who 
might have heard the expression, should be received as 
witnesses, and it could only make an unfavourable impression 
when the accusers, although they themselves had referred to 

^ Mand, t. viL p. 222 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. ii. p. 51 S sqq. 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBEB 27 AND 28, 451. 365 

these many witnesses, now endeavoured to prevent their being 
received, under the pretext that the majority would not venture 
to come forward on account of the well-known violence of Ibas. 
He bad even, they said, expelled those fifteen clerics who would 
not subscribe a memorial in his favour which was sent to 
Antioch. Ibas corrected this statement by saying that he had 
requested that those who had signed the accusation of Samuel, 
Cyrus, and others against him, should withdraw from his 
communion until the issue of the matter was determined, and 
thus these fifteen had excommunicated themselves. By him, 
however, no excommunication had been pronounced upon them. 

The complainants contested this representation in so far 
as to assert that only two, not fifteen, had in that declaration 
voluntarily separated themselves from Ibas ; the judges, how- 
ever, turned to the principal point, and asked Ibas again 
whether he had made use of that expression in reference to 
Christ He replied : " I did not say that, and I anathematize 
him who says it ; not even from a demon have I ever heard 
such a thii^." The accusers again appealed to their three 
witnesses and also to othera, whom, however, they had not 
with them ; and the examination now went on to the question 
whether Ibas had called S. Cyril a heretic? Ibas replied, 
" that he did not remember it, and if he had done so, it must 
have been at a time when the Synod of the Orientals (during 
the (Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, and in the time following) 
had the same view. In this he had only followed his Exarch 
(John of Antioch). This, however, he had said, that if Cyril 
did not explain himself better respecting his twelve proposi- 
tions, he would not acknowledge him." The judges then, with 
accurate precision, indicated the point of the accusation by 
asking whether Ibas, after the restoration of peace between 
Cyril and John of Antioch (see above, p. 136), had called the 
former a heretic. 

Ibas was able to show that from this time he had been in 
communion with Cyril and Cyril with him ; but his opponents 
maintained the reverse,^ and pi'ofessed to prove it from the 

^ Mansi, t yii pp. 227-242 ; Hardouiu, t iL pp. 522-527. On the history 
of Ibas, cf. Jos. Simon. Assemani, Biblioth, Clement. VcUic, t i c. 15, 
pp. 199-204. 



Digitized by LjOOQIC ^ 



306 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris which was now read in its 
chief contents. From this, however, it was clear only that 
Ibas even in that later time (after the union) maintained that 
Cyril had formerly taught propositions which were really 
Apollinarian, and only at the union had come to confess the 
right doctrine. This letter to Maris (Bishop of Hardaschir in 
Persia) i-uns, in its chief contents, as follows: "Since thy 
piety was here, a ^reat controversy has broken out between 
Nestorius and Cyril, and they write angry books against each 
other which give oflTence. Nestorius asserted, for instance, 
that holy Mary is not the God-bearer, so that many regarded 
him as an adherent of Paul of Samosata, who declared Christ 
to be a mere man. Cyril, however, stumbled in the con- 
troversy against Nestorius, and fell into the theory of 
Apollinaria He asserted, like him, that Grod the Logos 
Himself had become man, so that there was no difference 
between the temple and Him that dwelt in it. He wrote the 
twelve chapters (anathematisms), which thou knowest, main- 
taining that there was only one nature of the Godhead and 
manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ibas here, like most of 
the Orientals, misunderstood Cyril's third anathematism), and 
that therefore we must not separate the expressions which 
our Lord uses in reference to Himself, and which the 
evangelists use respecting Him. These chapters are full of 
impiety, as thou knowest without my saying it For how 
can one refer the expression ' the Word which was from the 
beginning ' to the temple which was bom of Mary ? Or how 
can one understand the expression, ' Thou madest Him a little 
lower than the angels,' of the Godhead of the Only-begotten ? 
The Church teaches from the beginning two natures — one 
power, one Person, which is the one Son, the Lord Jesus 
Christ. (Ibas was on the whole orthodox, but regarded the 
communicatio idiomattim as inadmissible.) — On account of 
that controversy the Emperors convoked the Synod of Ephesus ; 
before, however, the whole of the bishops who had been 
summoned arrived there, Cyril, from hatred to Nestorius, 
knew how to captivate the eyes and ears of all those who 
were present as by a magical draught, and before John of 
Antioch came to the Synod they deposed Nestorius without 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NINTH AND TENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 451. 367 

any previous examination (!). Two days after this deposition 
we arrived at Ephesus, and when we heard that they had 
there already confirmed the twelve chapters of Cyril, and had 
defined them to be the true doctrine (see p. 48, note 2), all 
the bishops of the East (i.e, of the Antiochene patriarchate) 
deposed Cyril and pronounced a sentence of excommunication 
against the rest of the bishops who had assented to his 
chapters. Upon this they all returned to their cities; but 
Nestorius could not return to Constantinople, because he was 
hated by the city and by the great ones who lived there (the 
Court certainly protected him !). The Anatolian Synod (that 
is, the Oriental bishops) remained now separate from the 
adherents of Cyril, and there arose a great schism, so that 
heathens and heretics mocked. No one ventured to go from 
one city to another, from one neighbourhood to another ; every 
one persecuted his neighbour as an enemy, and many, under 
the pretext of ecclesiastical zeal, gratified their private 
enmities. One of these is the tyrant of our city, who is 
well known to thee (Bishop Babulas of Edessa, the predecessor 
of Ibas), who, under the pretext of religion, persecutes not only 
the living but the dead, as, e,ff,, the blessed Theodore (of Mop- 
suestia), that herald of the truth and teacher of the Church, who 
not only smote heretics during his life, but abo after his death 
left in his writings spiritual weapons for the children of the 
Church. Him he ventured to anathematize publicly before 
the whole Church, and there arose everywhere a great inquiry 
respecting his books, not because they were opposed to the faith, 
for as long as Theodore lived Babulas praised him and read his 
books, but from an enmity against Theodore hitherto concealed, 
because he had once publicly opposed him at the Synod. In 
such a sad state of things God awakened the mind of the 
Emperor, so that he sent a high official of the palace and 
compelled the most holy Archbishop John of Antioch to be 
reconciled with CyiiL And John sent Bishop Paul of Emesa 
with a letter to Cyril, in which the true faith was explained, 
and gave him a commission to the effect that, if Cyril should 
agree to this faith, and should anathematize those who say, 
' the Godhead suffered,' and ' the Godhead and the manhood 
are only one nature,' he should enter into communion with 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



368 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

him. And God softened the heart of the Egyptian, so that 
without difficulty he assented to this declaration of faith, and 
accepted it^ and anathematized all who beh'eved otherwise. 
And they entered into communion with each other, the con- 
troversy ceased, and peace returned to the ChurcL The letters 
interchanged between John and Cyril I have sent thee that thou 
mayest see and make known to all that the strife has ceased 
and the partition wall is taken away, and those are put to shame 
who persecuted the living and the dead. Now they are obliged 
to confess their own faults and teach the reverse of their pre- 
vious assertions. For now, no one ventures any longer to say 
that the Godhead and the manhood are only one nature, bat 
they agree together in faith in the temple (manhood of Christ) 
and Him who dwells therein as the one Son, Jesus Christ'*^ 

With this the Acts of Berytus ended. On the further 
points of complaint there seems to have been no more done ; 
but soon afterwards at Tyre a reconciliation between the two 
parties seems to have been arrived at After, however, the 
Acts of Berytus were now read at Chalcedon, Ibas requested 
the imperial commissioners' that the letter sent in his favour to 
Berytus by the clergy of Edessa should now be communicated, 
and it was immediately read by the secretary Beronicianus. 
Addressed to Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus, the 
memorial declares it to be utterly untrue that Ibas had used 
that blasphemous expression concerning Christ in the presence 
of the subscribers. The clergy declared upon oath that they 
never heard such words from him, and that, if they had heard 
it, they would not have remained another moment in his com- 
munion. The judges should therefore exhort Ibas to return as 
soon as possible to his flock, particularly as his presence was 
necessary at the approaching Easter on account of the catechizing 
and the baptisms. Thirteen priests, thirty-seven deacons, and 
twelve sub-deacons and lectors had subscribed.* 

The deacon Theophilus, who appeared at Chalcedon as 
accuser, made an objection to this memorial which was not 

^ Mansi, t vii pp. 242-247 ; Hardooin, t ii p. 527 ; Fuchs, Ic, S. 4S0 it 
' Mansi, t. vii. p. 250, and Hardonin, t. ii p. 581, have not remarked that 
this again belongs to the Synod of Chalcedon. 
' ' Mansi, t vii. pp. 250-255 ; Hardonin, t il pp. 591-533. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



NINTH AND TENTH 8KSSI0NS, OCTOBER 27 AND 28, 431. 369 

quite intelligible. Without attending to it, the imperial 
commissioners now wished to have the Acts of the Kobber- 
Synod in regard to Ibas read. The papal legates wished, 
however, that an assembly so unjust should not be called a 
Synod, and that nothing should be read from it, since the 
apostolic Bishop of Some had rejected all its decrees, with the 
exception of the elevation of Maximus to the see of Antioch. 
All the other bishops agreed to this. 

The reading therefore did not take place, and the 
commissioners asked: "What does the holy Synod decree 
concerning Ibas ? " The legates declared : " After the reading 
of the documents, we learnt from the sentence of the 
venerable bishops that Ibas was declared innocent. From 
the reading of his letter we have seen that he is orthodox. 
Therefore our judgment is that he be restored to his episcopal 
dignity and to the church, of which he was unlawfully and 
in his absence deprived. In regard, however, to the Bishop 
(Nonnus) who was recently appointed in his place, the Bishop 
of Antioch shall decide." Anatolius of Constantinople said : 
"The honesty of the bishops who previously pronounced 
judgment respecting Ibas, and the reading of the earlier Acts, 
show that the charges brought against Ibas are untrue. 
Therefore I dismiss all suspicion respecting him, since he 
receives and subscribes the definition of the faith recently 
given by the Synod and the letter of Leo ; and I regard 
him as worthy of the bishopric." As third voter, Maximus 
of Antioch declared : ** From that which has just been read 
it is clear that Ibas is innocent on all the points which have 
been brought against him, and the orthodoxy of his opinions 
is proved by the reading of the copy of his letter brought 
forward by his opponent ; therefore I also vote that he again 
receive his episcopal dignity and his city. . . • Nonnus, 
however, shall retain the episcopal dignity (not oflSce) until I 
have decided respecting him with the bishops of the diocese " 
(he was subsequently the successor of Ibas). AU the other 
members also voted for the reinstatement of Ibas, several under 
the express condition that he should now anathematize 
Nestorius and his heresy ; on the letter to Maris in specie, 
however, the Synod gave no judgment After the voting was 

in. 2 a 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



670 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

completed, Ibas, as requested, fulfilled the condition which 
had been laid down, in the words : *'I previously anathema- 
tized Nestorius and his doctrine in writing (in the document 
of union, see p. 134 f.), and I now anathematize him ten 
thousand times. Anathema to Nestorius and Eutyches, and 
to every Monophysite; and I anathematize eveiy one who 
does not think as this holy Synod thinks."^ 

In the same tenth session, Maximus of Antioch requested 
that out of compassion the Synod should allow the deposed 
Domnus, his predecessor in the see of Antioch, some support 
from the property of the Church. The Boman legates and 
Anatolius, Juvenal, and all the rest, commended this goodwill 
of Maximus, and on the question being put by the commis- 
sioners, the Synod approved of this proposal, and left the 
settlement of the amount to be given to the judgment of 
Maximus himself.^ This subject, however, as we shall see, 
came up again for discussion on the 31st of October. 

Sec. 197. JEleveTith Session, October 29, 451, 

The eleventh session, on the 29th of Oetober, had for its 
subject the complaint of Bassianus, formerly bishop of 
Ephesua' He had appealed, and presented a petition to the 

^ Mansi, t vii pp. 255-270 ; Hardouin, t iL pp. 538-548. 

' Mansi, t. vii. p. 270 sq. ; Hardouin, t iL p. 548. The genaineness of the 
docament which refers to Domnus, which is now extant only in Latin, is 
contested by Quesnel and Natalis Alexander. It is, however, maintained by 
Tillemont, Baloze (in Mansi, t yiL p. 665 sqq., n. xxxii.-lvi), and especially 
by the brothers Ballerini (S. Leonis 0pp. t iL p. 1215 sq. and p. 1284 sq.), 
who discovered in a Vatican codex a still more ancient Latin translation of tiiis 
document (older even than that of Bosticus), and had it printed ({.c p. 1296 
and p. 1284, n. 11). In this newly discovered copy, the proceedings wi|li 
respect to Domnos are rightly placed alter those respecting the agreement with 
Juvenal (Sessio yiL) ; whilst in the Greek codex, from which Rusticos made 
his translation, the proceeding respecting Domnus were erroneously placed 
before those others (Rusticns himself says this, in Mansi, t. viL p. 734 : 
P<>H hcBC sequUur etc). The latter took place viL Kal. Nov. (=Oct. 26), 
those on Domnus on the following day, vL KaL Nov. (= Oct 27), and it is 
clear, finaUy, from the chronological indication, vi. KaL Nov., that if the Gkeek 
copies give the date of the tenth session correctly (Oct 28, see above, p. 859), 
the transactions respecting Domnus must be referred to the ninth session. 

^ The Acts of this session are in Mansi, t viL pp. 271-294 ; Hardooin, t iL 
pp. 546-558. Gkrman abridgment in Fuchs^ ^c. S. 486 S. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ELKVENTH SESSION, OCTOBER 29, 451. 371 

Emperor, and the latter had directed him to the Synod. The 
short letter was first read, which the Emperor (in legal style, 
the two Emperors) addressed to the Synod, recommending a 
speedy settlement of the matter, and then the memorial which 
Bassianos had presented to the Emperor. He complains in 
it that certain priests and laymen had suddenly, in a most 
uncanonical and cruel manner, torn him out of the 
church, after Divine service, beaten him, dragged him into 
the forum, imprisoned him for some time, threatened him 
with the sword, robbed him of his episcopal mantle, taken 
away his property and shared it among them, had killed 
several of his people, and had placed one of their number 
(Stephen) in his episcopal see. He now prayed that, as he 
was quite innocent, the Emperor would have the matter 
examined by the Synod, and would protect him, untQ a 
judgment was pronounced, against the plots of his enemies, 
and see to the completion of the desired sentence.* 

To the question of the imperial commissioners, who they 
were who had ill-treated him, Bassian replied, naming first of 
all Stephen, the present bishop of Ephesus. Asked by the 
commissioners for an explanation, Stephen asserted that 
Bassian had not even been ordained at Ephesus, but had, at 
the time of the vacancy in the see, with the assistance of an 
armed mob, thrust himself in, and taken possession of the 
bishopric. He had therefore been rightly expelled from it, 
and forty Asiatic bishops had, with the consent of the 
assembled clergy and people of Ephesus, consecrated him 
(Stephen) as bishop, who had for fifty years been one of the 
clergy of Ephesus. Bassian replied that he was made bishop 
in a canonical manner, that he had from his youth supported 
the poor, and had built a hospital and poorhouse with seventy 
beds. On account of the popularity which he had thiis 
gained, the Bishop (of Ephesus) at that time, Memnon, had 
hated him, and, in order to remove him from the place, had 
by force consecrated him Bishop of Evazse. He had struggled, 
but Memnon had used force, so that blood had been shed' 
before the altar. To Evazse, however, he had never gone, and' 
after the death of Memnon, which soon followed, his successor 

* Mansi, t vii. p. 274 sq. ; Hardonin, t ii. p. 547. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



372 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILa 

(Basil) had acknowledged the violence, had consecrated 
another bishop for Evazse, but had left him in the episcopal 
dignity, and had held communion with him. After the death 
of Basil he had been forcibly placed upon the episcopal chair 
by the clergy and people of Ephesus, as Bishop Olympius 
could testify, who was present in Ephesus at the time, and 
was now present at the Synod. The Emperor had twice 
confirmed him, the second time by the Silentiar Eustathius ; 
and all the bishops, even Proclus of Constantinople, had 
acknowledged him. So he had been for four years in the 
bishopric, and had consecrated ten bishops and many clerics. 
On the very last day on which he held office, he had received 
a very gracious letter from the Emperor through the Silentiar ; 
but the next day, after holding divine service, he had been 
suddenly ill-treated in the manner which he had described, 
and had been expelled. 

In reply, Stephen appealed to many of the bishops present, 
who could testify that Bassian had thrust himself into the 
bishopric by force, and therefore had been declared to be 
deposed by Pope Leo, by Flavian of Constantinople, and by 
the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. So the Emperor 
Theodosius il. and the whole Synod of the Orientals had 
recognized what had been done (his expulsion and the 
elevation of Stephen). The Silentiar Eustathius had been 
sent to Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius on purpose to 
inquire into the existing dissension between Bassian, the 
clergy, and the poor, whom he had wronged. He had spent 
three months in this inquiry at Ephesus, and had made known 
his sentence. Every one knew what it was. 

In order to defend his elevation to the see of Ephesus, 
Bassian laid peculiar stress upon the fact that he had never 
really been Bishop of Evazae, and therefore that he had not 
uncanonically removed to another bishopric; and, in order 
to gain a starting-point for the consideration of the matter, 
the imperial commissioners ordered to be read two older 
canons, the 16 th and 17th of the Synod of Antioch, 
of the year 341, which, in the collection of canons then in 
use, had the numbers 95 and 96. The first says: '*If a 
bishop without a see forces himself into a vacant bishopric. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



ELEVENTH SESSION, OCTOBER 29, 45L 373 

and takes possession of the see without a complete Synod, he 
shall be deposed, even if he has been elected by the whole 
diocese into which he has intruded. A complete Synod is one 
at which the Metropolitan is present'* The other canon says : 
" If a bishop has received consecration, and has been appointed 
to preside over a diocese, but does not accept the oflSce nor 
allow himself to be persuaded to set out for the church appointed 
to him, he shall be excommunicated until he is induced to 
undertake the office, or until the complete Synod of the bishops 
of the Eparchy has come to a decision concerning him."^ 

To the question of the imperial commissioners as to who 
had ordained him, Bassian could name only Bishop Olympins 
of Theodosiopolis, who was present ; he no longer remembered 
the others. Olympins then stated that, after the death of 
Bishop Basil of Ephesus, the clergy of that city had requested 
him to come and proceed to a new ordination. In the belief 
that several bishops would appear, he had gone, and had 
waited three days for their arrival When none appeared, 
the clergy of Ephesus had come to him again, in order to take 
counsel as to what should be done ; the house was suddenly 
besieged by a great crowd of people, and they had taken him 
by force into the church, a certain Olosericus having even 
drawn a sword, and pushed him along with Bassian on to the 
episcopal throne. In this way the enthronization had taken 
placa Bassian exclaimed: "Tou lie !" The commissioners, 
however, next wished to be assured as to whether the late 
Bishop Proclus of Constantinople had actually acknowledged 
Bassian. They therefore asked the clergy of Constantinople 
who were present, and they testified to the fact, adding that 
Proclus had introduced the name of Bassian into the diptychs 
of his church, on which, until lately, it still remained. 

The commissioners further requested Bishop Stephen to 
tell what he knew of the deposition of Bassian, and whether 
he had himself been ordained by a Synod. Stephen appealed 
to a letter of the Bishop of Alexandria, who had been com- 
missioned by the Emperor Theodosius to write to Ephesus, 
and to a letter of Leo's, which could both be placed before 
them (they no longer exist). The notaries, too, could present 

' Mansi, t yii. p. 2S2 sq. ; Hardouin, t. iL p. 551. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



374 HISTOKY OF THE COUNCILS. 

the documents relating to the way and manner of his ordina* 
tion. Bassian, however, argued against Stephen thus : '* The 
bishops who consecrated him were consecrated by me. If I 
then, as he maintains, was not a legitimate bishop, then he is 
not legitimately ordained. If, however, he maintains th6 
validity of his ordination, then he must also acknowledge that 
I am a true bishop."^ 

Upon this Cassian, a presbyter, whom Bassian had brought 
with him, came forward with his connected complaint In 
the middle of a week Stephen and Mseonius had taken him 
into the baptistry, and had made him swear upon the Gospels 
that he would forsake Bassian. At first, out of reverence 
for every kind of oath, he had been unwilling to swear, but 
they had at last induced him to do so. Soon afterwards, on 
the fifth day of Easter, they had imprisoned Bishop Bassiao, 
and at the same time had ill-treated him (Cassian). In order, 
however, not to break his oath, he had since tixen, for the 
space of four years, gone about begging in Constantinople 
(with Bassian). The representations of Bassian and of Cassian 
had made an impression, and now Bishop Lucian of Byze and 
Meliphthongus of Heliopolis came forward and declared, in 
the name of many of their colleagues, that " a man who, like 
Bassian, had been without opposition bishop for four years^ 
and acknowledged by Proclus, and had been in church com- 
munion with Stephen himself and others, should not have 
been deposed by mere violence, and without formal judgment.** 

Once more Stephen appealed to Pope Leo, who had recog- 
nized the deposition of Bassian ; but Cecropius of Sebastopolis 
and many bishops and the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, 
that " now Flavian, although already dead, revenged himself 
on him " (Stephen had been among the leaders of the Robber- 
Synod), and the imperial commissioners gave their judgment 
that, in their opinion, neither Bassian nor Stephen was to be 
acknowledged as legitimate bishop of Ephesus, and that a new 
one must be elected ; but they would leave the whole decision 
to the Synod. The bishops first agreed by general acclama- 
tion to this proposal, and, in particular, the papal l^atea, 
together with Anatolius of Constantinople and Eusebius of 
J^ Maud, t yil pp. 283-287 ; Hardooiii, t. u. pp. 551-654. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TWELFTH AND THIItTEENTH SESSIONS, OCTOBER 30, 451. 375 

DorylfiBum, declared for it. But the Asiatic bishops (i.e. of the 
exarchate of Ephesus) threw themselves on their knees before 
the Synod, and asked for mercy, since great disturbances 
would arise in Ephesus if a successor should here (at the 
Synod) be given to Bassian ; their exarch must be ordained in 
Ephesus itself. All the twenty-seven bishops who, since 
Timothy (the disciple of Paul), had occupied this episcopal 
chair, had been consecrated at Ephesus, with one single excep- 
tion, that of Basil, and this had occasioned much bloodshed. 

The clergy of Constantinople, on the other hand, wished to 
maintain that the right to consecrate a bishop for Ephesus 
belonged to their archbishop, and that the decrees of the 150 
fathers (of the second (Ecumenical Synod) must be observed.* 
Besides, as a matter of fact, several bishops of Ephesus had 
been consecrated at Constantinople, or by the Archbishop of 
Constantinople, or with his consent, as Memnon by John Chry- 
sostom, and Castinus by Heraclides. In particular, Proclus 
of Constantinople had consecrated Basil of Ephesus, and the 
Emperor Theodosius il. and Cyril of Alexandria had co-operated. 

We see that the question here arose as to whether the 
exarchate of Ephesus was subject to the patriarchate of Con- 
stantinople or not; and as controversy on this subject was 
threatening to break out, the commissioners thought it well 
to postpone the decision of the question, whether a new bishop 
should be elected for Ephesus, to the next session.* 

Sec. 198. Twelfth and Tldrteenth Sessions, October 30, 461. 

The twelfth session was solemnized on the following day, 
October 30,' and, first, the three imperial commissioners 
complained that they were so long detained by the Synod from 
their civil duties. The Synod should therefore quickly decide 
whether a new bishop should be appointed for Ephesus, or 
Bassian or Stephen should be retained. — ^Anatolius of Con- 

^ They evidently misanderrtood the 2d and 3d canons of Constantinople. 
Cf. vol iL p. S55 ff. Bat the Council of Chaloedon agreed with them in the 
main point, as we see from its 28th canon. 

* Mansi, t viL pp. 287-294 ; Hardonin, t. iL pp. 554-558. 

» Its Acts are in Mansi, t. vil pp. 294-800 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 559-568. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



376 H18T0BY OF THE COUNCILS. 

stantinople and the legate Paschasinus expressed themselves 
decidedly in favour of the election of a new bishop, but they 
thought that maintenance should be provided for the two 
others from the property of the Church. Julian of Cos, on 
the other hand, thought that both should not be deposed; 
but the legate Lucentius did not give any distinct expression 
of opinion, merely stating, what was in fact self-evident, that 
both could not at the same time hold the bishopric. As the 
other bishops held back with their votes, the imperial com- 
missioners had the book of the holy Grospels brought, and 
requested from all a conscientious answer to the question, 
whether one of the two, Bassian or Stephen, or neither, was 
worthy of the bishopric. — ^Again, Anatolius answered tirst, and 
expressed himself in favour of a new election, adding words 
which gratified the Asiatics : " The new shepherd of Ephesus 
should be chosen by those whom he has to watch over." After 
him Paschasinus, Juvenal, and some other bishops also gave 
their voices for a new election. Maximus of Antioch, on the 
contrary, Julian of Cos, and others, wished to leave it to the 
bishops of the eparchy of Ephesus to decide whether one of 
the two was worthy of the see. A third party did not express 
themselves clearly and definitely. The commissioners there- 
fore now brought to the vote the question put into definite 
form: "Shall a new bishop be appointed for Ephesus, in 
accordance with the proposal of Anatolius and Paschasinus, 
while the two others are allowed to retain the episcopal 
dignity and to have maintenance from the property of the 
Church of Ephesus ? " This was received with acclamation, 
and announced by the commissioners as a synodal decree, 
with the addition, that each of the two deposed bishops 
should annually receive 200 gold piecea This also was 
universally received by acclamation, and it was finally decreed 
that whatever Bassian could legally prove to have been taken 
from his property should be restored to him again.^ 

On the same 30th of October the thirteenth session was 
held.' Archbishop Eunomius of Nicomedia had appealed to 

' Mansi and Haidouin, ILec, 

^ The Acts are in Mansi, t vii. pp. 302-314 ; Hardonin, t iL pp. 563-571. 
Abridgment in Fuchs, Lc. S. 493. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



TWELFTH AND THIBTEENTH S^SIOKS, OCTOBER SO, 451. 377 

the Emperor, and petitioned for protection and for the restora- 
tion of the privileges of his see, which had been forcibly 
violated by Bishop Anastasius of Nicaea, in opposition to all 
previous custom; and the Emperor had made over the 
decision of the question to the Synod. Eunomius therefore 
now brought his petition before this high assembly, and after 
his petition to the Emperor had been read, the commissioners 
requested an explanation from Anastasius. He, on his side, 
not only denied that he had been guilty of any offence, but 
asserted, on the contrary, that the Bishop of Nicomedia had 
made encroachments on his diocese. Eunomius was therefore 
required to give details, and said : " According to ancient 
custom, I have under me the churches which lie in the eparchy 
of Bithynia, but Anastasius has excommunicated clerics of 
Basilinopolis who are subject to me, a thing which is forbidden 
by the canons." 

Anastasius replied that, on the contrary, Basilinopolis 
belonged to the Church of Nicsea, for it had previously been a 
village belonging to Nicaea, and when it had been raised to the 
position of a city by the Emperor Julian or another, he had 
removed men of business thither from Nicsea. This state of 
things still continued, and men of business, as necessity arose, 
were constantly removed backwards and forwards from one 
town to the other. Since Basilinopolis had become a city, the 
Bishop of Nicaea had also taken part in the consecrations there. 
He could bring forward a letter of the sainted Bishop John 
(Chrysostom) of Constantinople to the Bishop of Nic^, in 
which the latter was exhorted to go to Basilinopolis and there 
to r^ulate the Church. He could also prove how many 
(clerics and bishops of Basilinopolis) had been ordained from 
Nicft^ 

Eunomius replied: "If that ever took place, it was im- 
properly done, and this cannot prejudice my rights ; besides, 
I can prove that many more ordinations at Basilinopolis have 
proceeded from Nicomedia than from Niccea, from which city 
probably only one ordination had taken place, and that either 
surreptitiously or during a vacancy in the see of Nicomedia." 
— From further statements and replies it came out that both 
parties had previously appealed to the Archbishop of Constan- 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



378 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tinople for a settlemc^nt of the dispute, and further, that 
Eunomius of Nicomedia had cited the bishop of Basilinopolis 
to answer to an accusation brought by the clergy of that city, 
but that he had fled to Nicsea, that he might receive the 
protection of Anastasius. 

As before, so here again, the commissioners, in order to 
lead to a settlement of the case, caused an ancient canon to 
be read, namely, the fourth of Nicaea, which had previously 
been recited at the close of the fourth session (see above, p. 
341 £). If the superscription in the present Acts were correct, 
it would have stood as No. 6 in the collection of canons used at 
Chalcedon ; as, however, all the old collections begin with Uie 
canons of Nicsea, it is not improbable that No. 4 should be 
read instead of No. 6. It runs: ''The bishop shall be 
appointed by all the bishops of the eparchy ; if, however, that is 
difScult on account of pressing necessity, or on account of the 
length of journeys, three bishops at the least shall meet and 
proceed to the imposition of hands, with the written consent 
of those who are absent The confirmation and supervision 
of what is done belongs in each eparchy to the Metropolitan."^ 
Anastasius of Nicsea remarked that this canon spoke in favour 
of him, for he was certainly Metropolitan, in proof of which be 
had a decree of the Emperors Yalentinian i. and Yalens read, 
in which the title of metropolis, which had been previously 
assigned to the city of Nicsea^ was confirmed, and the 
same privileges were conceded to it which were possessed by 
Nicomedia. — On the other hand, Eunomius appealed to a later 
decree of Yalentinian, in which it was expressly said that the 
new honour which had been conferred upon the city of Nicsea 
could in no way interfere with the rights of Nicomedia, but, 
on the contrary, it was only a greater honour for Nicomedia 
itself, when the city which stood next after it bore the title of 
metropolis. The imperial commissioners remained quite 
correctly that in both decrees there was nothing said of the 
bishoprics, but only of the civil honours of the two cities. 
But according to the canons of the Church there could be bat 
one ecclesiastical metropolis in each province. The Synod 
then asserted definitely that Nicomedia was the ecclesiastical 

1 See vol. L p. $81« 



Digitized by VjOOQlC 



FOURTEENTH SESSION, OCTOBEB 31, 461. 379 

metropolis of Bithynia, and that the bishop of Nicomedia had 
to consecrate all the bishops of the province. The Bishop of 
Nicsea had only this superiority (on account of the civil 
rank of his city), that he had precedence over all the other 
suffragans. 

After this judgment was pronounced, Archdeacon Aetius of 
Constantinople requested that no prejudice should hence arise 
to the rights of the Archbishop of Constantinople, since it 
could be proved that he was authorized either to consecrate 
at Basilinopolis or to give permission for consecration. The 
Synod, however, refused then to declare that the patriarchal 
rights of Constantinople extended over Bithynia, but simply 
exclaimed: "The canons must remain in force;" and the 
imperial commissioners cut short all hesitation by the remark, 
that the right of the Church of Constantinople to ordedn in 
the provinces should be examined at its proper time by the 
Synod, and in fact the 28 th canon was made to contain a 
remarkable regulation on this subject. At the close, Eunomius 
of Nicomedia offered thanks for the just judgment which had 
been pronounced, and gave the assurance that he honoured 
the Archbishop of Constantinople in accordance with the 
canons.* 



Sec. 199. Fourteenth Sessum, October 31, 451, and its two 
eorUinuations. 

On the following day, at the fourteenth session,' Bishop 
Sabinian of Perrha presented a petition addressed to the 
Emperors, and one to the Synod, representing that he had been 
unlawfully removed from his bishopric, and that he prayed for 
an inquiry. From his youth up he had been in a convent, 
and had not thought of a bishopric. But suddenly the 
Metropolitan of the province (Stephen of Hierapolis, as is clear 

^ Maaai and Hardoain, Uxc. 

' The Acts are in Mansi, t yiL pp. 814-358 ; Hardouin, t. ii. pp. 571-598« 
German abridgment in Fachs, l.e. S. 496 ff. In the list of those present, 
Stephen of £^hesos is still mentioned (Mansi, Lc. p. 315 ; Hardoain, l.c p. 571), 
although he had in the 12th session been declared to have lost his daim on the 
see of Eph^os. As, however, he retained the episcopal dignity, he might stiU 
continue to be a member of the Synod. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



380 HISTORY OF THE COXTNCSILS. 

from what follows), together with the comprovincial bishops, 
had come to him and had consecrated him bishop of Perrha 
in the place of Athanasius, who had been deposed by a Synod 
at Antioch, A.D. 445.^ At the Eobber-Synod, however, 
Athanasius had been reinstated by command of Dioscnros, 
while he had been expelled, to the great sorrow of the 
city. 

The three imperial commissioners who have been mentioned 
requested Athanasius of Perrha, who was also present, to give 
an explanation on this subject, and he appealed first of all to 
letters of S. Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople, 
who had interceded for him with Domnus of Antioch. After 
the death of Cyril, Domnus, taking advantage of the moment, 
cited him before his Synod, and he had promised to attend if 
Domnus and the Synod would not go beyond the opinion of 
the two archbishops (Cyril and Proclus). He now requested 
that the letters of these two archbishops should be read. The 
first of them, that from Cyril to Domnus, complains that some 
clerics of Perrha had behaved in a very insubordinate manner 
towards their Bishop Athanasius, as he asserted that they had 
banished and deposed him, had arbitrarily appointed other 
stewards,' and had struck his name out of the diptychs. As 
Perrha was somewhat remote from Antioch, Archbishop Dononus 
was requested to send commissioners thither to inquire into 
the matter, and to bring those accused by Athanasius to 
account, and, in case they were guilty, to depose them. 
Besides this, Athanasius had complained of the partiality of 
his present Metropolitan (Panoblius of Hierapolis).' The 
same was set forth also in the much more copious letter which 
the deceased Patriarch Proclus of Constantinople had written 
to Domnus on this matter, and it was clear from both letters 
that Cyril and Proclus had expressed themselves in no way 
so favourably on behalf of Athanasius as he represented, 

^ On the history of this deposition and its grounds, puticalarly the ttaaliBg 
of the property of the Church, see above, p. 174. 

« [See 9,v, "(Economns," in Dirty. qfChr. AiUiqwHes.] 

' Panoblius was succeeded by John, and the latter by Stephen, in the xnetit>- 
politan see of Hierapolis. Under Panoblius, Athanasius was driven away by his 
clergy ; under John, he was deposed at the Antiochene Synod ; and under Ste^ien, 
and by him, Sabinian had been appointed bishop of Perrha. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FOUBTKENTH SESSION, OCTOBER 31, 451. 381 

although they were inclined to attribute the greater injustice 
to the side of his opponents. 

The imperial commissioners then caused to be read the 
minutes of the Antiochene Synod in question of a.d. 445, 
which, as we know, had deposed Athanasius, because, in spite 
of several citations, he had not vindicated himself from the 
charges which were brought against him, and had never appeared 
for examination, and had requested the Metropolitan John of 
HeliopoUs to appoint a new bishop for Perrha.* 

After the reading of these extensive Acts, those seven 
bishops who had been present at this Antiochene Synod, and 
were now also members of the Council of Chalcedon, were 
obliged, at the request of the imperial commissioners, to relate 
what had passed, and they all laid chief stress upon the fact 
that Athanasius, in spite of all the citations, had not appeared. 
In excuse for himself he could only plead that Domnus, who 
was then Archbishop of Antioch, had been unfavourable to 
him ; and on the proposal of the commissioners it was now 
decreed that, in the meantime, Sabinian should remain in 
possession of the see of Perrha, but that within eight months 
the Archbishop of Antioch should, with his council, examine 
whether the serious accusations brought against Athanasius were 
well-founded or not. If they were well-founded, then he must 
not only be removed from the bishopric, but handed over to the 
secular tribunal. If, however, no inquiry should be instituted 
against him within the period stated, or he should not be found 
guilty, then he should be reinstated in the bishopric of Perrha 
by Maximus of Antioch, but a maintenance should be allowed 
to Sabinian from the property of the Church there, the amount 
of which should be determined by Maximus of Antioch, in 
proportion to the value of the property of the Church of Perrha.^ 

On the same 31st of October a further session was held, 
the minutes of which are given by the Ballerini alone, from 
Greek manuscripts in the library of S. Mark's at Venice.* • In 
accordance with the manner in which these Venetian manu- 

' Manri, t vil pp. 826-854 ; Hardotiin, t. ii. pp. 679-595 ; cf. above, p. 174. 
* Mansi, t. vii p. 858 ; Hardouin, t. it p. 598 ; Walch {KetaerhUL Bd. yL S. 
384) baa given wrongly tbe decree of tbis session. 
' in tbeir edition of tbe works of Leo tbe Great, tup. 1490 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



382 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

scripts reckon the sessions of Ghalcedon, they bad given the 
number 16 to the session which is now to be spoken of. Bat 
the Ballerini have properly remarked {I.e. p. 1491) that it 
pught to be placed immediately after the session which is 
noted as Ko. 14 in the usual collections. We reckon it 
therefore as only a division or continuation of the fourteenth 
session^ while Mansi has erroneously, and apparently by an 
oversight, regarded it as a part of tlie very last or sixteenth 
session (according to the ordinary reckoning).^ 

The contents of these newly-discovered minutes are, that 
now the papal legates, especially Julian of Cos, handed in to the 
Synod a letter from Leo, his 93d epistle, in the Latin original 
and in a Greek translation, and that the imperial commissioners 
approved, and ordered that it should immediately be read. 
This is the letter which Pope Leo had, on the 26th of June 
451, addressed to the Synod which at first, as we know, had 
been summoned to Nicsea, and the contents of which have 
already been given at p. 280. Why this letter came so late 
before the Synod, after its contents were no longer of import- 
ance for the proceedings, is unknown. 

The Ballerini, too, and Mansi as well, by means of a newly- 
discovered document (in a Latin translation),' have given us 
information respecting a third session which took place on 
the same day (October 31). Archbishop Maximus of Antioch, 
it is said, [pri](iie Kal. Nov., again brought forward for con- 
sideration his two matters which had been before discussed in 
the seventh and tenth sessions (see above, pp. 355 and 370), 
namely, (a) the cession of the three ecclesiastical provinces of 
Palestine to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and (b) the agreement 
with his predecessor Domnus ; and now, at his suggestion, it 
was confirmed by the Synod, and particularly by the papal 
legates, that (a) tiie two Phoenicias and Arabia should again 
be united to Antioch, while the three provinces of Palestine 
should belong to Jerusalem; and (h) that Domnus should 
henceforth live only in the communio laicalis, but should 
annually receive 250 solidi. 

1 Mansi, t yii p. 454 ; Hardouin was not acquainted with this doeoment. 
' Printed in the Ballerini's ed. of the works of Leo the Great, t il pp. 1227; 
1236, and in Mansi, t. vii p. 722 C. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTEESTTH SESSION. THE OANON& 383 

The fact that the very ancient Vatican manuscript (No. 1322) 
contains this very document, and also the other two referring 
to Maximus of Antioch, namely, the two earlier transactions 
concerning Doranus, and respecting the agreement with Jeru- 
salem, is explained by the Ballerini (l.c. p. 1230 sq.) very 
satisfactorily by the consideration that Maximus, when he 
began to regret the agreement with Jerusalem, had at a very 
early period sent these three documents by themselves in a 
Latin translation to Home, in the hope of bringing about 
the annulling of that agreement. In fact, too, Pope Leo, 
in the answer which he sent back to Maximus, declared 
that which had been done in this respect at Chalcedon as 
void because contrary to the 6th canon of Nicaea, and the 
assent of his legates as invalid. In spite of this, Jerusalem 
remained in possession of the three ecclesiastical provinces of 
Palestine.^ 

Sec. 200. Fifteenth Session, The Canons. 

From the minutes of the sixteenth session we learn that 
the imperial commissioners and the papal legates departed at 
the dose of the fourteenth session, and that the other members 
of the Synod, on the same 31st of October, in a new discussion, 
which is reckoned as the fifteenth session, drew up the 28th 
canon of Chalcedon, and in this canon assigned to the Bishop 
of Constantinople a great patriarchal province, equal rights 
with the Eoman see, and a rank next to that.^ According to 
the testimony of Archdeacon Liberatus of Carthage and the 
Soman deacon Ensticus, who, on account of the controversy 
of the three chapters, both occupied themselves ex pro/esso, in 
the sixth century, with the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 
the whole of the canons of Chalcedon, and not merely the 
28th, were drawn up in this fifteenth session (Liberatus calls 
it, according to his manner of reckoning, the eleventh).* With 

* €f. Le Quien, Oriens Christ, t iii p. 118 sqq. ; Wiltsch, KMU. Otographie 
wd SkUUUk, 1846, Bd. L a 207. 

* We see thig from the discourse which the papal legate Ptuchasinus delivered at 
ihh h^mnng of the sixteenth session, Mansi, t vii. p. 426 ; Hardoain, t. ii. p. 626. 
* ' liberati Breviarittm cauaa Ntstorianorum et Eutych, in Galland. Biblioth, 
PP. t. xil p. 144 (see above, p. 285, note), and Rustici Emendatio Antiqua 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



881 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

tbis, too, agree those manuscripts of the Greek Acts which were 
made the basis of the work when the collections of Conndls, 
and first the Roman collection, were drawn np (see voL i p. 
69 ff.), and therefore all the canons of Cbalcedon are universally 
ascribed to the fifteenth session. That this is in fact the 
more accurate view, Van Espen has attempted to prove on 
various grounds ;^ while before him the le^ed Baluze^' and 
more recently the celebrated brothers Ballerini,' resting prin- 
cipallj upon the authority of Evagrius (Hist. Ecd. iL 18), 
maintained that, after the Emperor Marcian had, as we saw, 
proposed these canons, in the sixth session, the Synod imme- 
diately afterwards had drawn up, in its seventh session, a 
series of canons, including the three of the Emperor, while 
in the fifteenth session only the 28 th and last genuine canon 
was brought forward by the Orientals, and in the absence of 
the papal legates gave occasion for a new session of the 
Synod, the sixteenth and last 

An unhesitating decision on this point is impossible so long 
as no new documents are discovered. It remains, however, 
most natural to assume that our Synod followed that which, as 
far as we know, was the usual practice in all the old Councils, 
and passed all the canons at one session. If the papal legates 
foresaw that among the canons to be put forth, the 28 th 
would be one, and after the statement made by Archdeacon 
Aetius of Constantinople, at the sixteenth session, on the 
whole proceedings (see below, § 201), they could not help 
foreseeing it, it was natural that they should withdraw at the 
beginning of this discussion, notwithstanding the petitions of 
many (as appears from the Acts of the sixteenth session), in 
order to induce the Synod to omit this canon, and to preeerve 
their own freedom of action. It is somewhat more diflBcult 
to explain the absence of the imperial commissioners, parti- 

versionis Aetorum ConcUU Chalcedon, in Mansi, t viL p. 654 sqq., especially 
p. 788 ; cf. aboye, p. 291 f. 

^ Commentari^ in cammes et decreta JmHb veUrU etc Colon. Agripp. 1785, 
p. 281 sq. 

' Baluzii PmtfaUo^ in Mansi, t. Tii p. 658 sq. 

' In their ed. of the worbi of Leo the Great, t. iL p. 508, note, and p. 514. 
note 80. They have on their side the letter of Pope Pelagius ii. in Manai, t iz^ 
p. 448 sq. ; Hardouin, t. ill p. 484 sq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 385 

cularly as they had themselyes requested the Synod to take 
in hand the discussion of the privileges of the see of Con- 
stantinople (see below, § 201), and their master, the Emperor, 
expressly wished the nature of these privileges to be settled 
(see below, § 203). But prudential considerations appear 
also to have prevented them from taking part in the drawing 
up of the important canon. K they foresaw that the Boman 
legates would protest against them, and if they were after- 
wards to take the place of fudices, they could not from the 
banning formally belong to one of the parties. If, however, 
they did not wish to be present at the passing of the 28 th 
canon, it was necessary that they, like the legates, should 
withdraw at the beginning. ^ 

Certainly it may be objected that the papal legate Pascha- 
sinus, in his speech at the beginning of the sixteenth session, 
made no distinction between good and bad regulations, which 
had been drawn up in his absence, but speaks as though the 
matter contained in the 28 th canon had alone been then con- 
sidered. But this, too, may be explained, when it is considered 
that Faschasinus laid hold only of that point, and brought it 
forward on account of its great importance, and its, to him, 
objectionable character. 

As to the number of canons put forth by the Synod of 
Chalcedon, for the present we permit ourselves only the short 
remark that the 28th is the last genuine one. Many manu- 
scripts, however, contain only 2 7, others 30,adiflference which 
we shall be able to explain later on, after we have considered 
the individual canons. These canons are :^ — 

Can. 1. 

Toif^ irapit r&v a/flonv iraripcDV KaS" iKaavrfv SvvoSov iyp^ 
Tov vvv i/creOevTcni tcavova^ /cparetv iSitcaulxrafiev, 

** The canons hitherto put forth by the holy fathers in all 
the Synods shall have validity." 

Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the 
Greek Church, the canons of several Synods, which were held 
previously to that of Nicsea, were gathered into one collection 

^ They are found Id Mansi, t vii. p. 858 ; Hardouin, t ii p. 602 sqq. ; 
Bruns, Bibliotheca SccUs, L 1, p. 25 sqq. 

IIL 2 B 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



386 HISTORY OF THE COUNCILS. 

and provided with continuous numbers (cf. vol i. p. 367); and 
such a collection of canons, as we have seen (pp. 337, 372, and 
378), lay before the Synod of Chalcedon.* As, however, the 
most of the Synods whose canons were received into the collec- 
tion, e,g, those of Neo-Csesarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were 
certainly not CEcumenical Councils, and were even to some 
extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 
341, the confirmation of the (Ecumenical Synod was now given 
to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally 
and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably 
remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, a i : 
" We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as 
we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by 
them as we do the laws." The Corpus jur. can. received this 
canon into c. 14, C. xxv. q. 1.* 

Can. 2. 

Et Tt9 iTria-Koir^^; iirl ')Qyi]fuiai, ^€iporovlav iroii^a'aiTO, koX 
€A9 TTpaaiv /earaydrff) rrfv airparov ^^ptj/, koX ^evporoi/ijarf iirl 
j(p^fjLaaiv knlcKOTTov ^ 'XfopeiriaKOTrov ff Tpea-fivrepov fj Biukopov 
rj Irepov riva r&v iv r^ KXiqptp KarapiOfiovpAvav, ^ irpofidX" 
Xoi/ro hrX j(^pi]fiaa'iv ^ oIk6vo/j,ov fj l/cSucov ^ irpoo'^ovdpiov ij 
SXck>9 Tivi, rov Kavovo^, Zi! alaj^po/eipSeuiv olxelav' 6 rovro ein- 
yiEiprjaa'!: iXey^OeU 'rrepl top ^Ifceiov KivBvpevera) fiaOfiov /cal 
6 x^ipoTovovfievo^ fiffBkv iK 7% Kar ifiiropiav ixpekelaOw 
^eiporovla^ fj irpol3oXrj^, ahX ©ctto) dWorpio^; t^ a^ia<i ^ rou 
ffipomlaiiaro^ oihrep iirl j(pi}fJMa'iv irv^ev. El Be Tt9 icaX 
fi€(TiT€va)v <f>av€i7) Toi^ oSto)^ ala")(poX^ Kal aOe/iiroi^ XijfjLfjbaa-^, 
KaX oiro^y et fiev KXrfpiKo^ etrf, rov olKelov iiarvirTkrfo fiaOfiov' 
el Bk XaiKo^ 7j fiovd^oiv, dvaOe/xari^ia'Oti}, 

" If a bishop confers ordination for money, and turns the 
grace which cannot be bought into merchandise, and conse- 
crates a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or priest, or deacon, or any 

^ On the coUection of canons which lay before the Synod of Cholcedon, and 
was approved in its Ist canon, cf. Drey, Die apostol, ConsiUutionen vnd 
Cajumes der Apostely S. 427 ff. 

' Commentaries on tliis, as on the rest of the canons of Chalcedon, are given 
by the Greek scholiasts Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenns (printed in Bever«g. 
Sijnodicon, t. i. p. Ill sq.). Further, Beveridge himself, in his AfmoecUiones^ 
(ibid. t. iL p. 108 sqq.), and Van Espen, Commentaritu etc., Lc, p. 283 sqq. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



FIFTEENTH SESSION. THE CANONS. 387 

other cleric, or appoints for money an ceconomus, or advocate, 
or prosmonarios, or any other servant of the Church,* for the 
sake of base gain, upon conviction he shall endanger his own 
office, and he who is ordained shall have no advantage from 
his ordination or office obtained by purchase, but shall lose 
the dignity or the post which he has received for money. 
But if any one has acted as mediator in these shameful and 
unlawful transactions, then, if he is a cleric, he shall lose his 
own post; but if he is a layman or a monk, he shall be 
anathematized." 

As we see, this canon forbids all simony, not only the sale 
of ordinations and of properly clerical posts, but also the 
appointment for money to those Church offices for which 
ordination is not necessary ; for example, a steward of Church 
property, an ecclesiastical advocate or proctor, etc. The 
difference of the two kinds of offices is designated in our 
canon (a) by the expressions a^ia = clerical dignity, and 
^povTUTfia = administrative position ; and (J3) by the difference 
between 'xjsiporov^lv and irpofioKXeiv, of which the former 
refers to specifically spiritual or clerical offices, the latter to 
the appointment of Church officials. Besides, a distinction 
must be made between the expressions ev Kkrjptp and rivh, rod 
Kavovo^ to this extent, that, while all clerics are ^i' rSt Kavovt 
i^€Ta^6fi€j/oi, i.e. are contained in the list of the servants of 
the Church, there could also be among the men tov xavovo^ 
those who, without clerical ordination, did business for the 
Church. Among the servants of the Church the irpoa^iovapto^ 
(Mansionarim) is also named in our canon, whose duty it was, 
€U5Cording to Suicer {Thesaurus e pcUrHms Ghrcecis^ s,v.), to remain 
in the church until all had left, and then to shut it up, and 
also to extinguish the lamps, and again to light them at the 
proper time. He had at the same time some of the duties of 
the ancient Ostiarius. According to Van Espen, however, who 
here supports himself upon Du Cange, by irpo<Tfiovdpu>^ or 
Mansionarius, in the same way as by olKovofio^, a steward of 
Church property was to be understood.* He adds, too, that 

* On the expression mk reZ xMfif«s, cf. yoL i. p. 423. 

* Van Espen, Lc. p. 234 ; cf. Beveridge, l,c t. L p. 112 ; t iL Annotat, 
p. 108. 



Digitized byLjOOQlC 



388 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCILS. 

Bishop Ibas of Edessa had been charged with simony, 
as appears from the Acts of the tenth session (see above, 
p. 362), and this may have occasioned the drawing up of 
our canon. This inserted in the Corpus jur. can. c. 8, C. i 
q. 1. 

As the ancient monks were almost without exception lay- 
men, they were punished as laymen. Cf. Kober, Deposition, 
etc., S. 341. 

Can. 3. 

^H\0€P 6*9 T^v ajLav SvvoBov, OTt T&v iv Ty Kk'qfxp Karei- 
\eyfUwov Twk^ Si* olKelav ala'j(poK€pB€iav, aXXorpiav icrtifid- 
TCDV ylvomai fua-Oayral, Kal irparfyMia Kocfiucii ipyoXafiowrt, 
T^9 fiiv Tov Oeov 7<£iTovpyia^ scarappf^OvpLoivre;, roif^ Bk t&p 
KoafJLiK&v vTTOTpeyfpvre^ otKov^, Kal ova-Uiv j(€tpurfioif^ avoBe- 
ypp^evoi, hik (piTiopyvplav. "flpure roCwv fj ouyia Kal fieydXff 
SvvoBo^, pjfBiva TOV Xovirov, fi^ iwlaKOTTOP, firj KKtfpucov, fiif 
fiopd^ovTa, ^ fuaOovadoLL Knifiara, ij irparffiara, fj hreurarfeof 
iavTov KoafjLiKoS^ BioiKi^aeai,' irXrjv ei fiij irov ix vofuov KaXolTo 
€49 a^XlxoDV dirapaiTqrov iinrpowrjv, ^ o t^9 7roX€®9 errU 
cKoiro^ iKKkfjaiaaTUc&p hrvrph^i, <f>poPTl^€ip irpayfLomp, ^ 
op^p&p KoX x'fp&p a7rpopoijTa>p, Koi t&p irpoafHyimp r&v 
fiakioTa T^ iKK\f)<naaTt/aj^ BeofiepoDP fiofjOeia^, Biii top if)6/3op 
TOV Kvpiov, El Bi Tt9 Trapafiaipevp Tct wpurjiipa rod Xoiirov 
iTT^X'^iprjaoi, 6 toioOto^ iKKXffO-uumKot^ inroKeia-Oa) iiriTifiiot^. 

" It has become known to the holy Synod that some mem- 
bers of the clergy, from shameful covetousness, hire other 
people's property, and occupy themselves in worldly business 
for the sake of gain, disparaging the service of God, and going 
about among the houses of secular people, and taking in hand 
the administration of property from love of gain: therefore 
the holy and great Synod decrees that for the future no bishop, 
cleric, or monk shall hire goods, or transact business, or mix 
himself in secular affairs, unless when he is called by the laws 
to be a guardian of minors, without being able to put off the 
duty, or when the bishop of the city give