THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE THIRD AND FOURTH OECUMENICAL COUNCILS.

CHAPTER 1. The Synods Held Before The Breaking Out Of The Eutychian Controversy.

SEC. 161. SYNOD AT RIEZ IN THE YEAR 439.

ACONTESTED appointment to the episcopal see of Embrum (Ebredunum) gave occasion, in the year 439, for the Synod at Riez (Reginto) in Provence (Synodus Regensis). As political metropolis of the Gallic province of Alpes Maritimoe, Embrun also laid claim to ecclesiastical metropolitan rights. But Archbishop Hilary of Arles, who endeavored, at the expense of the metropolitans, to extend his primatial rights beyond measure (see below, Section 165), treated Embrun as one of his suffragan sees, and when, in the year 438, without his concurrence, and certainly in an uncanonical manner, chiefly by lay influence, Armentarius was raised to the see of Embrun, and was consecrated by (only) two bishops, Hilary held, on the 29th of November 439, a Synod at Riez, at which, besides himself, twelve bishops and one representative priest were present from various political provinces of South-Eastern Gaul. The names of those present are found in the subscription of the acts. The canons are: — 1. “As the two bishops who consecrated Armentarius 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. 2 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 Maritima) in qua aut chorepiscopi nomine... aut peregrina ut ajunt communione 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 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 Ecclesia Justinianensis or Justianensis, in the diocese of Orange. It is therefore called Justinianensis or Arausicana i., and as Orange lies in the south-east of France, and was subject to the Metropolitan of Aries, 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 neighboring 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 29th canon shows, by the provision at Riez, which decided that the institution of provincial Synods should again be brought into action. The thirty canons which were passed 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 in, then the Communion, the Viaticum, 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 (le gitimam communionem), together with reconciling 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; Remi Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacres, etc., t. 13 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. 2 p. 416 f. 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: Poenitentiam agere cuiquam non conceditur clericorum. 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 similar 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 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 (quaecunque 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 (consecrate) with a small portion of the Eucharist.”

The learned Remi Ceillier (l.c. 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 Roman Church at the very beginning of the mass, in the Gallican Church somewhat later, but before the consecration, 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 shall 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 inferendus est calix, some codices read offerendus (it is to be offered), but the majority of manuscripts have inferendus. Finally, the sense of consecrate is explained by the words haec commixtio et consecratio etc., which we still recite at the mixture of the host and chalice. 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.” 2 “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 punishment. But, in accordance with the decrees of the Synod of Turin (c. 8; see vol. 2 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. “Deaconess’s 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 offices).” 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.” 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 Lucianum, 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 in or feeble, or if he can no longer speak, he must not have his episcopal functions discharged by a priest in his presence, but shall invite a neighboring bishop to assist him.”

Besides these thirty genuine canons, several other ordinances are ‘.ascribed to one Synod by Gratian (in the Corp. jut. can.) and others, which, however, have no authority. Mansi (l.c. p. 441 sqq.) has also printed them.

They treat of excommunication, 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 RAISON, 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 neighboring 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 Vienne, in the ninth century, mentions his predecessor, Nectarius of Vienne, as president of this Synod; but it is hardly credible that such an honor should have been accorded in the ecclesiastical province of Aries to another metropolitan than that of Aries itself. The ten canons of Vaison are the following: — 1. “Gallic bishops, who travel in Gaul, need no special testimonial, as they are all neighbors of each other.” 2. “When people who, after undertaking penance, lead a good life in satisfactory penitence, and die unexpectedly 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 absolutissima reconciliatio.” In distinction from the absolutissima reconciliatio, the reconciliatio 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 favorite 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 judgment of his bishop, he shall have recourse to the Synod.” 6. “In accordance with a passage of the (pretended) letter of the Roman 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 (and proposes) that any one (i.e. a colleague) shall be excommunicated, 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 pronounced upon him. If, however, he believes that excommunication is necessary on account of his offenses, 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 offense of another (bishop), he shall not bring anything of the matter forward, so long as he can prove nothing, but shall endeavor 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 offense, 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 translation, rightly explained this most obscure and difficult canon, which was not generally understood. It is in contradiction with c. 5 (132) of the seventeenth Synod of Carthage, of the year 419. See vol. 2 p. 475. 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 H.), 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. 6 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. 10. “If 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 ARLES, 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. 2 Diss. 5), and Remi Ceillier (t. p. 786), assign to the year 443 that Synod of Arks 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 sufficient, for even in the middle of the fifth century, especially in the provinces 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 decide. The explanation of the last canon of this Synod of Aries, which 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.” 2. “A married man is not to be made a priest unless his conversion (i.e vow of chastity) has preceded.” 3. “Under penalty 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-merit 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 = et) without their cornprovincial bishops no bishop is to be consecrated.

The others (cornprovincials) 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. 1 pp. 195, 381, 385 f.; vol. 2 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. 1 p. 388 ff. 7. “Those who mutilate themselves, because otherwise they are unable to resist the flesh, cannot be made clerics.” Cf. vol. 1 p. 376 f. and p. 466. 8. “If any one is excommunicated by a bishop, he must not be received by another.”

Cf. vol. 1 pp. 193 f., 196, 386 f., 462 f., 471; vol. 2 pp. 68, 147 f. 9. “A Novarian must not be received, unless he has shown a spirit of penitence and has condemned his error.”

Cf. vol. 1 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 Rufinus) shall be observed.” 11. ‘“Those who have been constrained by tortures to apostatize, shall spend two years among the audientes, and three years among the penitents (third grade).”

Cf. vol. 1 p. 205. 12. “If any one dies during his time of penitence, his oblation shall be accepted (oblatio illius suscipiatur).” See above, c. 2 of Vaison, p. 165. 13. “No cleric shall, under penalty of excommunication (here and frequently — deposition), 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 invalid.”

Cf. 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” (deposit us a clero communione 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. 1 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. 1 p. 430, vol. 2 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 discretion 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 Synod 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.”

On the meaning of excommunication in this case, cf. vol. 2 p.124, c. 11, and c. 20 of Chalcedon, c. 6 of Tarragona, A.D. 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 excommunicated.”

Cf. canons 4 and 5 of the first Synod of Aries, A.D. 314, vol. 1 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 paenitentia (cf. Du Cange, Glossar., and under c. 15 of the Synod of Agde, A.D. 506). One who had undertaken poenitentia 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 understand 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 honor of fountains or rocks. 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 excommunicated.” 24. “If any one falsely imputes a capital crime to another, he shall be excommunicated to the end of his life, as the great Synod (the first of Arles, 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.

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, until he reforms.” 50. “Those who have public enmity towards each other, must not be present at divine service, until they are reconciled.” 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 communion, but shall be admitted to penance when they wish it. Communion consequent 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 (vel) citizens of the city may choose one.”

On vel = et, see p. 168, canon 5. 55. “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 Nicaea is called magna Synodus, 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 Arles 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 BESANCON, A.D. 444 AND 445.

In the first days of the year 444, or shortly before, a sect of new Manichaeans, probably Priscillianists, was discovered in the city of Rome.

Pope Leo the Great on this account held, 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 discourse, 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 endeavoring 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 Besancon (Synodus Vesontionensis), pronounced the deposition 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 (l.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 (Coneilium 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 woman in question, before she married Celidonius, had privately known another man. The consequence was, that Pope Leo declared the sentence of the Gallic Synod invalid, and restored Celidonius to his bishopric. SEC. 166. THREE ORIENTAL SYNODS AT EPHESUS, AT ANTIOCH, AND IN THE PROVINCE OF HIERAPOLIS.

Bishop Bassianus of Ephesus, in the eleventh session of the fourth Oecumenical 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 beds. 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 Evazae 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 office. 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 Evazae.” 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 Oecumenical 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 metropolitans and other bishops, altogether twentyeight, 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 offenses, 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 resigned 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 Proclus 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 comprovincial 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.c.) that the metropolitan and the cornprovincial 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.

SEC. 167. SPANISH SYNODS, ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRISCILLIANISTS, IN THE YEARS 446, 447.

The sending forth of the Acts of the above-named Roman Council caused fresh attention to be directed to the Priscillians 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 Idacins 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 Leo 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 Galicia, 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 particular Synods should be held.

At the first (of Toledo) there were present the bishops of Hispania Tarraconensis and Carthaginiensis, of Lusitania, and Baetica, 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 said of the Holy Ghost a patreFILIOQUE 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 imaginary one, no phantom, but a real and true one (solidurn 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, we 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 constitution 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.” 7. “If any one says or believes that the Godhead of Christ is susceptible of change or of suffering, 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 men’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 Scriptures which the Catholic Church receives, there are others which are to be regarded as authoritative (in auctoritate habendas), 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 which can extend beyond the divine Trinity, let him be anathema.” 15. “If any one thinks that credit should be given to astrology or Mathesis, let him be anathema.” 16. “If any one says that marriages which are permitted by the divine law are abominable (execrabilia), 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 carnes), let him be anathema.” 18. “Whoever follows in these heresies of the sect of Priscillian, or confesses them, or in holy baptism does anything in opposition to the see of Peter, let him be anathema.”

SEC. 168. SYNODS IN GAUL, IN; BRITAIN, AND IN ROME, A.D. 447.

A French and an English Synod with reference to Pelagianism 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 number, 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 Agrieola 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 Venerable 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 Roman 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 bishop, asserting that he was endeavoring to circulate the writings 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 Archbishop Domnus of Antioch, and he relieved them at once, as Easter 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, under 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 Uranius of Himeria, a friend of Eutyches. They now brought their complaints before the Emperor, Theodosius H., 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 unfavorable 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, and therefore not an impartial judge, and succeeded in getting the Emperor to issue a commission 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 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 brought forward accusations not only against Ibas, but against his cousin, the young Bishop Daniel of Came, and against John, Bishop of Theodosiople. 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 1st 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 favor of Ibas, express the wish that he may be allowed to return home before t he 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 commissioners abandoned their position as judges 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 second Act of the whole proceedings, and a continuation of the sitting at Berytus. This was noted already by Tillemont and Walch, who altered the date of the meeting at Berytus from Kal. Septbr. to Kal Februarias. On the other hand, Pagi, Noris, Baronins, 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 become God), it had been thought well to remove the meeting to Berytus.

As far as I can judge, absolute certainty is no longer obtainable on this point, but the evidence favors the priority of the meeting at Berytus.

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 Antioch. 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 consulatum Flavii Zenonis et Postumiani, is taken by some of the learned as identical with sub consulatu 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.

CHAPTER 2. Eutyches And The Synod At Constantinople, A.D. 448.

SEC. 170. THE MONOPHYSITES BEGIN THE CONFLICT.

BISHOPS IRENACUS AND THEODORET ARE PERSECUTED.

WHEN the Nestorian heresy began to separate too widely the two natures in Christ, the Godhead and the manhood, its false opponent, Monophysitism, was already in existence, namely, that which made the two natures unite or coalesce into one. This was at the time called Apollinarianism; and as certainly as S. Cyril did not deserve the reproach of Apollinarianism, 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 ff.). 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 hint should be universally recognized — all other 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 two natures in Christ after the union of the Godhead and the manhood. So it was with Acacius of Melitene, Succensus of Diocaesarea, and others. That even in Egypt 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 themselves fallen into the opposite error. This was particularly the case with Eutyches, the Archimandrite of Constantinople, whom we have frequently 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 effects (for Cyril belonged to a very distinguished and wealthy family), procuring with the proceeds cheaper bread for the poor, and thereby gaining popularity for 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 favored 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 Robber- Synod.

Trusting to the protection of such a man, who to his great position united still greater violence of action, the Monophysites 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 II in the year 435, but had afterwards separated from Nestorius and joined the union of Cyril.

His opponents brought against him the reproach of having been twice married when he was a layman; but Theodoret, who defended him (Epist. 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 married twice had been ordained on account of other excellence of character. He specially adduces several eases of this kind, and adds, that the ordination of Irenaeus had been approved of by the blessed Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople, who had enjoyed so great distinction. Besides the opposition which Theodoret generally led against the rising sect of Monophysites, he had a special reason for a zealous defense of Irenaeus, 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 province of Euphratesia would hardly have been chosen to consecrate the first metropolitan of Phoenicia, that this honor belonged rather to the Archbishop of Antioch, and that, besides, the Synodicon expressly says that Domnus of Antioch ordained Irenaeus. With this, however, the expression of Theodoret is quite easily reconciled, if we only regard the words: ejceiroto>nhsa to The intercession of Theodoret was, however, of no avail. The Emperor Theodosius II deposed Irenaeus, 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 in 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 Theodoret were subject to his jurisdiction. 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 clear 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; but a second edict went still farther, and forbade Theodoret to appear at the Synod, which was subsequently to be assembled (the Robber-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, ut quales intra ecclesiam laterent possent agnosci; and in fact the Monophysites, 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 controversy received the name of Eutychian.

SEC. 171. EUTYCHES AND HIS ACCUSERS.

Eutyches, who, according to his opponents, had previously borne the name of Atyches (i.e. the unlucky), had become 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 (dida>skalov ); 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 (ma>ndra = 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 for the faith with the Synod of Ephesus. He did not mean by this that he had been personally present at Ephesus (he must 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 greatly 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 archdeacon, 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 Nestorius, and to support the cause of Cyril . 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 endeavored 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 endeavored 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 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 opposition which existed between the orthodox and the Nestorian 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 imprudens and nimis imperitus (e.g. Epist . 28 c. 1, and Epist. 35 c. 1), and said of him that his error was de imperitia magis quam de versutia natus (Epist. 30 c. 1). Quite as striking were the expressions respecting him of the famous Bishop Alcimus Avitus of Vienne, a younger contemporary of Eutyches, who said: Nihil existit clarae eruditionis 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 from Bishop Facundus of Hermione, in his work, Pro defensione trium capitulorum, that before this Bishop Domnus of Antioch had publicly accused Eutyches of Apollinarianism, and had given information of this to the Emperor Theodosius It. At what time this was done we cannot certainly ascertain. 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 principles of Eutyches, for what Domnus specially brings forward, that “he had accused Didorus 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 Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 beginning averse to this new bishop; and, besides, Flavian lost the favor of the Emperor immediately, because, instead of the accustomed golden eulogiae, he had, on his entrance upon his office, presented to him only consecrated loaves — that is, the eulogiae of the ancient Church. The consequences of this disfavor showed themselves.

SEC. 172. SYNOD 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 su>nodov ejndhmou~sa, 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 dispatch. Afterwards, one of the bishops present, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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: Eusebius Neestorium deposuit; 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 Dorylaeum 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 remarked 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 Dorylaeum renewed his complaint, with the remark that Eutyches by conversations and discussions had misled many others to adopt his error.

At his suggestion some earlier documents were now read, as examples of the orthodox faith — namely, (a) the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius (see above, p. 4 f.); (b) 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.

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 believed, 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, born of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood of one substance 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 (ejk du>o fu>sewn ) 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 Dorylaeum, 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) he had resolved never to leave the convent and go to any place whatever; that he would rather remain in it as in the grave. The Synod should, however, know that Eusebius of Dorylaeum had long been his enemy, and had slandered him only out of malice, for he was ready to affirm and subscribe the declarations of the holy Fathers of Nicaea 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 (mi>an fu>sin proskunei~n kai< tau>thn Qeou~ sarkwqe>ntov kai< ejnanqrwph>santov ). 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 born 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 Eutyches.

Upon this, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 offense by that which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had brought against him, but also by his most recent heterodox declarations 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 also a short letter to Eutyches, to the effect that “he was now summoned 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 Dorylaeum mentioned that he had learnt that Eutyches had sent a writing (to>mov ) 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 Martyrium (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 Dorylaeum, several priests and deacons were then sent to the other monasteries, in order to ascertain whether Eutyches had ventured 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 Archbishop 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 commissioned to hear us in his stead. We replied: ‘Was it in this way that they dealt with envoys of the most holy Archbishop 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 misfortune, we invite thee for the third time, and trust it may please thee to appear early on the day after tomorrow, that is, on Wednesday the 17th of November.” Before the expiration of this time, on Tuesday the 16th of November, the fourth session was held. Archbishop Flavian was speaking on the subject of the dogma, when they were informed that envoys from Eutyches, the monks and deacons Eleusinius, Constantine, and Constantius, with the Archimandrite 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 unable 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 offense to many, and therefore 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 anathematized 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 besought him to desist, and to yield; as, however, he persisted, 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 11:23; John 10:12). We can see that Archbishop Flavian had an earnest desire for the maintenance of the peace of the Church, but duty required him to hear and examine the charges against Eutyches, and the heretical obstinacy of the latter made all peaceable 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 Archimandrite Abraham to the Archbishop and the Synod that he might in his name give his assent to the declarations of the Synods of Nicaea and Ephesus, and to all that Cyril had uttered.”

Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 frequently, 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 Abraham. 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 statement, 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 w ent first into the convent. of the Archimandrite and Presbyter 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 of Ephesus and Cyril had taught.

Thereupon we had recourse to the Archimandrite and Presbyter Faustus, who told us that the monks Constantine 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 Dorylaeum said: “The offense 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 unwilling even now to proceed to extremities, and granted Eutyches the respite he had desired until the 22d of November, remarking that in case he did not appear even then, he should be deprived of his sacerdotal dignity, and deposed from his headship of the monastery. On Saturday the 20th of November the bishops assembled for the sixth session, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 invitation, something which was not in the Acts, but which would throw a clear 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 oJmoou>siov 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 God the Logos were perfect (in Christ). Eutyches said He was. I asked further, whether the man who appeared in the flesh (a]nqrwpov oJ sarkwqeiGod is perfectly 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 oJmoou>siov which is not found there; but we are taught by the Fathers respecting the oJmoou>siov and also respecting the two natures.

Then Eutyches 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 22d of November, and in order to increase its solemnity the books of the holy Gospels were publicly set forth. As Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 neighborhood of the Episcopeion (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 intelligence 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 (e]kdikov ) of the Synod, 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, 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 great; many years to the pious, orthodox, high-priestly Emperor (tw~| ajrcierei~ basilei~ ).” 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 manhood; for an union of the two natures has taken place (du>o ga>r fu>sewn e[nwsiv ge>gone ), therefore we confess One Christ, ()he Lord, and, in accordance with this union without confusion (th~v ajsugcu>tou eJnw>sewv ), we call the holy Virgin God-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 Dorylaeum exclaimed: “Certainly such is not confessed by this man here (Eutyches); he has never believed this, but the contrary, 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 Dorylaeum objected, remarking that if Eutyches now agreed, then he, Eusebius, must appear as having been lightly a slanderer, and should lose his office. Eutyches had already threatened him even with banishment to the Oasis, and he was rich and influential, whilst he himself 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 prejudice should arise to him from the present assent of Eutyches; for he was able to prove that previously he had not taught correctly.

Flavian calmed him by the assurance that if Eutyches now agreed there should not arise from this the slightest disadvantage for Eusebius; and then he asked Eutyches: “Say now, dost thou acknowledge the union of two natures (eij ejk du>o fu>sewn e[nwsin oJmologei~v )?” Eutyches said: “Yes;” but Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 from 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 substance with the Father as to His Godhead, and of one substance 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?” he replied, “I have not hitherto presumed to dispute concerning the nature of my God; but that lie is of one substance 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, according 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 understand 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:” Dost thou believe that our Lord, who was born of the Virgin, is of one substance with us, and that after the incarnation He is ejk du>o fu>sewn , or not?” And Eutyches answered: “I confess that before the union (of the Godhead and manhood)lie was of two natures, but after the union I confess only one nature” (oJmologw~ ejk du>o fu>sewn gegenh~sqai torion hJmw~n pro< th~v eJnw>sewv meta< de< than fu>sin oJmologw~ ). The, Synod finally demanded of Eutyches a public declaration and an anathema on every view which was in opposition to the doctrine which had been expressed. He answered again equivocally: “He would now indeed, since the Synod so 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 collectively, 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 Archbishop asked: “What does this man deserve who does not confess the right faith, but persists in his perverseness?” Eutyches endeavored 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 Synod, 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 S. 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 Robber-Synod): “If thou dost not acknowledge two natures after the union also, then thou acceptest a mingling and confusion (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 statements, and even now by his own confessions, shown himself to be entangled in the perversity of Valentinus and Apollinaris, 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 excommunication.” This sentence was subscribed by Flavian and the rest of the bishops (according to the Greek text 28, according to the old Latin version 31) with the formula uJpe>graya , that is,JUDICANS subscripsi, while the twenty-three archimandrites who likewise, but somewhat later, subscribed, used only the expression uJpe>graya , since they had a right not to pronounce judgment, but only to give their assent. SEC. 173. EUTYCHES AND FLAVIAN BOTH ENDEAVOR 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 places in Constanstinople placards (contestatorios libellos), in which 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 unfavorable hearing, so that Flavian from this time fell into still greater disfavor. 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 Dorylaeum had sent an accusation against him to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, 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 Church. 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 he 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 Rome, and speaks of it ad captandam benevolentiam, in a manner which must have been very pleasing at Rome). But they had not listened to him, but had suddenly broken off the Synod and published the sentence against him, so that he would have come in danger of 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 affected by the previous intrigues, 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 supposition 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, lie there asserts his orthodoxy. In the remaining part, now lost, the contestio 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 effect 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 theologians of his day, but prudently does not enter further upon the 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 written, since the holy Peter, who still lives in his see, imparts the truth to those who seek it. We, however, cannot decide upon matters of faith without the assent of the Roman bishop.” It is not without doubt, but it is very probable, that Eutyches now appealed also to Dioscurus 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 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 to>mov ) 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 Robber-Synod that the decree of deposition on Eutyches had been sent to him from Constantinople, and had been subscribed by him. Besides, 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 Ballerini, 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 lamentation 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 endeavored 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 (pa>lai ) 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 Rome the Pope received a letter from the Emperor and one from Eutyches himself, front which we have given an extract above . Leo now wrote on the 18th of February 449, as the subscription shows, to Flavian as follows: “The Emperor had made hint acquainted with the ecclesiastical troubles in Constantinople, and Leo only wondered that Flavian had told him nothing of them, and had not taken care of the matter should be communicated to him first. He had also received a letter from Entyches, who complained that, although innocent, he had been excommunicated on the accusation of Eusebius of Dorylaum, and that his appeal to Rome had not been regarded. Flavian should inform him of all, for until he knew everything accurately he could not judge in favor 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 all an effort must be made ut sine strepitu concertationum et custodiatur caritas, et veritas defendatur.” Leo’s letter of the same date to the Emperor is 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 accusation of Eusebius of Dorylaeum which Eutyches had transmitted 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 contrary, endeavoring to embarrass the Church of Constantinople, 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 Rome. 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 before 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 favor of the court, and that Theodosius had endeavored 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 Nicene 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 so 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 FALSIFICATION OF THE SYNODAL ACTS.

Making use of the favorable 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 Caesarea 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 Thalassins 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 cooperated in the deposition of Eutyches. In consequence of this a second and greater synodal assembly of thirty-four bishops took place on the 13th of April in the greater portico of the church at Constantinople under the presidency of Flavian. Fifteen of them had also been, in the previous year, members of that Synod which had pronounced the condemnation of Eutyches. 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 read, Florentius asked whether representatives of Eutyches were present. When this question was answered in the affirmative, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 Constantius. 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 Seleucia, one of the most distinguished among those present, rejected this requirement as inadmissible, and as something which had never been done before; but, on the other hand, promised that all should speak with the same conscientiousness 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 God, 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 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. 19 0, 191); but after the reading of the minutes of the third session one of the representatives of Eutyches, the deacon and monk Constantine, remarked that an expression of Eutyches had not been correctly reproduced. He had not said to those whom the Synod then sent to him: “If the Fathers of the Church erred in some expressions, I do not blame them for this, but only inquire in Holy Scripture” . 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 (eijv kano>na de< pi>stewv ouj de>comai ).” As, however, he noticed that this expression was also very offensive, he requested that it should not be used to the prejudice of Eutyches. He was answered properly 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 all their explanations as his own words, and for that reason the request just made was quite inadmissible. Embarrassed by this answer, Constantine requested that the words, “but not as a rule of faith,” might be struck out, for he had uttered them only inconsiderately, being confused 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 his utterance) had arisen. Asked by Florentius to state their opinion, the two Bishops, Thalassius of Casarea 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 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 Acts. Bishop Meliphthongus of Juliopolls 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 himself 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 substance with ours,” was not found 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 was read, and he added to this that the priest John had then asked Eutyches whether he acknowledged that Christ, in His Godhead, was of one substance with the Father, but in His manhood of one; substance with us. Eutyches had replied that the Creed (of Nicaea) spoke only of one consubstantiality, namely that of the Godhead, 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 notebook, 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 asseverated 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 Archimandrite Martin, that “if they (the other archimandrites) did not make common cause with him, the Archbishop would ruin them all, like him” . 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 synodal deputy Theophilus, who had previously been sent to Eutyches, was examined anew on the words which Eutyches had then spoken to him . In his new testimony he added that Eutyches had then also 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 interposition from Constantine, they passed on to the minutes of the seventh session. The first doubt on this occasion was raised by Florentius, 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 different times ,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 F1orentius 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 Dorylaeum wished to remove this whole point with the proposal that the chief question, whether Eutyches were really a heretic or not, should be left to the (Ecumenical Council which was already summoned. But Bishop 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 Rome: 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 Ephesas 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 Synod rose up and cried,” etc. , 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 contradicted), 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 Florentius remarked that he had spoken to Eutyches the words: “Dost thou acknowledge two natures, etc., and if not, thou wilt be condemned” , 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” , 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 incomparably 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, Constantine 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.)

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 Archbishop 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 Archbishop 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 Rome, 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 clear from that which the imperial commissioner Florentius was able to say on the subject, namely, that Eutyches, after the Council was already dissolved, had said to him quietly that he appealed to a Roman, 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 heard a word from Eutyches himself on the subject of an appeal, and that it was only after the close of the Synod that F1orentius 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 Constantine 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 Archbishop had said to him that it was unnecessary to trouble so distinguished a personage on this occasion, for the pattern in this matter (i.e. 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 had pronounced its judgment. — This testimony was entered in the minutes, and then, at the request of the monk Constantine, Macedonius was desired to give an account of what he had heard from the priest Asterius, Flavian’s notary. He declared that after the close 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 Ms colleagues.

CHAPTER -The Robber-Synod.

SEC. 175. CONVOCATION OF THE SYNOD.

A FEW weeks before those two commissions of inquiry met, the Emperor Theodosius II had summoned an Oecumenical 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 discovered 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 declared that he expected no good of it (see above, p. 210). Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, on the contrary, seems to have regarded the prospect as more favorable, as we may infer from his expressions already mentioned . The imperial brief of convocation itself, which, as was usual, was sent forth in the name of the two Emperors, Theodosius II and Valentinian in. 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 declare in it their zeal for orthodoxy, 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 manner as a member of the Synod. With this agrees the letter of the Emperor to Barsureas 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 Last 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 officers of state, Elpidius (Comes sacri consistorii, as he is called in the letter to the proconsul Proclus) and the tribune and praetorian notary Eulogius, as his commissioners at the approaching Synod, and gave them written instructions (commonitorium) 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 Nestorius, 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 fulfill 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 (kri>sei ), 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 sentence 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 fulfill his commissions, which were as far above other business as divine above human things.” A short decree to the proconsul Proclus of Asia acquainted him with the imperial resolution thus expressed, and ordered him to support the commissioners as well as possible, otherwise he would expose himself to great responsibility. We possess, besides, two other imperial decrees which preceded 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 all who should desire to add anything to the Nicene Confession of Faith (Symbolum), 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 all 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 controversy 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 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 dispatched to Pope Leo I., and reached Rome, May 13, 449. The Pope, however, was unable to respond to the wish of the Emperor that he should appear personally, on account of disquieting conjunctures, and therefore he appointed three legates, Bishop Julius of Puzzuolo, the priest Renatus (Cardinal of S. Clement), and the deacon Hilarus, to take his place at the Synod, and to convey his letters to Archbishop 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 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. 1 Thy letter, at the late dispatch of which I am astonished, and the synodal Acts which were appended, have at last made me acquainted with the offense which has arisen among you in opposition to the true faith.

What has hitherto been dark has now become quite clear. 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. 2 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 born 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 inferior in power, not unequal in glory, not divided in essence. And this only-begotten eternal Son of the eternal Father was born 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 could 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 born of the womb of the Virgin had received 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 built for Himself a house in that flesh which He assumed of a human being (Mary), and which He animated by the spiritus animae [vitae ?] rationalis (by a reasonable soul). — Chap. 3 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 not die. In the inviolate and perfect nature (in integra perfectaque natura) of a true man, true God is born, complete in His own (in His Godhead) and complete in ours (in the manhood). I say, ‘in ours,’ and I mean, as the Creator formed our nature, and as Christ wills to restore it (that is, Christ’s manhood is the integra, not corrupted 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 ( Philippians 2:7), 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. 4 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 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 and 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 miracles, 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 of man. God in this, that ‘in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;’ man 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 born 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, tie is like to the beginnings of men (rudimentis hominum — 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,’ etc.

He who as man, is tempted by the cunning of the devil, He, as God, is ministered to by angels. Hunger, thirst, weariness, 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 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 I.’ 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 different 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. — Chap. 5 For this reason that the two natures constitute only one person, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven ( John 3:13), while the Son of God took flesh of the Virgin; and also, that the Son of God was crucified and buried, while he suffered not in the Godhead, 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 Corinthians 2:8).

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 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 apostle: ‘Every Spirit which looses (parts)Jesus is not of God, is Antichrist’ ( 1 John 4:3). [According to the Vulgate: Omnis Spiritus qui solvit Jesum ex Deo non est; et hic est antichristus: derived from the reading of the original, placed in the margin by the revisers and by Westcott and Hort, which substitutes lu>ei for mh< oJmologei~ ] But what is the meaning of ‘loosing’ Jesus but separating the human 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 manhood) 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.

It 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 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. 6 When Eutyches answered to your question: ‘I confess that our Lord before the union consisted of two natures, but after 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 before the union 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 explanation 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 influence declared that he would confess what he had not hitherto confessed, and believe what he had not hitherto believed. 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 again manifests genuine penitence, and acknowledges the righteousness 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 assistance he who had erred may abjure his false opinion, and so may find salvation. May God preserve thee, dearest brother, — Given on the 13th of June, under the consuls Asturius and Protogenes” (A.D. 449). SEC. 177. SUBSEQUENT LETTERS OF POPE LEO THE GREAT ON ACCOUNT OF EUTYCHES.

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 Theodosius H. (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 (Synodale judicium) at Ephesus, in order that the blind might see, he had commissioned his three legates to take his place there. If 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 , — then he ought again to be received with goodwill. As regarded 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, contains 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 erroneously, and therefore in Constantinople, and not in Ephesus.

A second letter of Leo’s to Pulcheria, the thirty-first in the collection of the Ballerini, bears in some of the manuscripts the date, “June 13, 449;” it seems, however, improbable that the Pope should have committed to his legates 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 dispatched. 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 made, and that it is not possible for the Pope to appear in person. 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), and that Peter himself, as it were, should declare what he meant by the: words: ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God.’ If Eutyches had rightly understood this utterance, 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 episcopale concilium, that the error might be dispersed by a fuller judgment (pleniori judicio), Leo had sent the Bishop Julius, the priest Renatus, 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 dogma. 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 letter, a new opportunity of sending letters to the East presented itself to the Pope, and therefore, on the 20th of June 449, he addressed a few lines to Flavian, with the intelligence 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 dispatched to the Emperor himself on the same day, and at the same time excused his own nonappearance 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 gentleness 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. 221 f.) and Pope Leo, Theodoret expected no good from the Synod which had been convoked. He expresses this in his letters to Bishop Irenaeus of Tyre and to his patriarch, 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 still suspected them of Monophysitism, 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 Monophysitism, sanctioned at the Synod. SEC. 178. THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ROBBER-SYNOD, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN 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 Robber-Synod, latrocinium Ephesinum, or su>nodov lhstrikh< , has attained to such a melancholy celebrity. Its Acts are preserved by their having been read over at the Oecumenical 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 Breviculus Historiae Eutychianistarum (see below, p. 258); whilst on three subsequent days, and perhaps at three subsequent sessions, those depositions of several bishops, e.g. of Theodoret and Donmus, were pronounced, of which the Acts say nothing, but which we learn from other sources (see below, p. 256).

Among the members of the Synod, Dioscurus is first mentioned in the Acts; after him the papal legate Bishop Julius (here called Julianus), next Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and only quinto loco Flavian of Constantinople, although the second OEcumenical Synod had assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople the rank next after the Bishop of Rome.

The author of the Breviculus Historiae Eutuchianistarum gives the number of the bishops present at this council as 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 Roman clerics, the deacon Hilarus and the notary Dulcitius. So at the close of the Robber- 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 Phaenus 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 Constantinople, the following, Basil of Seleucia, Seleucus of Amasia, AEthericus 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 Robber-Synod were opened by their first secretary (Primicerius Notariorum ), the priest John, probably one of the clergy of Dioscurus, with the announcement: “The God-fearing Emperors have, from zeal for religion, convoked this assembly.” Thereupon he read, at the command of Dioscurus, the imperial brief of convocation (see p. 222), and the two Roman 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 Nicaea or the first of Ephesus; therefore he had sent his legates, and had given them charge of a letter to the Synod.

This papal brief as, at the command of Dioscurus, 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 Nestorian heresy was now properly condemned, but new religious doubts had soon arisen, for the removal of which the present Synod had been arranged. He would immediately communicate 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 permitted 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 Commonitorium addressed to him and Eulogius , and the secretary John read the edict of the Emperor addressed to the Synod .

Thalassius of Caesarea, 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. Dioscurus interpreted this to mean, not that the faith itself should first be declared, for this the former holy Synods had already done, but rather that they were now to consider whether the newlyintroduced 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 two Synods, the faith is but one ,” and he invited the bishops to declare that men must simply abide by the definitions of faith of Nicaea 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 testimony 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 retirement, but he had not attained to this good fortune, for he had been surrounded 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 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 excommunication, 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, Apollinaris, 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 Dorylaeum 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 superfluous, 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 Nicaea 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 E1pidius replied that the Emperor had commanded that they who had sat in judgment upon Eutyches at Constantinople should now themselves be judged. Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 reading 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, Valerian of Iconium, and Succensus of Diocaesarea (see pp. 140-144), and not on the side of belief in two natures, but in one nature of the incarnate God. He wished also to remark that Cyril was more favorable to Eutyches than they had supposed at Constantinople; but he did not take the words of Cyril in their connection and in their true sense, and thereby gave occasion for subsequent discussions at the Synod of Chalcedon.

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 Robber-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 read that 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 Evazae pronounced an anathema on such an innovation. Immediately upon this Bishop AEthericus of Smyrna declared that he had not said that which was entered in the Acts of Constantinople as his expression: the point was, however, unimportant, and Dioscurus therefore passed quickly over it; but AEthericus himself endeavored afterwards to represent the matter differently at Chalcedon, and thereby showed himself to be both an ignorant and a fickle man. The remaining part of the Acts of the second session gave occasion for no remark, and in the same way those of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions (see p. 191 ff.) were read 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 , the ill-will of the Robber- Synod found vent in the words: “Burn Eusebius,” and “Anathema to everyone 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 unfriendly 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 in the Acts: “If thou, Eutyches, dost not accept two natures even after the union, then thou teachest a mingling.” He had said: “If thou speakest of only one nature after the union, and dost not add, sesarkwme>nhn kai< ejn ajnqrwph>sasan (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).

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 ff.) without any interruption. 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” . 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 . 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 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 AEthericus, 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 Dioscurus, 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 Aethericus, 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 document. 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 communion with 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 mysteries. 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 condemned 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. 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 everyone who teaches otherwise than the Nicene Creed, or makes alterations in it, and raises new or further questions. Everyone 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 Nicaea, 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 affirmed 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 everyone 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 pronounce, therefore, their deposition, and everyone of those present shall communicate his view of this matter.

Moreover, 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 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, AEthericus, Basil, and Seleucus. At the close, the 135 bishops who were present; subscribed, some personally, some by representatives, with the abbot Barsumas. So far the minutes of the Robber-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 RESPECTING THE ROBBER-SYNOD.

In a communication addressed to the Emperor Valentinian III and Marcian (the successor of Theodosius II), and also read at the Council of Chalcedon, Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum 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 Caesarea and Juvenal of Jerusalem, to draw up the proceedings 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 them, 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 , 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 introduced 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 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 condemnnation 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. ¾ Dioscurus denied this, and proposed to appeal to witnesses, whom, however, 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 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 Barsumas 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 (e) 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 Rome. 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 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 Hilarus 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 permitted to go either to Constantinople or to Rome.

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 forty-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. Dioscurus 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 Archbishop 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 Cyrus at the Robber-Synod, without having heard him at all, or having interrogated him with respect to his faith on the 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 Robber-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 III, 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 tumultuous and unhappy one, and Valentinian, too, speaks of its tumultuous character.

To these epistolary communications on the Synod of Ephesus may be added several testimonies of ancient historians, from which we learn some things which we could not obtain from other sources. We naturally place first among these the contemporary of the Robber-Synod, Prosper of Aquitaine, to whom in particular we owe three statements ¾ (a) that Pope Leo had sent two legates, Bishop Julius of Puteoli and the deacon Hilarus, to Ephesus; (b) 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 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 Breviculus Historiae Eutychianistarum says: “At this Synod there were also present the representatives sent by the Apostolic See, Bishop Julius of Puteoli and the Archdeacon Hilarus. The Presbyter Renatus, however, died during the journey to Ephesus in the island of Delos. The Roman 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 (i.e. the Acts of Constantinople). In spite of the opposition of the Roman legates, Flavian was deposed, and Eusebius of Dorylaeum was condemned as a Nestorian, although he, when yet a layman, had stood up as an accuser of Nestorius. These Eutychianists would not allow that between them and Nestorius there was a third party, and held everyone 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. (b) The legates of the Pope were not allowed to sit with the bishops, as the presidency had not been conceded to the Roman see; that is, because the legates were not allowed to preside, they took no seat at all, but stood extra ordinem. (c) At the command of Dioscurus the Synod 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 (f) last of all, Domnus of Antioch, although he had agreed in everything with Dioseurus. 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 account of them. (g) Flavian appealed by the legates to the apostolic see (see above, p. 251, note 2). (h) 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 Dorylaeum. (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 Robber-Synod; and, on the other hand, resolutions were drawn up in favor of Bishop Sophronius of Constantina (in Phoenicia). In another place (2:2) Evagrius also adduces the testimony of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, to the effect that Flavian, beaten and kicked by Dioscurus, had miserably perished.

Finally, the Byzantine Theophanes, although belonging only to the eighth century, contributes something which is worthy of notice. (a) Agreeing with the expression of Leo: Latrocinium Ephesinum, he calls this Synod a su>nodov lhstrikh< , and says (b) that Flavian before his deposition was struck by Dioscurus both with hands and feet, and on the third day after died; (c) that the papal legates, being always ridiculed, had taken flight and returned to Rome. SEC. 180. FORTUNES OF THE PAPAL LEGATES WHO HAD BEEN DEPUTED TO THE ROBBER-SYNOD.

This last statement leads us to some remarks on the legates of Leo. We know that he had named three of these ¾ 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 Renatus; even at the beginning of the Synod only Julius and Hilarus, with the notary Dulcitius, are mentioned as being present. Accordingly Renatus does not appear to have been at Ephesus, and therefore that is credible which is said by the author of the Breviculus 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 Renatus, and is written after the close of the Robber-Synod. Theodoret praises him on account of his liberality and the zeal with which he had blamed the violence practiced at the Robber-Synod.

The whole world was, on this account, full of his fame. The legate had been present up to the deposition of Flavian, but he had then departed, and thus had not remained to witness the unjust condemnation of Theodoret. Various attempts have been made to reconcile this contradiction, 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 Breviculus made a mistake; (b) 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 Renatus not being mentioned in the Acts is a consequence of their incompleteness (!); (d) that after the close of the Synod, Hilary and Renatus had traveled back to Rome (Julian of Cos naturally had no reason for going there), but the former had arrived the earlier, on which account Leo, in his forty-fourth and forty-fifth letters (see above, p. 255), says that Hilary alone had returned to Rome; (e) and that Theoderet had written the letter in question to Renatus, who also returned there, but at a later period.”

Against this hypothesis Baluzius and the Ballerini protested, 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 substitute. (b) In the next place, the silence of the Acts of Ephesus not only makes it probable that Renatus 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 Breviculus. (c) If, however, Theodoret nevertheless writes to Renatus, either the superscription of the letter is false (for the name of Renatus never occurs in the text), or Theodoret has made a mistake and confounded 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 the 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 himself. Of Julius, however, just as little as of Renatus, 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 f.) speaks of the return of the legates in the plural.

On this statement Tillemont makes the remark that Julius must necessarily have returned later than Hilarus, as Leo says nothing of him in his fortyfourth and forty-fifth letters. CHAPTER 4. The Robber-Synod Is To Be Confronted By A New And Greater Council.

SEC. 181. THEODOSIUS II FOR, POPE LEO I AGAINST, THE ROBBER-SYNOD. SYNODS AT ROME AND MILAN.

AFTER all that we know and have already brought forward respecting the disposition of the Byzantine Court at that time, it could not be doubted that the Emperor Theodosius II, in spite of all the counter-representations of the Pope and the Latin Court (see above, p. 255 ff.), would confirm the decrees of the Robber-Synod; and he actually did so in a decree which is still extant in Latin, as follows: “When Nestorius endeavored 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, following 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 decrees 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, everyone 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 universal authority; on the contrary, there now arose a great ecclesiastical schism in the East. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine 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 (ejpikalei~sqai ) to the judgment of Rome, 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 dogmatica of Leo, upon which he bestows great praise. ¾ 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 affirmative 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 (occidentale concilium it is called by his deacon Hilarus in his letter to Pulcheria), and in agreement with this Synod rejected all that had been done at the Robber-Synod. The libellus synodicus 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 announcement 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 immediately wrote, on the 13th October 449, to the Emperor Theodosius II, saying, that until a greater Synod of Bishops from all parts of the world could be held, he should be pleased to allow everything to remain in the status which existed before the recently-held Synod at Ephesus, and to give orders for the holding of an OEcumenical 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. ¾ We have already seen (see p. 256) that the Pope had also written to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica (Epist. 47), and to the Clergy, Laity, and Archimandrites of Constantinople, in order to warn them not to acknowledge the Ephesine Synod (Epp. 50 and 51). ¾ Somewhat later, at Christmas in the same year (449), he appealed again to the Emperor Theodosius, assured him of his steadfastness 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 III came with his wife Eudoxia (a daughter of Theodosius II.), and his mother Galla Placidia (aunt of Theodosius), to Rome, 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 Roman 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 innovations in the faith. ¾ 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. Perhaps 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 17th 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 steadfastness in the orthodox faith. Directly after this, in May 450, Leo endeavored to interest the Gallican bishops in the dominant doctrinal question, having at the same time to meet with them in order to settle the contest for the primacy between Arles and Vienne; and he succeeded in this with the best results, as is testified by his letter to the Archbishop Ravennius of Arles, 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 favor of the orthodox faith, and accepted Leo’s Epistola dogmatica, 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 (Ep. 69), the request of the Emperor Theodosius to recognize Anatolius, the successor of Flavian, as Bishop of Constantinople.

Anatolius had, in a special letter, of which only a fragment yet remains, requested this confirmation from Rome, 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 therefore read the writings of the Fathers of the Church on the doctrine of the Incarnation, particularly those of S. Cyril and of the Synod of Ephesus, 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, however, some should still fail to agree with the true faith of the Pope and the Fathers, then an OEcumenical 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 II, 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 ¾ 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 excommunication of the Pope followed afterwards) had informed him of the election and ordination of the new Bishop of Constantinople, but not of his orthodoxy, and of the suppression of heresy in his neighborhood. He had therefore sent four legates to the Emperor, and asked the Archimandrites to support them according to their ability. SEC. 182. PULCHCRIA AND MARCIAN COME TO THE THRONE.

It is probable that Theodosius was already dead when those papal legates arrived at Constantinople, for he died in consequence of a fall from his horse, July 28, 450. As he left no male succession, and as his sister Pulcheria, in the year 415, 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 III, the Emperor of the West. As, however, a woman had never governed the Roman Empire alone, either in the East or in the West, Pulcheria offered her hand and her throne to Marcian, one of the most distinguished generals and statesmen 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). Dioscurus rightly foresaw what he had to fear from the new Emperor, and therefore endeavored 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 correspondence 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 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 in the faith (th>n te shnhn ejpiskopeu>ousan kai< a]rcousan th~v qei>av pi>stewv ), and requested him to intercede with God for the security of his government. Finally, he declares that he is favorable to the holding of the Synod suggested by Leo (sou~ aujqentou~ntov ), for the extirpation of heresy and the restoration of peace. Somewhat later, on the 22d 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 Pope 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 Rome 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 subscribed the doctrinal letter (Epistola dogmatica ) of Leo without 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 of the East, of Thrace, and Illyricum 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 (sou~ aujqentou~ntov ). 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 Dorylaeum, who, as it appears, had not yet been recalled from exile, and was still in Rome, 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 Chalcedon. 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 by a Synod at Constantinople under Anatolius. In the reply to this, Eustathius related, “that very recently the letter of Leo had been sent for subscription by the Synod at Constantinople (under Anatolius) to the absent metropolitans, and in like manner at the (somewhat earlier) Synod held during the life of Theodosius II 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 two Synods before 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 su>nodov ejndhmou~sa , the first time under Theodosius II, 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 , 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 mox ) 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), archimandrites, 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 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. ¾ 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 WITHOUT 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 (Ep. 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 Roman legates, for the recall of the banished Catholic bishops, and for the honorable 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 reconciliation 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 Dorylaeum still remained with him, and had been received into his communion. The Empress 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 communion (of the Bride of Christ), and approved of the documents furnished with the subscriptions (of the Synod of Constantinople). In regard to the bishops who had allowed themselves to be led astray by the violence of the Robber-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 Constantinople), 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, consider which of them should again be taken into full Church communion with the Pope. First, however, they must be required to anathematize the heresies. The names of Dioscurus, Juvenal, and Eustathius of Berytus must be struck out of the diptychs, and must no longer be read at the altar in Constantinople. In regard to Eusebius of Dorylaeum, Julian of Cos, and the clergy of Constantinople, who had remained faithful to Flavian, Leo repeats what he had already said in his letter to Pulcheria, 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 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 Rome, 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 favor 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. ¾ 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 commendation 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 inquiry 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 favor shown to them, and in what way it should be shown.

Therefore he would more fully communicate 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 (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 Chalcedon. 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 Robber-Synod to communion with Anatolius, and these legates 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 afflicted 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 neighborhood of Constantinople (from his monastery) to a more remote place, so that he might not easily have intercourse with those whom he had misled. At the same time 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. Leo requested Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, in common with the papal legates, to arrange all that was advantageous 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 Robber-Synod should be required 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. ¾ 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 MARCIAN SUMMONS AN OECUMENICAL COUNCIL. THE POPE ASSENTS, AND NOMINATES LEGATES.

When Leo wrote these last letters, the Emperor had already, on the 17th of May 451, in his own name and in that of his co-emperor, summoned an OEcumenical Council to Nicaea, which was to open on the 1st 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 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 Nicaea 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 required to attend at Nicaea on the next 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.” ¾ 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 17th, or, according to the old Latin translation, the 23d of May.

On hearing of this summons, Leo again addressed a letter, June 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 OEcumenical Council. But since from love to the Catholic faith you wish this assembly to be held now, in order to offer no impediment to your pious will, I have chosen as my representative my fellow-bishop Paschasinus (of Lilybaeum, 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.” 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 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 transmit the intelligence respecting it, in proper time, into all the provinces (of the West), so that a truly OEcumenical 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 tells Anatolius their names. In a third letter, also dated June 26, Leo gave a commission to Bishop Julian of Cos to represent the Pope at the Synod now summoned to meet at Nicaea, in union with the other legates. At last he dispatched 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 permitted neither by the necessity of the times nor by previous custom. His 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 dogmatica ) what he believed to be in accordance with the ancient tradition, they could not doubt as to what he wished. No opposition to the 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 assist those bishops to regain their rights who had been unjustly persecuted and deposed on account of their resistance to heresy. The resolutions of the earlier Synod of Ephesus under Cyril 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 ¾ 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. ¾ 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. (b) Since the change in the throne, however, almost all the bishops of the East who had previously erred, had again returned in penitence to the communion 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 f.). (c) Only the secondary point still remained: the complete reconciliation of the penitent bishops and the punishment of the obstinate. This matter could be arranged by the papal 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 something from the Nestorians, since a good many bishops of Syria were still suspected of Nestorianism. Leo was afraid that they, or others in their name, would take advantage of the rejection of Eutychianism, and would originate a new discussion on orthodoxy in favor 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 this 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 uncertain 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. (f) 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 Nicaea, not as though the Bishop of Byzantium would now have wished to be raised above the Bishop of Rome, but because, since the second OEcumenical Council, Constantinople had often endeavored to take precedence of the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, and to place himself immediately by the side of the Bishop of Rome ¾ 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.