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 toAntioch, he thinks, should, in the manner which he proposes to him, make declaration to the Emperor in regard to Irenaeus.

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 Novemb