| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? News & Reviews: Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
BOOK 11.PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP
The Fourth Oecumenical Synod At Chalcedon, A.D. 451. SEC. 186. NUMBER AND PLACE OF THE SESSIONS. AFTER these preparations the Council of Chalcedon, which had been summoned by the Emperor Marcian at the suggestion, and with the subsequent consent, of Pope Leo the Great (see above, p. 265 f. and p. 278), was opened on the 8th of October 451, and it lasted till the 1st of November of the same year, inclusive. As to the number of sessions held during those three weeks, even in ancient times there was no agreement, either in the existing copies of the synodal Acts themselves, or among the historians who refer to this Synod. Many old manuscripts contained only the first six sessions, which treated the question of faith, and have special reference, as we shall see, to the character of an OEcumenical Council. Other manuscripts added to these in a seventh session the canons or disciplinary arrangements of our Synod; others again were more complete, and contained also the transactions referring to personal and special subjects, which came to be discussed in the later sessions. But even among manuscripts of the last kind there is again a great difference, since none of them contains the whole of the special transactions, and in one certain parts are wanting, and in others others. A similar want of agreement is found among the old historians. Evagrius numbers fifteen sessions (Hist. Eccl. 2:18), Liberatus, who had before him an Alexandrian manuscript of the Synodal Acts, divided (100:13) the whole into twelve Secretaria with sixteen Actiones, so that to him, as well as to Evagrius, several of the transactions on special subjects had remained unknown; for example, those on Photius of Tyre and on Carosus. The ordinary division, and that which has also been received universally in the West, since the work of the Roman deacon Rusticus, of which we shall have to speak presently , makes sixteen sessions; and this division we must also retain, although the Ballerini long ago correctly remarked that properly twenty-one sessions should be counted, which were held on fourteen (according to the Latin Acts, thirteen) different days. The result of our examination on this point, as to the number, time of holding, and object of the particular sessions, we give, with some variations, from the brothers Ballerini, in the following table, p. 287. The whole of the sessions were held in the Church of S. Euphemia the Martyr, which was situated in front of the town on the Bosporus, only two stadia or twelve hundred paces from it, on a gentle slope opposite Constantinople, and offered a magnificent view over the sea and the fields. Evagrius has a whole chapter (2:3) devoted to the description of this beautiful church and to the miracles which were often repeated Day of each Session. Object of Each Session. Session # CN. Oct. 8, 451 Inquiry respecting Dioscurus, and reading of the earlier Acts,... . . . . 1 Oct 10, The Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, two letters of Cyril, and the Epistola dogmatica of Leo are read, . . . . . . . 2 Oct. 13, Deposition of Dioscurus, . . . . . 3 Oct. 17, Reception of the letter of Leo. Admission of Juvenal of Jerusalem and other former assistants of Dioscurus. Transactions respecting the Egyptian bishops. Memorial of several archimandrites, . . . . . . . Append ix to Session 4 Do. Oct. 20, Transactions respecting Carosus and Dorotheus, . . . . . . . Eodem , Transactions respecting Photius of Tyre, . . Oct. 22, Sketch of a decree concerning the faith by a synodal committee (in an oratory,) and general confirmation of the same. 5 Oct. 25, Presence of the Emperor. The decree concerning the faith approved in the former session is solemnly read and subscribed. The Emperor proposes some canons, . . . . 6 Oct. 26, Transactions respecting the patriarchal 7 9 provinces of Antioch and Jerusalem, . . . Eodem , Theodoret of Cyrus is declared justified, . . 8 Oct. 27, (according to the Latin,26), Transactions respecting Bishop Ibas of Edessa, . . . . . . . . 9 Oct. (Lat. 27), Continuation of proceedings respecting Ibas, . 10 Oct. (Lat.), Transactions respecting the deposed Domnus of Antioch \ (extant only in Latin), . . . App to Session Oct. 29, Quarrel between Bassianus and Stephen of Ephesus, . . . . . . . . 11 Oct. 30, Resolution to elect a new Bishop of Ephesus, . 12 Eodem , Decision of the quarrel between the Bishops of Nicaea and Nicomedia, . . . . . 13 Oct. 31, The question as to whether Sabinian or Athanasius is the rightful Bishop of Perrha, is to be examined by an Antiochene patriarchal Synod, . . . . . . . . 14 Eodem , Reading of Epist . 93 of Leo (known only from Ballerini, t. i. \ p. 1490), . . . . Formerly wanting . Eodem , Confirmation of the agreement which Maximus of Antioch \ had made with Juvenal of Jerusalem and with Domnus (known only from Ballerini, t. 2. P. sqq.), . . . Formerly wanting. Eodem , Drawing up of the Canons (the Ballerini transfer this to the \ seventh session), . . . 15 20 Nov. 1, Protest of the papal legates against Canon 28. Close of the Synod, . . . . . . 16 in it; and Baronius, who borrowed this, adds still more from Paulinus of Nola (ad ann. 451, n. 60). But when he maintains that the members of the Synod had their seats in the presbytery of this church, he is in this led astray by a false reading in his copy of Liberatus’ Breviarium (100:13). Baronius read: Adveniens Marcianus imperator ad Secretarium cum judicibus etc. He knew quite well that by Secretarium was generally understood a building attached to a church, and that many Synods had taken place in such Secretaria (see above, p. 163). But as the Acts of Chalcedon say expressly that the bishops were seated near the altar, Baronius thought himself obliged on this occasion to consider the expression Sccretarium as identical with Sanctuarium, and to refer it to the presbytery. But the genuine text of Liberatus removes all difficulty. It runs thus: Sexto autem Secretario adveniens Marcianus imperator ad concilium cum judicibus, etc.; that is, “Marcian appeared at the sixth session (for in this sense, as we saw , Liberatus uses the word Secrctarium ) of the Council.” But as the number of the members of the Synod extended to about six hundred, it is probable that so large a multitude would better find space in the nave and aisles of the church than in the presbytery. SEC. 187. THE SYNODAL ACTS AND THE TRANSLATIONS OF THEM. The Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, which are given most fully by Mansi in the sixth and seventh folio volumes of his great collection of the Councils (and somewhat less fully by Hardouin, t. 2.), are very numerous and extensive, and are divided into three parts, in accordance with the usual division adopted since the Roman edition of the Councils, of the year 1608: (1) The Acts which have reference to the Council of Chalcedon; but to this are prefixed, for example, the letters of Pope Leo, and of the Emperors Theodosius II and Marcian (these are the documents of which we have already made very frequent use). (2) The minutes of the sessions at Chalcedon, with a great many supplements which had been read there. To these belong particularly the Acts of the Synod under Flavian in the year 448 and those of the Robber-Synod. (3) Documents which refer to the period which followed immediately upon the Synod of Chalcedon and its ratification. Into this third part Mansi has also woven that collection of letters which under the name of Codex encyclicus forms a special appendix to the Acts of the Synod, and which will be more particularly discussed by us later on. The Ballerini in their edition of Leo’s works (t. i. p. 1491 sqq., t. 2. p. sqq., t. 3. pp. 213 sqq. and 518) and Mansi (t. 7. p. 773 sqq.) have given some further documents relating to our Synod. Whether a properly official collection of these Acts, particularly of the principal documents and synodal protocols, was given is doubtful. Baluze and others deny it, and are of opinion that as each of the bishops of highest importance had his own notaries, each one would therefore cause a special collection to be compiled for himself. The fact that even in early times, in the various manuscripts, the particular minutes of the sessions were separately arranged and numbered, they think is only explained by the acceptance of these diverse semi-official collections. This is true; but, on the other hand, (1) all these copies give one and the same text, which would not be possible if they were derived from different shorthand writers; (2) the different arrangement of particular documents cannot be explained simply by an original difference in the Acts, but must also have a secondary difference, arising from the transcribers; besides, (3) the Synod itself, in its letter to Pope Leo, says: “It has communicated to the Pope pa~san th Most of the documents in question, particularly the minutes of the sessions, are drawn up in Greek, others are in both Greek and Latin, for example, the imperial letters; while others again, like the papal letters, have only a Latin original. All the Greek documents were translated into Latin, and many of the Latin into Greek. Nearly all these translations come down from ancient times, many from that of the Synod itself. Only the Latin translation of the transactions relative to Carosus and Photius (fourth session) were first made by the Roman editors in 1608. By means of the old Latin translations some portions of the synodal transactions have been preserved which were unfortunately lost in the Greek original. For example, those respecting Domnus of Antioch at the close of the tenth session, and the ratification of the agreement between the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem in the fourteenth session. Moreover, these translations, since they were partly made from very old and good manuscripts, also furnish the opportunity of here and there correcting the Greek text by their help. Most of these Latin translations, before the Greek documents were accessible to us, were already more or less fully printed in the Collections of the Councils by Merlin, Crabbe, Surius, Nicolinus, and Severin Binius. The first persons who also edited the Greek text were the scholars whose duty it was to draw up the Roman collection of Councils of 1608, particularly the celebrated Jesuit Sirmond; and from that time forth the text derived from Greek manuscripts passed into all later collections. In some of these use was further made of some codices not known to the Roman editors, particularly in the collection of Hardouin, yet it is to be wished that a new edition of the Greek text should be prepared, and many manuscripts, already enumerated by Fabricius, but not yet collated, would render good service in this work. With regard to the Latin translation of the Acts of Chalcedon, the question first arises, Who was its author? and Quesnel had no hesitation in attributing the authorship to those persons whom, as we have seen, Bishop Julian of Cos had to employ at the command of Leo. Yet that this is not correct, Baluze and the Ballerini have emphatically pointed out, and they have proved that the translation in question must be at least fifty years later in date than Julian of Cos, and perhaps originated with Dionysius Exiguus, whose translation of the canons of Chalcedon is adopted in our versio antigua. It also remains undecided whether Julian of Cos ever really furnished the translation required of him or not. As the Ballerini have found Latin translations of some of the documents of Chalcedon which are decidedly older than our versio antiqua (a version of the minutes of the sixth session, and of the transactions relating to Domnus of Antioch, as well as the agreement between the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem), it may perhaps be assumed that Julian had at first translated only some of the most important Acts, and that some circumstance prevented the completion of the whole. But about the middle of the sixth century the Roman deacon Rusticus, when he was at Constantinople with his uncle, Pope Vigilius, in the years 549 and 550, prepared a correction of the versio antiqua, comparing it with several Greek manuscripts of the Acts of Chalcedon, particularly with those of the monastery of the Acoimetae. He says this himself repeatedly in the annotations which he appended at the close of the minutes of the first, fourth (of the Actio de Caroso etc.), fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth sessions, and it only remains undecided whether the monastery of the Acoimetae, of which he speaks, and to which the codices belonged, was the well-known one at Constantinople or the less famed one at Chalcedon. Baluze decides in favor of the latter, on the ground of the note which Rusticus added at the end of the minutes of the first session. But what the Roman deacon accomplished by his comparison and correction is the following: ¾ (a) In the places in the versio antigua touched on, he remarked where and how the Greek codices used by him differ from one another altogether or in part, and he appended these variations, which were frequently great, to the existing Latin text; (b) he arranged and numbered the particular minutes of the sessions according to the order found in the Greek copies; in particular, what was in the versio antiqua the second Actio was made the third, and inversely, and the canons which stand after the sixth session were transferred to the fifteenth; (c) he translated anew the transactions of the seventh session respecting the agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, although the versio antiqua already had this document, and omitted from it one little sentence: Qua interlocutione... mox squentia, which is now supplied to us from the antiqua. From this point there were partly manuscripts which contained the uncorrected versio antiqua, and partly others which reproduced the edition of Rusticus. Of the former only two copies are still existing ¾ a codex in Paris, and one at Rome which formerly belonged to Queen Christina, whilst the work of Rusticus is still extant in a great many manuscripts which also vary much from one another. The versio antiqua corrected by Rusticus was printed for the first time in the years 1538 and 1557, in the two editions of the Councils by the Franciscan Crabbe (in Mechlin), and thence it passed into the editions of Surius, Nicolinus, and into the first of Binius (1606). The editors of the Roman collection of Councils of 1608 have, on the other hand, after due consideration, altered this translation here and there, in order to make it correspond with the Greek text which they edited for the first time, and this altered versio Rustici passed into the subsequent editions of Binius as well as into the regia and that of Labbe. But soon after the appearance of the latter, Baluze, with extraordinary industry, and by comparing all the codices accessible to him, endeavored again to discover the genuine text of the versio antiqua and the genuine form of the emendation of Rusticus, and he published the result of these studies in his Nova Collectio Conciliorum, pp. 953-1398, which formed a supplementary volume to the collection of Labbe, and appeared in Paris in 1653 (often printed subsequently, and in 1707). But from motives of economy he did not have the entire text printed, as after his researches he should have done, but gave only an outline or summary of all the particular portions of the Acts of Chalcedon, marking each portion only by the words at the beginning, and referring to the corresponding page in the edition of Labbe, where it had been already printed (according to the text of the Roman edition of 1608). He arranged that after this should follow the variations found in the different manuscripts as well from the original as from the amended versio antiqua, with frequent indications as to their value, and he further added all the annotations, corrections, and observations of Rusticus; so that we may learn from it the two different texts, both the purely antigua and also the original form of the edition put forth by Rusticus. Moreover, he prefixed an excellent and very learned dissertation on the Latin translations of the Acts of Chalcedon.
This work, naturally, has not remained without influence upon the later collections and editions of the Acts of Councils. Hardouin, who began his comprehensive collection of Councils soon after the appearance of the work of Baluze (1685), generally speaking adopted the text of Labbe as the foundation of his own, and thus the text of the work of Rusticus as altered by the Roman editors, but he corrected it in numberless places in accordance with the results arrived at by Baluze, and at the same time, as it would appear, in consequence of a collation of particular manuscripts made by himself. Unfortunately he says nothing as to the manner in which he arrived at his Latin text of the Acts of Chalcedon, and even to the work of Baluze he makes no reference until p. 543 (vol. 2.), although he had used it throughout the whole volume. That he had done so, and that the text given by him was thus an improvement of the text of Labbe based upon Baluze, will be clear from a few proofs which I will adduce. T. 2. p. 54, Hardouin , after Baluze, gives correctlySEXIES consule ordinario...
Florentio, while Labbe and even Mansi (t. 6. p. 563) incorrectly omit the sexies ; only that Hardouin ought to have put the more correct exconsule instead of consule. Even in this case we see that Hardouin took the one correction from Baluze, and not the other. On the same page he further put Nommo, with Baluze, while Labbe and Mansi have Monno. On p. 67, line 9, he writes, with Baluze, cum aliis viris ; and on the same page, line 13, he omits, after Dioscurus, the words Alexandrinorum archiepiscopus, and, on the other hand, retains quibus censuit interloquendum, although Baluze had not found this in any of his manuscripts.
In some respects Mansi made more use, and in some respects less, of the labors of Baluze, in his great edition of the Councils. Less in the sense that he never corrected the text from them, as Hardouin, at least here and there, had done, but simply repeated the text of Labbe; but, on the other hand, more, inasmuch as he printed literally in his collection the dissertation of Baluze on the old Latin translations of the Acts of Chalcedon (t. 7. p. sqq.), borrowed the outline of the whole (at least partially), and also placed the variations collected by Baluze in the notes below the passages of the synodal documents to which they refer. (From t. 6. p. 541 to t. 7. p. 455, and in part, still further.) When, however, the notes of Baluze extend even to p. 627 of the seventh volume of Mansi, this arises from the fact, already noted p. 289, that Mansi amalgamated the so-called Codex encyclicus with the third part of the Acts of the Council, as the Roman editors had already done, and then also transferred to his collection the notes of Baluze belonging to this codex.
This Codex encyclicus is, however, nothing else but a collection of letters made by command of the Emperor Leo, the successor of Marcian (457- 474), which had been addressed, in the year 458, mostly by provincial Synods, to that Emperor in defense of the Council of Chalcedon against the attacks of the Monophysites. The proper Corpus of this collection consists of forty-one letters, and only to these is the title Codex encyclicus prefixed; but a kind of introduction to it is formed by four other letters; two from the Emperor Marcian and one each from the Empress Pulcheria and from Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem, which already appear in the second part of the principal Acts. The Greek original of the forty-one letters, as well as of the letter of Juvenal, has been lost; but the Latin translation, which Cassiodorus, in the beginning of the sixth century, had prepared by his learned assistant Epiphanius Scholasticus, still exists, and was edited and revised by Baluze in the same way as the translation of the three parts of the principal Acts by Rusticus. fbt143 Mansi’s predecessor Hardouin had acted differently (t. 2. p. 690 sqq.). He also made use of the labors of Baluze on the Codex encycl., but he did not weave it into the pars tertia of the principal Acts, but retained it as a special whole: he only struck out those letters which are prefixed to the Codex encycl., because he had already given them in the pars tertia, and for the sake of brevity omitted also the notes of Baluze and some other less important matter, e.g. the Praefatio of Epiphanius Scholasticus. He also retained the arrangement of the forty-one letters which the Roman editors had introduced.
SEC. 188. THE IMPERIAL COMMISSIONERS AND THE PAPAL LEGATES. PRESIDENCY AND NUMBER OF THOSE PRESENT.
As imperial commissioners (a]rcontev or judices fbt144 )at the Council of Chalcedon, there were present: The patrician and former consul Anatolius, the prefect of the praetorians Palladius, the prefect of the city Tatian, the magister officiorum Vincomalus, the comes domesticorum Sparacius, and the comes privatorum Genethlius. Besides, as representing the Senate there were present the ex-consuls and patricians Florentius, Senator, Monnus (Nommus) and Protogenes, the former prefects Zoilus and Apollonius, the former prefect of the city Theodore, the former prepositi sacri cubiculi, Romanus and Artaxerxes, the former prefect of the praetorians Constantinus, and Eulogius, ex-prefect of Illyricum. All these, the imperial commissioners, and the senators, had their places near the center of the church, before the rails of the holy altar; next to them on the left side, sat the representatives of Rome, the Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius with the priest Boniface. Bishop Julian of Cos also frequently appears as a fourth legate, but he had his seat not with the papal legates, but among the other bishops.
In what relation the legates stood to the Synod and to the imperial commissioners, may be ascertained with sufficient certainty from the detailed history of the Council. We shall see that the official arrangement of the business was managed by the commissioners. They took the votes, they consented to this or that being brought forward, and they closed the sessions; they thus discharged those functions which belong to the business management of an assembly. Still their management of the business had reference only to that which was external, so to speak, to the economy and business arrangements of the Synod: with that which was internal they did not interfere, but here left the decision to the Synod alone, and repeatedly distinguished quite expressly between themselves and it. At the head of the latter, the Synod in the proper and narrower sense, stood the papal legates. As, however, the direction of business was managed by the imperial commissioners, the papal legates appeared in the transactions rather as the first voters than as the presidents, but with an unmistakable superiority over all the other voters, as representatives of the head of the whole Church, as they expressly said, and firm in the conviction that every resolution of the Synod to which they did not assent was null and void. (Cf. session 16.) In the external form of the Synod, and also in the order of seating, they were only the first voters, but they were in fact the spiritual presidents. This view of ours is founded upon the words of the Synod itself to Pope Leo, which writes: w=n (that is, of the bishops at Chalcedon) su< me Yet all these many bishops who were present, with the exception of the Roman legates and two Africans (Aurelius of Adrumetum and Rusticianus), were purely Greeks and Orientals, and even the two Africans seem not to have been properly representatives of their ecclesiastical provinces, but rather to have been present at the Synod as fugitives (expelled by the Vandals). SEC. 189. FIRST SESSION, OCTOBER 8, 451.
As already remarked, the first session took place on the 8th of October 451. The first to rise was the papal legate Paschasinus, with his colleagues, who stepped forward and said: “We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, to see that Dioscurus shall have no seat (or vote) in the Council, and if he shall venture upon this, that he be expelled. This commission we must fulfill. If it seems well to your highnesses (the imperial commissioners), either he must retire or we depart.” The secretary of the holy (that is, the imperial) consistory, Beronicianus, translated into Greek these words which had been spoken in Latin. To the question of the commissioners and senators as to what accusation in specie was brought against Dioscurus, Paschasinus gave at first no satisfactory answer, therefore the question was repeated, and now the second papal legate Lucentius explained that Dioscurus had assumed to himself a jurisdiction which did not belong to him, and had ventured to hold an (OEcumenical) Synod without the consent of the apostolic see, which had never been done before, and ought never to be done. His colleague Paschasinus added that they, the legates, did not dare to depart from the commission of the apostolic bishop, from the ecclesiastical canons, and the traditions of the Fathers. The commissioners and the senators asked anew what was brought against Dioscurus, and when Lucentius remarked that “it would be an offense for them to see him whose case had to be inquired into sitting near them,” they replied: “If you wish to sit as judge, you must not at the same time be accuser.” Still they ordered Dioscurus to leave his place, and to sit in the middle (so that he was not absolutely to go out, but only to leave the ranks of those entitled to vote), by which means the papal legates were pacified.
Upon this Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum came forward and declared that Dioscurus had ill-treated him and the faith, and had killed Bishop Flavian, and he requested that a petition should be read which he had addressed to the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian III. The commissioners and senators gave their consent, and Beronicianus now read the memorial, to the effect “that at the last Synod at Ephesus, which had better not have been held, Dioscurus had injured the true religion and confirmed the heresy of Eutyches by a mob of unruly people and by bribery. The Emperors should therefore command him to answer the accusations of Eusebius, and that the Acts of the Ephesine Synod (Robber-Synod) should again be read in the present Synod. From these he could bring proof that Dioscurus was opposed to the orthodox faith, that he had confirmed an impious heresy, and had unjustly condemned and ill-treated him the accuser.” Required to reply to this by the imperial commissioners and senators, Dioscurus first demanded that they should read the Acts of the Council at Constantinople under Flavian. When his opponents also presented this petition, he changed his plan and wished first to introduce a doctrinal discussion on the question, what was the true Christological faith; but the imperial commissioners and senators persisted in the reading of all the previous Acts, and at their command the imperial consistorial secretary, Constantine, read first the letter dispatched to Dioscurus on the 30th March 449, by the deceased Emperor Theodosius II, respecting the summoning of the Robber-Synod. When the secretary had further remarked that similar decrees had been dispatched to other bishops, the commissioners and senators gave command that Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus should be introduced into the Synod, because Archbishop Leo (of Rome) had reinstated him in his bishopric, and the Emperor had commanded his presence.
The actual introduction of Theodoret caused a frightful storm. The party of Dioscurus, that is, the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine, cried out: “The faith is destroyed; the canons do not tolerate Theodoret; cast him out, this teacher (?) of Nestorius.” The opposite party, the Orientals, those from Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, replied: “We were compelled by blows (at the Robber-Synod) to subscribe; we were forced to subscribe a blank paper; cast them out, the Manichaeans, the enemies of Flavian, the opponents of the faith.” Then Dioscurus cried again: “Theodoret anathematized the holy Cyril; shall Cyril now be cast out?” The other party immediately answered again: “Cast out the murderer Dioscurus: who is ignorant of his crimes?”
The party of Dioscurus then drew in the name of the Empress Pulcheria, and cried out: “Prosperity to the Empress, she drove out Nestorius, therefore the orthodox Synod cannot receive Theodoret.” Taking advantage of a momentary interruption, Theodoret himself stepped forward, and requested that his petition to the Emperors, which was at the same time a complaint against Dioscurus, should be read, upon which the commissioners and senators, in order to quiet men’s minds, declared they would now proceed with the presentation of the previous Acts, and that no one should draw the presence of Theodoret into a prejudice. From himself and his opponents, until later, the right of speech and of reply should be expressly withheld. Besides, the bishop of Antioch had testified to Theodoret’s orthodoxy. But the tumult was renewed. The Orientals cried: “Theodoret is worthy to sit here;” the Egyptains replied: “Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God, and call him not bishop.” Then the Orientals shouted: “Cast out the disturbers of the peace, cast out the murderers; the orthodox man belongs to the Synod.” And thus it went on for some time, until at last the commissioners and senators declared: “Such vulgar shouts (ejkboh>seiv dhmotikai< ) were not becoming in bishops, and could do no good to either party; they should therefore quietly listen to the continuation of the reading of the Acts.” Still the Egyptians shouted: “Cast only one (Theodoret) out;” but they were brought to silence, and the secretary Constantine now read a series of other documents: (a) A second letter of the deceased Emperor Theodosius II to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May 449; (b) one to the same effect to Juvenal of Jerusalem; (c) a third to Abbot Barsumas; (d) the instructions which Theodosius had given to Elpidius and Eulogius, his commissioners at the Robber-Synod; (e) a decree to Proclus the resident proconsul at Ephesus; (f) a third imperial letter to Dioscurus; and (g) one to the Robber-Synod, merely consisting of documents, the contents of which have already been given above, p. 223. Dioscurus then spoke and asked why he alone should be held responsible for the deposition of Flavian, of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and others, since, according to the Acts which had been read, Bishops Juvenal and Thalassius had been nominated by the Emperor as judges at the same time with him, and the whole Synod had consented to the decrees, and had subscribed them? The Orientals (= those from the patriarchate of Antioch) and their friends, however, denied the liberty of their assent, and complained that they had been forced by violence to subscribe a paper on which nothing was yet written. In particular, they had been threatened with deposition and exile, and soldiers with sticks and swords had surrounded them until they subscribed. They concluded their relation with the cry: “Out then with the murderer” (Dioscurus). The Egyptians replied: “They subscribed before us, why then do their clerics (whom they brought with them) now raise a cry?
Clerics do not belong to the Synod, out with them!” Upon this Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, to show the character of the Robber-Synod, related the following incident. Because he had received some of Flavian’s clergy and Eusebius of Dorylaeum into communion, the imperial commissioners at that Synod, Elpidius and Eulogius, with about three hundred soldiers and monks of Eutyches, had come into his episcopal residence, and had threatened him with death, because he had received the enemies of the Emperor. But the adherents of Dioscurus had not allowed him to leave the Secretarium of the Church until he had subscribed.
After him Thalassius spoke: He had certainly been entered in the Emperor’s letter as judge (and president of the Robber-Synod), he knew not why; but when he saw that things which were unbecoming were taking place, he had earnestly endeavored to prevent this, and he could bring witnesses to prove it. ¾ Bishop Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria affirmed that he and others had understood little of the whole Synod, and had been imposed upon by Dioscurus and Juvenal. Besides, they had been alarmed by the exclamation: “They are neighbors of the Nestorian heresy,” and, “He who rends Christ (into two natures) shall himself be rent. Rend them, kill them, cast them out!” Thus they had been alarmed for themselves and on account of those whom they had baptized, and therefore had been forced to hold their peace.
He added further, that the Emperor had commanded that the Synod should judge respecting Flavian, but Dioscurus and his friends had held many private meetings, and communicated their decisions to no one; but, on the contrary, a blank paper had been brought, and they had been surrounded by rough, tumultuous mobs, and required to subscribe. Altogether one hundred and thirty-five bishops had been present, forty-two had been commanded to be silent, the rest had belonged to the party of Dioscurus and Juvenal, with the exception of him (Theodore) and fourteen others. “What,” he said, “could we now have done? They played with our life and abused us as heretics,” etc.
The Orientals and their friends testified to the truth of this statement; the Egyptians, on the other hand, remarked scornfully, “A true Christian does not allow himself to be frightened!” and Dioscurus said he thought “if they did not agree, they ought not to have signed, for it concerned the faith in which nothing should be surrendered.” In order to weaken their statement with respect to the blank paper, he begged further to ask them: “How in that case their remonstrances could appear in the minutes?” The imperial commissioners and the senators wished for the present to leave all special questions aside until the whole of the previous Acts should have been read, and at their command the secretary Constantine now began with the minutes of the Robber-Synod (compare above, p. 24l ff.).
Immediately on the reading of the first words of these, it came out that Pope Leo ¾ that is, his letters ¾ had not been received at Ephesus, and that only the fifth place (see above, p. 241) had been accorded to the bishop of Constantinople. As a cry again arose at this, Dioscurus demanded anew that all who were not bishops should be required to leave, as the noise proceeded from them; but Theodore of Claudiopolis said he thought that it was the notaries of Dioscurus himself who so cried, upon which he gave assurance that he had only two notaries with him. Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Acts of Ephesus up to the place where the papal legates stated that they had with them a letter of Leo’s (see above, p. 242). Upon this archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked that Leo’s letter had not been read at the Robber- Synod, and all the Oriental bishops and their friends agreed with him. He further maintained that Dioscurus had seven times promised on oath to have the letter read, but had not kept his oath, and Theodore of Claudiopolis confirmed this statement. On being interrogated by the commissioners, Dioscurus asserted that he had himself twice called out that this letter should be read; but Juvenal and Thalassius must have known why it was not done, and they ought to be asked. When the commissioners replied that he above all should defend himself, he merely repeated his former statement, upon which Eusebius of Dorylaeum gave him the lie.
Juvenal, on the other side, maintained that it took place in this manner, namely, that John, the primicerius of Dioscurus, instead of reading Leo’s letter, had hastily taken in his hand a letter of the Emperor’s (naturally by understanding with Dioscurus), and had read this with his (Juvenal’s) permission . When the commissioners asked Thalassius for an explanation, he contented himself with the statement that he had ordered neither the communicating nor the withholding of the papal letter, and, in fact, he had not been of sufficient importance to do so. The secretary Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Ephesine minutes up to the place where they speak of the applause which Dioscurus had gained by his speech (see above, p. 244). The Orientals and their friends now denied that they had taken part in those acclamations, etc.; and Theodore of Claudiopolis asserted, besides, that at this point Dioscurus had driven away the notaries of the other bishops, and had everything taken down by his own notaries (who might easily have ascribed the acclamations of individual bishops to the whole Synod). Dioscurus could, indeed, prove that not he alone, but also Juvenal, Thalassius, and the bishop of Corinth had notaries (each of these one); but that he allowed no notary at all to those bishops who did not belong to his party, was proved by Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, who testified that their manuscripts had been taken away from his notaries, and their fingers had almost been broken at the same time (see above, p. 253). So Stephen of Ephesus and Acacius of Ariarathia pressed the point with reference to the enforced subscription of a blank paper, the latter adding: “We were kept shut up in the church until night-time, and even the sick were not allowed to refresh themselves or to go out, but soldiers, with sticks and swords, and monks were placed near us, and thus we were compelled to subscribe.” Cf. p. 253.
Again, without going into these points, the imperial commissioners ordered the further reading of the Acts in which mention was made of the introduction of Eutyches into the Robber-Synod, and of his confession (see above, p. 244). The first two remarks in reply, which were now made, were of no significance; more important was it that Eusebius of Dorylaeum declared the statement of Eutyches in the minutes to be untrue; that the third OEcumenical Council had directly forbidden every addition to the Nicene Creed. Dioscurus appealed to four manuscripts, but Diogenes of Cyzicus, on the other hand, remarked that Eutyches had not repeated the creed completely, for even at Constantinople (in the second OEcumenical Synod), on account of Apollinaris and Macedonius, there had been added: “He came down and was made man by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary,” and that this was properly an explanation and not an addition. But the Egyptians and their friends cried: “Nothing from it, and nothing to it (the Nicene Creed), the Emperor will thus have it,” and the like. A longer debate was occasioned by the reading of the subsequent words of Eutyches: “I anathematize Manes, etc., and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven” (see above, p. 245).
Eusebius of Dorylaeum remarked that Eutyches had indeed (in his teaching) purposely avoided the expression “from heaven;” but he had not expressed himself on the point as to whence Christ had taken His humanity.
Diogenes of Cyzicus and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria likewise testified that Eutyches, although interrogated, had not expressed himself on this point and on the manner of the Incarnation before the Synod (of Constantinople).
Dioscurus here took the opportunity to assert his own orthodoxy, and to reproach Basil for having afterwards represented at Ephesus that the words which he addressed to Eutyches on this matter at the Synod of Constantinople had been incorrectly reported (p. 248 f.). Basil replied, amidst interruptions of approval and disapproval from the two parties, that his assertion was, and always had been, that he worshipped one Lord Jesus Christ, who was acknowledged in two natures even after the Incarnation, namely, in His perfect manhood and in His perfect Godhead. The one He had from the Father before all eternities, the other from His mother according to the flesh, and He had united this hypostatically (kaq uJpo>stasin ) with Himself.
This explanation, which he had first given at the Synod at Constantinople, he had also read at Ephesus, and for that reason he had been rebuked by the Eutychians as a Nestorian. On the further expression of Eutyches (at Constantinople) that he acknowledged two natures before the Incarnation, but only one afterwards, he had replied to him: “If thou dost not acknowledge two undivided and unmingled natures even after the union, then thou dost assert a mingling and confusing.” When these words also were read in Ephesus, a more violent tumult had arisen, and in the confusion and distress he had then said, half-unconsciously: “I do not remember to have employed this expression, but my words meant: if thou speakest absolutely only of one nature after the union, then thou teachest a mingling; but if thou speakest of one sesarkwme>nh and ejnanqrwph>sasa fu>siv in the sense of Cyril, then thou teachest the same as we” (cf. p. 248).
To the question of the commissioners, why, then, with his orthodox opinions, he had subscribed the judgment against Flavian, Basil answered, that he had been constrained to do so by the fear of the majority, who could have condemned him also. Dioscurus did not fail to reproach him with this weakness; and the answer of Basil, “that he had always shown the courage of martyrdom before secular judges, but that one did not venture to resist the fathers (bishops),” shows that in fact he was unable to justify himself. And now the Oriental bishops who were friendly to him exclaimed more openly: “We have all failed (at Ephesus), we all ask for pardon.” In this admission the commissioners thought they discovered a contradiction of the earlier statement of the Orientals and their friends, that they had subscribed a blank paper only by constraint; but certainly with injustice, for that very yielding to constraint was certainly a fault on the part of the bishops. They did not, however, allow themselves to be drawn into a discussion of this point, but renewed the cry: “We have all failed, we all ask for pardon,” and Beronicianus again read a portion of the Ephesine Acts, containing the further declaration of Eutyches (see above, p. 245). Upon this Eusebius of Dorylaeum brought forward the complaint that he had not been allowed at Ephesus to proceed with his accusation against Eutyches; and Dioscurus, Juvenal, and Thalassius, when questioned by the commissioners on this point, could only excuse themselves by saying that it was not they, but the Emperor and his representative Elpidius, who had ordered this exclusion. The imperial commissioners replied that this excuse was not valid, for it had been a question of judging as to the faith, on which the Emperor’s representative had not had to decide. But Dioscurus exclaimed: “How can you blame me for having violated the canons by yielding to the demand of Elpidius, since you violate them yourselves by the admission of Theodoret?” The commissioners replied: “Theodoret has entered as an accuser, and sits among the accusers, even as you (Dioscurus, etc.) among the accused.” Constantine then again read a portion of the minutes of Ephesus, together with the Acts of the first session at Constantinople under Flavian, which were embodied in them (see above, pp. 189 and 246). At the close of the reading of these minutes, the imperial commissioners and senators renewed the question, so disagreeable to Dioscurus, why at Ephesus Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum had not been admitted, since he had been so fair in demanding a hearing for Eutyches at the Synod of Constantinople. Dioscurus persisted in silence, and the commissioners therefore allowed the reading to proceed. They now arrived at the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, embodied in the Acts of Ephesus, together with the documents belonging to it and the interruptions introduced at Ephesus (see pp. 190 and 246). When the letter of Cyril to John of Antioch was read, a pause took place at Chalcedon, filled up with acclamations of various kinds. Both parties simultaneously entered the conflict with shouts: “Honor to Cyril, we believe as he did.”
When the Orientals added: “Thus also Flavian believed, and was condemned for it: Eusebius of Dorylaeum deposed Nestorius, but Dioscurus falsified the faith,” the Egyptians replied: “God deposed Nestorius.” In the same way, when the Orientals cried out, “Thus Leo believes, thus Anatolius,” they added: “We all believe thus;” and all the bishops, together with the imperial commissioners and senators, shouted together: “Thus the Emperor believes, thus the Empress believes, thus we all believe.”
There was still, however, another bitter pill for Dioscurus, for the Orientals and their friends again exclaimed:” Cast out the murderer of Flavian;” and the commissioners, in consequence of the Egyptians protesting their orthodoxy, put to them the question: “If you thus believe, why have you then received Eutyches, who teaches the opposite, into communion, and, on the other hand, have deposed Flavian and Eusebius?” Dioscurus knew of nothing better to do than to point to the Acts, and Beronicianus now read what Eustathius of Berytus had brought forward at Ephesus, in order to show that Cyril too acknowledged only one nature in Christ (see p. 246). The Orientals exclaimed: “That is Eutychian and Dioscurish.” But Dioscurus asserted that he too admitted no mingling of the natures. Upon this Eustathius endeavored to show that his quotation from Cyril, which he had brought forward at Ephesus, was correct. This was true; but while he had at Ephesus attributed a Monophysite meaning to the words of Cyril, he now interpreted them in a sense quite orthodox, to this effect: “If anyone speaks of only one nature in order thereby to deny that the humanity of Christ is of the same substance with us, and if anyone speaks of two natures, in order thereby (like Nestorius) to divide the Son of God, let him be accursed.” He added also, that he must say, in defense of Flavian, that he too had made use of the same words, and had thus expressed himself in his letter to the Emperor. This made the commissioners ask: “If this be so, why then did you agree to the condemnation of Flavian?” And to this Eustathius had no other answer than the confession: “I have been in fault.” Beronicianus then read how Flavian at the Synod at Constantinople had declared the true faith (on the two natures), and had required all the bishops who were present to put down their view in the minutes (see above, p. 191). Upon this the commissioners and senators asked if this confession of Flavian was orthodox, and they requested the members of the Synod to make a declaration on this point. The first who declared for the orthodoxy of Flavian was the Roman legate Paschasinus. To him followed Anatolius of Constantinople, the second legate Lucentius, Bishop Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Berytus. Thereupon all the Orientals and their friends cried out together: “The martyr Flavian explained the faith correctly.” Dioscurus, however, demanded that the statement of Flavian should be read completely, and then he would answer the question which had been proposed. This demand was supported by Juvenal and his bishops from Palestine, but they at the same time acknowledged the orthodoxy of Flavian, and now left their places by the side of Dioscurus, so that they finally passed over to the other side amidst a shout of applause from the Orientals. The same was done by Peter of Corinth and Irenaeus of Naupactus, who remarked that they had certainly not been members of the Ephesine Synod (as they were not bishops at that time), but what had been read had convinced them that Flavian had agreed with S. Cyril. They were followed by the other bishops of Hellas, and also by those of Macedonia and Crete, and by Nicolas of Stobi in Macedonia II, Athanasius of Busiris in the Egyptian Tripoli, Ausonius of Sebennytus, Nestorius of Phlagon, Macarius of Cabassi, Constantine of Demetrias in Thessaly, Eutychius of Adrianople, Cladaeus of Anchiasmus, Marcus of Euroia, Peregrinus of Phoenicia, and Soterichus of Corcyra. These passed over together to the other side. Dioscurus, on the contrary, declared: “Flavian was justly condemned, because he maintained that there were two natures after the union. I can prove from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril that after the union we should speak only of one incarnate nature of the Logos (mi>a sesarkwme>nh tou~ Lo>gou fu>siv ). I am rejected with the fathers; but I defend the doctrine of the fathers, and give way in no point. Moreover, I must request, like many others, that the reading may go on.” This was done, and they came now to the particular votes which had been given at the Synod of Constantinople on the point of faith in question (see p. 191), together with the objections and exclamations brought forward on the other side at Ephesus (see p. 247). Bishop AEthericus of Smyrna, who had denied at Ephesus the vote which he had given at Constantinople, and had professed to have spoken differently, now endeavored to present his conduct at Ephesus in another light. For this he was compelled to hear bitter comments, not only from Dioscurus, but also from Thalassius, the latter of whom said: “You made your statement at Ephesus without any compulsion whatever, why do you now wish to withdraw it?” After Beronicianus had read some further votes, those of Bishops Valerian and Longinus, Dioscurus interposed with the remark: “I accept the expression, ‘Christ is of two natures’ (ejk du>o ), but not, ‘there are two natures’ (to< du>o ouj de>comai ). I must stand forth boldly, for my life is in question.”
Eusebius of Dorylaeum retorted, that this was only a just recompense, for he had almost destroyed him, and Flavian actually. Dioscurus replied, that he would defend himself before God. “Will you also before the laws?” asked Eusebius, adding that “it was necessary to defend himself also before these, for he had come forward here not as his encomiast, but as his accuser.” The legate Paschasinus again made the remark that at Ephesus Dioscurus had not permitted Flavian to speak so much as he himself spoke here; but the imperial commissioners turned aside the reproach possibly implied in the words, with the remark that “the present Synod would be a just one;” and the second legate, Lucentius, agreed to this. Then Beronicianus read the close of the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, and only two slight interruptions occurred here, Dioscurus once exclaiming: “After the union there are no longer two natures;” whilst Eustathius of Berytus found fault with the expression: “He assumed man,” saying that we ought instead to say: “He was made man and assumed our flesh” In perfect quiet, and without any interruption or objection, as at the Robber-Synod so also at Chalcedon, they proceeded with the reading of the minutes of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions of Constantinople. Immediately after these came those of the seventh session, together with the speeches occasioned by this reading at Ephesus (see above, pp. 199 ff. and 248). As we have already seen , in the seventh session at Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylaeum and Eutyches were opposed to each other as accuser and accused; and after a protracted discussion, Eusebius had put to Eutyches the decisive question: “Dost thou acknowledge the existence of two natures even after the Incarnation?” At this question the Robber-Synod, when the Acts of Constantinople were read, became so enraged that they cried out: “Take and burn Eusebius;” and the whole Synod (according to the minutes) shouted: “Let him who confesses two natures be anathema” . At Chalcedon the Oriental and other bishops who had been members of the Robber-Synod denied this emphatically, and even Dioscurus was forced to confess that only his Egyptians had thus exclaimed. The minutes of Ephesus said further that the whole Synod had confirmed by acclamation the confession of faith of Eutyches, that “before the Incarnation our Lord was of two natures, but afterwards He had only one.”
Against this, too, the Orientals and their friends protested, and declared: “Only the Egyptians thus exclaimed: it is the doctrine of Dioscurus.
Prosperity to the Emperor, many years to the Empress, many years to the Senate!” Bishop Eustathius of Berytus then offered the suggestion that the Synod should at the same time guard itself against the possible rejoinder, that it divided (like Nestorius) the natures in Christ; and Basil of Seleucia then declared (with the silent acquiescence of all): “We confess, but do not divide the two natures; we divide them not (like Nestorius), nor confuse them (like the Monophysites).” There now followed long readings without interruption. First came the close of the minutes of the seventh session of Constantinople (see above, p. 203 f.), and then the Acts of that synodal assembly which the Emperor Theodosius II had appointed at the request of Eutyches for the verification of the minutes of the Synod of Constantinople (see p. 211 ff.). A second smaller commission of inquiry had, as we know, had to examine the statement of Eutyches, that the sentence of deposition pronounced against him had not been drawn up at the seventh session of the Council at Constantinople, but beforehand (see above, p. 219 f.), and the Acts of this assembly were again read at Chalcedon, as at Ephesus. Immediately after this came the explanation given by Basil of Seleucia at the Robber- Synod, in which he took back again the vote which, in common with others, he had given at Constantinople: “That two natures were to be confessed.” Now at Chalcedon he asserted: “It is true that I presented a petition at Ephesus through the sainted Bishop John, that I might alter my statement made at Constantinople, but I did it from fear of thee, Dioscurus; for thou laidest great constraint upon us, as well by thy words as by the troops placed inside and outside the church. Soldiers with weapons were thrust into the church, and the monks of Barsumas stood round us, and the Parabolani, and a multitude of people. Bishop Auxanius from Egypt, Athanasius, and all the others, if put upon their oath, must confess that I said to Dioscurus: ‘Do not, sir, nullify the judgment of the whole world.’ “ Then Dioscurus answered with the question: “Did I force you?” Basil answered: “Yes; by the threats of your troops you compelled us to such blood-guiltiness (towards Flavian). Consider yourselves how violent Dioscurus must then have been, when even now, when he no longer has more than six adherents, he insults us all.” Dioscurus replied: “My notary Demetrian can certify that you asked him privately (and so not by compulsion) to alter your words.” Basil replied: “I pray your highnesses (the commissioners and senators), ask all the metropolitans to declare upon the gospel whether, when we were sad and refused to vote, Dioscurus did not stand up and cry: Whoever does not subscribe has to do with me. Ask especially Eusebius (probably the bishop of Ancyra)on his oath, whether he was not almost condemned because he delayed his vote only a very short time.” Dioscurus replied that Basil had not then for the first time, but at an earlier period, had his words altered; but without allowing this, Basil now requested that Dioscurus should bring forward everything which he knew against him, so that he might be able to answer for himself. In order to the further clearing up of the acts of violence at Ephesus, Bishops Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianus of Synnada related what we have mentioned above , how they and other bishops had clasped the knees of Dioscurus and had entreated him on their knees not to ill-treat Flavian, and how he had threatened them, and had called in the counts with military and chains, and thus had compelled all to subscribe. Then were read (a) the vote taken at the Robber-Synod on the orthodoxy of Eutyches and his restoration; (b) the letter of the Eutychian monks to the Robber-Synod, and the approval of it given at Ephesus; and (c) those extracts from the Acts of the third OEcumenical Council which had also been repeated at the Robber-Synod. In the meantime night had come on, and the rest of the Acts of Ephesus, the voting on the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, had therefore to be read by candle light. After this had been done, the imperial commissioners and senators spoke and said: “The question respecting the right faith can be more carefully considered in the next session. As, however, it has now been shown by the reading of the Acts and by the avowal of many bishops who confess that they fell into error at Ephesus, that Flavian and others were unjustly deposed, it seems right that, if it so pleases the Emperor, the same punishment should be inflicted upon the heads of the previous Synod, Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutstathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, and that their deposition from the episcopal dignity should be pronounced by the Council.”
The Orientals and their friends exclaimed: “That is quite right.” The Illyrians, on the contrary, cried out: “We have all erred, we all ask for pardon.” Upon this the Orientals and others also demanded only the deposition of Dioscurus, and cried out: “Many years to the senate! holy God, holy Almighty, holy Immortal, have mercy upon us! Many years to the Emperors! The impious must ever be subdued! Dioscurus the murderer Christ has deposed! This is a righteous judgment, a righteous senate, a righteous Council!”
At the close, the commissioners demanded that each individual bishop should set forth his faith in writing (on the controverted point), without fear, having only God before his eyes. They should at the same time know that the Emperor would stand last by the declarations of the 318 fathers at Nicaea and the 150 at Constantinople, as well as by the contents of the writings of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril, which had been read and approved at the first Synod at Ephesus.
Moreover, it was well known that Archbishop Leo of Rome had also written a letter against the Eutychian heresy to the sainted Flavian. ¾ Many voices cried: “We have read it;” and then Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, declared the first session ended. SEC. 190. SECOND SESSION, OCTOBER 10, 451.
At the second session, f199 which, like all those which followed, likewise took place in the church of S. Euphemia, there were already absent Dioscurus, Juvenal, and the four other bishops whose deposition had been pronounced by the imperial commissioners. They opened the new session with the request, that the Synod would now declare what the true faith was, so that the erring might be brought back to the right way. The bishops replied, protesting that no one could venture to draw up a new formulary (e]kqesiv ) of the faith, but that which had been laid down by the fathers was to be held fast. This must not be departed from. Universal approval was accorded to the words of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopol: “On the Eutychian question a test had already been given by the Roman archbishop, which they (that is, he and his nearest colleagues) had all signed,” and all the bishops exclaimed: “That we also say, the explanation already given by Leo suffices; another declaration of faith must not be put forth.”
The imperial commissioners and senators, however, were not contented with this, but, holding to their previous demand, they proposed that all the patriarchs (oiJ oJsiw>tatoi patria>rcai dioikh>sewv eJka>sthv ) should come together, along with one or two bishops of their province, and take common counsel respecting the faith, and communicate the result, so that, by its universal acceptance, every doubt in regard to the faith might be removed, or in case that, contrary to their expectations, those believing otherwise should be present, these would immediately be made manifest. ¾ Again the bishops replied: “A written declaration of faith we do not bring forward. This is contrary to the rule” (the prescription of the third OEcumenical Council, Actio 6., see above, p. 70 f.). Bishop Florentius of Sardes added by way of mediating: “As those who have been taught to follow the Nicene Synod, and also the regularly and piously assembled Synod at Ephesus, in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Coelestine (the Pope), and also with the letter of the most holy Leo, cannot possibly draw up at once a formula of the faith, we therefore ask for a longer delay; but I, for my part, believe that the letter of Leo is sufficient.”
At the suggestion of Cecropius, the older documents, in which the true faith had already been set forth, were publicly read, and (a) before all the Nicene Creed with the anathema against the Arian heresy. The bishops then exclaimed: “That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we were baptized, into that we also baptize; thus Cyril taught, thus believes Pope (oJ Pa>pav ) Leo.” (b) With similar acclamations the Creed of Constantinople was received. (c) To this succeeded the reading of that letter from S. Cyril to Nestorius, which had been approved at Ephesus (see above, pp. 20 f. and 47), and of his subsequent letter (the pacificatory document) to Bishop John of Antioch (see above, p. 137), both of which documents, besides, had already been read in the first session of our Council, among the Acts of Constantinople (see above, p. 307). After further acclamations (d) it came to the turn of the celebrated letter of Leo to Flavian, the contents of which we have already communicated (see above, p. ff.), and which was now read in a Greek translation, and without the patristic proofs which had been appended to it (although not at the beginning) by Leo himself. After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: “That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus, the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was that not read at Ephesus (at the Robber-Synod)? Dioscurus kept it hidden.” Three passages in the letter of Leo had, however, raised doubts among the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine. In what these doubts consisted, we learn for the first time from the acts of the fourth session. The wording of these passages appeared to imply a certain kind of division of the divine and human in Christ, and thus not to keep sufficiently clear of Nestorianism.
These passages are (a ) in chap. 3: “In order to pay our debt, the invisible nature united itself with the passible, so that, as our salvation required, the one Mediator between God and man on the one side could die, on the other could not.” In order to pacify them, Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople read a passage from the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, in which it was similarly said, “because the sa>rx : (manhood) of the Lord died for us, therefore it is said. He died, not as though He could taste death in His proper divine nature, but because His sa>rx tasted death.” (b ) The same bishops then took exception, in the second place, to the passage in chap. 4: “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 belongs to the word, and the flesh accomplishes that which belongs to the flesh. The one flashes forth gloriously in miracles, the other submits to insults.” As parallels to this, Aetius again read an expression of S. Cyril from the synodal letter to Nestorius, which was connected with the twelve anathematisms, as follows: “Some expressions in the Holy Scriptures apply best to God, others to the manhood, and others again hold a middle position, showing that the Son of God is both God and man.” (g ) Finally, they were struck with another passage in the same chap. 4: “Although in Christ there is only one person of God and of man, yet the glory and the shame which are common to the two natures have a 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.” Thereupon Theodoret remarked, that S. Cyril also had similarly expressed himself, and quoted the passage: “He became man, and changed not His properties, but remained what He was. The one, however, is comprehended as thoroughly dwelling in the other, that is, the divine nature in the manhood.” The imperial commissioners and the senate now put the question: “Has anyone still any doubt?” They replied with acclamation: “No one doubts.”
Notwithstanding, the bishops of Illyricum were not quite satisfied, for one of them, Atticus of Nicopolis (in Epirus), requested that they would allow a few days’ delay, during which the members of the Synod might quietly consider and settle the question. And as the letter of Leo had been read, they should also have a copy of that letter of Cyril to Nestorius, to which the twelve anathematisms were appended, so that they might be able to prepare for the proceedings on the subject. The other bishops exclaimed: “If we are to have delay, we must request that all the bishops in common shall take part in the desired consultation;” and the imperial commissioners and the senators, agreeing to this, declared: “The assembly is put off for five days, and the bishops shall, during that time, meet with Anatolius of Constantinople, and take counsel together concerning the faith, so that the doubting may be instructed.” They were interrupted by the cry: “None of us doubts, we (but certainly not all) have already subscribed,” and then they went on: “It is, however, not necessary that all come together, but Anatolius may choose out of those who have already subscribed Leo’s letter such as he thinks fitted to instruct the doubting.” (Cf. below, § 192, p. 330 f.)
When the session was about to terminate, some bishops, probably of those from Illyricum, took advantage of this moment in order to intercede for the heads of the Robber-Synod. They cried: “We petition for the fathers, that they may be allowed again to enter the Synod. The Emperor and the Empress should hear of this petition. We have all erred; let all be forgiven!”
Thereupon a great commotion arose, a contest of shouts and countershouts between the two parties. The clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: “Only a few cry for this, the Synod itself says not a syllable.” Thereupon the Orientals and others cried out: “Exile to the Egyptian;” and the Illyrians: “We beseech you pardon all!” The Orientals: “Exile to the Egyptian;” the Illyrians: “We have all erred; have mercy on us all. These words to the orthodox Emperor: ‘The Churches are rent in pieces’ “ (that is, schisms are arising through that deposition). And again the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: “To exile with Dioscurus; God has rejected him,” and, “whoever has communion with him is a Jew.” The Illyrians and Orientals continued their exclamations, until at last the commissioners put an end to the subject with the words: “The consultation with Anatolius, which we have already required, must now be taken in hand.” SEC. 191. THIRD SESSIONS, OCTOBER 13, 451.
Before the expiry of the appointed interval of five days, the third general session was held on the 13th of October in the same church. It is nowhere intimated that the imperial commissioners and the senators were present, and on this occasion their names are found neither in the catalogue of those present which is prefixed to the Acts, nor in the text among those who speak. They said subsequently that the condemnation of Dioscurus (at this session) had taken place without their knowledge; and from this we might perhaps conclude that the holding of this third session had not been announced to them. But this is not the case; it appears, on the contrary, more probable that they purposely remained away from this session, in order to avoid the appearance of the imperial authority having brought about the condemnation of Dioscurus and deprived the bishops of their full liberty. The number of the bishops who were present at this session was also smaller, as those who were friendly to Dioscurus did not appear.
The list, which is, however, imperfect, has the names of only two hundred as being present.
This new session was opened by Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, with the intelligence that Eusebius of Dorylaeum, besides the complaint against Dioscurus, which he had read at the first session, had given in a second which he was ready to communicate. The papal legate, Paschasinus, remarked that, as Leo had given him commission to preside in his place, therefore all that was brought forward at the Synod must go through him, and that he now ordered the reading of this accusation. The principal contents were: “I have brought against Dioscurus the accusation that he holds the same opinions with Eutyches, the condemned and anathematized heretic; but at the recently held Synod at Ephesus he obtained power by the violence of his troops and by money, he violated the true faith, he introduced a heretical leaven into the Church, and robbed me of my spiritual office. As it has already been shown in the previous transactions (first session) that Dioscurus taught heretically, that he excluded me from the Synod at Ephesus (the Robber-Synod), and prevented both me and Bishop Flavian from defending our just allegations; as it has further been shown that he had the minutes entered differently from what was spoken, and enforced the subscription of a blank paper: I therefore pray that you will have pity upon me and decree that all which was done against me be declared null, and do me no harm, but that I be again restored to my spiritual dignity. At the same time anathematize his evil doctrine and punish him for his insolence according to his deserts. Eusebius added orally the petition that he might be personally confronted with his opponent. Aetius stated that the session had been announced to Dioscurus, as to all the other bishops, by two deacons, and he had answered them that “he would willingly appear, but his guards prevented him.” Paschasinus immediately sent out first two priests, Epiphanius and Elpidius, from the church, to see whether Dioscurus was in the neighborhood; and as this had no result, at the suggestion of Anatolius of Constantinople, three bishops, Constantine, Metropolitan of Bostra, Acacius of Ariarath, and Atticus of Zele, together with the notary Himerius, were sent to Dioscurus at his lodging, to require his appearance.
Dioscurus answered them also that he would willingly come, but that he was prevented by iris guards, the Magistriani and Scholarii (imperial officers). ¾ The synodal deputies were on their way back with this answer when Eleusinius, the assistant of the Magister sacrorum officiorum, met them, and as he asserted that Dioscurus might appear at the Synod if he wished, they returned to him and renewed their demand. Deprived now of his previous excuse, Dioscurus replied that “it had been decided respecting him in the previous (first) session by the imperial commissioners, and now they wished to annul this. He demanded that his affair should again be brought forward in the presence of the commissioners and senators.” The deputies did not fail to represent to Dioscurus, that, consequently, that was not true which he had at first said to them, and then reported to the Synod the result of their mission. Then three bishops, Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia, Cecropius of Sebastopolis, and Rufinus of Samosata, together with the notary Hypatius, were sent with a written invitation to Dioscurus, to the effect, “that it was not in order to annul anything which had been decreed in the first session, but to examine new matters of complaint which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had brought forward, that the Synod had invited Dioscurus, and he was bound to appear, in accordance with the canonical rules.” Dioscurus now declared that he was ill; and when the deputies met him, he said he had just recovered, but he returned to his former excuse that he would now appear if the imperial commissioners were present, and added, that then the other heads of the Synod of Ephesus ¾ Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustathius (see above, pp. 224, 301, 314) ¾ would also be forced to appear with him. The deputies replied that the new complaint of the Bishop of Dorylaeum was directed against Dioscurus alone, and not also against the five others, and that therefore their presence was not necessary; but Dioscurus adhered to his refusal. When the synodal deputies had again returned and given information respecting their mission, Eusebius of Dorylaeum proposed to send a third invitation to Dioscurus. Before this was prepared, some clerics and laymen who had come from Alexandria were allowed to appear before the Synod, in order to present complaints against Dioscurus. The papal legate Paschasinus asked these new complainants whether they were ready to prove their accusations against Dioscurus, and when they said they were, their complaints were read. They were four in number, and were all addressed to “the Archbishop and Patriarch of great Rome, Leo, and to the holy and OEcumenical Synod,” and the first of them, from the Alexandrian deacon Theodore, said that “he (Theodore) had served for two and twenty years among the Magistriani (imperial bodyguard), that then the holy Cyril of Alexandria had taken him into his service about the time of the Synod of Ephesus, and had advanced him to be a cleric. For fifteen years he had been in this position, and then Dioscurus, after ente |
