There is an aperture1 in the left side of the coffin, secured with small doors, through which they introduce a sponge attached to an iron rod, so as to reach the sacred relics, and after turning it round, they draw it out, covered with stains and clots of blood. On witnessing this, all the people bend in worship, giving glory to God. So great has been the quantity of blood thus extracted, that both the pious sovereigns and the assembled priests, as well as the congregated people, all share in a liberal distribution, and portions are sent to those of the faithful who desire them, in every place under the sun. The clots also are permanent, neither does the appearance of the sacred blood undergo any change. These divine manifestations occur not at the recurrence of any definite period, but according as the life of the prelate or gravity of manners calls for them. Accordingly it is said, that when the governor of the church is a person reverend and remarkable for virtues, the marvel occurs with peculiar frequency; but when such is not his character, such divine operations are rarely displayed. I will, however, mention a circumstance which suffers no interruption depending on lapse of time or seasonable occasion, nor yet is vouchsafed with a distinction between the faithful and infidels, but to all indiscriminately. Whenever any person approaches the spot where is deposited the precious coffin in which are the holy relics, he is filled with an odour surpassing in sweetness every perfume with which mankind are acquainted, for it resembles neither the mingled fragrance of the meadows, nor that which is exhaled from the sweetest substances, nor is it such as any perfumer could prepare but it is of a peculiar and surpassing kind, of itself sufficiently indicating the virtue of its source.

CHAP. IV.-COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

THIS was, then, the place of meeting of the before-mentioned synod; at which the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the presbyter Boniface, were the representatives of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome; there being present Anatolius, president of Constantinople, Dioscorus, bishop of Alex

1 Sozomen uses the term λapídiov in this sense, Eccl. Hist. b. ix. chap. 2.

andria, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem: on whom attended both their associate priests, and those who held the places of highest rank in the most excellent senate. To the latter the representatives of Leo alleged, that Dioscorus ought not to be seated with themselves; for such, they said, were their instructions from their bishop: as also that they would withdraw from the church, if they should be unable to maintain this point. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus, according to a resolution of the senate, had taken his seat in the centre, Eusebius demanded, in the following words, that the petition should be read which he had presented to the sovereign power: "I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged: the bishop Flavian was murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read." When the matter had been discussed, the petition was allowed to be read. It was couched in the following terms: "To our Christ-loving and most religious and pious sovereigns, Flavius Valentinianus and Flavius Marcianus, the petition of Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Dorylæum, who now pleads on behalf of himself and the orthodox faith, and the sainted Flavian, formerly bishop of Constantinople. It is the aim of your Majesty to exercise a providential care of all your subjects, and stretch forth a protecting hand to all who are suffering wrong, and to those especially who are invested with the priesthood; for by this means service is rendered to God, from whom you have received the bestowal of supremacy and power over all regions under the sun. Inasmuch, then, as the Christian faith and we have suffered many outrages at the hands of Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, we address ourselves to your piety in pursuance of our rights. The circumstances of the case are as follow:-At the synod lately held

1 Valesius suggests τοῖς εἰς ἱερωσύνην τελοῦσι, “ those who are reckoned amongst the ecclesiastics," as the reading is in the first act of the council of Chalcedon, where this supplicatory libel of bishop Eusebius to the emperor Marcianus is recorded. The expression reλeïv és iepwovvýv is strictly classical. Compare Soph. Ed. R. 222, άoròs eig ảotoùs teλw.

at the metropolitan city of the Ephesians-would that it had never met, nor the world been thereby filled with mischiefs and tumult-the excellent1 Dioscorus, regarding neither the principle of justice nor the fear of God, sharing also in the opinions and feelings of the visionary and heretical Eutyches, though unsuspected by the multitude of being such as he afterwards showed himself, took occasion of the charge advanced by me against his fellow in doctrine, Eutyches, and the decision given by the sainted bishop Flavian, and having gathered a disorderly rabble, and procured an overbearing influence by bribes, made havoc, as far as lay in his power, of the pious religion of the orthodox, and established the erroneous doctrine of Eutyches the monk, which had from the first been repudiated by the holy fathers. Since, then, his aggressions against the Christian faith and us are of no trifling magnitude, we beseech and supplicate your Majesty to issue your commands to the same most reverend bishop Dioscorus, to defend himself against our allegations; namely, when the record of the acts which Dioscorus procured against us shall be read before the holy synod; on the ground of which we are able to show, that he is estranged from the orthodox faith, that he strengthened a heresy utterly impious, that he wrongfully deposed and has cruelly outraged us. And this we will do on the issuing of your divine and revered mandates to the holy and universal synod of the bishops, highly beloved of God, to the effect, that they should give a formal hearing to the matters which concern both us and the before-mentioned Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to the decision of your piety, as shall seem fit to your immortal supremacy.2 If we obtain this our request, we shall ever pray for your everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns."

In the next place, at the joint request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the acts of the second council of Ephesus were publicly read, the particulars of which, as being lengthy, and at the same time embraced by the detail of the proceedings at Chalcedon, I have subjoined to the present book of the history, that I might not seem prolix to those who are eager to be brought to the end of the transactions; thereby leaving to such as are desirous of minute acquaintance with every par

It is scarcely necessary to remark that this is ironically spoken. 2 IIρòç тò παρioráμevov. See Socrat. book vii. chap. 36.

ticular, the means of leisurely consultation and an accurate conception of the whole. By way of a cursory statement of the more important points, I mention, that Dioscorus was convicted of having suppressed the epistle of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome; and further, of having enacted the deposition of Flavian, bishop of new Rome, in the space of a single day, and procured the subscriptions of the assembled prelates to a blank paper, represented as containing the form of the deposition. Upon these grounds, the senators decreed as follows:1 "Of points relating to the orthodox and catholic faith, we are agreed that a more exact inquiry should take place before a fuller assembly of the council, at its next meeting. But inasmuch as it has been shown, from examination of the acts and decrees, and from the oral testimony of the presidents of that synod, who admit that themselves were in error, and the deposition was void, that Flavian, of pious memory, and the most reverend bishop Eusebius, were convicted of no error concerning the faith, and were wrongfully deposed, it seems to us, according to God's good pleasure, to be a just proceeding, if approved by our most divine and pious sovereign, that Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverend bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria; who exercised sway and precedency in that synod; should be subjected to the self-same penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is

This is the sentence pronounced by the judges who were present at the council of Chalcedon. Some persons have been surprised at seeing the secular magistrates sitting in a council of bishops and pronouncing sentence as judges. But those magistrates concerned not themselves in the cause of the faith, but left the bishops a free right and power of determining concerning that matter. Indeed, when the Rule of Faith was drawn up by the bishops convened at Chalcedon, these very magistrates, who before had often urged the council that that might be done, would not be present at the session of bishops. But in the business between Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, and Dioscorus of Alexandria, which involved nothing concerning the faith, but violence, fraud, and other crimes; in this business the secular magistrates had a right to pronounce sentence. But their decision was not a definitive sentence, but interlocutory only, as is clear from the acts of the council. Vales.

consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor's sacred supremacy."

On the presentation of libels against Dioscorus at the next meeting of the council, containing charges of slander and extortion, and his refusal, for certain alleged reasons, to appear, after a twice and thrice repeated summons, the representatives of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, made the following declaration "The aggressions committed by Dioscorus, lately bishop of the great city Alexandria, in violation of canonical order and the constitution of the church, have been clearly proved by the investigations at the former meeting, and the proceedings of to-day. For, not to mention the mass of his offences, he did, on his own authority, uncanonically admit to communion his partisan Eutyches, after having been canonically deprived by his own bishop, namely, our sainted father and archbishop Flavian; and this before he sat in council with the other bishops at Eusebius. To them, indeed, the holy see granted pardon for the transactions of which they were not the deliberate authors, and they have hitherto continued obedient to the most holy archbishop Leo, and the body of the holy and universal synod; on which account he also admitted them into communion with him, as being his fellows in faith. Whereas Dioscorus has continued to maintain a haughty carriage, on account of those very circumstances over which he ought to have bewailed and humbled himself to the earth. Moreover, he did not even allow the epistle to be read which the blessed pope Leo had addressed to Flavian, of holy me-. mory; and that too, notwithstanding he was repeatedly exhorted thereto by the bearers, and had promised with an oath to that effect. The result of the epistle not being read, has just been to fill the most holy churches throughout the world with scandals and mischief. Notwithstanding, however, such presumption, it was our purpose to deal mercifully with him as regards his past impiety, as we had done to the other bishops, although they had not held an equal judicial authority with him. But inasmuch as he has, by his subsequent conduct, overshot his former iniquity, and has presumed to pronounce excommunication against Leo, the most holy and re

This sentence pronounced by the deputies of the apostolic see, is extant in the Third Act of the Council of Chalcedon, p. 192.