Page images

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 at the metropolitan city of the Ephesians—would that it had never met, nor the world been thereby filled with mischiefs and tumult—the excellent 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.

[ocr errors]

If we

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

obtain this our request, we shall ever pray for


everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns."

At the joint request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the transactions of the second synod of Ephesus were publicly read ; from which it appeared that the epistle of Leo had not obtained a reading, and that, too, when mention of the subject had been twice started. Dioscorus, being called upon to state the reason of this, said expressly that he had twice proposed that it should be done ; and he then required that Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, bishop of Cæsarea, metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, should explain the circumstances, since they shared the presidency with himself. Juvenalis accordingly

. said, that the reading of a sacred rescript, having precedency, had, at his decision, been interposed, and that no one had subsequently mentioned the epistle.' Thalassius said that he had not opposed the reading, nor had he sufficient authority to enable him singly to signify that it should proceed. The reading of the transactions was then proceeded with ; and on some of the bishops excepting to certain passages as forgeries, Stephen, bishop of Ephesus, being asked which of his notaries were copyists in this place, named Julian, afterwards hishop of Lebedus, and Crispinus; but said that the notaries of Dioscorus would not allow them to act,2 but seized their fingers, so that they were in danger of most grievous treatment. He also affirmed, that on one and the same day he subscribed to the deposition of Flavian. To this statement, Acacius, bishop of Ariarathia, added, that they had all subscribed a blank paper by force and compulsion, being beset with innumerable evils, and surrounded by soldiers with deadly weapons.

Again, on the reading of another expression, Theodore, bishop of Claudiopolis, said that no one had uttered the words. And as the reading was thus proceeding, on the occurrence of a passage 3 to the effect that Eutyches expressed his disapproval of those who affirmed that the flesh of our God and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had descended from heaven, the acts testify that Eusebius, upon this, asserted that Euty


| That is, the letter of Leo, bishop of Rome.

2 That is, would not permit Stephen's notaries to take the Acts in writing.

3 This passage here alluded to by Evagrius, is extant in the First Act of the Chalcedon Synod, p. 58. Vales.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

ches had discarded indeed the term “ from heaven," but had not proceeded to say from whence ; and that Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, then urged him with the demand, “ Tell us from whence ;" but that further than this they were not allowed to press the question. The acts then show ;—that Basil, bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, said, “I worship our one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only Divine Word, manifested after the incarnation and union in two natures :"_that the Egyptians clamoured against this, “Let no one part the indivisible One; it is not proper to call the one Son two;" and that the Orientals exclaimed, “ Anathema to him that parts ! anathema to him that divides !--that Eutyches was asked, whether he affirmed two natures in Christ; to which he replied, that he held Christ to have been from two natures before the union, but that after the union there was only one; —that Basil said, that unless he maintained two natures without severance and without confusion after the union, he maintained a confusion and commixture; but, notwithstanding, if he would add the terms “incarnate,” and “invested with humanity,” and should understand the incarnation and the assumption of humanity in the same sense as Cyril, he affirmed the same thing as themselves ; for the Godhead derived from the Father was one thing, and humanity from His mother was another.

On the parties being asked why they had subscribed the deposition of Flavian, the acts show that the Orientals exclaimed, “ We have all erred; we all entreat pardon.” Again, as the reading proceeded, they show that the bishops were asked why, when Eusebius wished to enter the council, they did not allow him. To this Dioscorus replied, that Elpidius presented a commonitorium, and solemnly affirmed that the emperor Theodosius had given command that Eusebius should not be admitted. The acts show that Juvenalis also gave the same an

Thalassius, however, said that authority in the matter did not rest with himself. These replies were disallowed by the magistrates, on the ground that such excuses were insufficient when the faith was at issue ; upon which Dioscorus recriminated ; “In what respect does the presence of Theodoret at this time accord with the observance of the canons ?The senators rejoined, that Theodoret had been admitted in the character of an accuser ; but Dioscorus signified, that he


was sitting in the position of a bishop. The senators again said, that Eusebius and Theodoret occupied the position of accusers, as Dioscorus himself that of an accused person.

The entire transactions of the second synod at Ephesus having been accordingly read, and, in like manner, the sentence against Flavian and Eusebius, as far as the place where Hilary had declared a protest, the Oriental bishops and their party exclaimed, “ Anathema to Dioscorus: Christ has at this moment deposed Dioscorus. Flavian was deposed by Dioscorus. Holy Lord, do thou avenge him! Orthodox sovereign, do thou avenge him ! Many be the years of Leo! Many be the years of the patriarch !" ”] When the sequel of the document had been read, showing that all the assembled bishops had assented to the deposition of Flavian, the most illustrious magistrates ruled as follows: “Concerning the orthodox and catholic faith, we are clearly of opinion that a more accurate investigation should be made in a more complete assemblage of the synod to-morrow. But since it appears that Flavian of pious memory, and Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Dorylæum, were not in error concerning the faith, but were unjustly deposed, both from the examination of the acts and deorees, and from the present confession of those who presided in the synod, that themselves were in error, and the deposition was null; it seems to us, according to the good pleasure of God, to be just, with the approval of our most divine and pious lord, that Dioscorus, the most reverend bishop of Alexandria ; Juvenalis, the most reverend bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea ; Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of Ancyra ; Eustathius, the most reverend bishop of Berytus; and Basil

, the most reverend bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, should be subjected to the same penalty, by being deprived, through this holy synod, in accordance with the canons, of the episcopal dignity; with a reference of whatever is consequent, to the imperial supremacy.”

1 Valesius considers that Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, is here meant. Two things are remarkable here ; first, that the Oriental bishops wish many years not to their own patriarch, but to another; and secondly, that they term the bishop of Constantinople simply and absolutely, the patriarch, giving him this honour on account of the prerogative of his see. For, in the Constantinopolitan synod, the second place in dignity was assigned to the see of Constantinople, next after the see of Rome. See above, chap. 4.



On this the Orientals exclaimed, “ This a just decision;" and the Illyrian bishops, “ We were all in error; let us all be deemed deserving of pardon.” When the Orientals had again exclaimed, “ This is a just verdict : Christ has deposed the murderer: Christ has avenged the martyrs !” the senators ruled to the effect, that each of the assembled bishops should severally put forth his own formulary of faith, under the assurance that the belief of the most divine emperor was in accordance with the exposition of the three hundred fathers at Nicæa, and of the hundred and fifty at Constantinople ; and with the epistles of the holy fathers, Gregory, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, and Ambrose, as well as the two of Cyril, which were made public in the first synod at Ephesus; inasmuch as upon these grounds Leo, the most reverend bishop of the elder Rome, had deposed Eutyches. In this manner was closed the present meeting of the council.

At the next, composed of the most holy bishops alone, Eusebius presented libels in behalf of himself and Flavian, in which he objected to Dioscorus, that he held the same opinions as Eutyches, and had deprived themselves of the priesthood. He further charged him with inserting in the transactions expressions which were not uttered in the synod, and having procured their subscription to a blank paper. He petitioned that the entire acts of the second synod at Ephesus should be annulled by vote of those who were now assembled ; that themselves should retain their priesthood; and that foul tenet be anathematized.

After the reading of this document, he also required that his adversary should be present. When this had been ruled in the affirmative, Aetius, archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, stated that he had proceeded to Dioscorus, as also to the others ; but that he said he was not permitted by the per


1 In the third Act of the Chalcedon synod, only the bishops met, and none of the secular judges or senators were present in the council. For in that session the faith was to be treated of: and this the bishops had been invited to set forth and declare. But the bishops for a long while refused to do so, saying that the draught of the Nicene creed was sufficient, which had been confirmed by the Constantinopolitan and first Ephesine synod. Nevertheless, at length they consented. Further, where the faith is treated of the secular judges have nothing to do. It is to be remarked, that in this place Evagrius has omitted the transactions of the second Act. He seems to have mistaken the third Act for the second.

« PreviousContinue »