Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (AD 431-594)

translated by E. Walford (1846)

Book 2.

-------------------

THE SECOND BOOK.

CHAPTER I.

FORTUNES AND CHARACTER OF MARCIAN.1

THE transactions of the time of Theodosius have been embraced in the preceding book. Let me now introduce upon the scene Marcian, the renowned emperor of the Romans, and in so doing, first recount who and whence he was, and by what means he won the imperial power: and having done this, let me record the occurrences of his reign in the order of time. Marcian, as has been recorded by many other writers, and in particular by Priscus, the rhetorician, was by birth a Thracian, and the son of a military man. In his desire to follow his father’s mode of life, he had set out for Philippopolis, where he could be enrolled in the legions, and on the road sees the body of a person recently slain, lying exposed upon the ground. On going up to it-for, besides the excellence of his other virtues, he was singularly compassionate-he commiserated the occurrence, and suspended his journey for some time, from a desire to discharge the due offices to the dead. Some persons, |44 observing the circumstance, reported it to the authorities at Philippopolis, and they proceeded to apprehend Marcian, and interrogated him respecting the murder: and when, through the prevalence of conjecture and mere probability over truth and asseveration of innocence, he was upon the point of suffering the punishment of guilt, a providential interposition suddenly brings into their hands the real criminal, who, by forfeiting his own head as the penalty of the deed, procures an acquittance of the head of Marcian. After this unexpected escape, he presents himself to one of the military bodies stationed in the place, with the intention of enlistment. Struck with the singularity of his fortunes, and with reason concluding that he would arrive at power and preeminent distinction, they gladly admitted him, and that too without placing him, according to military rule, lowest on the roll; but they assigned to him the grade of a lately deceased soldier, named Augustus, by inscribing in the list, Marcian, called also Augustus. Thus did his name anticipate the style of our sovereigns, who assume the title of Augustus on attaining the purple. It was as if the name refused to abide on him without its appropriate rank, and, on the other hand, the rank was not ambitious of another name for the augmentation of its style: and thus arose an identity of his personal and titular appellations, since his dignity and his name found an expression in the same term. Another |45 circumstance also occurred, which might serve as a prognostic of the imperial power being destined to Marcian. When serving under Aspar against the Vandals, he was one of many who fell into their hands on the total defeat of that general; and, on the demand of Genseric to see the prisoners, was dragged with the rest along the plain. When the whole body was collected, Genseric sat in an upper chamber, surveying with delight the numbers that had been taken. As the time wore on, they pursued each his own inclination, for the guard had, at the order of Genseric, released them from their bonds; and while they accordingly disposed of themselves each in his several way, Marcian laid himself down upon the ground to sleep in the sun, which was shining with unusual heat for the season of the year. An eagle, however, poising his flight above him, and directly intercepting the sun as with a cloud, thus produced a shade and its consequent refreshment, to the amazement of Genseric, who, rightly presaging the future, sent for Marcian, and liberated him, having previously bound him by solemn oaths, that on attaining the imperial power he would maintain faithfully the rights of treaty towards the Vandals, and not commence hostilities against them; and Procopius records, that Marcian observed these conditions. But let us leave this digression, and return to my subject. Marcian was pious towards God, and just towards those under his rule; regarding |46 as wealth neither treasured stores nor the revenue of imposts, but only the means of providing relief to the needy, and to the wealthy the security of their possessions. He was dreaded, not in the infliction of punishment, but only by its anticipation. On this account he received the sovereignty not as an inheritance, but as the prize of virtue, conferred by the unanimous voice both of the senate and men of all ranks, at the suggestion of Pulcheria, whom he also espoused as his partner in the imperial dignity, though she still remained a virgin to old age. These transactions took place without a previous ratification of the choice by Valentinian, the emperor of Rome, who, however, accorded his approval to the virtues of the person elected. It was further the desire of Marcian, that an undivided service should be offered up by all to God, by uniting in pious concord the tongues which the arts of impiety had confounded, and that the Deity should be honoured by one and the same doxology.

CHAPTER II.

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON SUMMONED BY MARCIAN.

WHILE entertaining these intentions, the emperor is addressed both by the legates of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, who alleged that Dioscorus had, during the second council of Ephesus, refused to receive the |47 epistle of Leo, containing a formula of the true doctrine ; and also by those who had been contumeliously treated by Dioscorus, intreating that their case might be submitted to the decision of a synod. But Eusebius, who had been president of the church of Dorylaeum, was especially urgent, and affirmed that both himself and Flavian had been deposed by the intrigues of Chrysaphius, the minister of Theodosius, because, in reply to his demand of an offering in gold, Flavian had, in acknowledgment of his own appointment, sent the sacred vessels to shame him; and also that Chrysaphius made a near approach to Eutyches in erroneous doctrine. He also said, that Flavian had even been brought to a miserable end by being thrust and trampled on by Dioscorus himself. These circumstances caused the synod at Chalcedon to be assembled; for which purpose the bearers of missives were despatched, and the prelates in all quarters were summoned by pious letters. The place named was, in the first instance, Nicaea; and, accordingly, Leo, the president of Rome, on writing an epistle respecting Paschasianus, Lucentius, and others, whom he had sent as his representatives, inscribed it to the council assembled at Nicaea. It was, however, subsequently convened at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Zacharias, the rhetorician, influenced by partiality, says that Nestorius was also fetched from his place of exile: but this is disproved by the circumstance, that Nestorius was generally |48 anathematised by the members of the synod. And Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, clearly establishes the point, when writing in the following terms to John, a bishop, and another John, a presbyter, respecting the matters agitated in the assembly. “Those who were in quest of the remains of Nestorius, again presenting themselves, clamorously demanded of the synod, why the saints are anathematised: so that the emperor indignantly ordered the guards to drive them far from the place.” How then Nestorius was summoned, when he had departed from the world, I am unable to say.

CHAPTER III.

DESCRIPTION OF THE CHURCH OF ST. EUPHEMIA.

THE place of meeting was the sacred precinct of Euphemia, the martyr, situated in the district of Chalcedon in Bithynia, and distant not more than two stadia from the Bosphorus. The site is a beautiful spot, of so gentle an ascent, that those who are on their way to the temple, are not aware of their immediate approach, but suddenly find themselves within the sanctuary on elevated ground; so that, extending their gaze from a commanding position, they can survey the level surface of the plain spread out beneath them, green with herbage, waving with corn, and |49 beautified with every kind of tree; at the same time including within their range woody mountains, towering gracefully or boldly swelling, as well as parts of the sea under various aspects: here, where the winds do not reach them, the still waters, with their dark blue tint, sweetly playing with gentle ripple on the beach; there wildly surging, and sweeping back the sea-weeds and the lighter shell-fish with the recoil of its waves. Directly opposite is Constantinople: and thus the beauty of the site is enhanced by the view of so vast a city. The holy place consists of three immense buildings. One is open to the sky, including a court of great extent, and embellished on all sides with columns; and next to it another, nearly resembling it in its length, breadth, and columns, and differing from it only in being roofed. On the north side of this, facing the East, is a round building, skilfully terminated in a dome, and surrounded in the interior with columns of uniform materials and size. These support a gallery under the same roof, so contrived, that those who are disposed, may thence both supplicate the martyr and be present at the mysteries. Within the domed building, towards the Eastern part, is a splendid enclosure, where are preserved the sacred remains of the martyr in a long coffin (it is distinguished by some persons by the term “long") of silver, skilfully worked. The wonders which have at certain times been wrought by the holy martyr, are |50 manifest to all Christians. For frequently she has appeared in a dream to the bishops of the city from time to time, and even to certain persons whose lives have been otherwise distinguished, and has bid them visit her and gather a vintage at her sanctuary. When such an occurrence has been ascertained by the sovereigns, the patriarch, and the city, they visit the temple, both those who sway the sceptre, and those who are invested with sacred and civil offices, as well as the whole multitude, desirous to partake in the mysteries. Accordingly, the president of the church of Constantinople, with his attendant priests, enters, in sight of the public, the sanctuary where the already-mentioned sacred body is deposited. There is an aperture 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 |51 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.

CHAPTER IV.

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.2

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 |52 representatives of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome; there being present Anatolius president of Constantinople, Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, 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 |53 Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Dorylaeum, 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 reverent 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 shewed 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 |54 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 reverent 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 shew, 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. 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 |55 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 particular, 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 farther, 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: “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 shewn, 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 reverent 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 reverent bishop of |56 Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria; who exercised sway and precedency in that synod; should be subjected to the selfsame penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is 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 |57 before he sat in council with the other bishops at Ephesus. 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 memory; 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 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 religious archbishop of great Rome; since, moreover, on the presentation of a paper full of grievous charges against him to the |58 holy and great synod, he refused to appear, though once, twice, and thrice canonically summoned by the bishops, pricked no doubt by his own conscience; and since he has unlawfully given reception to those who had been duly deposed by different synods; he has thus, by variously trampling upon the laws of the church, given his own verdict against himself. Wherefore Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, has, by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all honoured Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, deprived him of the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every priestly function. Accordingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of the canons on the aforesaid Dioscorus.”

After the ratification of these measures by the synod, and the transaction of some other matters, those who had been deposed together with Dioscorus, were reinstated, at the request of the synod and the assent of the imperial government; and, after some further transactions, a definition of faith was enounced in these precise words: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, while confirming the knowledge of the faith in his disciples said, ‘My peace I give to you; my peace I leave to you;’ to the purpose, that no one should differ from his neighbour in the doctrines of piety, but should accord in publishing the declaration of the truth.” |59 After the reading of the holy Nicene creed, and also that of the hundred and fifty holy fathers, they subjoined as follows: “This wise and salutary symbol of divine grace is indeed sufficient for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of godliness; for, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, its teaching is plain and complete, and it sufficiently suggests the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully. But since the enemies of the truth are endeavouring to subvert its doctrine by heresies of their own, and have given birth to certain empty speeches, some daring to pervert the mystery of the economy which the Lord bore for our sakes, and rejecting the term ‘Mother of God,’ in the case of the Virgin; others introducing a confusion and commixture of substance, and inconsiderately moulding into one the natures of the flesh and of the Godhead, and by such confusion producing the monstrous notion of passibility in the divine nature of the Only-begotten; for this reason the present great and universal holy synod, from a desire to preclude every device of theirs against the truth, and to maintain the hitherto unshaken declaration of doctrine, has determined primarily that the creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers shall be indefeasible; and, on account of those who impugn the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the doctrine delivered subsequently concerning the substance of the Spirit by the hundred and fifty |60 fathers, who assembled in the imperial city, and by them promulgated universally, not as though they were supplying some defect on the part of their predecessors, but were more clearly setting forth, by expressly recorded testimony, their notion respecting the Holy Spirit, in opposition to those who endeavoured to annul His prerogative. In respect to those who have dared to corrupt the mystery of the economy, and with shameless wantonness to represent Him who was born of the holy Virgin as a mere man, the, council has adopted the synodic epistles of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church of the Alexandrians, addressed to Nestorius and the prelates of the East, in refutation of the madness of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who with pious zeal are desirous of being impressed with a due conception of the saving symbol. To these the council has not without reason appended, in order to the confirmation of the true doctrines, the epistle of the president of the great and elder Rome, which the most blessed and holy archbishop Leo addressed to the sainted archbishop Flavian, for the overthrow of the evil design of Eutyches; as being in agreement with the confession of the mighty Peter, and forming with it a monument of concurrent testimony against the maintainers of pernicious opinions; for it boldly confronts those who endeavour to dissever the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; it expels from the congregation of the holy |61 rites those who presume to affirm that the Godhead of the Only-begotten is passible; and opposes those who imagine a mixture or confusion in respect of the two natures of Christ. It also ejects such as fondly fancy that the form of a servant which He assumed from our own nature, was of a heavenly or any other substance ; and it anathematises those who fable a resolution into one, at their union, of two previous natures of the Lord. Following, accordingly, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all with one voice declare him to be at the same time perfect in Godhead, and perfect in manhood, very God, and at the same time very man, consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, being consubstantial with the Father as respects his Godhead, and at the same time con substantial with ourselves as respects his manhood; resembling us in all things, independently of sin; begotten, before the ages, of the Father, according to his Godhead, but born, in the last of the days, of Mary, the virgin and mother of God, for our sakes and for our salvation; being one and the same Jesus Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, without separation, inasmuch as the difference of the natures is in no way annulled by their union, but the peculiar essence of each nature is rather preserved, and conspires in one person and one subsistence, not as though he were |62 parted or severed into two persons, but is one and the same Son, Only-begotten, Divine Word, Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets declared concerning Him, and Christ himself has fully instructed us, and the symbol of the fathers has conveyed to us. Since, then, these matters have been defined by us with all accuracy and diligence, the holy and universal synod has determined that no one shall be at liberty to put forth another faith, whether in writing, or by framing, or devising, or teaching it to others. And that those who shall presume to frame, or publish, or teach another faith, or to communicate another symbol to those who are disposed to turn to the knowledge of the truth from heathenism or Judaism, or any other sect-that they, if they be bishops or clerks, shall suffer deprivation, the bishops of their episcopal, the clerks of their clerical office; and if monks or laics, shall be anathematised.” After the reading of the formula, the emperor Marcian visited Chalcedon, and attended the synod, and, having delivered an harangue, again took his departure. Juvenalis also and Maximus arranged on mutual terms the matters relating to their own provinces, and Theodoret and Ibas were reinstated. Other matters were also mooted; an account of which, as I have already said, is subjoined to this history. It was also determined that the see of New Rome, while ranking second to that of Old Rome, should take precedence of all others. |63

CHAPTER V.

TUMULT AT ALEXANDRIA-AND AT JERUSALEM.3

IN addition to these transactions, Dioscorus is sentenced to reside at Gangra in Paphlagonia, and Proterius is appointed to the see of Alexandria by a general vote of the synod. On his taking possession of his see, a very great and intolerable tumult arose among the people, who were roused into a storm against conflicting opinions; for some, as is likely in such cases, desired the restoration of Dioscorus, while others resolutely upheld Proterius, so as to give rise to many irremediable mischiefs. Thus Priscus, the rhetorician, recounts, that he arrived at Alexandria from the Thebaid, and that he saw the populace advancing in a mass against the magistrates: that when the troops attempted to repress the tumult, they proceeded to assail them with stones, and put them to flight, and on their taking refuge in the old temple of Serapis, carried the place by assault, and committed them alive to the flames: that the emperor, when informed of these events, despatched two thousand newly levied troops, who made so favourable a passage, as to reach Alexandria on the sixth day; and that thence resulted still more alarming consequences, from the license of |64 the soldiery towards the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians: that, subsequently, the people, being assembled in the hippodrome, entreated Floras, who was the military commandant, as well as the civil governor, with such urgency as to procure terms for themselves, in the distribution of provisions, of which he had deprived them, as well as the privileges of the baths and spectacles, and all others from which, on account of their turbulence, they had been debarred: that, at his suggestion, Floras presented himself to the people, and pledged himself to that effect, and by this means stopped the sedition for a time. Nor did even the wilderness in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem preserve its tranquillity, unvisited by this commotion. For there arrived in Palestine some of the monks who had been present at the council, but were disposed to harbour designs in opposition to it; and by lamenting the betrayal of the faith, exerted themselves to fan into a flame the monastic body. And when Juvenalis, after obtaining restitution to his see, had been compelled to return to the imperial city, by the violence of the party who claimed the right to supersede and anathematise in their own province, those who, as we have already mentioned, were opposed to the acts of the council of Chalcedon, assembled in the church of the Resurrection, and appointed Theodosius, who had especially caused confusion in the council, and been the first to bring a report of its |65 proceedings, and respecting whom, at a subsequent period, the monks of Palestine alleged, in letters to Alcison, that having been convicted of malpractices in relation to his own bishop, he had been expelled from his monastery: and that at Alexandria he had impugned the conduct of Dioscorus, and, after having been severely scourged as a seditious person, had been conveyed round the city on a camel, as is usual with malefactors. To him many of the cities of Palestine made application, with a view to the ordination of bishops. Among these was Peter the Iberian ; to whom was committed the episcopal helm of the city called Majumas, in the neighbourhood of Gaza. On being informed of these proceedings, Marcian, in the first place, commands Theodosius to be conveyed near his own person, and sends Juvenalis to rectify the past, with an injunction that all who had been ordained by Theodosius should be ejected. Many sad occurrences followed the arrival of Juvenalis, while either party indulged in whatever proceedings their anger suggested. Such was the device of the envious and God-hating demon in the change of a single letter, that, while in reality the one expression was completely inductive of the notion of the other, still with the generality the discrepancy between them was held to be considerable, and the ideas conveyed by them to be clearly in diametric opposition, and exclusive of each other: whereas he who confesses Christ in two natures, |66 clearly affirms Him to be from two; inasmuch as by confessing Christ at once in Godhead and manhood, he asserts His consistence from Godhead and manhood; and, on the other hand, the position of one who affirms His origin from two natures, is completely inclusive of His existence in two, inasmuch as he who affirms Christ to be from Godhead and manhood, confesses His existence in Godhead and manhood, since there is no conversion of the flesh into Godhead, nor a transition of the Godhead into flesh, from which substances arises the ineffable union. So that in this case by the expression, “from two natures,” is aptly suggested the thought of the expression, “in two,” and conversely; nor can there be a severance of the terms, this being an instance where a representation of the whole is afforded, not merely by its origin from component parts, but, as a further and distinct means, by its existence in them. Yet, nevertheless, persons have so taken up the idea of the marked distinction of the terms, either from a habit of thought respecting the glory of God, or by the inclination forestalling the judgment, as to be reckless of death in any shape, rather than acknowledge the real state of the case; and hence arose the occurrences which I have described. Such then was the state of these matters. |67

CHAPTER VI.

DROUGHT, FAMINE, AND PESTILENCE IN ASIA MINOR.

ABOUT the same time there was also a drought in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia: and, from want of ordinary necessaries, the inhabitants had recourse to unwholesome food, which further gave rise to pestilence. The change of food caused disease; excessive inflammation produced a swelling of the body, followed by loss of sight, and attended with a cough, and death took place on the third day. For a time no relief could be devised for the pestilence; but all-preserving Providence vouchsafed to the survivors a remedy for the famine, by raining down food in the unproductive year, in the same way as what was termed manna upon the Israelites; and, during the succeeding year, by willing that the fruits of the earth should be matured spontaneously. The spread of these calamities included also Palestine and innumerable other districts, making, as it were, a circuit of the earth.

CHAPTER VII.

DEATH OF THE EMPEROR VALENTINIAN. ROME TAKEN. SUCCESSORS OF VALENTINIAN.

DURING the progress of these events in the East, Aetius meets with a miserable end at Old Rome, and |68 Valentinian, the emperor of the West, is slain, together with Heraclius, by some of the guards of Aetius, at the instigation of Maximus, who afterwards assumed the sovereignty, and who conspired against them because Valentinian had violated his wife. This Maximus forces Eudoxia, the wife of Valentinian, into a marriage with himself; and she, justly regarding the transaction as an outrage and altogether monstrous, determined to set, as the saying is, all upon a cast, on account of the wrong she had suffered both in the person of her husband and the infringement of her liberty: for a woman, jealous of her chastity, is unscrupulous and implacable if she has suffered defilement, especially by one through whose means she has been deprived of her husband. Accordingly, she sends to Genseric, in Africa, and by considerable presents, as well as by holding out confident expectations of the future, induces him to make a sudden descent upon the Roman empire, with a promise of betraying every thing into his hands. This was accordingly done, and Rome captured. But Genseric, barbarian-like and fickle, did not maintain his fidelity even to her; but, after firing the city and making an indiscriminate pillage, he retired, taking with him Eudoxia and her two daughters, and returned to Africa. The elder daughter, Eudocia, he espouses to his own son, Huneric; but the younger, Placidia, he subsequently sends, together with her mother Eudoxia, |69 with a royal escort to Byzantium, with the view of pacifying Marcian, who was exasperated both by the burning of Rome and the outrage upon the royal ladies. Placidia, in obedience to Marcian, consents to marry Olybrius, a distinguished member of the senate, who had come to Constantinople on the capture of Rome. After Maximus, Avitus was emperor of the Romans for eight months; and on his decease by starvation, Majorian for more than a year: and after he had been treacherously murdered by Ricimer, master of the Roman armies, Severus for three years.

CHAPTER VIII.

DEATH OF THE EMPEROR MARCIAN.4

- MURDER OF PROTERIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA. - ELECTION OF TIMOTHY, SURNAMED AELURUS (THE CAT).

DURING the reign of Severus at Rome, Marcian exchanges his earthly sovereignty by a removal to a happier state, having reigned only seven years, but leaving behind him a truly royal monument in the memories of mankind. On learning this event, the people of Alexandria renewed their feud against Proterius with still greater exasperation and excessive heat: for the populace in general are an inflammable material, and allow very trivial pretexts to foment the flame of commotion, and not in the least degree that of Alexandria, which presumes on its numbers, chiefly |70 an obscure and promiscuous rabble, and vaunts forth its impulses with excessive audacity. Accordingly, it is said that every one who is so disposed may, by employing any casual circumstance as a means of excitement, inspire the city with a frenzy of sedition, and hurry the populace in whatever direction and against whomsoever he chooses. Their general humour, however, is even of a sportive kind, as Herodotus records to have been the case with Amasis. Such, then, is the character of this people; who were, however, in all other respects by no means contemptible. The people of Alexandria, accordingly, taking advantage of the prolonged absence of Dionysius, commander of the legions, in Upper Egypt, decree the elevation to the highest priestly grade, of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, who had formerly followed the monastic life, but had subsequently been admitted among the presbyters of the church of Alexandria; and, conducting him to the great church, styled that of Caesar, elect him their bishop, though Proterius was still alive and discharged the functions of his office. There were present at the election, Eusebius, president of the church of Pelusium, and Peter the Iberian, bishop of the town of Majumas, according to the account given of the transaction by the writer of the life of Peter, who also says that Proterius was not killed by the populace, but by one of the soldiers. When Dionysius, on account of the urgency of these |71 disorders, had occupied the city with the utmost dispatch, and was taking prompt measures to quench the towering conflagration of the sedition, some of the Alexandrians, at the instigation of Timotheus, according to the written report made to Leo, despatch Proterius when he appeared, by thrusting a sword through his bowels, after he had fled for refuge to the holy baptistery. Suspending the body by a cord, they displayed it to the public in the quarter called Tetrapylum, jeering and vociferating that the victim was Proterius; and, after dragging it through the whole city, committed it to the flames; not even refraining themselves from tasting his intestines, like beasts of prey, according to the account of the entire transaction contained in the petition addressed by the Egyptian bishops and the whole clergy of Alexandria to Leo, who, as has been said, was invested with the imperial power on the death of Marcian. It was couched in the following terms:-"To the pious, Christ-loving, and divinely-appointed, the victorious and triumphant Augustus Leo, the petition of all the bishops of your Egyptian diocese, and the clergy of your most dignified and holy church of Alexandria. Having been granted, by divine grace, a boon to mankind, as such you cease not to exercise, next to God, a daily providence of the common weal, Augustus, most sacred of all emperors.” After some other matters, the petition proceeds: “And while undisturbed |72 peace was prevailing among the orthodox people of our country and Alexandria, Timotheus, immediately after the holy synod at Chalcedon, being at that time a presbyter, severed himself from the Catholic church and faith, together with only four or five bishops and a few monks, of those who, as well as himself, were infected with the heretical errors of Apollinaris and his followers; on account of which opinions they were then deposed by Proterius, of divine memory, and the general synod of Egypt, and duly experienced the motion of the imperial will, in the sentence of banishment.” And afterwards it proceeds: “And having watched the opportunity afforded by the departure from this world to God of the emperor Marcian, of sacred memory, assuming then in blasphemous terms a bold tone of independence, and shamelessly anathematising the holy and general synod at Chalcedon, while he drew after him a mercenary and disorderly multitude, and assailed the divine canons and ecclesiastical order, the commonwealth and the laws, he intruded himself upon the holy church of God, which at that time was possessed of a pastor and teacher in the person of our most holy father and archbishop, Proterius, duly performing the ordinary rites, and offering up to Christ, the Saviour of us all, supplications in behalf of your pious sovereignty and your Christ-loving court.” And presently it proceeds: “And after the interval of only one day, while Proterius, |73 beloved of God, was occupying, as usual, the episcopal residence, Timotheus, taking with him the two bishops who had been justly deposed, and the clergy who, as we have said, were condemned to banishment with them, as if he had received rightful ordination at the hands of the two, though not one of the orthodox bishops of the whole Egyptian diocese was present, as is customary on occasion of the ordinations of the bishop of the church of Alexandria-he possesses himself, as he presumed, of the archiepiscopal see, though manifestly guilty of an adulterous outrage on the church, as already having her rightful spouse in one who was performing the divine offices in her, and canonically occupied his proper throne.” And further on: “The blessed man could do nothing else than give place to wrath, according to what is written, and take refuge in the venerable baptistery from the assault of those who were pursuing him to death, a place which especially inspires awe even into barbarians and savages, though ignorant of its dignity, and the grace which flows from it. Notwithstanding, however, those who were eager to carry into execution the design which Timotheus had from the first conceived, and who could not endure that his life should be protected by those undefiled precincts, neither reverenced the dignity of the place, nor yet the season (for it was the solemnity of the saving paschal feast), nor were awe-struck at the priestly office which |74 mediates between God and man; but put the blameless man to death, cruelly butchering him with six others. They then drew forth his body, covered with wounds, and having dragged it in horrid procession with unfeeling mockery through almost every part of the city, ruthlessly loaded the senseless corpse with indignity, so far as to tear it limb from limb, and not even abstain from tasting, like beasts of prey, the ilesh of him whom but just before they were supposed to have as a mediator between God and man. They then committed what remained of the body to the flames, and scattered the ashes to the winds, exceeding the utmost ferocity of wild beasts. Of all these transactions Timotheus was the guilty cause, and the skilful builder of the scheme of mischief.” Zacharias, however, while treating at length of these events, is of opinion that the greater part of the circumstances thus detailed actually occurred, but through the fault of Proterius, by his instigation of serious disturbances in the city, and that these outrages were committed, not by the populace, but by some of the soldiery; grounding his opinion on a letter addressed by Timotheus to Leo. In consequence, however, of these proceedings, Stilas is sent out by the emperor to chastise them. |75

CHAPTER IX.

LETTER FROM THE EMPEROR LEO.

LEO also addresses circular letters of inquiry to the bishops throughout the empire and the most distinguished monastics, relating to the synod at Chalcedon and the ordination of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, accompanying them with copies of the petitions which had been presented to him on the part both of Proterius and Timotheus. The circular letters were couched in the following terms:-

A copy of the sacred epistle of the most pious emperor Leo to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, to the metropolitans throughout the whole world, and the other bishops.

“The emperor Caesar Leo, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, to the bishop Anatolius. It has ever been a subject of prayer to my piety, that all the orthodox and most holy churches, and, indeed, the cities throughout the Roman dominion, should enjoy perfect tranquillity, and that nothing should befall them to disturb their settled serenity. The events, however, which have lately happened at Alexandria, we are assured, are known to your holiness: but that you may be more fully informed respecting the entire transaction, and the |76 cause of so much tumult and confusion, we have forwarded to your sanctity copies of the petitions which the most reverent bishops and clergy of the before-mentioned city, and of the Egyptian diocese, presented to our piety against Timotheus, at the imperial city of Constantine; and, in addition, copies of the petitions presented to our serenity, at our sacred court, by persons from Alexandria on behalf of Timotheus; so that your holiness will be able distinctly to learn what have been the proceedings of the before-mentioned Timotheus, whom the people of Alexandria and their dignitaries, senators, and ship-masters request for their bishop, and what relates to the other transactions, as intimated by the tenor of the petitions, as well as regarding the synod at Chalcedon, to which these parties by no means assent, according as the matters are set forth by the petitions appended. Your reverence will accordingly forthwith cause to assemble to you all the orthodox holy bishops who are now resident in the imperial city, as also the most reverent clergy; and, after carefully investigating and testing every circumstance, considering that Alexandria is at present disturbed, and that we are most solicitous for its settlement and tranquillity, declare your opinion respecting the before-mentioned Timotheus and the synod at Chalcedon, without any fear of man, and apart from all favour or dislike; setting before your eyes only the fear of the Almighty, inasmuch as ye |77 know that ye shall give account of this matter to His pure Godhead. This we enjoin, in order that, being perfectly informed by your letters, we may be able to frame the fitting issue on the entire matter.” The emperor wrote also in similar terms to the other bishops, and, as I have said, to the most distinguished among those who at that period were practising the endurance of the bare and immaterial mode of life. Among these was Simeon, who first conceived the station on the pillar, and of whom I have made mention in the former part of the history; as well as Baradatus and Jacob, the Syrians.

CHAPTER X.

REPLIES OF THE BISHOPS. AND OF SIMEON.

ACCORDINGLY, in the first instance, Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, both wrote in defence of the synod at Chalcedon, and declared the ordination of Timotheus to be null, as having been irregularly performed. This epistle the emperor Leo dispatches to Timotheus, president of the church of Alexandria; Diomedes, the silentiary, executing the imperial commission: and Timotheus wrote in rejoinder, excepting to the synod at Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo. Of these documents copies are preserved in the collection called the Circulars: but I have omitted them, to avoid |78 encumbering the matter on hand with too great a number. The bishops, too, of the other cities, expressed their adherence to the determinations framed at Chalcedon, and unanimously condemned the ordination of Timotheus. Amphilochius alone, bishop of Side, wrote an epistle, loudly reprobating the ordination of Timotheus, but also rejecting the synod at Chalcedon. Zacharias the rhetorician has also treated of these transactions, and has inserted the epistle itself of Amphilochius in his work. Simeon, too, of holy memory, wrote two epistles on the occasion; namely, to the emperor Leo, and to Basilius, bishop of Antioch. The latter, as being brief, I insert in this my history, as follows: “To my lord, the most religious and holy servant of God, the archbishop Basilius, the sinful and humble Simeon wishes health in the Lord. Well may we now say, my lord: Blessed be God, who has not rejected our prayer, nor withdrawn his mercy from us sinners. For, on the receipt of the letters of your worthiness, I admired the zeal and piety of our sovereign, beloved of God, which he manifested and still manifests towards the holy fathers and their unshaken faith. And this gift is not from ourselves, as says the holy apostle, but from God, who, through your prayers, bestowed on him this readiness of mind.” And presently he proceeds: “On this account, I also, though mean and worthless, the refuse of the monks, have conveyed to his majesty my |79 judgment respecting the creed of the six hundred and thirty holy fathers assembled at Chalcedon, firmly resolving to abide by the faith then revealed by the Holy Spirit: for if, in the midst of two or three who are gathered in His name, the Saviour is present, how could it be otherwise, than that the Holy Spirit should be throughout in the midst of so many and so distinguished holy fathers?” And afterwards he proceeds: “Wherefore be stout and courageous in the cause of true piety, as was also Jesus the son of Nave, the servant of the Lord, in behalf of the children of Israel. I beg you to salute from me all the reverent clergy who are under your holiness, and the blessed and most faithful laity.”

CHAPTER XI.

PUNISHMENT OF TIMOTHY.

ON these grounds Timotheus is sentenced to banishment, and Gangra is in his case also named as the place of exile. The Alexandrians then elect another Timotheus, variously surnamed Basilicus and Salofacialus. Anatolius dies, and Gennadius succeeds him in the see of the imperial city. His successor is Acacius, who had been master of the Orphan Hospital in that city. |80

CHAPTER XII.

EARTHQUAKE AT ANTIOCH.

DURING the second year of the reign of Leo, an extraordinary shock and concussion of the earth took place at Antioch, preceded by certain excesses of the populace, which reached the extreme of frenzy, and surpassed the ferocity of beasts, forming, as it were, a prelude to such a calamity. This grievous visitation occurred in the five hundred and sixth year of the free prerogatives of the city, about the fourth hour of the night, on the fourteenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, which the Romans call September, on the eve of the Lord’s day, in the eleventh cycle of the indiction; and was the sixth on record after a lapse of three hundred and forty-seven years, since the earthquake under Trajan; for that occurred when the city was in the hundred and fifty-ninth year of its independence; but this, which happened in the time of Leo, in the five hundred and sixth, according to the most diligent authorities. This earthquake threw down nearly all the houses of the New City, which was very populous, and contained not a single vacant or altogether unoccupied spot, but had been highly embellished by the rival liberality of the emperors. Of the structures composing the palace, the first and |81 second were thrown down: the rest, however, remained standing, together with the adjoining baths, which, having been previously useless, were now rendered serviceable to the necessities of the city, arising from the damage of the others. It also levelled the porticoes in front of the palace and the adjacent Tetrapylum, as well as the towers of the Hippodrome, which flanked the entrances, and some of the porticoes adjoining them. In the Old City, the porticoes and dwellings entirely escaped the overthrow; but it shattered a small portion of the baths of Trajan, Severus, and Hadrian, and also laid in ruins some parts of the quarter of houses named Ostracine, together with the porticoes, and levelled what was called the Nymphaeum. All these circumstances have been minutely detailed by John the rhetorician. He says, that a thousand talents of gold were remitted to the city from the tributes by the emperor; and, besides, to individual citizens, the imposts of the houses destroyed : and that he also took measures for the restoration both of them and of the public buildings.

CHAPTER XIII.

CONFLAGRATION AT CONSTANTINOPLE.5

A SIMILAR, or even more terrible calamity, befell Constantinople, which took its rise from the quarter of |82 the city bordering on the sea, and named Bosporium. The account is, that about dusk-hour, a demon of destruction in the form of a woman, or in reality a poor woman incited by a demon, for the story is told in both ways, carried a light into the market for the purpose of buying pickled victuals, and then, having set down the light, stole away. Catching some tow, it raised a great flame, and in a moment set the apartment on fire. The conflagration, thus begun, soon consumed every thing within its reach, and afterwards continuing to spread for four days, not only over the more combustible materials, but buildings of stone, notwithstanding every effort to check it, at last destroyed the whole heart of the city from north to south, a space of five stadia in width, and fourteen in length; throughout which it left no building standing, either public or private, nor pillars nor arches of stone; but the hardest substances were as completely consumed as if they had been combustible. The ruin, at its northern extremity, which is where the docks are situated, extended from the Bosporium to the old temple of Apollo; at the southern, from the harbour of Julian as far as the houses near the oratory of the church of Unanimity; and in the centre of the city, from the forum of Constantine to the Forum Tauri, as it is called: a pitiable and loathsome spectacle; for all the most conspicuous ornaments of the city, and whatever had been embellished with |83 unrivalled magnificence, or adapted to public or private utility, had been swept together into huge heaps and impassable mounds, formed of various substances, whose former features were now so blended in one confused mass, that not even those who lived on the spot could recognise the different portions, and the place to which each had belonged.

CHAPTER XIV.

OTHER PUBLIC CALAMITIES.

ABOUT the same time, when the Scythian war was gathering against the Eastern Romans, an earthquake visited Thrace, the Hellespont, Ionia, and the islands called Cyclades; so severe as to cause a universal overthrow in Cnidus and Cos. Priscus also records the occurrence of excessive rains about Constantinople and Bithynia, which descended like torrents for three or four days; when hills were swept down to the plains, and villages carried away by the deluge: islands also were formed in the lake Boane, not far from Nicomedia, by the masses of rubbish brought down by the waters. This evil, however, was subsequent to the former. |84

CHAPTER XV.

MARRIAGE OF ZENO AND ARIADNE.

LEO bestows his daughter Ariadne on Zeno, who from his infancy had been called Aricmesius, but on his marriage assumed the former name, derived from an individual who had attained great distinction among the Isaurians. The origin of the advancement of this Zeno, and the reason why he was preferred by Leo before all others, have been set forth by Eustathius the Syrian.

CHAPTER XVI.

REIGN OF ANTHEMIUS-OF OLYBRIUS-AND OTHER WESTERN PRINCES.

IN compliance with an embassy from the Western Romans, Anthemius is sent out as emperor of Rome; to whom the late emperor Marcian had betrothed his own daughter. Basiliscus, brother to the emperor’s wife Verina, is also sent out against Genseric, in command of a body of chosen troops: which transactions have been treated of with great exactness by Priscus the rhetorician; and how Leo (correction - “Zeno”), in repayment, as it were, for his own advancement, treacherously procures the death of Aspar, who had been the means |85 of investing him with the sovereignty, and also of his sons, Ardaburius and Patricius; on the latter of whom he had previously bestowed the title of Caesar, in order to conciliate Aspar. After the slaughter of Anthemius, in the fifth year of his reign, Olybrius is declared emperor by Ricimer; and after him appointment is made of Glycerius. Nepos possesses himself of the supreme power for five years, by the expulsion of Glycerius, whom he appoints to the bishopric of Salona, a city of Dalmatia. He is himself driven from power by Orestes, as was subsequently Romulus, surnamed Augustulus, the son of the latter, who was the last emperor of Rome, at an interval of thirteen hundred and three years from the reign of Romulus. Odoacer next sways the affairs of the Romans, declining the imperial title, but assuming that of king.

CHAPTER XVII.

DEATH OF THE EMPEROR LEO.6

ABOUT the same time the emperor Leo, at Byzantium, departs his sovereignty, after having swayed it for seventeen years, and appointed to the empire Leo, the infant son of his daughter Ariadne and Zeno. Zeno then assumes the purple, being aided by the favour of Verina, the wife of Leo, towards her son-in-law. On the death of the child, which shortly |86 followed, Zeno continued in sole possession of the sovereignty. The transactions which originated with him, or were directed against him, and whatever else befell him, the sequel shall detail, with the aid of the Superior Power.

The proceedings of the synod at Chalcedon are here given in a compendious form.

CHAPTER XVIII.

EPITOME OF THE ACTS OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

PASCHASINUS and Lucentius, bishops, and Boniface, a presbyter, filled the place of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome; there being present Anatolius president of the church of Constantinople, Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and with them their associate bishops; on whom attended also those who held the 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 were their instructions from Leo; and that if this should be allowed, they would retire from the church. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an |87 account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge, without being authorised by the bishop of Rome. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus stood in the midst, according to a decision of the senate, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, 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; Flavian the bishop was murdered, and together with myself unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read.” On its being so ruled, the petition was read, couched in the following terms: “The petition of Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Dorylaeum, in behalf of himself 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 re ceived 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 reverent 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 |88 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 shewed 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 reverent 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 shew, 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 |89 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. If we obtain this our request, we shall ever pray for your 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 Caesarea, 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 |90 Ephesus, being asked which of his notaries were copyists in this place, named Julian, afterwards bishop of Lebedus, and Crispinus; but said that the notaries of Dioscorus would not allow them to act, 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 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 Eutyches 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 shew:-that Basil, bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, said, “I worship our one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only Divine Word, |91 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 shew that the Orientals exclaimed, “We have all erred; we all intreat pardon.” Again, as the reading proceeded, they shew 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 |92 Eusebius should not be admitted. The acts shew that Juvenalis also gave the same answer. 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, shewing that all the assembled bishops had assented to the deposition of Flavian, the most illustrious magistrates |93 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 reverent bishop of Dorylaeum, were not in error concerning the faith, but were unjustly deposed, both from the examination of the acts and decrees, 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 reverent bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basil, the most reverent 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.” On this the Orientals exclaimed, “This is 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 |94 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 Nicaea, 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 reverent 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 anathematised.

After the reading of this document, he also required that his adversary should be present. When this |95 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 persons on guard to appear. It was then decided that Dioscorus should be sought in front of the place of meeting; and, on his not being found, Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, ruled that he ought to be summoned, and be present before the synod. This course having been adopted, the delegates, on their return, said that he had replied : “I am under restraint. Let these say whether they leave me free to proceed thither;” and to their intimation that they were deputed to himself, and not to the civil powers, his answer was stated to be: “I am ready to proceed to the holy and universal synod, but I am prevented.” To this statement Himerius added, that the Assistant of the Master of the Sacred Offices had met them on their return, in company with whom the bishops had again visited Dioscorus, and that he had taken some notes of what then passed. These were then read, and set forth the precise words of Dioscorus, as follows: “Upon calm reflection, and due consideration of my interest, I thus reply. Whereas, at the former meeting of the synod, the most illustrious magistrates ruled upon many several points, and I am now summoned to a second, having for its object a modification of the preceding matters; I pray that the most illustrious magistrates |96 who attended on the former occasion, and the sacred senate, should do so on the present also, in order that the same points may be again debated.” The acts shew that Acacius then replied in the following words: “The great and holy synod, in requiring the presence of your holiness, has not in view a modification of what was transacted in the presence of the most illustrious magistrates and the sacred senate; but it has deputed us merely that you should have a place in the meeting, and that your holiness should not be wanting to it.” Dioscorus replied, according to the acts, “You have just told me that Eusebius had presented libels. I pray that the matters touching myself may be again sifted in the presence of the magistrates and the senate.”

Then follow other similar matters. Afterwards, persons were again sent with a commission to urge Dioscorus to appear; who, on their return, said that they had taken notes of his words. From these it appears that he said : “I have already signified to your piety, both that I am suffering from sickness, and that I demand that the most illustrious magistrates and the sacred senate should also on the present occasion attend the investigation of the matters at issue. Since, however, my sickness has increased, on this ground I am withholding my attendance.” Cecropius, then, as appears from the acts, intimated to Dioscorus, that but a short time before he had made |97 no mention of sickness, and, accordingly, he ought to satisfy the requisitions of the canons. To whom Dioscorus rejoined: “I have said once for all, that the magistrates ought to be present.” Then Rufinus, bishop of Samosata, told him that the matters mooted were under canonical regulation, and that on his appearance he would be at liberty to make whatever statements he chose. To the enquiry of Dioscorus, whether Juvenalis, Thalassius, and Eustathius were present, he replied that this was nothing to the purpose. The acts shew that Dioscorus said in answer, that he prayed the Christ-loving emperor to the effect that the magistrates should be present, and also those who had acted as judges in conjunction with himself. To this the deputies rejoined, that Eusebius accused him only, and there was accordingly no occasion that all should be present. Dioscorus replied, that the others who had acted with him ought to be present, for the suit of Eusebius did not affect himself individually, but rested in fact upon a judgment in which they had all united. When the deputies still insisted upon this point, Dioscorus summarily replied: “What I have said, I have said once for all; and I have now nothing further to say.”

Upon this report, Eusebius stated that his charge was against Dioscorus only, and against no other person; and he required that he should be summoned a third time. Aetius then, in continuance, informed |98 them that certain persons from Alexandria, professing to be clerks, together with several laymen, had lately presented libels against Dioscorus, and, standing outside, were now invoking the synod. When, accordingly, in the first place Theodoras, a deacon of the holy church at Alexandria, had presented libels, and afterwards Ischyrion, a deacon, Athanasius, a presbyter, and nephew of Cyril, and also Sophronius, in which they charged Dioscorus with blasphemies, offences against the person, and violent seizures of money; a third summons was issued urging him to attend. Those who were accordingly selected for this service, on their return, reported Dioscorus to have said: “I have already sufficiently informed your piety on this point, and cannot add any thing further.” Since Dioscorus had persisted in the same reply, while the delegates continued to press him, the bishop Paschasinus said: “At length, after being summoned a third time, Dioscorus has not appeared:” and he then asked what treatment he deserved. To this, when the bishops had replied that he had rendered himself obnoxious to the canons, and Proterius, bishop of Smyrna, had observed, that when Flavian had been murdered, no suitable measures had been taken with respect to him; the representatives of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, made a declaration as follows: - -"The aggressions committed by Dioscorus, lately bishop of the great city Alexandria, in violation |99 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 Ephesus. 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 memory; 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 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 |100 as regards his past impiety, as we had done with 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 religious archbishop of great Rome; since, moreover, on the presentation of a paper full of grievous charges against him to the holy and great synod, he refused to appear, though once, twice, and thrice canonically summoned by the bishops, pricked no doubt by his own conscience; and since he has unlawfully given reception to those who had been duly deposed by different synods; he has thus, by variously trampling upon the laws of the church, given his own verdict against himself. Wherefore Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, has, by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all honoured Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, deprived him of the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every priestly function. Accordingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of the canons on the aforesaid Dioscorus.”

After the ratification of this proceeding by Anatolius and Maximus, and by the other bishops, with the exception of those who had been deposed together with Dioscorus by the senate, a relation of the matter |101 was addressed to Marcian by the synod, and the instrument of deposition was transmitted to Dioscorus, to the following effect: “On account of contempt of the sacred canons, and thy contumacy regarding this holy and universal synod, inasmuch as, in addition to the other offences of which thou hast been convicted, thou didst not appear, even when summoned the third time by this great and holy synod, according to the sacred canons, in order to reply to the charges made against thee; know then that thou hast been deposed from thy bishoprick, on the thirteenth day of this present month, October, by the holy and universal synod, and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank.” After a letter had been written to the bishops of the most holy church at Alexandria on this subject, and an edict had been framed against Dioscorus, the proceedings of this meeting were closed.

After the business of the preceding meeting had terminated in this manner, the members of the synod, again assembling, replied to the inquiry of the magistrates, who desired to be informed respecting the orthodox doctrine, that there was no need that any further formulary should be framed, now that the matter relating to Eutyches had been brought to a close, and had received a conclusive determination at the hands of the Roman bishop, with the further accordance of all parties. After the bishops had with one voice exclaimed, that they all held the same |102 language, and the magistrates had ruled that each patriarch, selecting one or two persons of his own diocese, should come forward into the midst of the council in order to a declaration of their several opinions ; Florentius, bishop of Sardis, prayed a respite, so that they might approach the truth with due deliberation : and Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, spoke as follows. “The faith has been well set forth by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, and has been confirmed by the holy fathers, Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and again, on the present occasion, by the most holy Leo. We accordingly require that the words both of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers and of the most holy Leo be now read.” At the conclusion of the reading the whole synod exclaimed, “This is the faith of the orthodox; thus we all believe; thus does the Pope Leo believe; thus did Cyril believe; thus has the Pope expounded.”

Another interlocution was then issued, that the form set forth by the hundred and fifty fathers should also be read : which was accordingly done ; and the members of the synod exclaimed, “This is the faith of all; this is the faith of the orthodox ; thus do we all believe!"

Then Aetius, the archdeacon, said that he held in his hand the epistle of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which all who were assembled at Ephesus had ratified |103 by their individual subscriptions; as also another epistle of the same Cyril addressed to John of Antioch, which had itself also been confirmed. These he earnestly prayed might be read. Agreeably with an interlocution on the point, both were then read; a portion of the former being precisely as follows. “Cyril to our most reverent fellow minister Nestorius. Certain persons, as I am informed, treat my rebuke with levity in the presence of your holiness, and that, too, repeatedly, taking especial occasion for that purpose of the meetings of the authorities; perhaps also with the idea of gratifying your own ears.” Afterwards it proceeds. “The declaration, then, of the holy and great synod was this : that the only begotten Son, begotten naturally of God the Father, very God of very God, light of light, by whose agency the Father made all things, descended, was incarnate, assumed humanity, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven. This declaration we, too, ought to follow, carefully considering what is signified by the expression, that the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity. For we do not affirm that the nature of the Word by undergoing a change became flesh, nor yet was even converted into a complete human being, consisting of soul and body ; but this we rather maintain, that the Word, by uniting personally with himself flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible |104 manner, and bore the title of the Son of Man, not in respect of mere will or pleasure, nor even, as it were, in an assumption of person merely; and, further, that the natures which conspired to the true unity, were different, but from both is one Christ and Son ; not as though the difference of the natures had been done away for the sake of the union, but they had rather consummated for us the one Lord and Christ and Son, from both the Godhead and the manhood, by their ineffable and mysterious coalition for unity.” And presently the epistle proceeds. “But since, for our sakes and for our salvation, having personally united humanity with himself, he came forth from a woman ; in this respect he is said also to have been born carnally. For he was not born in the first instance an ordinary man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him : but the Word, having been united from the very womb, is said to have undergone a carnal nativity, as it were, by an assumption of the nativity of his own flesh. In this manner we say that He suffered and rose again ; not as though the Word of God had endured, as regards his own nature, stripes or piercings of nails, or the other wounds, for the Deity is impassible, as being incorporeal. Since, however, his own body underwent these circumstances, Himself is said, on the other hand, to have suffered them on our behalf, inasmuch as the impassible being was in the suffering body.” |105

The greater part of the other epistle has been inserted in the preceding portion of this history. It contains, however, a passage to the following effect, which John, bishop of Antioch wrote, and Cyril entirely approved. “We confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because from her the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity, and from the very conception united with himself the temple which was derived from her. With respect, however, to the evangelical and apostolical language concerning our Lord, we know that the expressions of the divinely inspired men are sometimes comprehensive, as in respect of a single person; sometimes distinctive, as in respect of two natures ; and that they deliver such as are of divine import, in reference to the Godhead of Christ, and those which are humble, in reference to His manhood.” Cyril then subjoins the following words:-"On reading these your sacred expressions, we find that we ourselves hold the same opinion : for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. We accordingly glorify God, the Saviour of all, rejoicing mutually, because both our churches and yours hold a faith which is in accordance with the inspired scriptures, and the tradition of our holy fathers.”

After the reading of these epistles, the members of the synod exclaimed in these words : “Thus do we all believe ; thus does the Pope Leo believe. Anathema to him that divides and to him that confounds! |106 This is the faith of Leo the archbishop. Thus does Leo believe. Thus do Leo and Anatolius believe. Thus do we all believe. As Cyril believed, so do we. Eternal be the memory of Cyril! Agreeably with the epistles of Cyril do we also think. Thus did we believe; thus do we now believe. Leo the archbishop thus thinks, thus believes, thus has written.”

An interlocution having been given to that effect, the epistle of Leo was also read, in a translation, and is inserted in the acts ; the bishops at its conclusion exclaiming, “This is the faith of the fathers : this is the faith of the Apostles. Thus do we all believe : thus do the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe ! Peter has uttered these words through Leo. Thus have the Apostles taught. Leo has taught truly and piously : thus has Cyril taught. The teaching of Leo and Cyril is the same. Anathema to him who does not thus believe ! This is the true faith. Thus do the orthodox think. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was not this read at Ephesus ? This did Dioscorus withhold.”

It is contained in the acts that, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed some hesitation, after the following passage of the epistle had been read : “In order to the discharge of the debt of our natural state, the divine nature was united to the passible, that one and the same person, the man Christ Jesus, being the mediator between God and man, |107 might be enabled from the one part to die, but incapable of decease from the other, such being the process adapted to our cure;"-that upon this Aetius, archdeacon of the most holy church of Constantinople, produced a passage from Cyril to the following purport: “Since, however, His own body by the grace of God, as says the Apostle Paul, tasted death for every man, Himself is said to have suffered the death on our behalf; not that he experienced death to the extent of his own nature, for it would be madness to say or think this, but because, as I said before, his flesh tasted death.” Again, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed their hesitation at the following passage of the epistle of Leo:-"For there operates in each form its peculiar property, in union with what belongs to the other; the Word working that which pertains to the Word, and the body discharging that which pertains to the body; and the one shines forth by the miracles, the other was subjected to the insults;” upon this the said Aetius read a passage of Cyril as follows :-"The rest of the expressions are especially appropriate to deity; others, again, are equally suited to manhood; and some hold, as it were, an intermediate place, presenting the Son of God as being God and man at the same time.” Afterwards, when the same bishops hesitated at another part of the epistle of Leo, which is as follows:-"Although in our Lord Jesus Christ there is altogether one person, of God and man, |108 yet the one part from which was derived to the other a community of ignominy, is distinct from that from which proceeded a community of glory; for from us was derived the manhood, which is inferior to the Father, and from the Father the Godhead, which partakes equality with the Father;” Theodoret said, to adjust the point, that the blessed Cyril had also expressed himself thus:-"That He both became man, and at the same time did not lay aside His proper nature; for the latter continued as before, though dwelling in what was different from it; namely, the divine nature in conjunction with humanity.” Afterwards, when the illustrious magistrates asked whether any one still hesitated, all replied that they no longer entertained any doubt.

Atticus, bishop of Nicopolis, then begged a respite of a few days, in order that a formulary might be framed of the matters which were approved by God and the holy fathers. He also prayed that they might have the epistle which was addressed by Cyril to Nestorius, in which he exhorts him to assent to his twelve chapters. All expressed their concurrence in these requests; and when the magistrates had ruled that a respite of five days should be allowed, in order to their assembling with Anatolius, president of Constantinople, all the bishops signified their approval, saying, “Thus do we believe, thus do we all believe. Not one of us hesitates. We have all subscribed.” Upon |109 this it was ruled as follows:-"There is no necessity that you should all assemble; since, however, it is reasonable that the minds of those who have hesitated should be confirmed, let the most reverent bishop Anatolius select from among the subscribers whomsoever he may deem proper for the information of those who have doubted.” Upon this the members of the synod proceeded to exclaim, “We intreat for the fathers. The fathers to the synod. Those who accord with Leo to the synod. Our words to the emperor. Our prayers to the orthodox sovereign. Our prayers to Augusta. We have all erred. Let indulgence be granted to all.” Upon this, those who belonged to the church of Constantinople cried out, “But few are exclaiming. The synod is not speaking.” Then the Orientals shouted, “The Egyptian to exile!” And the Illyrians, “We entreat compassion upon all;” and again the Orientals, “The Egyptian to exile!” While the Illyrians persisted in their prayer, the Constantinopolitan clergy shouted, “Dioscorus to exile! The Egyptian to exile! The heretic to exile!” and again the Illyrians and their party, “We have all erred. Grant indulgence to all. Dioscorus to the synod! Dioscorus to the churches!” After further proceedings of the same kind, the business of this meeting was brought to a close.

At the next meeting, when the senators had ruled that the forms which had been already enacted should |110 be read, Constantine, the secretary, read from a paper, as follows: “Concerning 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 shewn, 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 reverent 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 reverent bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria ; who exercised sway and precedency in that synod; should be subjected to the selfsame penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons ; whatever is consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor’s sacred supremacy.”

After several other readings, the assembled bishops, being asked whether the letters of Leo accorded with |111 the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who met at Nicaea, and that of the hundred and fifty in the imperial city, Anatolius, president of Constantinople, and all who were present, replied, that the epistle of Leo accorded with the before-mentioned fathers ; and he further subscribed the epistle. At this stage of the proceedings the members of the synod exclaimed : “We all concur : we all approve : we all believe alike: we all hold the same sentiments: thus do we all believe. The fathers to the synod ! the subscribers to the synod ! Many be the years of the emperor ! Many be the years of Augusta! The fathers to the synod : those who agree with us in faith, to the synod! Many be the years of the emperor! Those who agree with us in opinion, to the synod! Many be the years of the emperor ! We have all subscribed. As Leo thinks, so do we.” An interlocution was then pronounced to the following effect. “We have referred these matters to our most sacred and pious lord, and are now waiting the answer of his piety. But your reverence will give account to God concerning Dioscorus, who has been deposed by you without the knowledge of our most sacred sovereign and ourselves, and concerning the five for whom you are now making entreaty, and concerning all the acts of the synod.” They then expressed their approval, saying, “God has deposed Dioscorus; Dioscorus has been justly deposed. Christ has deposed Dioscorus.” |112 Afterwards, on the presentation of a response from Marcian, leaving the case of those who had been deposed to the decision of the bishops, as the interlocution of the magistrates had set forth ; they made entreaty in the following words. “We pray that they may be admitted:-our fellows in doctrine, to the synod: our fellows in opinion, to the synod : the subscribers to the epistle of Leo, to the synod.” They were accordingly, by an interlocution to that effect, numbered with the members of the synod.

Then were read the petitions presented from the Egyptian diocese to the emperor Marcian; which, in addition to other matters, contain the following. “We agree in opinion with what the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaea, and the blessed Athanasius, and the sainted Cyril have set forth anathematising every heresy, both those of Arius, of Eunomius, of Manes, of Nestorius, and that of those who say, that the flesh of our Lord was derived from heaven and not from the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, in like manner with ourselves, with the exception of sin.” Upon this, the whole synod exclaimed : “Why have they not anathematised the doctrine of Eutyches ? Let them subscribe the epistle of Leo, anathematising Eutyches and his doctrines. Let them concur with the epistle of Leo. They intend to jeer us, and be gone.” In reply, the bishops from Egypt stated, that the Egyptian bishops were numerous, |113 and that they themselves could not assume to represent those who were absent: and they prayed the synod to await their archbishop, that they might be guided by his judgment, as usage required : for if they should do any thing before the appointment of their head, the whole diocese would assail them. After many intreaties on this subject, which were stoutly resisted by the synod, it was ruled, that a respite should be granted to the bishops from Egypt, until their archbishop should be ordained.

Then petitions were presented from certain monks ; the purport of which was, that they should not be compelled to subscribe certain papers, before the synod which the emperor hud summoned should have assembled, and its determinations be made known. After these had been read, Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, stated that Barsumas, one of the persons present, had been the murderer of Flavian, for he had exclaimed “Slay him!” and, though not a party to the petition, had improperly obtained admission. Upon this all the bishops exclaimed: “Barsumas has desolated all Syria; he has let loose upon us a thousand monks.” After an interlocution, to the effect that the assembled monks should await the determination of the synod, they demanded that the libels which they had drawn up, should be read ; one requisition therein contained being, that Dioscorus and the bishops of his party should be present in the synod. In reply to which all |114 the bishops exclaimed : “Anathema to Dioscorus. Christ has deposed Dioscorus! Cast out such persons. Away with outrage ; away with violence from the synod! Our words to the emperor! Away with outrage ; away with infamy from the synod!” After a repetition of these exclamations, it was ruled that the remainder of the libels should be read: wherein it was affirmed, that the deposition of Dioscorus was improper; that, when a matter of faith was before the council, he ought to share in its deliberations, and that, if this were not granted, they would shake their garments from the communion of the assembled bishops. In reference to these expressions, Aetius, the archdeacon, read a canon against those who separate themselves. Again, when, at the questions of the most holy bishops, the monks manifested disagreement, and afterwards at an interrogation put by Aetius in the name of the synod, some anathematised Nestorius and Eutyches, while others declined; it was ruled by the magistrates, that the petitions of Faustus and the other monks should be read : which prayed the emperor no longer to sanction the monks who had lately opposed the orthodox doctrines. Whereupon Dorotheus, a monk, termed Eutyches orthodox : in reply to whom various doctrinal points were started by the magistrates.

At the fifth meeting, the magistrates ruled that the determinations relating to the faith should be |115 published; and Asclepiades, a deacon of Constantinople, read a formulary, which it was resolved should not be inserted in the acts. Some dissented from it, but the majority approved it: and on the utterance of counter exclamations, the magistrates said, that Dioscorus affirmed that he had deposed Flavian on his asserting two natures, whereas the formulary contained the expression “from two natures.” To this Anatolius replied, that Dioscorus had not been deposed on a point of faith, but because he had excommunicated Leo, and, after having been thrice summoned, did not appear. The magistrates then required that the substance of the epistle of Leo should be inserted in the formulary ; but since the bishops objected, and maintained that no other formulary could be framed, inasmuch as a complete one already existed, a relation was made to the emperor ; who commanded that six of the Oriental bishops, three from Pontus, three from Asia, three from Thrace, and three from Illyria, should, together with Anatolius and the vicars of Rome, assemble in the sanctuary of the martyr, and rightly frame the rule of faith, or put forth each his several declaration of faith ; or be assured that the synod must be held in the West. On this, being required to state whether they followed Dioscorus when affirming that Christ was from two natures ; or Leo, that there were two natures in Christ; they exclaimed that they agreed with Leo, and that those who contradicted, |116 were Eutychians. The magistrates then said, that, in accordance with the language of Leo, a clause should be added, to the effect that there were two natures united in Christ, without change, or severance, or confusion ; and they entered the sanctuary of the holy martyr Euphemia, in company with Anatolius and the vicars of Leo, as well as Maximus of Antioch, Juvenalis of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and others; and on their return, the formulary of faith was read, as follows. “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and so forth, as it has been inserted in a previous part of the history. When all had exclaimed, “This is the faith of the fathers : let the metropolitans at once subscribe! This is the faith of the Apostles : by this are we all guided : thus do we all think !” the magistrates ruled, that the formulary, thus framed by the fathers and approved by all, should be referred to the imperial supremacy.

At the sixth meeting Marcian was present, and harangued the bishops on the subject of unanimity. At the command of the emperor, the formulary was read by Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, and all subscribed it. The emperor then asked, whether the formulary had been composed with the approbation of all: upon which all declared their confirmation of it by expressions of approval. Again the emperor twice addressed them, and all applauded. At the emperor’s suggestion certain canons were enacted, and |117 metropolitan rank was conferred upon Chalcedon. The emperor further commanded the bishops to remain three or four days; that each one should move the synod on whatever matters he might choose, in the presence of the magistrates; and such as were judged proper, should take effect. The meeting was then closed.

Another was held, at which canons were enacted ; and at the next, Juvenalis and Maximus came to an agreement that Antioch should have for its province the two Phoenicias and Arabia; and Jerusalem, the three Palestines ; which was ratified by an interlocution of the magistrates and bishops.

At the ninth meeting, the case of Theodoret was mooted. He anathematised Nestorius, saying, “Anathema to Nestorius, and to him who does not affirm the holy Virgin Mary to be Mother of God, and to him who divides into two Sons the one Son, the only begotten ! I have also subscribed the formulary of faith and the epistle of Leo.” Upon this he was restored to his see, by an interlocution of all parties.

At another meeting, the case of Ibas was discussed; and the judgment was read which had been passed upon him by Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus; but the vote was deferred to the next meeting.

At the eleventh meeting, when the majority of the bishops had voted that Ibas should be restored to his episcopal rank, others, in rejoinder, said that his |118 accusers were waiting outside, and required that they should be admitted. The proceedings in his case were then read ; but when the magistrates ruled, that the transactions at Ephesus respecting Ibas should also be read, the bishops replied, that all the proceedings in the second synod at Ephesus were null, with the exception of the ordination of Maximus of Antioch. On this point, they further requested the emperor to decree that nothing should be valid which had been transacted at Ephesus subsequently to the first synod, over which the sainted Cyril, president of Alexandria, had presided. It was judged right that Ibas should retain his bishopric.

At the next meeting, the case of Bassianus was inquired into, and it was judged fit that he should be removed and Stephen substituted : which measures were formally voted at the following meeting. At the thirteenth, the case was investigated of Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea, who had a dispute about their respective cities. A fourteenth was also held, at which the case of Sabinianus was investigated. Finally, it was decided that the see of Constantinople should rank next after that of Rome.

THE END OF THE SECOND BOOK.

-------------------

[Footnotes have been moved to the end and assigned numbers rather than the asterisks etc used in the printed volume. Footnotes in [Red] are taken from the running titles, not the bottom of the page]

1. [A.D. 450.]

2. [A.D. 451.]

3. [A.D. 451.]

4. [A.D. 457.]

5. [A.D. 462.]

6. [A.D. 474.]

-------------------

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 19th October 2002. All material on this page is in the public domain - copy freely.

Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

-------------------

Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (AD 431-594) translated by E. Walford (1846) Introduction THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF EVAGRIUS. IN SIX BOOKS. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH IN SIX BOOKS, FROM A. D. 431 TO A.D. 594. BY EVAGRIUS. A NEW TRANSLATION FROM THE GREEK : WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHOR AND HIS WRITINGS. LONDON: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS; WAREHOUSE FOR BIBLES, NEW TESTAMENTS, PRAYER-BOOKS, LEXICONS, GRAMMARS, CONCORDANCES, AND PSALTERS, IN ANCIENT AND MODERN LANGUAGES; PATERNOSTER ROW. M.DCCC.XL.VI.


Archbishop Gregory
Dormition Skete
P.O. Box 3177
Buena Vista, CO 81211-3177
USA
Contact: Archbishop Gregory Valid CSS!Valid XHTML
            1.0 Transitional
Copyright 2005
All rights reserved.