Catholic Encyclopedia
Church Fathers
Classics Library
Church Documents
Prayer Requests
Ray of Hope
Social Doctrine

A Hstory Of The Councils Of The Church Volumes 1 to 5 by Charles Joseph Hefele D.D.



SEC. 186. Number and Place of the Sessions

AFTER these preparations the Council of Chalcedon, which had been summoned by the Emperor Marcian at the suggestion, and with the subsequent consent, of Pope Leo the Great (see above, p. 265 f. and p. 278), was opened on the 8th of October 451, and it lasted till the 1st of November of the same year, inclusive. As to the number of sessions held during those three weeks, even in ancient times there was no agreement, either in the existing copies of the synodal Acts themselves, or among the historians who refer to this Synod. Many old manuscripts contained only the first six sessions, which treated the question of faith, and have special reference, as we shall see, to the character of an Œcumenical Council. Other manuscripts added to these in a seventh session the canons or disciplinary arrangements of our Synod; others again were more complete, and contained also the transactions referring to personal and special subjects, which came to be discussed in the later sessions. But even among manuscripts of the last kind there is again a great difference, since none of them contains the whole of the special transactions, and in one certain parts are wanting, and in others others.

A similar want of agreement is found among the old historians. Evagrius numbers fifteen sessions (Hist. Eccl. ii. 18), Liberatus, who had before him an Alexandrian manuscript of the Synodal Acts, divided (c. 13) the whole into twelve Secretaria with sixteen Actiones, so that to him, as well as to Evagrius, several of the transactions on special subjects had remained unknown; for example, those on Photius of Tyre and on Carosus. The ordinary division, and that which has also been received universally in the West, since the work of the Roman deacon Rusticus, of which we shall have to speak presently (p. 292), makes sixteen sessions; and this division we must also retain, although the Ballerini long ago correctly remarked that properly twenty-one sessions should be counted, which were held on fourteen (according to the Latin Acts, thirteen) different days. The result of our examination on this point, as to the number, time of holding, and object of the particular sessions, we give, with some variations, from the brothers Ballerini, in the following table, p. 287.

Day of each Session.

              Object of each Session.

              Number of each Session, according to the ordinary reckoning.

              Content Numbers.


Oct. 8, 451,

              Inquiry respecting Dioscurus, and reading of the earlier Acts




Oct. 10,

              The Creeds of Nicæa and Constantinople, two letters of Cyril, and the Epistola dogmatica of Leo are read




Oct. 13,

              Deposition of Dioscurus




Oct. 17,

              Reception of the letter of Leo. Admission of Juvenal of Jerusalem and other former assistants of Dioscurus. Transactions respecting the Egyptian bishops. Memorial of several archimandrites




Oct. 20,

              Transactions respecting Carosus and Dorotheus

              Appendix to Session 4




              Transactions respecting Photius of Tyre




Oct. 22,

              Sketch of a decree concerning the faith by a synodal committee (in an oratory), and general confirmation of the same




Oct. 25,

              Presence of the Emperor. The decree concerning the faith approved in the former session is solemnly read and subscribed. The Emperor proposes some canons




Oct. 26,

              Transactions respecting the patriarchal provinces of Antioch and Jerusalem





              Theodoret of Cyrus is declared justified




Oct. 27 (according to the Latin, 26),

              Transactions respecting Bishop Ibas of Edessa




Oct. 28 (Lat. 27),

              Continuation of proceedings respecting Ibas




Oct, 27 (Lat.),

              Transactions respecting the deposed Domnus of Antioch (extant only in Latin)

              Appendix to Session 10



Oct. 29,

              Quarrel between Bassianus and Stephen of Ephesus




Oct. 30,

              Resolution to elect a new Bishop of Ephesus





              Decision of the quarrel between the Bishops of Nicæa and Nicomedia




Oct. 31,

              The question as to whether Sabinian or Athanasius is the rightful Bishop of Perrha, is to be examined by an Antiochene patriarchal Synod





              Reading of Epist. 93 of Leo (known only from Ballerini, t. i. p. 1490)

              Formerly wanting.




              Confirmation of the agreement which Maximus of Antioch had made with Juvenal of Jerusalem and with Domnus (known only from Ballerini, t. ii. p. 1227 sqq.)

              Formerly wanting.




              Drawing up of the Canons (the Ballerini transfer this to the seventh session)




Nov. 1,

              Protest of the papal legates against Canon 28. Close of the Synod




The whole of the sessions were held in the Church of S. Euphemia the Martyr, which was situated in front of the town on the Bosporus, only two stadia or twelve hundred paces from it, on a gentle slope opposite Constantinople, and offered a magnificent view over the sea and the fields. Evagrius has a whole chapter (ii. 3) devoted to the description of this beautiful church and to the miracles which were often repeated in it; and Baronius, who borrowed this, adds still more from Paulinus of Nola (ad ann. 451, n. 60). But when he maintains that the members of the Synod had their seats in the presbytery of this church, he is in this led astray by a false reading in his copy of Liberatus’ Breviarium (c. 13). Baronius read: Adveniens Marcianus imperator ad Secretarium cum judicibus etc. He knew quite well that by Secretarium was generally understood a building attached to a church, and that many Synods had taken place in such Secretaria (see above, p. 163). But as the Acts of Chalcedon say expressly that the bishops were seated near the altar, Baronius thought himself obliged on this occasion to consider the expression Secretarium as identical with Sanctuarium, and to refer it to the presbytery. But the genuine text of Liberatus removes all difficulty. It runs thus: Sexto autem Secretario adveniens Marcianus imperator ad concilium cum judicibus, etc.; that is, “Marcian appeared at the sixth session (for in this sense, as we saw (p. 286), Liberatus uses the word Secretarium) of the Council.” But as the number of the members of the Synod extended to about six hundred, it is probable that so large a multitude would better find space in the nave and aisles of the church than in the presbytery.

SEC. 187. The Synodal Acts and the Translations of them

The Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, which are given most fully by Mansi in the sixth and seventh folio volumes of his great collection of the Councils (and somewhat less fully by Hardouin, t. ii.), are very numerous and extensive, and are divided into three parts, in accordance with the usual division adopted since the Roman edition of the Councils, of the year 1608: (1) The Acts which have reference to the Council of Chalcedon; but to this are prefixed, for example, the letters of Pope Leo, and of the Emperors Theodosius II. and Marcian (these are the documents of which we have already made very frequent use). (2) The minutes of the sessions at Chalcedon, with a great many supplements which had been read there. To these belong particularly the Acts of the Synod under Flavian in the year 448 and those of the Robber-Synod. (3) Documents which refer to the period which followed immediately upon the Synod of Chalcedon and its ratification. Into this third part Mansi has also woven that collection of letters which under the name of Codex encyclicus forms a special appendix to the Acts of the Synod, and which will be more particularly discussed by us later on. The Ballerini in their edition of Leo’s works (t. i. p. 1491 sqq., t. ii. p. 1223 sqq., t. iii. pp. 213 sqq. and 518) and Mansi (t. vii. p. 773 sqq.) have given some further documents relating to our Synod.

Whether a properly official collection of these Acts, particularly of the principal documents and synodal protocols, was given is doubtful. Baluze and others deny it, and are of opinion that as each of the bishops of highest importance had his own notaries, each one would therefore cause a special collection to be compiled for himself. The fact that even in early times, in the various manuscripts, the particular minutes of the sessions were separately arranged and numbered, they think is only explained by the acceptance of these diverse semi-official collections. This is true; but, on the other hand, (1) all these copies give one and the same text, which would not be possible if they were derived from different shorthand writers; (2) the different arrangement of particular documents cannot be explained simply by an original difference in the Acts, but must also have a secondary difference, arising from the transcribers; besides, (3) the Synod itself, in its letter to Pope Leo, says: “It has communicated to the Pope πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν τῶν πεπραγμένων for the purpose of ratification.” This presupposes an official collection of the Acts; but it might not yet have been complete, for soon afterwards, in March 453, Leo commissioned his Nuntius in Constantinople, Bishop Julian of Cos, to arrange a complete collection of the Acts of the Synod, and to translate them into Latin. We see from this that Pope Leo also wished to secure an official collection.

Most of the documents in question, particularly the minutes of the sessions, are drawn up in Greek, others are in both Greek and Latin, for example, the imperial letters; while others again, like the papal letters, have only a Latin original. All the Greek documents were translated into Latin, and many of the Latin into Greek. Nearly all these translations come down from ancient times, many from that of the Synod itself. Only the Latin translation of the transactions relative to Carosus and Photius (fourth session) were first made by the Roman editors in 1608. By means of the old Latin translations some portions of the synodal transactions have been preserved which were unfortunately lost in the Greek original. For example, those respecting Domnus of Antioch at the close of the tenth session, and the ratification of the agreement between the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem in the fourteenth session. Moreover, these translations, since they were partly made from very old and good manuscripts, also furnish the opportunity of here and there correcting the Greek text by their help. Most of these Latin translations, before the Greek documents were accessible to us, were already more or less fully printed in the Collections of the Councils by Merlin, Crabbe, Surius, Nicolinus, and Severin Binius. The first persons who also edited the Greek text were the scholars whose duty it was to draw up the Roman collection of Councils of 1608, particularly the celebrated Jesuit Sirmond; and from that time forth the text derived from Greek manuscripts passed into all later collections. In some of these use was further made of some codices not known to the Roman editors, particularly in the collection of Hardouin, yet it is to be wished that a new edition of the Greek text should be prepared, and many manuscripts, already enumerated by Fabricius, but not yet collated, would render good service in this work.

With regard to the Latin translation of the Acts of Chalcedon, the question first arises, Who was its author? and Quesnel had no hesitation in attributing the authorship to those persons whom, as we have seen, Bishop Julian of Cos had to employ at the command of Leo. Yet that this is not correct, Baluze and the Ballerini have emphatically pointed out, and they have proved that the translation in question must be at least fifty years later in date than Julian of Cos, and perhaps originated with Dionysius Exiguus, whose translation of the canons of Chalcedon is adopted in our versio antiqua. It also remains undecided whether Julian of Cos ever really furnished the translation required of him or not. As the Ballerini have found Latin translations of some of the documents of Chalcedon which are decidedly older than our versio antiqua (a version of the minutes of the sixth session, and of the transactions relating to Domnus of Antioch, as well as the agreement between the patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem), it may perhaps be assumed that Julian had at first translated only some of the most important Acts, and that some circumstance prevented the completion of the whole. But about the middle of the sixth century the Roman deacon Rusticus, when he was at Constantinople with his uncle, Pope Vigilius, in the years 549 and 550, prepared a correction of the versio antiqua, comparing it with several Greek manuscripts of the Acts of Chalcedon, particularly with those of the monastery of the Acoimetæ. He says this himself repeatedly in the annotations which he appended at the close of the minutes of the first, fourth (of the Actio de Caroso etc.), fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth sessions, and it only remains undecided whether the monastery of the Acoimetæ, of which he speaks, and to which the codices belonged, was the well-known one at Constantinople or the less famed one at Chalcedon. Baluze decides in favour of the latter, on the ground of the note which Rusticus added at the end of the minutes of the first session. But what the Roman deacon accomplished by his comparison and correction is the following:—(a) In the places in the versio antiqua touched on, he remarked where and how the Greek codices used by him differ from one another altogether or in part, and he appended these variations, which were frequently great, to the existing Latin text; (b) he arranged and numbered the particular minutes of the sessions according to the order found in the Greek copies; in particular, what was in the versio antiqua the second Actio was made the third, and inversely, and the canons which stand after the sixth session were transferred to the fifteenth; (c) he translated anew the transactions of the seventh session respecting the agreement between Antioch and Jerusalem, although the versio antiqua already had this document, and omitted from it one little sentence: Qua interlocutione … mox sequentia, which is now supplied to us from the antiqua.

From this point there were partly manuscripts which contained the uncorrected versio antiqua, and partly others which reproduced the edition of Rusticus. Of the former only two copies are still existing—a codex in Paris, and one at Rome which formerly belonged to Queen Christina, whilst the work of Rusticus is still extant in a great many manuscripts which also vary much from one another.

The versio antiqua corrected by Rusticus was printed for the first time in the years 1538 and 1557, in the two editions of the Councils by the Franciscan Crabbe (in Mechlin), and thence it passed into the editions of Surius, Nicolinus, and into the first of Binius (1606). The editors of the Roman collection of Councils of 1608 have, on the other hand, after due consideration, altered this translation here and there, in order to make it correspond with the Greek text which they edited for the first time, and this altered versio Rustici passed into the subsequent editions of Binius as well as into the regia and that of Labbe. But soon after the appearance of the latter, Baluze, with extraordinary industry, and by comparing all the codices accessible to him, endeavoured again to discover the genuine text of the versio antiqua and the genuine form of the emendation of Rusticus, and he published the result of these studies in his Nova Collectio Conciliorum, pp. 953–1398, which formed a supplementary volume to the collection of Labbe, and appeared in Paris in 1683 (often printed subsequently, and in 1707). But from motives of economy he did not have the entire text printed, as after his researches he should have done, but gave only an outline or summary of all the particular portions of the Acts of Chalcedon, marking each portion only by the words at the beginning, and referring to the corresponding page in the edition of Labbe, where it had been already printed (according to the text of the Roman edition of 1608). He arranged that after this should follow the variations found in the different manuscripts as well from the original as from the amended versio antiqua, with frequent indications as to their value, and he further added all the annotations, corrections, and observations of Rusticus; so that we may learn from it the two different texts, both the purely antiqua and also the original form of the edition put forth by Rusticus. Moreover, he prefixed an excellent and very learned dissertation on the Latin translations of the Acts of Chalcedon.

This work, naturally, has not remained without influence upon the later collections and editions of the Acts of Councils. Hardouin, who began his comprehensive collection of Councils soon after the appearance of the work of Baluze (1685), generally speaking adopted the text of Labbe as the foundation of his own, and thus the text of the work of Rusticus as altered by the Roman editors, but he corrected it in numberless places in accordance with the results arrived at by Baluze, and at the same time, as it would appear, in consequence of a collation of particular manuscripts made by himself. Unfortunately he says nothing as to the manner in which he arrived at his Latin text of the Acts of Chalcedon, and even to the work of Baluze he makes no reference until p. 543 (vol. ii.), although he had used it throughout the whole volume. That he had done so, and that the text given by him was thus an improvement of the text of Labbe based upon Baluze, will be clear from a few proofs which I will adduce. T. ii. p. 54, Hardouin, after Baluze, gives correctly SEXIES consule ordinario … Florentio, while Labbe and even Mansi (t. vi. p. 563) incorrectly omit the sexies; only that Hardouin ought to have put the more correct exconsule instead of consule. Even in this case we see that Hardouin took the one correction from Baluze, and not the other. On the same page he further put Nommo, with Baluze, while Labbe and Mansi have Monno. On p. 67, line 9, he writes, with Baluze, cum aliis viris; and on the same page, line 13, he omits, after Dioscurus, the words Alexandrinorum archiepiscopus, and, on the other hand, retains quibus censuit interloquendum, although Baluze had not found this in any of his manuscripts.

In some respects Mansi made more use, and in some respects less, of the labours of Baluze, in his great edition of the Councils. Less in the sense that he never corrected the text from them, as Hardouin, at least here and there, had done, but simply repeated the text of Labbe; but, on the other hand, more, inasmuch as he printed literally in his collection the dissertation of Baluze on the old Latin translations of the Acts of Chalcedon (t. vii. p. 654 sqq.), borrowed the outline of the whole (at least partially), and also placed the variations collected by Baluze in the notes below the passages of the synodal documents to which they refer. (From t. vi. p. 541 to t. vii. p. 455, and in part, still further.) When, however, the notes of Baluze extend even to p. 627 of the seventh volume of Mansi, this arises from the fact, already noted p. 289, that Mansi amalgamated the so-called Codex encyclicus with the third part of the Acts of the Council, as the Roman editors had already done, and then also transferred to his collection the notes of Baluze belonging to this codex.

This Codex encyclicus is, however, nothing else but a collection of letters made by command of the Emperor Leo, the successor of Marcian (457–474), which had been addressed, in the year 458, mostly by provincial Synods, to that Emperor in defence of the Council of Chalcedon against the attacks of the Monophysites. The proper Corpus of this collection consists of forty-one letters, and only to these is the title Codex encyclicus prefixed; but a kind of introduction to it is formed by four other letters; two from the Emperor Marcian and one each from the Empress Pulcheria and from Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem, which already appear in the second part of the principal Acts. The Greek original of the forty-one letters, as well as of the letter of Juvenal, has been lost; but the Latin translation, which Cassiodorus, in the beginning of the sixth century, had prepared by his learned assistant Epiphanius Scholasticus, still exists, and was edited and revised by Baluze in the same way as the translation of the three parts of the principal Acts by Rusticus. Mansi’s predecessor Hardouin had acted differently (t. ii. p. 690 sqq.). He also made use of the labours of Baluze on the Codex encycl., but he did not weave it into the pars tertia of the principal Acts, but retained it as a special whole: he only struck out those letters which are prefixed to the Codex encycl., because he had already given them in the pars tertia, and for the sake of brevity omitted also the notes of Baluze and some other less important matter, e.g. the Præfatio of Epiphanius Scholasticus. He also retained the arrangement of the forty-one letters which the Roman editors had introduced.

SEC. 188. The Imperial Commissioners and the Papal Legates. Presidency and Number of those present

As imperial commissioners (ἄρχοντες or judices) at the Council of Chalcedon, there were present: The patrician and former consul Anatolius, the prefect of the prætorians Palladius, the prefect of the city Tatian, the magister officiorum Vincomalus, the comes domesticorum Sparacius, and the comes privatorum Genethlius. Besides, as representing the Senate there were present the ex-consuls and patricians Florentius, Senator, Monnus (Nommus) and Protogenes, the former prefects Zoilus and Apollonius, the former prefect of the city Theodore, the former prepositi sacri cubiculi, Romanus and Artaxerxes, the former prefect of the prætorians Constantinus, and Eulogius, ex-prefect of Illyricum. All these, the imperial commissioners, and the senators, had their places near the centre of the church, before the rails of the holy altar; next to them, on the left side, sat the representatives of Rome, the Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius with the priest Boniface. Bishop Julian of Cos also frequently appears as a fourth legate, but he had his seat not with the papal legates, but among the other bishops.

In what relation the legates stood to the Synod and to the imperial commissioners, may be ascertained with sufficient certainty from the detailed history of the Council. We shall see that the official arrangement of the business was managed by the commissioners. They took the votes, they consented to this or that being brought forward, and they closed the sessions; they thus discharged those functions which belong to the business management of an assembly. Still their management of the business had reference only to that which was external, so to speak, to the economy and business arrangements of the Synod: with that which was internal they did not interfere, but here left the decision to the Synod alone, and repeatedly distinguished quite expressly between themselves and it. At the head of the latter, the Synod in the proper and narrower sense, stood the papal legates. As, however, the direction of business was managed by the imperial commissioners, the papal legates appeared in the transactions rather as the first voters than as the presidents, but with an unmistakable superiority over all the other voters, as representatives of the head of the whole Church, as they expressly said, and firm in the conviction that every resolution of the Synod to which they did not assent was null and void. (Cf. session 16.) In the external form of the Synod, and also in the order of seating, they were only the first voters, but they were in fact the spiritual presidents. This view of ours is founded upon the words of the Synod itself to Pope Leo, which writes: ὧν (that is, of the bishops at Chalcedon) σὺ μὲν, ὡς κεφαλὴ μελῶν, ἡγεμόνευες ἐν τοῖς τὴν σὴν τάξιν ἐπέχουσι, that is, “In thy representatives thou didst take the hegemony (presidency) over the members of the Synod, as the head over the members.” By way of completion, the Synod adds still further: βασιλεῖς δὲ πιστοὶ πρὸς εὐκοσμίαν ἐξῆρχον, that is, “the believing Emperors presided for the sake of order, that all might proceed in good order.” In the same way the Synod recognized the superior position of the Pope by this, that they requested him to confirm their decrees; and Leo said of his legates with the greatest decision: Vice mea Orientali Synodo PRÆSEDERUNT.

Near and after the papal legates sat Bishops Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, and the other bishops of the East and of the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, with the exception of Palestine. On the other side, to the right, were Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Quintillus of Heraclea in Macedonia Prima (representative of Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica), Peter of Corinth, and the other bishops of the Egyptian province, of Illyricum, and of Palestine. In the midst of the great assembly were placed the holy Gospels.

The catalogues of those present still existing are not quite complete. The Synod itself says, in a letter to Pope Leo, that 520 bishops have been present. Pope Leo, however, speaks of about 600 brethren (Epist. 102); and generally the number of all who were present, the representatives included, is reckoned at 630. In any case, none of the previous Synods had been nearly so numerous, and even among all that were subsequently held, but very few can in this respect be placed beside the Council of Chalcedon. Yet all these many bishops who were present, with the exception of the Roman legates and two Africans (Aurelius of Adrumetum and Rusticianus), were purely Greeks and Orientals, and even the two Africans seem not to have been properly representatives of their ecclesiastical provinces, but rather to have been present at the Synod as fugitives (expelled by the Vandals).

SEC. 189. First Session, October 8, 451

As already remarked, the first session took place on the 8th of October 451. The first to rise was the papal legate Paschasinus, with his colleagues, who stepped forward and said: “We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop of Rome, who is the head of all the Churches, to see that Dioscurus shall have no seat (or vote) in the Council, and if he shall venture upon this, that he be expelled. This commission we must fulfil. If it seems well to your highnesses (the imperial commissioners), either he must retire or we depart.” The secretary of the holy (that is, the imperial) consistory, Beronicianus, translated into Greek these words which had been spoken in Latin. To the question of the commissioners and senators as to what accusation in specie was brought against Dioscurus, Paschasinus gave at first no satisfactory answer, therefore the question was repeated, and now the second papal legate Lucentius explained that Dioscurus had assumed to himself a jurisdiction which did not belong to him, and had ventured to hold an (Œcumenical) Synod without the consent of the apostolic see, which had never been done before, and ought never to be done. His colleague Paschasinus added that they, the legates, did not dare to depart from the commission of the apostolic bishop, from the ecclesiastical canons, and the traditions of the Fathers. The commissioners and the senators asked anew what was brought against Dioscurus, and when Lucentius remarked that “it would be an offence for them to see him whose case had to be inquired into sitting near them,” they replied: “If you wish to sit as judge, you must not at the same time be accuser.” Still they ordered Dioscurus to leave his place, and to sit in the middle (so that he was not absolutely to go out, but only to leave the ranks of those entitled to vote), by which means the papal legates were pacified.

Upon this Bishop Eusebius of Dorylæum came forward and declared that Dioscurus had ill-treated him and the faith, and had killed Bishop Flavian, and he requested that a petition should be read which he had addressed to the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian III. The commissioners and senators gave their consent, and Beronicianus now read the memorial, to the effect “that at the last Synod at Ephesus, which had better not have been held, Dioscurus had injured the true religion and confirmed the heresy of Eutyches by a mob of unruly people and by bribery. The Emperors should therefore command him to answer the accusations of Eusebius, and that the Acts of the Ephesine Synod (Robber-Synod) should again be read in the present Synod. From these he could bring proof that Dioscurus was opposed to the orthodox faith, that he had confirmed an impious heresy, and had unjustly condemned and ill-treated him the accuser.”

Required to reply to this by the imperial commissioners and senators, Dioscurus first demanded that they should read the Acts of the Council at Constantinople under Flavian. When his opponents also presented this petition, he changed his plan and wished first to introduce a doctrinal discussion on the question, what was the true Christological faith; but the imperial commissioners and senators persisted in the reading of all the previous Acts, and at their command the imperial consistorial secretary, Constantine, read first the letter despatched to Dioscurus on the 30th March 449, by the deceased Emperor Theodosius II., respecting the summoning of the Robber-Synod. When the secretary had further remarked that similar decrees had been despatched to other bishops, the commissioners and senators gave command that Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus should be introduced into the Synod, because Archbishop Leo (of Rome) had reinstated him in his bishopric, and the Emperor had commanded his presence.

The actual introduction of Theodoret caused a frightful storm. The party of Dioscurus, that is, the bishops of Egypt, Illyricum, and Palestine, cried out: “The faith is destroyed; the canons do not tolerate Theodoret; cast him out, this teacher (?) of Nestorius.” The opposite party, the Orientals, those from Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, replied: “We were compelled by blows (at the Robber-Synod) to subscribe; we were forced to subscribe a blank paper; cast them out, the Manichæans, the enemies of Flavian, the opponents of the faith.” Then Dioscurus cried again: “Theodoret anathematized the holy Cyril; shall Cyril now be cast out?” The other party immediately answered again: “Cast out the murderer Dioscurus: who is ignorant of his crimes?” The party of Dioscurus then drew in the name of the Empress Pulcheria, and cried out: “Prosperity to the Empress, she drove out Nestorius, therefore the orthodox Synod cannot receive Theodoret.” Taking advantage of a momentary interruption, Theodoret himself stepped forward, and requested that his petition to the Emperors, which was at the same time a complaint against Dioscurus, should be read, upon which the commissioners and senators, in order to quiet men’s minds, declared they would now proceed with the presentation of the previous Acts, and that no one should draw, the presence of Theodoret into a prejudice. From himself and his opponents, until later, the right of speech and of reply should be expressly withheld. Besides, the bishop of Antioch had testified to Theodoret’s orthodoxy. But the tumult was renewed. The Orientals cried: “Theodoret is worthy to sit here;” the Egyptains replied: “Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God, and call him not bishop.” Then the Orientals shouted: “Cast out the disturbers of the peace, cast out the murderers; the orthodox man belongs to the Synod.” And thus it went on for some time, until at last the commissioners and senators declared: “Such vulgar shouts (ἐκβοήσεις δημοτικαὶ) were not becoming in bishops, and could do no good to either party; they should therefore quietly listen to the continuation of the reading of the Acts.” Still the Egyptians shouted: “Cast only one (Theodoret) out;” but they were brought to silence, and the secretary Constantine now read a series of other documents: (a) A second letter of the deceased Emperor Theodosius II. to Dioscurus, dated the 15th of May 449; (b) one to the same effect to Juvenal of Jerusalem; (c) a third to Abbot Barsumas; (d) the instructions which Theodosius had given to Elpidius and Eulogius, his commissioners at the Robber-Synod; (e) a decree to Proclus the resident proconsul at Ephesus; (f) a third imperial letter to Dioscurus; and (g) one to the Robber-Synod, merely consisting of documents, the contents of which have already been given above, p. 223.

Dioscurus then spoke and asked why he alone should be held responsible for the deposition of Flavian, of Eusebius of Dorylæum, and others, since, according to the Acts which had been read, Bishops Juvenal and Thalassius had been nominated by the Emperor as judges at the same time with him, and the whole Synod had consented to the decrees, and had subscribed them? The Orientals (= those from the patriarchate of Antioch) and their friends, however, denied the liberty of their assent, and complained that they had been forced by violence to subscribe a paper on which nothing was yet written. In particular, they had been threatened with deposition and exile, and soldiers with sticks and swords had surrounded them until they subscribed. They concluded their relation with the cry: “Out then with the murderer” (Dioscurus). The Egyptians replied: “They subscribed before us, why then do their clerics (whom they brought with them) now raise a cry? Clerics do not belong to the Synod, out with them!” Upon this Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, to show the character of the Robber-Synod, related the following incident. Because he had received some of Flavian’s clergy and Eusebius of Dorylæum into communion, the imperial commissioners at that Synod, Elpidius and Eulogius, with about three hundred soldiers and monks of Eutyches, had come into his episcopal residence, and had threatened him with death, because he had received the enemies of the Emperor. But the adherents of Dioscurus had not allowed him to leave the Secretarium of the Church until he had subscribed.

After him Thalassius spoke: He had certainly been entered in the Emperor’s letter as judge (and president of the Robber-Synod), he knew not why; but when he saw that things which were unbecoming were taking place, he had earnestly endeavoured to prevent this, and he could bring witnesses to prove it.—Bishop Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria affirmed that he and others had understood little of the whole Synod, and had been imposed upon by Dioscurus and Juvenal. Besides, they had been alarmed by the exclamation: “They are neighbours of the Nestorian heresy,” and, “He who rends Christ (into two natures) shall himself be rent. Rend them, kill them, cast them out!” Thus they had been alarmed for themselves and on account of those whom they had baptized, and therefore had been forced to hold their peace.

He added further, that the Emperor had commanded that the Synod should judge respecting Flavian, but Dioscurus and his friends had held many private meetings, and communicated their decisions to no one; but, on the contrary, a blank paper had been brought, and they had been surrounded by rough, tumultuous mobs, and required to subscribe. Altogether one hundred and thirty-five bishops had been present, forty-two had been commanded to be silent, the rest had belonged to the party of Dioscurus and Juvenal, with the exception of him (Theodore) and fourteen others. “What,” he said, “could we now have done? They played with our life and abused us as heretics,” etc.

The Orientals and their friends testified to the truth of this statement; the Egyptians, on the other hand, remarked scornfully, “A true Christian does not allow himself to be frightened!” and Dioscurus said he thought “if they did not agree, they ought not to have signed, for it concerned the faith in which nothing should be surrendered.” In order to weaken their statement with respect to the blank paper, he begged further to ask them: “How in that case their remonstrances could appear in the minutes?”

The imperial commissioners and the senators wished for the present to leave all special questions aside until the whole of the previous Acts should have been read, and at their command the secretary Constantine now began with the minutes of the Robber-Synod (compare above, p. 241 ff.). Immediately on the reading of the first words of these, it came out that Pope Leo—that is, his letters—had not been received at Ephesus, and that only the fifth place (see above, p. 241) had been accorded to the bishop of Constantinople. As a cry again arose at this, Dioscurus demanded anew that all who were not bishops should be required to leave, as the noise proceeded from them; but Theodore of Claudiopolis said he thought that it was the notaries of Dioscurus himself who so cried, upon which he gave assurance that he had only two notaries with him.

Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Acts of Ephesus up to the place where the papal legates stated that they had with them a letter of Leo’s (see above, p. 242). Upon this archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked that Leo’s letter had not been read at the Robber-Synod, and all the Oriental bishops and their friends agreed with him. He further maintained that Dioscurus had seven times promised on oath to have the letter read, but had not kept his oath, and Theodore of Claudiopolis confirmed this statement. On being interrogated by the commissioners, Dioscurus asserted that he had himself twice called out that this letter should be read; but Juvenal and Thalassius must have known why it was not done, and they ought to be asked. When the commissioners replied that he above all should defend himself, he merely repeated his former statement, upon which Eusebius of Dorylæum gave him the lie. Juvenal, on the other side, maintained that it took place in this manner, namely, that John, the primicerius of Dioscurus, instead of reading Leo’s letter, had hastily taken in his hand a letter of the Emperor’s (naturally by understanding with Dioscurus), and had read this with his (Juvenal’s) permission (p. 243). When the commissioners asked Thalassius for an explanation, he contented himself with the statement that he had ordered neither the communicating nor the withholding of the papal letter, and, in fact, he had not been of sufficient importance to do so.

The secretary Constantine then proceeded with the reading of the Ephesine minutes up to the place where they speak of the applause which Dioscurus had gained by his speech (see above, p. 244). The Orientals and their friends now denied that they had taken part in those acclamations, etc.; and Theodore of Claudiopolis asserted, besides, that at this point Dioscurus had driven away the notaries of the other bishops, and had everything taken down by his own notaries (who might easily have ascribed the acclamations of individual bishops to the whole Synod). Dioscurus could, indeed, prove that not he alone, but also Juvenal, Thalassius, and the bishop of Corinth had notaries (each of these one); but that he allowed no notary at all to those bishops who did not belong to his party, was proved by Bishop Stephen of Ephesus, who testified that their manuscripts had been taken away from his notaries, and their fingers had almost been broken at the same time (see above, p. 253). So Stephen of Ephesus and Acacius of Ariarathia pressed the point with reference to the enforced subscription of a blank paper, the latter adding: “We were kept shut up in the church until night-time, and even the sick were not allowed to refresh themselves or to go out, but soldiers, with sticks and swords, and monks were placed near us, and thus we were compelled to subscribe.” Cf. p. 253.

Again, without going into these points, the imperial commissioners ordered the further reading of the Acts in which mention was made of the introduction of Eutyches into the Robber-Synod, and of his confession (see above, p. 244). The first two remarks in reply, which were now made, were of no significance; more important was it that Eusebius of Dorylæum declared the statement of Eutyches in the minutes to be untrue; that the third Œcumenical Council had directly forbidden every addition to the Nicene Creed. Dioscurus appealed to four manuscripts, but Diogenes of Cyzicus, on the other hand, remarked that Eutyches had not repeated the creed completely, for even at Constantinople (in the second Œcumenical Synod), on account of Apollinaris and Macedonius, there had been added: “He came down and was made man by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary,” and that this was properly an explanation and not an addition. But the Egyptians and their friends cried: “Nothing from it, and nothing to it (the Nicene Creed), the Emperor will thus have it,” and the like.

A longer debate was occasioned by the reading of the subsequent words of Eutyches: “I anathematize Manes, etc., and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven” (see above, p. 245). Eusebius of Dorylæum remarked that Eutyches had indeed (in his teaching) purposely avoided the expression “from heaven;” but he had not expressed himself on the point as to whence Christ had taken His humanity. Diogenes of Cyzicus and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria likewise testified that Eutyches, although interrogated, had not expressed himself on this point and on the manner of the Incarnation before the Synod (of Constantinople).

Dioscurus here took the opportunity to assert his own orthodoxy, and to reproach Basil for having afterwards represented at Ephesus that the words which he addressed to Eutyches on this matter at the Synod of Constantinople had been incorrectly reported (p. 248 f.). Basil replied, amidst interruptions of approval and disapproval from the two parties, that his assertion was, and always had been, that he worshipped one Lord Jesus Christ, who was acknowledged in two natures even after the Incarnation, namely, in His perfect manhood and in His perfect Godhead. The one He had from the Father before all eternities, the other from His mother according to the flesh, and He had united this hypostatically (καθʼ ὑπόστασιν) with Himself.

This explanation, which he had first given at the Synod at Constantinople, he had also read at Ephesus, and for that reason he had been rebuked by the Eutychians as a Nestorian. On the further expression of Eutyches (at Constantinople) that he acknowledged two natures before the Incarnation, but only one afterwards, he had replied to him: “If thou dost not acknowledge two undivided and unmingled natures even after the union, then thou dost assert a mingling and confusing.” When these words also were read in Ephesus, a more violent tumult had arisen, and in the confusion and distress he had then said, half-unconsciously: “I do not remember to have employed this expression, but my words meant: if thou speakest absolutely only of one nature after the union, then thou teachest a mingling; but if thou speakest of one σεσαρκωμένη and ἐνανθρωπήσασα θύσις in the sense of Cyril, then thou teachest the same as we” (cf. p. 248).

To the question of the commissioners, why, then, with his orthodox opinions, he had subscribed the judgment against Flavian, Basil answered, that he had been constrained to do so by the fear of the majority, who could have condemned him also. Dioscurus did not fail to reproach him with this weakness; and the answer of Basil, “that he had always shown the courage of martyrdom before secular judges, but that one did not venture to resist the fathers (bishops),” shows that in fact he was unable to justify himself. And now the Oriental bishops who were friendly to him exclaimed more openly: “We have all failed (at Ephesus), we all ask for pardon.” In this admission the commissioners thought they discovered a contradiction of the earlier statement of the Orientals and their friends, that they had subscribed a blank paper only by constraint; but certainly with injustice, for that very yielding to constraint was certainly a fault on the part of the bishops. They did not, however, allow themselves to be drawn into a discussion of this point, but renewed the cry: “We have all failed, we all ask for pardon,” and Beronicianus again read a portion of the Ephesine Acts, containing the further declaration of Eutyches (see above, p. 245).

Upon this Eusebius of Dorylæum brought forward the complaint that he had not been allowed at Ephesus to proceed with his accusation against Eutyches; and Dioscurus, Juvenal, and Thalassius, when questioned by the commissioners on this point, could only excuse themselves by saying that it was not they, but the Emperor and his representative Elpidius, who had ordered this exclusion. The imperial commissioners replied that this excuse was not valid, for it had been a question of judging as to the faith, on which the Emperor’s representative had not had to decide. But Dioscurus exclaimed: “How can you blame me for having violated the canons by yielding to the demand of Elpidius, since you violate them yourselves by the admission of Theodoret?” The commissioners replied: “Theodoret has entered as an accuser, and sits among the accusers, even as you (Dioscurus, etc.) among the accused.” Constantine then again read a portion of the minutes of Ephesus, together with the Acts of the first session at Constantinople under Flavian, which were embodied in them (see above, pp. 189 and 246).

At the close of the reading of these minutes, the imperial commissioners and senators renewed the question, so disagreeable to Dioscurus, why at Ephesus Bishop Eusebius of Dorylæum had not been admitted, since he had been so fair in demanding a hearing for Eutyches at the Synod of Constantinople. Dioscurus persisted in silence, and the commissioners therefore allowed the reading to proceed. They now arrived at the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, embodied in the Acts of Ephesus, together with the documents belonging to it and the interruptions introduced at Ephesus (see pp. 190 and 246). When the letter of Cyril to John of Antioch was read, a pause took place at Chalcedon filled up with acclamations of various kinds. Both parties simultaneously entered the conflict with shouts: “Honour to Cyril, we believe as he did.” When the Orientals added: “Thus also Flavian believed, and was condemned for it: Eusebius of Dorylæum deposed Nestorius, but Dioscurus falsified the faith,” the Egyptians replied: “God deposed Nestorius.” In the same way, when the Orientals cried out, “Thus Leo believes, thus Anatolius,” they added: “We all believe thus;” and all the bishops, together with the imperial commissioners and senators, shouted together: “Thus the Emperor believes, thus the Empress believes, thus we all believe.”

There was still, however, another bitter pill for Dioscurus, for the Orientals and their friends again exclaimed: “Cast out the murderer of Flavian;” and the commissioners, in consequence of the Egyptians protesting their orthodoxy, put to them the question: “If you thus believe, why have you then received Eutyches, who teaches the opposite, into communion, and, on the other hand, have deposed Flavian and Eusebius?” Dioscurus knew of nothing better to do than to point to the Acts, and Beronicianus now read what Eustathius of Berytus had brought forward at Ephesus, in order to show that Cyril too acknowledged only one nature in Christ (see p. 246). The Orientals exclaimed: “That is Eutychian and Dioscurish.” But Dioscurus asserted that he too admitted no mingling of the natures. Upon this Eustathius endeavoured to show that his quotation from Cyril, which he had brought forward at Ephesus, was correct. This was true; but while he had at Ephesus attributed a Monophysite meaning to the words of Cyril, he now interpreted them in a sense quite orthodox, to this effect: “If any one speaks of only one nature in order thereby to deny that the humanity of Christ is of the same substance with us, and if any one speaks of two natures, in order thereby (like Nestorius) to divide the Son of God, let him be accursed.” He added also, that he must say, in defence of Flavian, that he too had made use of the same words, and had thus expressed himself in his letter to the Emperor. This made the commissioners ask: “If this be so, why then did you agree to the condemnation of Flavian?” And to this Eustathius had no other answer than the confession: “I have been in fault.”

Beronicianus then read how Flavian at the Synod at Constantinople had declared the true faith (on the two natures), and had required all the bishops who were present to put down their view in the minutes (see above, p. 191). Upon this the commissioners and senators asked if this confession of Flavian was orthodox, and they requested the members of the Synod to make a declaration on this point. The first who declared for the orthodoxy of Flavian was the Roman legate Paschasinus. To him followed Anatolius of Constantinople, the second legate Lucentius, Bishop Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Cæsarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Berytus. Thereupon all the Orientals and their friends cried out together: “The martyr Flavian explained the faith correctly.” Dioscurus, however, demanded that the statement of Flavian should be read completely, and then he would answer the question which had been proposed. This demand was supported by Juvenal and his bishops from Palestine, but they at the same time acknowledged the orthodoxy of Flavian, and now left their places by the side of Dioscurus, so that they finally passed over to the other side amidst a shout of applause from the Orientals. The same was done by Peter of Corinth and Irenæus of Naupactus, who remarked that they had certainly not been members of the Ephesine Synod (as they were not bishops at that time), but what had been read had convinced them that Flavian had agreed with S. Cyril. They were followed by the other bishops of Hellas, and also by those of Macedonia and Crete, and by Nicolas of Stobi in Macedonia II., Athanasius of Busiris in the Egyptian Tripoli, Ausonius of Sebennytus, Nestorius of Phlagon, Macarius of Cabassi, Constantine of Demetrias in Thessaly, Eutychius of Adrianople, Cladæus of Anchiasmus, Marcus of Euroia, Peregrinus of Phœnicia, and Soterichus of Corcyra. These passed over together to the other side. Dioscurus, on the contrary, declared: “Flavian was justly condemned, because he maintained that there were two natures after the union. I can prove from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril that after the union we should speak only of one incarnate nature of the Logos (μία σεσαρκωμένη τοῦ Λόγου φύσις). I am rejected with the fathers; but I defend the doctrine of the fathers, and give way in no point. Moreover, I must request, like many others, that the reading may go on.”

This was done, and they came now to the particular votes which had been given at the Synod of Constantinople on the point of faith in question (see p. 191), together with the objections and exclamations brought forward on the other side at Ephesus (see p. 247). Bishop Æthericus of Smyrna, who had denied at Ephesus the vote which he had given at Constantinople, and had professed to have spoken differently, now endeavoured to present his conduct at Ephesus in another light. For this he was compelled to hear bitter comments, not only from Dioscurus, but also from Thalassius, the latter of whom said: “You made your statement at Ephesus without any compulsion whatever, why do you now wish to withdraw it?” After Beronicianus had read some further votes, those of Bishops Valerian and Longinus, Dioscurus interposed with the remark: “I accept the expression, ‘Christ is of two natures’ (ἐκ δύο), but not, ‘there are two natures’ (τὸ δύο οὐ δέχομαι). I must stand forth boldly, for my life is in question.” Eusebius of Dorylæum retorted, that this was only a just recompense, for he had almost destroyed him, and Flavian actually. Dioscurus replied, that he would defend himself before God. “Will you also before the laws?” asked Eusebius, adding that “it was necessary to defend himself also before these, for he had come forward here not as his encomiast, but as his accuser.” The legate Paschasinus again made the remark that at Ephesus Dioscurus had not permitted Flavian to speak so much as he himself spoke here; but the imperial commissioners turned aside the reproach possibly implied in the words, with the remark that “the present Synod would be a just one;” and the second legate, Lucentius, agreed to this.

Then Beronicianus read the close of the minutes of the second session at Constantinople, and only two slight interruptions occurred here, Dioscurus once exclaiming: “After the union there are no longer two natures;” whilst Eustathius of Berytus found fault with the expression: “He assumed man,” saying that we ought instead to say: “He was made man and assumed our flesh.”

In perfect quiet, and without any interruption or objection, as at the Robber-Synod so also at Chalcedon, they proceeded with the reading of the minutes of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sessions of Constantinople. Immediately after these came those of the seventh session, together with the speeches occasioned by this reading at Ephesus (see above, pp. 199 ff. and 248). As we have already seen (p. 199), in the seventh session at Constantinople, Eusebius of Dorylæum and Eutyches were opposed to each other as accuser and accused; and after a protracted discussion, Eusebius had put to Eutyches the decisive question: “Dost thou acknowledge the existence of two natures even after the Incarnation?” At this question the Robber-Synod, when the Acts of Constantinople were read, became so enraged that they cried out: “Take and burn Eusebius;” and the whole Synod (according to the minutes) shouted: “Let him who confesses two natures be anathema” (p. 248). At Chalcedon the Oriental and other bishops who had been members of the Robber-Synod denied this emphatically, and even Dioscurus was forced to confess that only his Egyptians had thus exclaimed.

The minutes of Ephesus said further that the whole Synod had confirmed by acclamation the confession of faith of Eutyches, that “before tho Incarnation our Lord was of two natures, but afterwards He had only one.” Against this, too, the Orientals and their friends protested, and declared: “Only the Egyptians thus exclaimed: it is the doctrine of Dioscurus. Prosperity to the Emperor, many years to the Empress, many years to the Senate!” Bishop Eustathius of Berytus then offered the suggestion that the Synod should at the same time guard itself against the possible rejoinder, that it divided (like Nestorius) the natures in Christ; and Basil of Seleucia then declared (with the silent acquiescence of all): “We confess, but do not divide the two natures; we divide them not (like Nestorius), nor confuse them (like the Monophysites).”

There now followed long readings without interruption. First came the close of the minutes of the seventh session of Constantinople (see above, p. 203 f.), and then the Acts of that synodal assembly which the Emperor Theodosius II. had appointed at the request of Eutyches for the verification of the minutes of the Synod of Constantinople (see p. 211 ff.). A second smaller commission of inquiry had, as we know, had to examine the statement of Eutyches, that the sentence of deposition pronounced against him had not been drawn up at the seventh session of the Council at Constantinople, but beforehand (see above, p. 219 f.), and the Acts of this assembly were again read at Chalcedon, as at Ephesus. Immediately after this came the explanation given by Basil of Seleucia at the Robber-Synod, in which he took back again the vote which, in common with others, he had given at Constantinople: “That two natures were to be confessed.” Now at Chalcedon he asserted: “It is true that I presented a petition at Ephesus through the sainted Bishop John, that I might alter my statement made at Constantinople, but I did it from fear of thee, Dioscurus; for thou laidest great constraint upon us, as well by thy words as by the troops placed inside and outside the church. Soldiers with weapons were thrust into the church, and the monks of Barsumas stood round us, and the Parabolani, and a multitude of people. Bishop Auxanius from Egypt, Athanasius, and all the others, if put upon their oath, must confess that I said to Dioscurus: ‘Do not, sir, nullify the judgment of the whole world.’ ”

Then Dioscurus answered with the question: “Did I force you?” Basil answered: “Yes; by the threats of your troops you compelled us to such blood-guiltiness (towards Flavian). Consider yourselves how violent Dioscurus must then have been, when even now, when he no longer has more than six adherents, he insults us all.” Dioscurus replied: “My notary Demetrian can certify that you asked him privately (and so not by compulsion) to alter your words.” Basil replied: “I pray your highnesses (the commissioners and senators), ask all the metropolitans to declare upon the gospel whether, when we were sad and refused to vote, Dioscurus did not stand up and cry: Whoever does not subscribe has to do with me. Ask especially Eusebius (probably the bishop of Ancyra) on his oath, whether he was not almost condemned because he delayed his vote only a very short time.” Dioscurus replied that Basil had not then for the first time, but at an earlier period, had his words altered; but without allowing this, Basil now requested that Dioscurus should bring forward everything which he knew against him, so that he might be able to answer for himself.

In order to the further clearing up of the acts of violence at Ephesus, Bishops Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianus of Synnada related what we have mentioned above (p. 254), how they and other bishops had clasped the knees of Dioscurus and had entreated him on their knees not to ill-treat Flavian, and how he had threatened them, and had called in the counts with military and chains, and thus had compelled all to subscribe. Then were read (a) the vote taken at the Robber-Synod on the orthodoxy of Eutyches and his restoration; (b) the letter of the Eutychian monks to the Robber-Synod, and the approval of it given at Ephesus; and (c) those extracts from the Acts of the third Œcumenical Council which had also been repeated at the Robber-Synod.

In the meantime night had come on, and the rest of the Acts of Ephesus, the voting on the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorylæum, had therefore to be read by candle light. After this had been done, the imperial commissioners and senators spoke and said: “The question respecting the right faith can be more carefully considered in the next session. As, however, it has now been shown by the reading of the Acts and by the avowal of many bishops who confess that they fell into error at Ephesus, that Flavian and others were unjustly deposed, it seems right that, if it so pleases the Emperor, the same punishment should be inflicted upon the heads of the previous Synod, Dioscurus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Cæsarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia, and that their deposition from the episcopal dignity should be pronounced by the Council.”

The Orientals and their friends exclaimed: “That is quite right.” The Illyrians, on the contrary, cried out: “We have all erred, we all ask for pardon.” Upon this the Orientals and others also demanded only the deposition of Dioscurus, and cried out: “Many years to the senate! holy God, holy Almighty, holy Immortal, have mercy upon us! Many years to the Emperors! The impious must ever be subdued! Dioscurus the murderer Christ has deposed! This is a righteous judgment, a righteous senate, a righteous Council!”

At the close, the commissioners demanded that each individual bishop should set forth his faith in writing (on the controverted point), without fear, having only God before his eyes. They should at the same time know that the Emperor would stand fast by the declarations of the 318 fathers at Nicæa and the 150 at Constantinople, as well as by the contents of the writings of the holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril, which had been read and approved at the first Synod at Ephesus. Moreover, it was well known that Archbishop Leo of Rome had also written a letter against the Eutychian heresy to the sainted Flavian.—Many voices cried: “We have read it;” and then Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, declared the first session ended.

SEC. 190. Second Session, October 10, 451

At the second session, which, like all those which followed, likewise took place in the church of S. Euphemia, there were already absent Dioscurus, Juvenal, and the four other bishops whose deposition had been pronounced by the imperial commissioners. They opened the new session with the request, that the Synod would now declare what the true faith was, so that the erring might be brought back to the right way. The bishops replied, protesting that no one could venture to draw up a new formulary (ἔκθεσις) of the faith, but that which had been laid down by the fathers was to be held fast. This must not be departed from. Universal approval was accorded to the words of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopol: “On the Eutychian question a test had already been given by the Roman archbishop, which they (that is, he and his nearest colleagues) had all signed,” and all the bishops exclaimed: “That we also say, the explanation already given by Leo suffices; another declaration of faith must not be put forth.”

The imperial commissioners and senators, however, were not contented with this, but, holding to their previous demand, they proposed that all the patriarchs (οἱ ὁσιώτατοι πατριάρχαι διοικήσεως ἑκάστης) should come together, along with one or two bishops of their province, and take common counsel respecting the faith, and communicate the result, so that, by its universal acceptance, every doubt in regard to the faith might be removed, or in case that, contrary to their expectations, those believing otherwise should be present, these would immediately be made manifest.—Again the bishops replied: “A written declaration of faith we do not bring forward. This is contrary to the rule” (the prescription of the third Œcumenical Council, Actio vi., see above, p. 70 f.). Bishop Florentius of Sardes added by way of mediating: “As those who have been taught to follow the Nicene Synod, and also the regularly and piously assembled Synod at Ephesus, in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers Cyril and Cœlestine (the Pope), and also with the letter of the most holy Leo, cannot possibly draw up at once a formula of the faith, we therefore ask for a longer delay; but I, for my part, believe that the letter of Leo is sufficient.”

At the suggestion of Cecropius, the older documents, in which the true faith had already been set forth, were publicly read, and (a) before all the Nicene Creed with the anathema against the Arian heresy. The bishops then exclaimed: “That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we were baptized, into that we also baptize; thus Cyril taught, thus believes Pope (ὁ Πάπας) Leo.” (b) With similar acclamations the Creed of Constantinople was received. (c) To this succeeded the reading of that letter from S. Cyril to Nestorius, which had been approved at Ephesus (see above, pp. 20 f. and 47), and of his subsequent letter (the pacificatory document) to Bishop John of Antioch (see above, p. 137), both of which documents, besides, had already been read in the first session of our Council, among the Acts of Constantinople (see above, p. 307). After further acclamations (d) it came to the turn of the celebrated letter of Leo to Flavian, the contents of which we have already communicated (see above, p. 225 ff.), and which was now read in a Greek translation, and without the patristic proofs which had been appended to it (although not at the beginning) by Leo himself. After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: “That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus, the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was that not read at Ephesus (at the Robber-Synod)? Dioscurus kept it hidden.”

Three passages in the letter of Leo had, however, raised doubts among the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine. In what these doubts consisted, we learn for the first time from the acts of the fourth session. The wording of these passages appeared to imply a certain kind of division of the divine and human in Christ, and thus not to keep sufficiently clear of Nestorianism. These passages are (a) in chap. iii.: “In order to pay our debt, the invisible nature united itself with the passible, so that, as our salvation required, the one Mediator between God and man on the one side could die, on the other could not.” In order to pacify them, Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople read a passage from the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, in which it was similarly said, “because the σάρξ (manhood) of the Lord died for us, therefore it is said: He died, not as though He could taste death in His proper divine nature, but because His σάρξ tasted death.” (β) The same bishops then took exception, in the second place, to the passage in chap. iv.: “Each of the two forms (natures) does in communion with the other that which is proper to it, since the word (of God) performs that which belongs to the word, and the flesh accomplishes that which belongs to the flesh. The one flashes forth gloriously in miracles, the other submits to insults.” As parellels to this, Aetius again read an expression of S. Cyril from the synodal letter to Nestorius, which was connected with the twelve anathematisms, as follows: “Some expressions in the Holy Scriptures apply best to God, others to the manhood, and others again hold a middle position, showing that the Son of God is both God and man.” (γ) Finally, they were struck with another passage in the same chap. iv.: “Although in Christ there is only one person of God and of man, yet the glory and the shame which are common to the two natures have a different source. From us He has the manhood, which is inferior to the Father; from the Father He has the Godhead, which is equal to the Father.” Thereupon Theodoret remarked, that S. Cyril also had similarly expressed himself, and quoted the passage: “He became man, and changed not His properties, but remained what He was. The one, however, is comprehended as thoroughly dwelling in the other, that is, the divine nature in the manhood.”

The imperial commissioners and the senate now put the question: “Has any one still any doubt?” They replied with acclamation: “No one doubts.” Notwithstanding, the bishops of Illyricum were not quite satisfied, for one of them, Atticus of Nicopolis (in Epirus), requested that they would allow a few days’ delay, during which the members of the Synod might quietly consider and settle the question. And as the letter of Leo had been read, they should also have a copy of that letter of Cyril to Nestorius, to which the twelve anathematisms were appended, so that they might be able to prepare for the proceedings on the subject. The other bishops exclaimed: “If we are to have delay, we must request that all the bishops in common shall take part in the desired consultation;” and the imperial commissioners and the senators, agreeing to this, declared: “The assembly is put off for five days, and the bishops shall, during that time, meet with Anatolius of Constantinople, and take counsel together concerning the faith, so that the doubting may be instructed.” They were interrupted by the cry: “None of us doubts, we (but certainly not all) have already subscribed,” and then they went on: “It is, however, not necessary that all come together, but Anatolius may choose out of those who have already subscribed Leo’s letter such as he thinks fitted to instruct the doubting.” (Cf. below, § 192, p. 330 f.)

When the session was about to terminate, some bishops, probably of those from lllyricum, took advantage of this moment in order to intercede for the heads of the Robber-Synod. They cried: “We petition for the fathers, that they may be allowed again to enter the Synod. The Emperor and the Empress should hear of this petition. We have all erred; let all be forgiven!” Thereupon a great commotion arose, a contest of shouts and counter-shouts between the two parties. The clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: “Only a few cry for this, the Synod itself says not a syllable.” Thereupon the Orientals and others cried out: “Exile to the Egyptian;” and the Illyrians: “We beseech you pardon all!” The Orientals: “Exile to the Egyptian;” the Illyrians: “We have all erred; have mercy on us all. These words to the orthodox Emperor: ‘The Churches are rent in pieces’ ” (that is, schisms are arising through that deposition). And again the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed: “To exile with Dioscurus; God has rejected him,” and, “whoever has communion with him is a Jew.” The Illyrians and Orientals continued their exclamations, until at last the commissioners put an end to the subject with the words: “The consultation with Anatolius, which we have already required, must now be taken in hand.”

SEC. 191. Third Session, October 13, 451

Before the expiry of the appointed interval of five days, the third general session was held on the 13th of October in the same church. It is nowhere intimated that the imperial commissioners and the senators were present, and on this occasion their names are found neither in the catalogue of those present which is prefixed to the Acts, nor in the text among those who speak. They said subsequently that the condemnation of Dioscurus (at this session) had taken place without their knowledge; and from this we might perhaps conclude that the holding of this third session had not been announced to them. But this is not the case; it appears, on the contrary, more probable that they purposely remained away from this session, in order to avoid the appearance of the imperial authority having brought about the condemnation of Dioscurus and deprived the bishops of their full liberty. The number of the bishops who were present at this session was also smaller, as those who were friendly to Dioscurus did not appear. The list, which is, however, imperfect, has the names of only two hundred as being present.

This new session was opened by Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople, as first notary of the Synod, with the intelligence that Eusebius of Dorylæum, besides the complaint against Dioscurus, which he had read at the first session, had given in a second which he was ready to communicate. The papal legate, Paschasinus, remarked that, as Leo had given him commission to preside in his place, therefore all that was brought forward at the Synod must go through him, and that he now ordered the reading of this accusation. The principal contents were: “I have brought against Dioscurus the accusation that he holds the same opinions with Eutyches, the condemned and anathematized heretic; but at the recently held Synod at Ephesus he obtained power by the violence of his troops and by money, he violated the true faith, he introduced a heretical leaven into the Church, and robbed me of my spiritual office. As it has already been shown in the previous transactions (first session) that Dioscurus taught heretically, that he excluded me from the Synod at Ephesus (the Robber-Synod), and prevented both me and Bishop Flavian from defending our just allegations; as it has further been shown that he had the minutes entered differently from what was spoken, and enforced the subscription of a blank paper: I therefore pray that you will have pity upon me and decree that all which was done against me be declared null, and do me no harm, but that I be again restored to my spiritual dignity. At the same time anathematize his evil doctrine and punish him for his insolence according to his deserts.”

Eusebius added orally the petition that he might be personally confronted with his opponent. Aetius stated that the session had been announced to Dioscurus, as to all the other bishops, by two deacons, and he had answered them that “he would willingly appear, but his guards prevented him.” Paschasinus immediately sent out first two priests, Epiphanius and Elpidius, from the church, to see whether Dioscurus was in the neighbourhood; and as this had no result, at the suggestion of Anatolius of Constantinople, three bishops, Constantine, Metropolitan of Bostra, Acacius of Ariarath, and Atticus of Zele, together with the notary Himerius, were sent to Dioscurus at his lodging, to require his appearance. Dioscurus answered them also that he would willingly come, but that he was prevented by his guards, the Magistriani and Scholarii (imperial officers).—The synodal deputies were on their way back with this answer when Eleusinius, the assistant of the Magister sacrorum officiorum, met them, and as he asserted that Dioscurus might appear at the Synod if he wished, they returned to him and renewed their demand. Deprived now of his previous excuse, Dioscurus replied that “it had been decided respecting him in the previous (first) session by the imperial commissioners, and now they wished to annul this. He demanded that his affair should again be brought forward in the presence of the commissioners and senators.” The deputies did not fail to represent to Dioscurus, that, consequently, that was not true which he had at first said to them, and then reported to the Synod the result of their mission.

Then three bishops, Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia, Cecropius of Sebastopolis, and Rufinus of Samosata, together with the notary Hypatius, were sent with a written invitation to Dioscurus, to the effect, “that it was not in order to annul anything which had been decreed in the first session, but to examine new matters of complaint which Eusebius of Dorylæum had brought forward, that the Synod had invited Dioscurus, and he was bound to appear, in accordance with the canonical rules.” Dioscurus now declared that he was ill; and when the deputies met him, he said he had just recovered, but he returned to his former excuse that he would now appear if the imperial commissioners were present, and added, that then the other heads of the Synod of Ephesus—Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustathius (see above, pp. 224, 301, 314)—would also be forced to appear with him. The deputies replied that the new complaint of the Bishop of Dorylæum was directed against Dioscurus alone, and not also against the five others, and that therefore their presence was not necessary; but Dioscurus adhered to his refusal.

When the synodal deputies had again returned and given information respecting their mission, Eusebius of Dorylæum proposed to send a third invitation to Dioscurus. Before this was prepared, some clerics and laymen who had come from Alexandria were allowed to appear before the Synod, in order to present complaints against Dioscurus. The papal legate Paschasinus asked these new complainants whether they were ready to prove their accusations against Dioscurus, and when they said they were, their complaints were read. They were four in number, and were all addressed to “the Archbishop and Patriarch of great Rome, Leo, and to the holy and Œcumenical Synod,” and the first of them, from the Alexandrian deacon Theodore, said that “he (Theodore) had served for two and twenty years among the Magistriani (imperial bodyguard), that then the holy Cyril of Alexandria had taken him into his service about the time of the Synod of Ephesus, and had advanced him to be a cleric. For fifteen years he had been in this position, and then Dioscurus, after entering upon his office (A.D. 444), without any written or oral complaint having been brought against him, had deposed him from his spiritual office, and threatened him with expulsion from the city, and this for no other reason than that he had enjoyed the confidence of Cyril. He had persecuted in a similar manner all the relations and servants of Cyril. In Cyril, however, this heretic, this Origenist hated the true faith. He had thrown out insults against the holy Trinity, and had taken part in murder, in cutting down the trees of others, in burning and in destroying houses. Further, he had always lived in a disgraceful manner, as he was ready to prove. He had done even worse than the things which he had practised against Flavian. He had ventured to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the apostolic see of Rome, and by threats had compelled the ten bishops who had come from Egypt with him, for several refused to accompany him, to subscribe this excommunication. They had subscribed weeping and lamenting. In order that the proof of all this might be possible, the Synod should have the following persons brought under guard: Agorast, Dorotheus, Eusebius, and the notary John. He himself would bring forward upright witnesses at the proper time.”

The second complaint was presented by the deacon Ischyrion. He declared how violently Dioscurus had behaved, how he had destroyed the goods, trees, and dwellings of his opponents, had driven some away, had punished others, and had also been disrespectful towards the holy relics. All this was known in Alexandria by the people, the clergy, and the monks. When the Emperors had granted corn to the poor churches of Libya, in order that they might make from it bread for the Eucharist and feed the poor, he had forbidden the bishops of those regions to receive it, and had bought it himself and stored it up, in order to sell it again, in a time of dearth, at huge prices. In the same way, he had not permitted the institutions to be completed, which the pious matron Peristeria had set up for convents, hospitals, and the like, but had squandered the money given for the purpose on persons connected with theatres. His dissolute life was generally known, and women of evil reputation went out and in to the dwelling of the bishop, and his bath, particularly the celebrated Pansophia, surnamed Ὀρεινὴ (that is, Montana, Montez!), so that a popular song had even been circulated about her and her lover (Dioscurus), as would be shown. Moreover, Dioscurus had also murders on his conscience. Ischyrion further speaks of himself, how Cyril had shown him confidence, and how many troublesome journeys and pieces of business he had accomplished as his agent, so that, as they could see, his health had been weakened by them. But Dioscurus had immediately expelled him from the holy service, and had allowed his property to be burned, and his trees to be cut down by monks and others, so that he was now a beggar. Nay, he had even given it in charge to the presbyter Mennas, and the deacons Peter and Harpocration, with other officers, to put him to death, and it was only by timely flight that he had then saved his life. Subsequently he had actually been laid hold of by this Harpocration, the most cruel of the assistants of Dioscurus, and imprisoned in a hospital without any charge having been brought against him. And even in this prison Dioscurus had made attempts upon his life, and finally had set him at liberty only upon grievous conditions, for example, that he should leave his native city Alexandria. He requested that the Synod would have pity upon him, and admit him to prove his accusations, and after examination, restore him again to his spiritual office. In conclusion, he prayed that they would have Agorast, Dorotheus, Eusebius, Didion, Harpocration, Peter, and the bishop’s bathmaster, Gaianus, apprehended, so that they might be heard. At the proper time he would then bring forward upright witnesses.

The third complaint was preferred by the Alexandrian presbyter Athanasius. Immediately at the beginning he says: “He and his departed brother Paul were sons of Isidora, a sister of Cyril. In his testament, Cyril had left great legacies to his successor, and had at the same time adjured him to be friendly to his relatives. Dioscurus, however, hating Cyril on account of his orthodoxy, had done the contrary, and had persecuted his relatives. He had immediately threatened him and his brother Paul with death and had driven them from Alexandria, so that they had gone to Constantinople to seek for protection. At the instigation of Dioscurus and his friends Chrysaphius and Nomus, they had, however, been arrested in Constantinople, and had been so long ill-treated that they were at last reduced to purchase their liberty by the sacrifice not only of all their moveable property, but also by additional sums, which they had to borrow from usurers. In consequence of this, his brother Paul had died, but he himself (Athanasius) and his aunts, and the wife and children of his brother, had fallen into debt to such an extent, that, on account of the demands of the usurers, they had no longer ventured to go out. The very houses of the family (in Alexandria) had been seized by Dioscurus and turned into churches, and even his (the complainant’s) own had been taken, although, as being removed four houses from the others, it could not be used for that purpose. Moreover, without any charge having been brought against him, he had deprived him of his priestly office, and had struck him off the church register. For seven years he had wandered about, fleeing sometimes from Dioscurus, sometimes from his creditors. Not once in convents or churches had Dioscurus allowed him to find rest, and he had forbidden that he should have a loaf or a bath, so that he had almost died of hunger and misery. The sum which he had been compelled to give to Nomus amounted to about 1400 pounds of gold; and as he had also been robbed of his other property, he was forced, with the two or three slaves who still remained to him, to support himself by begging. Moreover, Dioscurus had also extracted great sums of money from Cyril’s other relatives. He (the complainant) prayed therefore for assistance, and for the restitution of that which Nomus had taken from him, so that he might be able to repay his creditors. He was ready to prove everything.”

The fourth complainant from Alexandria was a layman named Sophronius. He had also been plunged into poverty by Dioscurus. The occasion was quite peculiar. Macarius, an official of Alexandria, had robbed Sophronius of his wife Theodota, and this, although no separation or quarrel had taken place between the husband and wife. On this account he had made his complaint before the Emperor and the chief ministers, and the chief judge Theodore had been sent from Constantinople to examine the matter. Dioscurus had declared that this whole trial belonged to him and not to the Emperor, and sent the deacon Isidore to him with officers to require the departure of the judge Theodore. Not contented with that, this deacon, at the command of Dioscurus, had taken everything away from Sophronius, who had fled. He now asked for assistance, and was ready to prove that Dioscurus had insulted the holy Trinity, had been guilty of adultery, and even of treason; and when the Emperor Marcian was at Alexandria, he had, by Agorast and Timothy; distributed money among the people, to induce them to drive the Emperor away. This could be proved by the tribune and notary John, and if Theodore had not then been administering the province of Egypt, the city of Alexandria would have been plunged into great misfortune through the fault of Dioscurus. Finally, Sophronius affirmed that many others had to complain of Dioscurus, but were too poor to appear personally, and he asked that Agorast might be arrested.

The Synod resolved to embody all these complaints in the minutes, and then caused Dioscurus to be invited a third time by Bishops Francion of Philippopolis in Thrace, Lucian of Byzia in Thrace, and John of Germanicia in Syria. The deacon Palladius accompanied them as notary. They were entrusted with a letter to Dioscurus, in which his previous excuses were represented as false, and he was required to defend himself against the accusations brought forward by Eusebius of Dorylæum, and by the clerics and laymen from Alexandria. If he still refused to appear after this third invitation, he would be subject to the punishments which were pronounced by the canons against the despisers of the Synods.

This third citation also remained without result, for Dioscurus simply declared that “he adhered to that which he had previously said, and he could add nothing more,” and all the efforts of the deputies to induce him to yield, and to touch his conscience, were in vain.—After they had again informed the Synod of this, the papal legate Paschasinus put the question, what was now to be done, and whether they should proceed with the canonical punishments against Dioscurus. After several bishops had given their views, and had specially asked the legates to pronounce judgment, these summed up the accusations which had been presented against Dioscurus: “It had been shown,” they said, “by to-day’s and the previous (first) session, what Dioscurus had dared to do against holy order and Church discipline. To pass over much else, he had received back into communion Eutyches, as being of the same opinions as himself, although he had been justly deposed by his Bishop Flavian, and this he had done in an irregular manner, before he united with the other bishops at the Ephesine Synod. These other bishops and members of the (Robber) Synod had received forgiveness from the apostolic see for that which they did there against their will, and they had also shown themselves obedient to the holy Archbishop Leo and to the most holy Œcumenical Synod. Dioscurus, on the contrary, had, up to the present moment, proudly persisted in that for which he ought to have lamented earlier. Moreover, he had not allowed the letter of Leo to Flavian to be read at Ephesus, although he had often been requested, and although he had promised upon oath to do so. Instead of repenting afterwards, like the other bishops, he had even ventured to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against the holy Archbishop Leo. Several complaints against him had been presented to the holy Synod, and as he had not appeared after an invitation had been sent to him three times, he had thereby practically pronounced judgment upon himself.” To this the legates added their sentence in the following form: “Therefore the most holy Archbishop of Rome, Leo, has, by us and the present most holy Synod, in communion with the most blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church and the foundation-stone of the orthodox faith, declared this Dioscurus to be deprived of his bishopric, and that he shall lose all spiritual dignity. In accordance herewith, this most holy and great Synod will decide respecting the aforesaid Dioscurus, what appears to be agreeable to the canons.”

All those present, the Patriarchs Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch at their head, assented to this judgment, and subscribed the deposition of Dioscurus.

The document, which was directly afterwards handed to Dioscurus, is as follows: “The holy and great and Œcumenical Synod … to Dioscurus. Learn that, on account of despising the divine canons, on account of thy disobedience to the Synod, since, besides thine other offences, thou didst not respond to their threefold invitation, thou wast, on the 13th of October, deposed by the holy Œcumenical Synod from the episcopal office, and deprived of all spiritual functions.”

The clergy of Dioscurus, who were present at Chalcedon, particularly his steward Charmosynus and his archdeacon Euthalius, were made acquainted with this judgment, and with the requirement of the Synod that all the property of the Church of Alexandria which they had in their hands should be carefully preserved, as they would be required to give an account of it to the future Bishop of Alexandria.—In a subsequent document, an official placard, which was destined for the cities of Chalcedon and Constantinople, the Synod contradicted the report that Dioscurus would be again reinstated in his office; to the Emperors Valentinian III. and Marcian, however, they sent a copy of the minutes with a letter, in which the reasons for the deposition of Dioscurus (that he had suppressed the letter of Leo, had received Eutyches into communion, had ill-treated Eusebius of Dorylæum, had excommunicated the Pope, and had not obeyed the Synod) were briefly given, and the hope expressed that the Emperors would approve of what had been done.—The synodal letter to Pulcheria is composed in a more flowing style, and in it her great merit in obtaining the triumph of orthodoxy is commended, and intelligence given of the deposition of Dioscurus. The bishops in this assume that the Empress will also give her approval, and close with the assurance that one who is so zealous for the cause of God as Pulcheria cannot miss the divine reward.

SEC. 192. Fourth Session, October 17, 451

At the fourth session, on the 17th of October 451, the imperial commissioners and the senate were again present, and first of all had those passages read from the minutes of the first session, in which they had pronounced for the deposition of Dioscurus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eustathius, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil, and had required written confessions of faith from the bishops. There was then read from the Acts of the second session the decree that a delay of five days should be allowed for the discussion of the dogma, and following upon this, the commissioners and senators put the question, “What had the reverend Synod now decreed concerning the faith?” In his own name and in that of his colleagues, the papal legate Paschasinus replied to this: “The holy Synod holds fast the rule of faith which was ratified by the fathers at Nicæa and by those at Constantinople. Moreover, in the second place, it acknowledges that exposition of this creed which was given by Cyril at Ephesus. In the third place, the letter of the most holy man Leo, Archbishop of all Churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shows quite clearly what is the true faith, and this faith the Synod also holds, and allows nothing to be added to it or taken from it.”

After the secretary Beronicianus had translated this declaration into Greek, all the bishops exclaimed: “We also all believe thus, into that we were baptized, into that we baptize, thus we believe” (cf. p. 316). The commissioners and the senate required that all the bishops should swear by the Gospels placed in the midst of them whether the declarations of faith of Nicæa and Constantinople agreed with Leo’s letter or not. First Anatolius of Constantinople affirmed it, adding that Leo’s letter also harmonized with the declarations and decrees of the first Synod at Ephesus. The three papal legates affirmed the same, and after them came all the other voters in turn, sometimes in shorter, sometimes in fuller declarations.

With very few exceptions, all likewise remarked that they had already subscribed Leo’s letter. What is most important for us is the manner in which the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine comported themselves, who, as we know, had raised some objections to Leo’s letter at the second session. The bishops of Illyricum, through Bishop Sozon of Philippi, now had the written declaration read: “That they were inviolably devoted to the faith of the fathers of Nicæa and Constantinople, and to the decrees of the first Synod at Ephesus, and that they were also fully convinced of the orthodoxy of the most holy father and Archbishop Leo. But that which in his letter appeared to them not quite clear, and liable to be misunderstood, the papal legates had explained quite satisfactorily when they were all assembled with Anatolius, and had anathematized every one who separated the manhood of our Lord from His Godhead, and did not confess that the divine and the human attributes existed in Him unmingled and unchanged and undivided (ἀσυγχύτως καὶ ἀτρέπτως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως). On this they had in a body signed Leo’s letter and had agreed with him.”

An expression to the same effect was read by Bishop Anianus (Ananias) of Capitolias, in Palestina II., instructed by the bishops of Palestine: “We all hold fast by the faith of the 318 fathers of Nicæa and of the 150 of Constantinople, and agree with the decrees of the first Synod of Ephesus. When the letter of Leo was read to us, we gave our assent to the greatest part of its contents. But some parts of it seemed to us to express a certain separation of the divine and human in Christ, and we therefore hesitated to accept them. We learnt, however, from the Roman legates that neither do they admit any such separation, but confess one and the same Lord and Son of God. We have therefore assented, and have subscribed Leo’s letter. It would be well, however, if the legates would now, for the good of the world, publicly repeat that explanation.”

After these explanations of the bishops of Illyricum and Palestine, the individual voting was again continued, until at last the imperial commissioners, after a hundred and sixty-one votes had been given, invited all the rest to give their votes in union. Upon this all the bishops exclaimed: “We are all agreed, we all believe thus; he who agrees belongs to the Synod! Many years to the Emperors, many years to the Empress! Even the five bishops (Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basil) have subscribed, and believe as Leo does! They also belong to the Synod!” The imperial commissioners and others replied: “We have written on their account (those five) to the Emperor, and await his commands. You, however, are responsible to God for these five for whom you intercede, and for all the proceedings of this Synod.” The bishops exclaimed: “God has deposed Dioscurus; Dioscurus is rightly condemned; Christ has deposed him!”

The Synod now waited for several hours, until a decree arrived from the Emperor, who was close at hand in Constantinople, respecting the five bishops. It was to the effect that: “The Synod itself should decide as to their admission;” and as it now declared strongly for this by acclamations, they were immediately allowed to enter and take their places while their colleagues exclaimed: “God has done this. Many years to the Emperors, to the senate, to the commissioners! The union is complete, and peace given to the Churches!”

The commissioners then made the communication that yesterday a number of Egyptian bishops had handed in a confession of faith to the Emperor, and the latter wished that it should be read before the Synod. They therefore allowed the Egyptian bishops, thirteen in number, to enter and to take their place, and the secretary Constantine read their short memorial addressed to the two Emperors in the name of all the bishops of Egypt, but signed only by the thirteen, in which they expressed their agreement with the orthodox faith, and anathematized all heresy, particularly that of Arius, Eunomius, the Manichæans, the Nestorians, and those who maintain that the flesh of Christ, which is like ours, with the exception of sin, came from heaven and not from the Virgin Mary. As the heresy of Eutyches was not mentioned here, there immediately arose great discontent in the Synod on this account. Some even accused the Egyptians of dishonesty; but the papal legates desired from them a declaration as to whether they agreed with the letter of Leo, and would pronounce an anathema on Eutyches or not. They replied by their spokesman Hieracus, bishop of Aphnæum: “If any one teaches differently from what we have indicated, whether it be Eutyches or whoever it be, let him be anathema. As to the letter of Leo, however, we cannot express ourselves, for you all know that, in accordance with the prescription of the Nicene Council (canon 6), we are united with the Archbishop of Alexandria, and therefore must await his judgment (that is, of the future archbishop who should be chosen in the place of Dioscurus) in this matter.”

Those who were present were highly displeased with this evasion, and expressed their feelings in various exclamations, so that the thirteen Egyptians after a short time pronounced an anathema openly and positively at least on Eutyches. But again they were asked to subscribe the letter of Leo, and when the Egyptians again said: “Without the consent of our Archbishop we cannot subscribe,” Bishop Acacius of Ariarathia replied: “It is inadmissible to allow more weight to one single person who is to hold the bishopric of Alexandria, than to the whole Synod. The Egyptians only wish to throw everything into confusion here as at Ephesus. They must subscribe Leo’s letter or be excommunicated.” To the same effect spoke Bishop Photius of Tyre, and all the other bishops gave their approval. The Egyptians now explained that “in comparison with the great number of the bishops of Egypt, there were only a few of them present, and they had no right to act in their name (to do what was required of them). They therefore prayed for mercy, and that they might be allowed to follow their Archbishop. All the provinces of Egypt would otherwise rise up against them.” They even cast themselves upon their knees, and repeated their request for forbearance. But Cecropius of Sebastopol again reproached them with heresy, and remarked that it was from themselves alone that assent was demanded to the letter of Leo, and not in the name of the rest of the Egyptian bishops. They replied: “We can no longer live at home if we do this.” The papal legate Lucentius said: “Ten individual men (the thirteen Egyptians) can occasion no prejudice to a Synod of six hundred bishops and to the Catholic faith.” The Egyptians, however, went on crying: “We shall be killed, we shall be killed, if we do it. We will rather be made away with here by you than there. Let an Archbishop for Egypt be here appointed, and then we will subscribe and assent. Have pity upon our gray hairs! Anatolius of Constantinople knows that in Egypt all the bishops must obey the Archbishop of Alexandria. Have pity upon us; we would rather die by the hands of the Emperor and by yours than at home. Take our bishoprics if you will, elect an Archbishop of Alexandria, we do not object;” and so forth. In the midst of this the cry again broke out: “The Egyptians are heretics;” and “they must subscribe the condemnation of Dioscurus;” but the imperial commissioners and the senate suggested that they should remain at Constantinople until an archbishop was elected for Alexandria. The legate Paschasinus agreed, adding: “They must give security not to leave Constantinople in the meantime;” and the commissioners and senators confirmed this demand.

Then, after permission obtained, there entered eighteen priests and archimandrites: Faustus, Martin, Peter, Manuel, Abraham, Job, Antiochus, Theodore, Paul, Jacob, Eusebius, Tryphon, Marcellus, Timothy, Pergamius, Peter, Asterius, and John, and were first asked whether Carosus, Dorotheus, and those others of Eutychian opinions who had presented a petition to the Emperor Marcian before the opening of the Synod of Chalcedon, were really archimandrites or not. They affirmed it in reference to some, and denied it with regard to others; and requested that those should be punished who had falsely given themselves out for archimandrites and had no convents, but lived in martyrs’ chapels and tombs (in memoriis et monumentis). These ought all to be driven out of the city, for they were not even monks.

The commissioners then gave orders for the introduction of the Eutychian petitioners in question, and these were the Archimandrites Carosus, Dorotheus, Elpidius, Photinus, Eutychius, Theodore, Moses, Maximus, Gerontius, Nemesinus, Theophilus, Thomas, Leontius, Hypsius, Gallinicus, Paul, Gaudentius and Eugnomenes, together with the monk Barsumas and the eunuch Calopodius. They declared themselves to be the authors of the petition to the Emperor which was produced; but Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople pointed out among them Gerontius and Calopodius as having been previously condemned for heresy, and required that they should be removed. Whether this was carried out the Acts do not say; but, on the contrary, we know that the petition of these Eutychian monks was now read. In it they say that “now everything is in confusion through self-seeking and the lack of brotherly love, and the apostolic faith is placed in doubt, while Jews and heathens, however bad they may be, are permitted to hold their position. These have peace, but Christians are in conflict with one another. To improve this state of things was the object of the Emperors; and they ought to prevent the outbreak of a schism. It was their duty to promulgate that which was right as a law, and to that end they should bring about the meeting of the Synod which had already been ordered. In the meantime, however, all disturbances should cease, particularly the enforcement of subscriptions and persecutions, which clerics were promoting against each other without the knowledge of the Emperor. In particular, the Emperor should not allow that any one should, before the sentence of the Synod, be driven from his convent, or his church, or his martyrs’ chapel (ἀπὸ μαρτυρίου).”

Among the Eutychian monks who had entered was that Barsumas, who had so greatly advanced the Eutychian cause in Syria, and had put himself so prominently forward at the Robber-Synod. Bishop Diogenes of Cyzicus therefore exclaimed: “This Barsumas, who is among them, killed Flavian;” and the other bishops added: “He threw all Syria into confusion, and brought a thousand monks against us.” The imperial commissioners etc., immediately put the question to Carosus and his companions, “Whether they were inclined to learn the right faith from the Synod.” They replied that, first of all, their second letter, addressed to the Synod itself, should be read; and the commissioners and senators agreed to this, whilst from many sides the cry broke forth: “Out with the murderer Barsumas.”

In the letter to the Synod the Eutychians first excused themselves for not having appeared earlier in answer to the invitation, saying, “that the Emperor had not wished it, as they had already shown in writing. Now, however, they requested that the holy archbishop Dioscurus and his bishops should be admitted to the council.”—Enraged at this boldness, the bishops interrupted the reading of the document, and cried: “Anathema to Dioscurus: Christ has deposed him, cast these out, wipe out the insult which they have offered to the Synod; their petition should no further be read, for they still call the deposed Dioscurus bishop, etc.” The commissioners and senators, however, remarked that this would not create the slightest prejudice, and ordered the reading of the memorial to be continued. The archimandrites in question further maintained in it that “the Emperor had assured them that at the Synod only the faith of Nicæa would be confirmed, and that before this nothing else should be brought forward. With this imperial promise the condemnation of Dioscurus was irreconcilable, and therefore he and his bishops should again be summoned to the Synod, that thus the discord among orthodox people might cease. If, however, the Synod would not consent to this, then they would themselves have no communion with it, no communion with such as opposed the creed of the three hundred and eighteen fathers of Nicæa. Finally, in proof of their orthodoxy they had appended to their letter the Nicene Creed, together with the Ephesine decree which confirmed it.”

Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, remarked that, according to the ecclesiastical rule, all clergymen and monks were bound to accept guidance in the faith from the bishops, and in proof of this he read from the collection of canons which was then made, the fifth Antiochene ordinance, which punishes with deposition a clergyman who separates from the communion of his bishop, without any hope of future restitution. The imperial commissioners and the senate hereupon asked whether the archimandrites were now inclined to acquiesce in the doctrine of the present holy Synod. They replied that they would simply hold by the creed of Nicæa and the decree of the Synod of Ephesus. Aetius then stated that all who were present also observed most faithfully the declarations of faith of Nicæa and Ephesus; but as subsequently controversies had again broken out, and in opposition to these Cyril and Leo had in their writings explained (ἑρμηνεύειν) that creed, but had not extended (ἐκτίθημι) the faith and the dogma, but the whole Synod defined this, and imparted their explanation (that is, put it forth as a doctrinal form) to all who were desirous of learning, so they should also now declare whether they would consent to this decree of the Synod or not.

Carosus answered evasively, that “it certainly was not necessary for him to pronounce an anathema upon Nestorius, as he had pronounced it so often already;” but when Aetius requested him to pronounce an anathema on Eutyches, he replied: “Is it not written, Thou shalt not judge?” and “why do you speak, while the bishops sit silent?” Aetius then, in the name of the Synod, repeated the question: “Do you agree to their sentence?” Carosus replied again: “I hold by the creed of Nicæa; you may condemn me, and drive me into exile, but Paul has said: ‘If any man preacheth unto you any other gospel than that which ye received, let him be anathema.’ ” By way of conciliating the Synod, he added further: “If Eutyches does not believe what the Catholic Church believes, let him be anathema.”

The commissioners and senators then ordered that the memorial of the anti-Eutychian archimandrites, Faustus, Martinus, and others already mentioned, should also be read. These in their memorial commended the Emperor for having taken measures to suppress the Eutychian heresy, but at the same time complained of those monks who obstinately persisted in this heresy, and asked for permission to treat them in accordance with the rules of their order, and in this way to attempt to correct them. If this did not succeed, then it would be necessary that they should be suitably punished. Finally, they asked that the Emperor would allow them to give orders respecting the holes in which these beast-like men lived, and in which they daily insulted the Saviour.

The Archimandrite Dorotheus now took up the word and maintained the orthodoxy of Eutyches. The commissioners and the senate answered him: “Eutyches teaches that the body of the Saviour was not of our substance: what do you confess in this respect?” Instead of answering definitely, he recited the passage of the creed of Constantinople: σαρκωθέντα ἐκ τῆς παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, and added, in opposition to Nestorianism, “He in whose face they spat is Himself the Lord: we therefore confess that He who suffered is of the Trinity.” The demand that he would subscribe the letter of Leo, he declined, however, and naturally, because from his point of view he was forced to avoid every more exact definition of the general expressions σαρκωθέντα and ἐνανθρωπήσαντα (incarnate and made man). So they did not care to avail themselves of the offer of a respite of two days, after the expiry of which they were to decide, and the commissioners and senators therefore invited the Synod to pronounce a judgment upon Carosus and his associates.

In order to avoid this result, they now maintained that the Emperor had promised them to hold a disputation between them and their opponents, and thus to hear both sides. The commissioners and the Synod therefore sent the priest and periodeutes Alexander to the Emperor, to learn the truth of the matter, and when he returned, the bishops assembled on the 20th of October for a new session, which, however, is not generally reckoned in the number of the great sessions. That the imperial commissioners and the senate were present there is clear from the Acts in the case of Bishop Photius of Tyre, which was considered at the same session. Alexander first gave information respecting the results of his mission, namely, that the Emperor had sent him and the decurion John to those monks, to say to them: “If I had myself wished to decide the controversy, I should not have called a Synod. As this, however, has assembled, and has given me information respecting you, I give command that you be present at it, and that you learn from it what you do not yet know. For what the holy and Œcumenical Synod decrees, that I follow, with that I am satisfied, that I believe.”

On hearing these words of the Emperor, the Synod broke forth into acclamations. Then the memorial, already mentioned, of Carosus and his associates (p. 335) to the Emperor was read again as corpus delicti, and also some earlier canons, Nos. 4 and 5 of the Synod of Antioch of 341, which were the 83d and 84th in the collection used at Chalcedon. These were chosen as starting-points for the judgment to be pronounced. The well-known 4th canon of Antioch, for instance, is thus expressed: “If a bishop is deposed by a Synod, or a priest or deacon by his bishop, and he presumes to perform any function whatever in the Church as before, he may no longer hope for reinstatement.” And canon 5 of Antioch says: “If a priest or deacon separates himself from his bishop, and holds a private service, and sets up a private altar, he shall be deposed without hope of restitution.”

In accordance with the wish of the imperial commissioners and the senate, the Synod did not immediately pronounce sentence of condemnation, but allowed the incriminated persons a respite of thirty days, reckoning from the 15th of October to the 15th of November. On the last day of this period, at the latest, they were required to declare their assent to the faith of the Synod, or they would be deposed from, their rank, their dignity, and their office of archimandrites.

The Synod occupied itself no further with this matter; but we learn from Leo the Great that Carosus persevered in his Eutychian opposition, and was, by the Pope’s advice, together with Dorotheus, expelled by the Emperor Marcian from his convent.

On the same 20th of October the case of Bishop Photius of Tyre came before the Synod. Photius had at an earlier period appealed to the Emperor, but had by him been directed to the Synod. His memorial was as follows: “That Bishop Eustathius of Berytus had violated the rights of the Church of Tyre, and had procured permission under Theodosius II., by means of which he had ventured to consecrate bishops in certain cities of the ecclesiastical province of Tyre (subsequently he added that these had been the six following: Biblus, Botrys, Tripolis, Orthosias, Areas, and Antaradon). At the same time, he had compelled him by threats to subscribe a synodal letter with reference to this. He now prayed that this act might be annulled, which had been extorted by violence, and therefore was void (even when he subscribed he had added that it was only extorted), and that the Church of Tyre might again be restored to the undisturbed enjoyment of her privileges.”

Eustathius, in opposition to this, would willingly have supported himself upon the decree of the Emperor Theodosius; as, however, the commissioners and the Synod declared that not a decree, but the canons of the Church were the standard in such a case, he altered his plan of defence, and accused Photius of slander. It was untrue, he said, that he had endeavoured to infringe the rights of the Church of Tyre; on the contrary, the Emperor Theodosius had freely raised Berytus to be a metropolis, and a Synod at Constantinople, under Anatolius (see above, p. 271 f.), had assigned those six cities to this new metropolis, and Maximus of Antioch had signed this decree. The latter replied, in order as much as possible to diminish his share in the business, that “he himself had not, at that very time, been present in the Synod at Constantinople, but that the document referring to this matter had been brought to him in the house, and he, following Anatolius, had subscribed it” (see above, p. 272). Photius further complained that from the beginning he had not accepted this new arrangement, and in accordance with ancient right had consecrated three bishops; but for this he had been excommunicated, and the bishops consecrated by him had been deposed, and degraded to the priesthood. Anatolius did not deny this, but maintained that Photius had, by his disorderly conduct, caused the Synod (of Constantinople) to pronounce a sentence of excommunication against him. At the same time, he found it necessary to defend against various attacks the custom of Constantinople of holding a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα (cf. vol. i. p. 4) with the bishops who were at any particular time present in the city. After some further discussions, it was decided, on the ground of the fourth Nicene canon, that in the one ecclesiastical province of Phœnicia I. there should be only one metropolis, Tyre, and that only the Bishop of Tyre should undertake the ordination of the other bishops. The Bishop of Berytus must not appeal to the rights which Theodosius had accorded to him, and those three bishops whom Photius had ordained were to be recognized as bishops, and reinstated.—The papal legates added: “To degrade a bishop to the presbyterate is a sacrilege. If a bishop has committed a crime which deserves his deposition, he ought not to be even a priest.” Anatolius wished to excuse what had been done, but the Synod agreed with the papal legates, and declared, on the suggestion of Bishop Cecropius of Sebastopolis, that all the imperial pragmatics (decrees) which are in opposition to the canons must be without effect.

SEC. 193. Fifth Session, October 22, 451. The Decree concerning the Faith

At the fifth session, on the 22d of October, there were only three imperial commissioners, Anatolius, Palladius, and Vincomalus, and no senator present. Among the bishops who were present, besides the Roman legates, the Greek Acts mention by name only the three of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem; while the Latin translation mentions by name forty-seven more. The presence of the rest is expressed by the formula καὶ τῆς λοιπῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου. The object of the proceedings on this occasion was the establishment of the faith, and therefore this session is one of the most important in Christian antiquity. First, the deacon Asclepiades of Constantinople read a doctrinal formula, which had been unanimously approved on the previous day, October 21, in the commission appointed by Anatolius for that purpose (see p. 318 f.), which Anatolius also seems to have drawn up, as he afterwards defended it most warmly. This formula is not embodied in the Acts, and so has not come down to us; but Tillemont infers, from the indications found in the Acts, that it contained the orthodox faith, but that, through a certain indefiniteness of expression, it had not sufficiently excluded heresy.—As soon as it was read in the fifth session, objections were raised against it, and Bishop John of Germanicia declared that this formula was not good, and that it must be improved. Anatolius replied, asking “whether it had not yesterday given universal satisfaction,” which produced the acclamation: “It is excellent, and contains the Catholic faith. Away with the Nestorians! The expression θεοτόκος must be received into the creed.” The Roman legates judged otherwise. They, too, were dissatisfied with the formula which had been drawn up, and they had probably not been present at the session of the commission held for its confirmation. They now declared: “If the letter of Leo is not agreed to, we demand our papers, so that we may return home, and that a Synod may be held in the West.”

The imperial commissioners saw at once that the departure of the legates would necessarily frustrate the whole object of the Synod, the restoration of unity of faith in the Church, and therefore made the suggestion, for the satisfaction of both sides, that there should meet, in their presence, a commission of six Oriental bishops (from the patriarchate of Antioch), three Asiatic (from the exarchate of Ephesus), three Illyrian, three Pontic, and three Thracian bishops, with Anatolius and the Roman legates in the oratory of the Church of the Martyr (that is, S. Euphemia’s Church, cf. p. 286), and communicate their decisions on the faith to the other bishops. The majority, however, wished to retain the doctrinal formula which had been read, and demanded in many acclamations that it should be subscribed by all, and that whoever did not agree to it should be excluded. At the same time, they charged Bishop John of Germanicia with Nestorianism.

The commissioners remarked: “Dioscurus asserts that he condemned Flavian for having maintained that there are two natures in Christ; in the new doctrinal formula, however, it stands: Christ is of two natures.” They meant by this to say that the very term which had already been used by Flavian for the refutation of Monophysitism ought to have been adopted in the new formula, since the expression selected in it, “of two natures,” although certainly orthodox, yet might also be understood in the sense of Dioscurus, and therefore would necessarily give offence.—How correct this criticism was is shown by the remark of Anatolius, made directly afterwards, that Dioscurus had been deposed, not on account of false doctrine, but because he had excommunicated the Pope, and had not obeyed the Synod. Without going further into this question, the commissioners again endeavoured to bring the Synod into the right path, by the remark that the Synod had already approved of Leo’s letter; and if this had been done, then that which was contained in the letter (that there were actually two natures in Christ unmingled) must be confessed.—As, however, the majority, and even Eusebius of Dorylæum, persisted in their acclamations in favour of the formula of Anatolius, the commissioners immediately acquainted the Emperor with it, and the latter speedily sent a decree, saying that “either the proposed commission of bishops must be accepted, or they must individually declare their faith through their metropolitans, so that all doubt might be dispelled, and all discord removed. If they would do neither of these things, then a Synod must be held in the West, since they refused here (at Chalcedon) to give a definite and stable declaration respecting the faith.”

Again the majority exclaimed: “We abide by the formula (of Anatolius) or we go!” Cecropius of Sebastopolis in particular said: “Whoever will not subscribe it can go (to Rome to the intended Synod).” So the bishops of Illyricum cried out: “Whoever opposes it is a Nestorian; these can go to Rome!” Again the commissioners explained: “Dioscurus has rejected the expression, ‘there are two natures in Christ,’ and, on the contrary, has accepted, ‘of two natures;’ Leo, on the other hand, says: ‘In Christ there are two natures united, ἀσυγχύτως͵ ἀτρέπτως, and ἀδιαιρέτως;’ which will you follow, the most holy Leo or Dioscurus?” At this alternative all the bishops exclaimed: “We believe with Leo, not with Dioscurus; whoever opposes this is an Eutychian.” The commissioners immediately pressed the logical consequence: “Then you must also receive into the creed the doctrine of Leo, which has been stated.”

Whether anything, and if so what, was here objected by the majority we do not know. It is apparent that there is here a break in the minutes, since, without anything more and without any indication of the reason for the alteration which was introduced, they go on to relate that the whole of the members of the Synod now asked for the meeting of the commission which they had previously opposed. As members of the commission were Anatolius of Constantinople, the three legates, Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface, Bishop Julian of Cos also representing the Pope (see p. 296), Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Cæsarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Quintillus, Atticus, and Sozon from Illyria, Diogenes of Cyzicus, Leontius of Magnesia, Florentius of Sardis, Eusebius of Dorylæum, Theodore of Tarsus, Cyrus of Anazarbus, Constantine of Bostra, Theodore of Claudiopolis in Isauria, Francion, Sebastian, and Basil of Thrace. It may be seen that there were many among these who formerly had vehemently supported the formula “of two natures,” as Anatolius and the Illyrians, and some had even been heads of the Robber-Synod and friends of Dioscurus. How long they consulted in the oratory of S. Euphemia the Martyr is unknown; the Acts only mention that they returned again to the church, and that Aetius then read the formula which they had drawn up. It says: “The holy and great and Œcumenical Synod, … at Chalcedon in Bithynia, … has defined as follows: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when confirming the faith in His disciples, declared: ‘Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you,’ so that no one might be separated from his neighbour in the doctrines of religion, but that the preaching of the truth should be made known to all alike. As, however, the evil one does not cease by his tares to hinder the seed of religion, and is ever inventing something new in opposition to the truth, therefore has God, in His care for the human race, stirred up zeal in this pious and orthodox Emperor, so that he has convoked the heads of the priesthood in order to remove all the plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ, and to nourish them with the tender plants of truth. This we have also done in truth, since we have expelled, by our common judgment, the doctrines of error, and have renewed the right faith of the fathers, have proclaimed the creed of the 318 to all, and have acknowledged the 150 of Constantinople who accepted it, as our own. While we now receive the regulations of the earlier Ephesine Synod, under Cœlestine and Cyril, and its prescriptions concerning the faith, we decree that the confession of the 318 fathers at Nicæa is a light to the right and unblemished faith, and that that is also valid which was decreed by the 150 fathers at Constantinople for the confirmation of the Catholic and apostolic faith.”

After a literal insertion of the Creed of Nicæa and Constantinople, it goes on: “This wise and wholesome symbol of divine grace would indeed suffice for a complete knowledge and confirmation of religion, for it teaches everything with reference to the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, and declares the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it in faith; as, however, those who would do away with the preaching of the truth devised vain expressions through their own heresies, and, on the one side, dared to destroy (παραφθείρειν) the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord (τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου οἰκονομίας μυστήριον), and rejected the designation of God-bearer, and, on the other side, introduced a σύγχυσις and κρᾶσις, that is, a mixture and confusion (of the natures), and, contrary to reason, imagined only one nature of the flesh and of the Godhead (μίαν εἶναι φύσιν τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τῆς θεότητος ἀνοήτως ἀναπλάττοντες), and rashly maintained that the divine nature of the Only-begotten was, by the mixture, become passible (παθητὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν θείαν φύσιν τῇ συγχύσει τερατευόμενοι), therefore the holy, great, and Œcumenical Synod decrees that the faith of the 318 fathers shall remain inviolate, and that the doctrine afterwards promulgated by the 150 fathers at Constantinople on account of the Pneumatomachi (διὰ τοὺς τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ μαχομένους) shall have equal validity, being put forth by them, not in order to add to the creed of Nicæa anything that was lacking, but in order to make known in writing their consciousness (ἔννοιαν) concerning the Holy Ghost against the deniers of His glory. On account of those, however, who endeavoured to destroy the mystery of the Incarnation (οἰκονομίας μυστήριον), and who, boldly insulting Him who was born of the holy Mary, affirmed that He was a mere man, the holy Synod has accepted as valid the synodal letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius and to the Orientals in opposition to Nestorianism, and has added to them the letter of the holy Archbishop Leo of Rome, written to Flavian for the overthrow of the Eutychian errors, as agreeing with the doctrine of S. Peter and as a pillar against all heretics, for the confirmation of the orthodox dogmas. The Synod opposes those who seek to rend the mystery of the Incarnation into a duality of Sons, and excludes from holy communion those who venture to declare the Godhead of the Only-begotten as capable of suffering, and opposes those who imagine a mingling and a confusion of the two natures of Christ, and drives away those who foolishly maintain that the servant-form of the Son, assumed from us, is from a heavenly substance (οὐσία), or any other (than ours), and anathematizes those who fable that before the union there were two natures of our Lord, but after the union only one. Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all teach with one accord one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in His Godhead and perfect in His manhood, true God and true man, consisting of a reasonable soul and of a body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, and of one substance with us as touching the manhood, like unto us in everything, sin excepted, according to the Godhead begotten of the Father before all time, but in the last days, for us men and for our salvation, according to the manhood, born of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,—only-begotten, confessed in two natures, without confusion, without change, without rending or separation; while the difference of the natures is in no way denied by reason of the union, on the other hand, the peculiarity of each nature is preserved, and both concur in one Person and Hypostasis. We do not confess One separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten and God the Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ … as the prophets announced of Him, and He Himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us. As we have defined this distinction with great and universal exactness and care, the holy and Œcumenical Synod decreed, that none shall advance or write down or encourage another faith, or teach it to others; and those who, passing over from heathenism or Judaism, or from any heresy, give another faith or another creed, if they are bishops or clerics, shall be deposed from their bishopric or clerical office, and if they are monks or laymen, shall be excommunicated.” (Τοῖς τε γὰρ εἰς υἱῶν δυάδα τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας διασπᾶν ἐπιχειροῦσι μυστήριον παρατάττεται, καὶ τοὺς παθητὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς λέγειν τολμῶντας τὴν θεότητα, τοῦ τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποθεῖται συλλόγου, καὶ τοῖς ἐπὶ τῶν δύο φύσεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ κρᾶσιν ἢ σύγχυσιν ἐπινοοῦσιν ἀνθίσταται• καὶ τοὺς οὐρανίου ἢ ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας τὴν ἐξ ἡμῶν ληφθεῖσαν αὐτῷ τοῦ δούλου μορφὴν παραπαίοντας ἐξελαύνει • καὶ τοὺς δύο μὲν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως φύσεις τοῦ κυρίου μυθεύοντας, μίαν δὲ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ἀναπλάττοντας, ἀναθεματίζει. Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι, Θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτὸν, ἐν ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῶ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας• πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν διʼ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν, υἱὸν, κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐκ δύο φύσεων [ἐν δύο φύσεσιν, see p. 348, not ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον • οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, σωζομένης δὲ μάλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως, καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης, οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρόμενον, ἀλλʼ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, Θεὸν λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσε καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον. Τούτων τοίνυν μετὰ πάσης πανταχόθεν ἀκριβείας τε καὶ ἐμμελείας παρʼ ἡμῶν διατυπωθέντων, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος, ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἢ γοῦν συγγράφειν ἢ συντιθέναι ἢ φρονεῖν ἢ διδάσκειν ἑτέρους• τοὺς δὲ τολμῶντας ἢ συντιθέναι πίστιν ἑτέραν ἢ γοῦν προκομίζειν ἢ διδάσκειν ἢ παραδιδόναι ἕτερον σύμβολον τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐπιστρέφειν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐξ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἢ ἐκ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ ἢ γοῦν ἐξ αἱρέσως οἱασδηποτοῦν, τούτους, εἰ μὲν εἶεν ἐπίσκοποι ἢ κληρικοὶ, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τοὺς ἐπισκόπους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοῦς τοῦ κλήρου• εἰ δὲ μονάζοντες ἢ λαϊκοὶ εἶεν, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι αὐτούς.)

After the reading of this confession of faith, all the bishops exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers. The Metropolitans must immediately subscribe, and in the presence of the imperial commissioners. Definitions so good can allow of no delay: this is the faith of the apostles, we all agree to it, we all think thus.” In consequence of these acclamations the imperial commissioners gave the assurance that they would communicate to the Emperor that which the fathers (that is, the bishops chosen to draw up the decree on the faith) had set forth, and all had approved.

To this time probably belongs that allocutio (προσφωνητικὸς) of the Synod to the Emperor Marcian, which Mansi and Hardouin give only at the end of all the minutes of the Synod, but which decidedly belongs to the earlier times of our Synod, and was sent to the Emperor in writing, either after the end of the fifth session (the commissioners promised to inform him), or was verbally brought forward in the succeeding sixth session, when the Emperor was personally present. The latter theory best agrees with the title προσφωνητικὸς or allocutio; yet Facundus says, although he also uses the expression allocutio, that it was written to the Emperor; and Tillemont held this to be the more probable. In this allocutio it is said: “God has given the Synod a champion against every error, in the person of the Roman bishop, who, like the fiery Peter, wishes to lead every one to God. And let no one venture to say, in order to avoid the refutation of his error, that the letter of Leo is contrary to the canons, since it is not allowed to set up a different confession of faith from the Nicene. The latter is certainly sufficient for the faithful, but those who endeavour to destroy the faith must be opposed and their objections must be suitably met, not in order to add anything new to the Nicene faith, but in order to refute the innovations of heretics. Thus, e.g., the orthodox faith in regard to the Holy Ghost is already expressed in the words (of the Nicene Creed): ‘And I believe in the Holy Ghost,’ and these are sufficient for the orthodox; but on account of the Pneumatomachi, the fathers (at the second Œcumenical Synod) added besides: ‘The Holy Ghost is Lord and God, proceeding from the Father.’ So also, the doctrine of the Incarnation was contained in the Nicene Creed in the words: ‘He came down and was made flesh and man’ (κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα); but Satan seduced many, some to deny the birth of God from the Virgin, and to reject the expression θεοτόκος, others to declare the Godhead of the Son to be mutable and passible (τρεπτὴν καὶ παθητὴν); the one to efface the character (τὰ γνωρίσματα = characteristic marks) of the humanity assumed by God; the other to assert the union of the Godhead merely with the body of a man, but not with the soul, at least not with a reasonable soul; the one to deny the mystery of the union (of the natures) and to teach that the manifestation (τὸ φαινόμενον) was that of a mere man, like a prophet; the other to give up the distinction of the natures; therefore the fathers, Basil the Great, Pope Damasus, etc., and the Synods of Sardica and Ephesus have thought new explanations of the old Nicene faith necessary. But it could not be said: At this (the explanation of Ephesus, etc.) we are bound to stop, because the heretics will not stop, and the holy) Cyril in his letter to the Orientals, as well as Proclus of Constantinople and John of Antioch, regarded new definitions as necessary. No one, therefore, must accuse the letter of the admirable Bishop of Borne of innovation. Leo has, in fact, altered nothing in the faith proclaimed by the fathers.”

In proof of this, the Synod added a series of more ancient patristic passages from Basil the Great, Ambrose, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others.—Tillemont and Remi Ceillier remark that this allocution to the Emperor probably proceeded from the papal legates, being first drawn up in Latin and afterwards translated into Greek by others. This, they think, is clear partly from the fact that it treats simply and solely of the Pope’s Epistola dogmatica, and forms its apology and panegyric, and partly from the fact that the Latin text of this allocution, which has come down to us, does not bear the character of a translation, but is more elegant than the Latin version of the other Acts of Chalcedon.

SEC. 194. Sixth Session, October 25, 451

Peculiarly solemn was the sixth session, since both the Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria, with a large suite, and with all the commissioners and the senate, were present at it. The Emperor opened the session with a speech in the first place spoken in Latin, in which he said: “From the beginning of his reign he had had the purity of the faith peculiarly at heart. As now, through the avarice or perversity of some (avaritia vel pravis studiis quorundam), many had been seduced to error, he had summoned the present Synod, so that all error and all obscurity might be dispelled, that religion might shine forth in the power of its light, and that no one should in future venture further to maintain concerning the birth (Incarnation) of our Lord and Saviour, anything else than that which the apostolic preaching and the decree, in accordance therewith, of the 318 holy fathers had handed down to posterity, and which was also testified by the letter of the holy Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian. In order to strengthen the faith, but not at all to exercise violence, he had wished, after the example of Constantine, to be personally present at the Synod, so that the nations might not be still more widely separated by false opinions. His efforts were directed to this, that all, becoming one in the true doctrine, might return to the same religion and honour the true Catholic faith. Might God grant this!”

All exclaimed: “Many years to the Emperor, many years to the Empress; he is the only son of Constantine. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine!” Almost the same acclamation was repeated after the speech of the Emperor had been translated into Greek; and then Archdeacon Aetius read, from beginning to end, the declaration concerning the faith which had been set forth in the previous session, and which was now subscribed by 355 bishops in their own names and in the names of their absent colleagues (see p. 346 ff.).

The Emperor asked whether the view of all was expressed in the formula which had been read, and the bishops answered with the exclamation: “We all believe thus, there is one faith, one will; we are all unanimous, and have unanimously subscribed; we are all orthodox! This is the faith of the fathers, the faith of the apostles, the faith of the orthodox; this faith has saved the world. Prosperity to Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David!, You are the peace of the world!… Thou hast strengthened the orthodox faith! Many years to the Empress! You are the lights of the orthodox faith, by which peace everywhere prevails! Marcian is the new Constantine, Pulcheria the new Helena,” etc.

The Emperor thereupon gave thanks to Christ that unity in religion had again been restored, and threatened all, as well private men and soldiers as the clergy, with heavy punishment if they should again stir up controversies respecting the faith, and proposed three ordinances on the erection of convents, on the worldly affairs of the clergy and monks, and on the removal of the clergy from one church to another, the publication of which was more suitable for the Synod than for an imperial law, and which he would therefore leave to the Synod, to show his respect for it. The Synod received these ordinances into the number of its canons as 4, 3, and 20.

Again followed acclamations, such as: “Thou art priest and Emperor together, conqueror in war and teacher of the faith!” At the close the Emperor declared that, in honour of S. Euphemia and of the Council, he would grant the title of metropolis to the city of Chalcedon without prejudice to the dignity of Nicomedia; and again all exclaimed: “This is just; an Easter (= unity) be over the whole world; … the holy Trinity will protect thee; we pray dismiss us.” Marcian, however, requested that they would remain three or four days longer, and, in communion with his commissioners, continue the proceedings, and he forbade all earlier departure.

With the sixth session ended the principal work of the Synod of Chalcedon. What was further done was only of secondary importance.

SEC. 195. Seventh and Eighth Sessions, October 26, 451

The occasion for the seventh session was furnished by certain controversies respecting jurisdiction between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem. Both had in this matter appealed to the Emperor, and he had charged his commissioners at the Synod to settle the controversy. At their request the two archbishops had had an interview, and had, in fact, discovered a mode of compromise which, without putting it upon paper, they made known to the imperial commissioners. These, at the seventh session, at which, moreover, there were again only three of them present, requested the two archbishops to bring their agreement before the Synod, so that it might be confirmed by the bishops as well as by them (the commissioners). Responding to this wish, Maximus of Antioch explained that “after tedious controversies with Juvenal, they had agreed that the see of S. Peter at Antioch should (besides its other provinces) have the two Phœnicias and Arabias, and that the see of Jerusalem should have the three Palestines under it. The Synod was requested to confirm this agreement in writing.” The same was repeated by Juvenal, and all the bishops, the papal legates at their head, confirmed the understanding. So did the imperial commissioners. Subsequently the matter again came under discussion on the 31st of October, and was confirmed anew.

As we know, Juvenal, trusting in the friendship of Cyril, had already endeavoured, at the third Œcumenical Synod at Ephesus, to subject the provinces of Palestine, Phœnicia, and Arabia to himself. But Cyril opposed him. The Emperor Theodosius II., however, by an authoritative order had assigned these provinces to the patriarchate of Jerusalem. As Antioch was by this means prejudiced and its jurisdiction diminished, it protested repeatedly against the decision, but in vain, until the compromise described was arranged at Chalcedon.

On the same 26th of October, probably in the afternoon, the eighth session was held, again in the presence of only three imperial commissioners (the same who were present at the seventh and fifth sessions). Many bishops demanded that the celebrated Theodoret of Cyrus, formerly the opponent of Cyril and the friend of Nestorius, should now pronounce an anathema upon Nestorius. He stepped forward and said: “I have presented a petition to the Emperor, and a paper to the Roman legates, and wish it to be read, so that you may know how I think.” The bishops, however, exclaimed: “We will have no reading; anathematize Nestorius at once!” Theodoret replied: “By God’s grace I was brought up by orthodox parents, and received orthodox instruction, and have been orthodox in my teaching, and reject not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but every one who is not of orthodox opinions.” When the bishops thereupon demanded that he should explain himself more clearly, and pronounce distinctly an anathema upon Nestorius and his adherents, he answered: “In truth I say nothing, unless I know that it is pleasing to God. First of all, I assure you that with me there is no question as to a bishopric or about honour, and I am not come here for that reason, but because I have been slandered. I came to prove that I am orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches, and every one who (like Nestorius) believes in two Sons.” The bishops again interrupted, crying: “Pronounce distinctly an anathema upon Nestorius;” and Theodoret proceeded: “If I have not already explained how I believe, I cannot do so,” and would have begun to explain his faith. They then shouted again: “He is a heretic, a Nestorius; out with him!” And now Theodoret declared: “Anathema to Nestorius, and to every one who does not call the holy Virgin Mary God-bearer, and who divides the one Son, the only-begotten, into two Sons. Moreover, I have subscribed the definition of faith by the Synod and the letter of Leo; and thus I think.”

The imperial commissioners now took up the word, and said: “Every doubt in regard to Theodoret is now removed, for he has anathematized Nestorius in your presence, and has been (previously) received again by the holy Archbishop Leo; it now only remains that by your judgment also he receive again his bishopric, as Leo has already assured him.” All cried out: “Theodoret is worthy of the bishopric; the Church must again receive the orthodox teacher,” and the like. And when the special voting, and first the legates and patriarchs, and after them a few of the most distinguished bishops, had pronounced for the reinstatement of Theodoret, all the others gave their assent by acclamation, and the commissioners declared that, “accordingly, by the decree of the holy Council, Theodoret shall receive again the church of Cyrus.” At the demand of the Synod, Bishops Sophronius of Constantina in Osrhoene, John of Germanicia in Syria, and Amphilochius of Sida in Pamphylia were next required to pronounce an anathema on Nestorius.

SEC. 196. Ninth and Tenth Sessions, October 27 and 28, 451

According to the Latin Acts, a third session (the ninth general) took place on the same 26th of October; but the Greek Acts, on the contrary, transfer it to the following day, the 27th of October. Again there were present only the three imperial commissioners whom we have already several times mentioned; and Ibas, formerly bishop of Edessa, came forward to complain that, at the Robber-Synod, through the intrigues of Eutyches, he had been ill-treated and, although absent, had been unjustly deposed. The Emperor had now directed him to bring his petition before the Synod, in order to prove his case. They could therefore read the judgment spoken of him by Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus at the assemblies at Berytus and Tyre (see above, p. 179 ff.). Bishop Uranius of Himeria had then, from friendship for Eutyches, had him accused by several clerics, and had brought it about that the sentence should be given by him and the two bishops named, Photius and Eustathius. Nevertheless, the accusations had been discovered to be false, and he himself to be orthodox. Therefore he asked that the Synod would declare invalid all that had been done against him at Ephesus (at the Robber-Synod, cf. p. 259), and would reinstate him in his bishopric and his church. His orthodoxy was attested by all the clergy of Edessa, and he was free from the alleged heresy. The papal legates recommended that, in accordance with his request, the Acts of the earlier proceedings against him should be read; and those, of Tyre were taken first, although (as we have already seen, p. 181) these proceedings were probably the later, and for this very reason—that they contained the later decision respecting Ibas—it was thought sufficient to read the Acts of this assembly. The accusers of Ibas, on the contrary, demanded, as we shall see, at the tenth session, that the Acts of Berytus, which were less favourable for Ibas, should also be read.

From the Acts of Tyre, we see that the judges appointed to consider the case of Ibas endeavoured to make peace between Ibas and his accusers, and succeeded in doing so. To this end they wished that Ibas should put forth a confession of his faith, and he did so to their full satisfaction. He promised publicly to anathematize Nestorius and his adherents in a sermon in his church, and declared that “he believed entirely the same as that which John of Antioch and Cyril had agreed together upon (see p. 135 ff.), and assented to all that which the recent Synod at Constantinople (under Flavian) and the Ephesine (under Cyril) had decreed; he valued the latter as highly as the Nicene, and believed that there was no difference between them.” Upon this the judges (Photius and others) commended him, and requested that Ibas would pardon his accusers and love them again as sons, and that they should honour him as their father. Ibas promised on oath, as far as he was concerned, and added two other points: (a) that the revenues of his church should in future be administered, in the Antiochene manner, by clerical stewards; and (b) that, in case one of his accusers should afterwards seem to deserve punishment, he would not himself pass judgment upon him, because he might still perhaps have a disinclination to him, but hand the matter over to the judgment of Archbishop Domnus of Antioch.

After the reading of these older Acts, the papal legates put to Photius and Eustathius the question, whether they would still hold to their former judgment that Ibas was innocent; and they asserted that it was so, and then the final judgment was deferred to the next session.

This, the tenth session, was celebrated, according to the Greek Acts, on the 28th, according to the Latin Acts, on the 27th of October, and Ibas again complained of having suffered wrong. He had not only been unjustly deposed, but had been shut up in twenty prisons or more, and had first learnt, while in prison at Antioch, that he had been deposed. He added the petition that the sentence pronounced against him should be declared invalid. The imperial commissioners invited the bishops to express their view on this matter, and a great part, particularly the Orientals, and among them especially Patricius of Tyana, immediately exclaimed: “It is unjust to condemn any one in his absence, and we agree with the decree of Tyre, and declare Ibas to be a rightful bishop.” Others exclaimed: “We oppose,” and “There are accusers of Ibas at the door; they ought to be heard.” The commissioners gave order that these should be admitted, and they were the deacon Theophilus, with Euphrasius, Abraham, and Antiochus (whether laymen or clerics is not said). Theophilus requested that the Acts of Berytus should be read, and it would be seen from them that Ibas had been justly condemned. To the question of the commissioners, whether he had come forward personally as the accuser of Ibas or in the interest of orthodoxy, he answered: “To come forward as personal accuser would be dangerous for him as a deacon, and, besides, the witnesses were wanting to him for this purpose.” To the further question, whether he could appeal to documents, he mentioned the minutes of Berytus and Ephesus (the Robber-Synod), and appealed, in reference to the latter, to Thalassius and Eusebius of Ancyra. But these two former leaders of the Robber-Synod could now only remember generally that many had then been deposed, but that they had taken no special active part in the matter.

The commissioners asked if Ibas had then been present, and when they were forced to say he was not, the cry again broke out: “That is unjust!” Theophilus replied: “The truth must (first) be ascertained by the Synod;” and Eustathius of Berytus now asserted that (at the investigation at Tyre, as is clear from what follows) three, six, and twelve witnesses had come forward, who declared that they had heard the scandalous expression of Ibas: “I do not envy Christ, that He has become God!” When required to make a statement in accordance with truth on this subject, Photius declared that “certainly priests and monks from Mesopotamia had charged Ibas with having used that expression, but he had denied it; and we (the judges) assumed the office of mediators, and bid these priests and monks leave Tyre, as the whole city took offence at that assertion. Since Ibas then declared upon oath that he had said nothing of the kind, and that the witnesses who had come forward against him were friends and inmates of the houses of his accusers (and thus not free from suspicion), we reconciled the two parties, and they again entered into communion with one another.”

The secretary Constantine now read the instructions which the Emperor Theodosius II. had imparted to his minister (the tribune and notary of the Prætorians) Damascius, who had been appointed to conduct the business at Berytus (see above, p. 179 f.), and then the Acts of the proceedings at Berytus. According to these, Bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius had met at Berytus on the 1st of September 448 or 449 (see above, p. 181), in the new episcopal residence of the new church, as judges of Ibas, in presence of the imperial tribune Damascius and the deacon Eulogius of Constantinople, as the deputy of Flavian. The accused were the Bishops Ibas of Edessa, John of Theodosiople, Daniel of Carræ (a nephew of Ibas); as accusers (and witnesses) were present the clerics Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, Maras, Ablavius, John, Anatolius, Caiumas, and Abibus. After the reading of the imperial instructions, which had been given to Damascius, and after Eulogius had remarked that the clerics named had already brought forward their complaints against the three bishops at Constantinople, Ibas was required by the judges to relate what had taken place in the Synod held also on his account under Domnus at Antioch (see above, p. 179). He stated that in Lent the four clerics excommunicated by him, Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogius, had gone to Antioch to complain of him. As Easter (447 or 448) was near, Domnus for the time released them from the excommunication, but the decision of the dispute itself was put off to the largely-attended Synod which met after Easter at Antioch. At the same time, he had forbidden the four clerics of Edessa, under heavy penalties, again to leave Antioch until judgment should be pronounced. When the Synod began, the complaint of the four clerics had been read, but only two of them were now present; while the other two, Samuel and Cyrus, had fled from Antioch before Ibas arrived, and had gone to Constantinople. At the request of the judges a passage had been read at Berytus from the Antiochene Acts, in which the two accusers who still remained asserted that their colleagues had fled from fear of the malice of Ibas; but Domnus replied that they had certainly had nothing to fear from Ibas, as the latter had left the whole matter in his hands; they were manifestly fugitives, and had set at nought the excommunication with which they had been threatened, and had rendered themselves liable to the greater excommunication. This fragment of the Antiochene Acts was subscribed by Domnus and ten other bishops.

At Berytus was next read the paper of the four priests of Edessa, which had been handed in on the previous day, and they were then allowed to bring forward their points of complaint. They were:

1. Although the city had collected 1500 gold, pieces for the redemption of prisoners, and although 6000 or somewhat more lay with the treasurer, without the revenues which his brother drew, yet Ibas had sold the silver vessels of the Church, in weight 200 pounds, and had handed over no more than 1000 gold pieces from the sale (for the redemption of the prisoners); the rest he had spent for himself.

2. A valuable chalice, set with precious stones, which, eleven years before, a holy man had presented to our Church, he had not put among the other vessels of the Church, and we know not what has become of it.

3. He takes money for ordinations.

4. He wished to consecrate as bishop of Bathene the deacon Abraham, who stood in union with a sorcerer, and deposed the archdeacon who opposed it. As, however, he could not force Abraham upon them as bishop, he made him ξενοδόχος. He has besides (from him) several charms in his hands, which he ought to have given over to judgment.

5. He consecrated as priest a certain Valentius, who was held to be an adulterer and pæderastian, and punished those who offered opposition.

6. He made his brother’s son, Daniel, bishop of a city (Carræ) where there are still many heathens, and where an able bishop was specially needed. Daniel, however, is an ill-regulated, luxurious young man, who, from love for a married woman, Challoa, very often resides in Antioch, often travels with her, and has improper intercourse with her.

7. All the ecclesiastical revenues, which are very great, he (Ibas) spends upon his brother and his relations. We request that he may give an account to you.

8. In the same way he acts with the estates of the Church, with the gifts in fruits, with the gold and silver crosses, and

9. With the money destined for the redemption of prisoners.

10. When the memory of the holy martyrs was celebrated, he provided only a small quantity of wine, and that bad and quite new, for the holy sacrifice, for consecration and the communion of the people, so that the servants of the Church were under the necessity of buying six pots of wine equally bad from a wineshop. Even this did not suffice, so that he (Ibas) made a sign to those who distributed the holy body (τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα) to go out (from the church into the sacristy, that is, to cease with the distribution of the holy bread), because there was no more blood (τοῦ αἵματος μὴ εὑρισκομένον). They themselves, however (Ibas and his clergy), drank and always had choice wine. This took place before the eyes of the archdeacon, whose duty it was to make representations to the bishop. As he would not, we were under the necessity of doing so. Ibas, however, paid no attention to them, so that many were offended.

11. He is a Nestorian, and calls the holy Cyril a heretic.

12. Bishop Daniel has ordained several clergymen, profligate like himself.

13. When the priest Peirozos gave his property to the poor churches, Ibas was angry at this, and gave out that he had a transfer (security) from him for 3200 gold pieces, in order to hinder him from his purpose and to annoy him.

14. When Bishop Daniel made his will, and left his large property, which he had accumulated from the possession of the Church, to Challoa and her relations, Ibas said nothing.

15. Challoa, who before had nothing, now practises usury with the property of the Church.

16. A deacon named Abraham obtained a large property, and Daniel persuaded him to make it over to him, swearing that he would give it to the poor. This condition was even put in the deacon’s will; but Daniel gave it to Challoa.

17. If the heathen, contrary to the existing prohibition, bring sacrifices, Daniel takes fees from them, and therefore will hear no complaints.

18. In a forest which belongs to the Church of Edessa, building wood was cut down and conveyed to Challoa.

The judges at Berytus wished that the accusers would confine themselves to the principal points, and these in the case of one in holy orders were whether he were (a) orthodox, (b) free from excesses, (c) did not give up religion for money. Responding to this demand, Maras brought forward as the first point of complaint, that “Ibas was heretical, for he had I said: I do not envy Christ that He became God, for as far as He became this, I also have become the same.” When interrogated on this, Ibas pronounced an anathema on every one who should dare to use such an expression, saying that he himself had certainly never used it, and that he would suffer himself to be put to death a thousand times rather than speak so. The second accuser, Samuel, then asserted that Ibas had said it even in the church, about three years ago, at Easter to the clergy, when, in accordance with the custom, he was handing them the festal presents. Of this there were three witnesses present—the deacons David, Maras, and Sabbas; but all the clergy had heard it, and therefore more witnesses could be procured. Ibas replied, that his whole clergy, about two hundred strong, had testified to his orthodoxy in a written memorial to Archbishop Domnus of Antioch and to the judges; this testimony of so many was certainly more weighty than that of those three, who, besides, had already appeared as his accusers at Constantinople, and consequently could no longer be regarded as impartial witnesses. The judges thought it just that not merely these three, but all the clergy of Edessa who might have heard the expression, should be received as witnesses, and it could only make an unfavourable impression when the accusers, although they themselves had referred to these many witnesses, now endeavoured to prevent their being received, under the pretext that the majority would not venture to come forward on account of the well-known violence of Ibas. He had even, they said, expelled those fifteen clerics who would not subscribe a memorial in his favour which was sent to Antioch. Ibas corrected this statement by saying that he had requested that those who had signed the accusation of Samuel, Cyrus, and others against him, should withdraw from his communion until the issue of the matter was determined, and thus these fifteen had excommunicated themselves. By him, however, no excommunication had been pronounced upon them.

The complainants contested this representation in so far as to assert that only two, not fifteen, had in that declaration voluntarily separated themselves from Ibas; the judges, however, turned to the principal point, and asked Ibas again whether he had made use of that expression in reference to Christ. He replied: “I did not say that, and I anathematize him who says it; not even from a demon have I ever heard such a thing.” The accusers again appealed to their three witnesses and also to others, whom, however, they had not with them; and the examination now went on to the question whether Ibas had called S. Cyril a heretic? Ibas replied, “that he did not remember it, and if he had done so, it must have been at a time when the Synod of the Orientals (during the Œcumenical Council at Ephesus, and in the time following) had the same view. In this he had only followed his Exarch (John of Antioch). This, however, he had said, that if Cyril did not explain himself better respecting his twelve propositions, he would not acknowledge him.” The judges then, with accurate precision, indicated the point of the accusation by asking whether Ibas, after the restoration of peace between Cyril and John of Antioch (see above, p. 136), had called the former a heretic.

Ibas was able to show that from this time he had been in communion with Cyril and Cyril with him; but his opponents maintained the reverse, and professed to prove it from the letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris which was now read in its chief contents. From this, however, it was clear only that Ibas even in that later time (after the union) maintained that Cyril had formerly taught propositions which were really Apollinarian, and only at the union had come to confess the right doctrine. This letter to Maris (Bishop of Hardaschir in Persia) runs, in its chief contents, as follows: “Since thy piety was here, a great controversy has broken out between Nestorius and Cyril, and they write angry books against each other which give offence. Nestorius asserted, for instance, that holy Mary is not the God-bearer, so that many regarded him as an adherent of Paul of Samosata, who declared Christ to be a mere man. Cyril, however, stumbled in the controversy against Nestorius, and fell into the theory of Apollinaris. He asserted, like him, that God the Logos Himself had become man, so that there was no difference between the temple and Him that dwelt in it. He wrote the twelve chapters (anathematisms), which thou knowest, maintaining that there was only one nature of the Godhead and manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ibas here, like most of the Orientals, misunderstood Cyril’s third anathematism), and that therefore we must not separate the expressions which our Lord uses in reference to Himself, and which the evangelists use respecting Him. These chapters are full of impiety, as thou knowest without my saying it. For how can one refer the expression ‘the Word which was from the beginning’ to the temple which was born of Mary? Or how can one understand the expression, ‘Thou madest Him a little lower than the angels,’ of the Godhead of the Only-begotten? The Church teaches from the beginning two natures—one power, one Person, which is the one Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ibas was on the whole orthodox, but regarded the communicatio idiomatum as inadmissible.)—On account of that controversy the Emperors convoked the Synod of Ephesus; before, however, the whole of the bishops who had been summoned arrived there, Cyril, from hatred to Nestorius, knew how to captivate the eyes and ears of all those who were present as by a magical draught, and before John of Antioch came to the Synod they deposed Nestorius without any previous examination (!). Two days after this deposition we arrived at Ephesus, and when we heard that they had there already confirmed the twelve chapters of Cyril, and had defined them to be the true doctrine (see p. 48, note
all the bishops of the East (i.e. of the Antiochene patriarchate) deposed Cyril and pronounced a sentence of excommunication against the rest of the bishops who had assented to his chapters. Upon this they all returned to their cities; but Nestorius could not return to Constantinople, because he was hated by the city and by the great ones who lived there (the Court certainly protected him!). The Anatolian Synod (that is, the Oriental bishops) remained now separate from the adherents of Cyril, and there arose a great schism, so that heathens and heretics mocked. No one ventured to go from one city to another, from one neighbourhood to another; every one persecuted his neighbour as an enemy, and many, under the pretext of ecclesiastical zeal, gratified their private enmities. One of these is the tyrant of our city, who is well known to thee (Bishop Rabulas of Edessa, the predecessor of Ibas), who, under the pretext of religion, persecutes not only the living but the dead, as, e.g., the blessed Theodore (of Mopsuestia), that herald of the truth and teacher of the Church, who not only smote heretics during his life, but also after his death left in his writings spiritual weapons for the children of the Church. Him he ventured to anathematize publicly before the whole Church, and there arose everywhere a great inquiry respecting his books, not because they were opposed to the faith, for as long as Theodore lived Rabulas praised him and read his books, but from an enmity against Theodore hitherto concealed, because he had once publicly opposed him at the Synod. In such a sad state of things God awakened the mind of the Emperor, so that he sent a high official of the palace and compelled the most holy Archbishop John of Antioch to be reconciled with Cyril. And John sent Bishop Paul of Emesa with a letter to Cyril, in which the true faith was explained, and gave him a commission to the effect that, if Cyril should agree to this faith, and should anathematize those who say, ‘the Godhead suffered,’ and ‘the Godhead and the manhood are only one nature,’ he should enter into communion with him. And God softened the heart of the Egyptian, so that without difficulty he assented to this declaration of faith, and accepted it, and anathematized all who believed otherwise. And they entered into communion with each other, the controversy ceased, and peace returned to the Church. The letters interchanged between John and Cyril I have sent thee that thou mayest see and make known to all that the strife has ceased and the partition wall is taken away, and those are put to shame who persecuted the living and the dead. Now they are obliged to confess their own faults and teach the reverse of their previous assertions. For now, no one ventures any longer to say that the Godhead and the manhood are only one nature, but they agree together in faith in the temple (manhood of Christ) and Him who dwells therein as the one Son, Jesus Christ.”

With this the Acts of Berytus ended. On the further points of complaint there seems to have been no more done; but soon afterwards at Tyre a reconciliation between the two parties seems to have been arrived at. After, however, the Acts of Berytus were now read at Chalcedon, Ibas requested the imperial commissioners that the letter sent in his favour to Berytus by the clergy of Edessa should now be communicated, and it was immediately read by the secretary Beronicianus. Addressed to Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus, the memorial declares it to be utterly untrue that Ibas had used that blasphemous expression concerning Christ in the presence of the subscribers. The clergy declared upon oath that they never heard such words from him, and that, if they had heard it, they would not have remained another moment in his communion. The judges should therefore exhort Ibas to return as soon as possible to his flock, particularly as his presence was necessary at the approaching Easter on account of the catechizing and the baptisms. Thirteen priests, thirty-seven deacons, and twelve sub-deacons and lectors had subscribed.

The deacon Theophilus, who appeared at Chalcedon as accuser, made an objection to this memorial which was not quite intelligible. Without attending to it, the imperial commissioners now wished to have the Acts of the Robber-Synod in regard to Ibas read. The papal legates wished, however, that an assembly so unjust should not be called a Synod, and that nothing should be read from it, since the apostolic Bishop of Rome had rejected all its decrees, with the exception of the elevation of Maximus to the see of Antioch. All the other bishops agreed to this.

The reading therefore did not take place, and the commissioners asked: “What does the holy Synod decree concerning Ibas?” The legates declared: “After the reading of the documents, we learnt from the sentence of the venerable bishops that Ibas was declared innocent. From the reading of his letter we have seen that he is orthodox. Therefore our judgment is that he be restored to his episcopal dignity and to the church, of which he was unlawfully and in his absence deprived. In regard, however, to the Bishop (Nonnus) who was recently appointed in his place, the Bishop of Antioch shall decide.” Anatolius of Constantinople said: “The honesty of the bishops who previously pronounced judgment respecting Ibas, and the reading of the earlier Acts, show that the charges brought against Ibas are untrue. Therefore I dismiss all suspicion respecting him, since he receives and subscribes the definition of the faith recently given by the Synod and the letter of Leo; and I regard him as worthy of the bishopric.” As third voter, Maximus of Antioch declared: “From that which has just been read it is clear that Ibas is innocent on all the points which have been brought against him, and the orthodoxy of his opinions is proved by the reading of the copy of his letter brought forward by his opponent; therefore I also vote that he again receive his episcopal dignity and his city.… Nonnus, however, shall retain the episcopal dignity (not office) until I have decided respecting him with the bishops of the diocese” (he was subsequently the successor of Ibas). All the other members also voted for the reinstatement of Ibas, several under the express condition that he should now anathematize Nestorius and his heresy; on the letter to Maris in specie, however, the Synod gave no judgment. After the voting was completed, Ibas, as requested, fulfilled the condition which had been laid down, in the words: “I previously anathematized Nestorius and his doctrine in writing (in the document of union, see p. 134 f.), and I now anathematize him ten thousand times. Anathema to Nestorius and Eutyches, and to every Monophysite; and I anathematize every one who does not think as this holy Synod thinks.”

In the same tenth session, Maximus of Antioch requested that out of compassion the Synod should allow the deposed Domnus, his predecessor in the see of Antioch, some support from the property of the Church. The Roman legates and Anatolius, Juvenal, and all the rest, commended this goodwill of Maximus, and on the question being put by the commissioners, the Synod approved of this proposal, and left the settlement of the amount to be given to the judgment of Maximus himself. This subject, however, as we shall see, came up again for discussion on the 31st of October.

SEC. 197. Eleventh Session, October 29, 451

The eleventh session, on the 29th of October, had for its subject the complaint of Bassianus, formerly bishop of Ephesus. He had appealed, and presented a petition to the Emperor, and the latter had directed him to the Synod. The short letter was first read, which the Emperor (in legal style, the two Emperors) addressed to the Synod, recommending a speedy settlement of the matter, and then the memorial which Bassianus had presented to the Emperor. He complains in it that certain priests and laymen had suddenly, in a most uncanonical and cruel manner, torn him out of the church, after Divine service, beaten him, dragged him into the forum, imprisoned him for some time, threatened him with the sword, robbed him of his episcopal mantle, taken away his property and shared it among them, had killed several of his people, and had placed one of their number (Stephen) in his episcopal see. He now prayed that, as he was quite innocent, the Emperor would have the matter examined by the Synod, and would protect him, until a judgment was pronounced, against the plots of his enemies, and see to the completion of the desired sentence.

To the question of the imperial commissioners, who they were who had ill-treated him, Bassian replied, naming first of all Stephen, the present bishop of Ephesus. Asked by the commissioners for an explanation, Stephen asserted that Bassian had not even been ordained at Ephesus, but had, at the time of the vacancy in the see, with the assistance of an armed mob, thrust himself in, and taken possession of the bishopric. He had therefore been rightly expelled from it, and forty Asiatic bishops had, with the consent of the assembled clergy and people of Ephesus, consecrated him (Stephen) as bishop, who had for fifty years been one of the clergy of Ephesus. Bassian replied that he was made bishop in a canonical manner, that he had from his youth supported the poor, and had built a hospital and poorhouse with seventy beds. On account of the popularity which he had thus gained, the Bishop (of Ephesus) at that time, Memnon, had hated him, and, in order to remove him from the place, had by force consecrated him Bishop of Evazæ. He had struggled, but Memnon had used force, so that blood had been shed before the altar. To Evazæ, however, he had never gone, and after the death of Memnon, which soon followed, his successor (Basil) had acknowledged the violence, had consecrated another bishop for Evazæ, but had left him in the episcopal dignity, and had held communion with him. After the death of Basil he had been forcibly placed upon the episcopal chair by the clergy and people of Ephesus, as Bishop Olympius could testify, who was present in Ephesus at the time, and was now present at the Synod. The Emperor had twice confirmed him, the second time by the Silentiar Eustathius; and all the bishops, even Proclus of Constantinople, had acknowledged him. So he had been for four years in the bishopric, and had consecrated ten bishops and many clerics. On the very last day on which he held office, he had received a very gracious letter from the Emperor through the Silentiar; but the next day, after holding divine service, he had been suddenly ill-treated in the manner which he had described, and had been expelled.

In reply, Stephen appealed to many of the bishops present, who could testify that Bassian had thrust himself into the bishopric by force, and therefore had been declared to be deposed by Pope Leo, by Flavian of Constantinople, and by the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. So the Emperor Theodosius II. and the whole Synod of the Orientals had recognized what had been done (his expulsion and the elevation of Stephen). The Silentiar Eustathius had been sent to Ephesus by the Emperor Theodosius on purpose to inquire into the existing dissension between Bassian, the clergy, and the poor, whom he had wronged. He had spent three months in this inquiry at Ephesus, and had made known his sentence. Every one knew what it was.

In order to defend his elevation to the see of Ephesus, Bassian laid peculiar stress upon the fact that he had never really been Bishop of Evazæ, and therefore that he had not uncanonically removed to another bishopric; and, in order to gain a starting-point for the consideration of the matter, the imperial commissioners ordered to be read two older canons, the 16th and l7th of the Synod of Antioch, of the year 341, which, in the collection of canons then in use, had the numbers 95 and 96. The first says: “If a bishop without a see forces himself into a vacant bishopric, and takes possession of the see without a complete Synod, he shall be deposed, even if he has been elected by the whole diocese into which he has intruded. A complete Synod is one at which the Metropolitan is present.” The other canon says: “If a bishop has received consecration, and has been appointed to preside over a diocese, but does not accept the office nor allow himself to be persuaded to set out for the church appointed to him, he shall be excommunicated until he is induced to undertake the office, or until the complete Synod of the bishops of the Eparchy has come to a decision concerning him.”

To the question of the imperial commissioners as to who had ordained him, Bassian could name only Bishop Olympius of Theodosiopolis, who was present; he no longer remembered the others. Olympius then stated that, after the death of Bishop Basil of Ephesus, the clergy of that city had requested him to come and proceed to a new ordination. In the belief that several bishops would appear, he had gone, and had waited three days for their arrival. When none appeared, the clergy of Ephesus had come to him again, in order to take counsel as to what should be done; the house was suddenly besieged by a great crowd of people, and they had taken him by force into the church, a certain Olosericus having even drawn a sword, and pushed him along with Bassian on to the episcopal throne. In this way the enthronization had taken place. Bassian exclaimed: “You lie!” The commissioners, however, next wished to be assured as to whether the late Bishop Proclus of Constantinople had actually acknowledged Bassian. They therefore asked the clergy of Constantinople who were present, and they testified to the fact, adding that Proclus had introduced the name of Bassian into the diptychs of his church, on which, until lately, it still remained.

The commissioners further requested Bishop Stephen to tell what he knew of the deposition of Bassian, and whether he had himself been ordained by a Synod. Stephen appealed to a letter of the Bishop of Alexandria, who had been commissioned by the Emperor Theodosius to write to Ephesus, and to a letter of Leo’s, which could both be placed before them (they no longer exist). The notaries, too, could present the documents relating to the way and manner of his ordination. Bassian, however, argued against Stephen thus: “The bishops who consecrated him were consecrated by me. If I then, as he maintains, was not a legitimate bishop, then he is not legitimately ordained. If, however, he maintains the validity of his ordination, then he must also acknowledge that I am a true bishop.”

Upon this Cassian, a presbyter, whom Bassian had brought ‘with him, came forward with his connected complaint. In the middle of a week Stephen and Mæonius had taken him into the baptistry, and had made him swear upon the Gospels that he would forsake Bassian. At first, out of reverence for every kind of oath, he had been unwilling to swear, but they had at last induced him to do so. Soon afterwards, on the fifth day of Easter, they had imprisoned Bishop Bassian, and at the same time had ill-treated him (Cassian). In order, however, not to break his oath, he had since then, for the space of four years, gone about begging in Constantinople (with Bassian). The representations of Bassian and of Cassian had made an impression, and now Bishop Lucian of Byze and Meliphthongus of Heliopolis came forward and declared, in the name of many of their colleagues, that “a man who, like Bassian, had been without opposition bishop for four years, and acknowledged by Proclus, and had been in church communion with Stephen himself and others, should not have been deposed by mere violence, and without formal judgment.”

Once more Stephen appealed to Pope Leo, who had recognized the deposition of Bassian; but Cecropius of Sebastopolis and many bishops and the clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, that “now Flavian, although already dead, revenged himself on him” (Stephen had been among the leaders of the Robber-Synod), and the imperial commissioners gave their judgment that, in their opinion, neither Bassian nor Stephen was to be acknowledged as legitimate bishop of Ephesus, and that a new one must be elected; but they would leave the whole decision to the Synod. The bishops first agreed by general acclamation to this proposal, and, in particular, the papal legates, together with Anatolius of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylæum, declared for it. But the Asiatic bishops (i.e. of the exarchate of Ephesus) threw themselves on their knees before the Synod, and asked for mercy, since great disturbances would arise in Ephesus if a successor should here (at the Synod) be given to Bassian; their exarch must be ordained in Ephesus itself. All the twenty-seven bishops who, since Timothy (the disciple of Paul), had occupied this episcopal chair, had been consecrated at Ephesus, with one single exception, that of Basil, and this had occasioned much bloodshed.

The clergy of Constantinople, on the other hand, wished to maintain that the right to consecrate a bishop for Ephesus belonged to their archbishop, and that the decrees of the 150 fathers (of the second Œcumenical Synod) must be observed. Besides, as a matter of fact, several bishops of Ephesus had been consecrated at Constantinople, or by the Archbishop of Constantinople, or with his consent, as Memnon by John Chrysostom, and Castinus by Heraclides. In particular, Proclus of Constantinople had consecrated Basil of Ephesus, and the Emperor Theodosius II. and Cyril of Alexandria had co-operated.

We see that the question here arose as to whether the exarchate of Ephesus was subject to the patriarchate of Constantinople or not; and as controversy on this subject was threatening to break out, the commissioners thought it well to postpone the decision of the question, whether a new bishop should be elected for Ephesus, to the next session.

SEC. 198. Twelfth and Thirteenth Sessions, October 30, 451

The twelfth session was solemnized on the following day, October 30, and, first, the three imperial commissioners complained that they were so long detained by the Synod from their civil duties. The Synod should therefore quickly decide whether a new bishop should be appointed for Ephesus, or Bassian or Stephen should be retained.—Anatolius of Constantinople and the legate Paschasinus expressed themselves decidedly in favour of the election of a new bishop, but they thought that maintenance should be provided for the two others from the property of the Church. Julian of Cos, on the other hand, thought that both should not be deposed; but the legate Lucentius did not give any distinct expression of opinion, merely stating, what was in fact self-evident, that both could not at the same time hold the bishopric. As the other bishops held back with their votes, the imperial commissioners had the book of the holy Gospels brought, and requested from all a conscientious answer to the question, whether one of the two, Bassian or Stephen, or neither, was worthy of the bishopric.—Again, Anatolius answered first, and expressed himself in favour of a new election, adding words which gratified the Asiatics: “The new shepherd of Ephesus should be chosen by those whom he has to watch over.” After him Paschasinus, Juvenal, and some other bishops also gave their voices for a new election. Maximus of Antioch, on the contrary, Julian of Cos, and others, wished to leave it to the bishops of the eparchy of Ephesus to decide whether one of the two was worthy of the see. A third party did not express themselves clearly and definitely. The commissioners therefore now brought to the vote the question put into definite form: “Shall a new bishop be appointed for Ephesus, in accordance with the proposal of Anatolius and Paschasinus, while the two others are allowed to retain the episcopal dignity and to have maintenance from the property of the Church of Ephesus?” This was received with acclamation, and announced by the commissioners as a synodal decree, with the addition, that each of the two deposed bishops should annually receive 200 gold pieces. This also was universally received by acclamation, and it was finally decreed that whatever Bassian could legally prove to have been taken from his property should be restored to him again.

On the same 30th of October the thirteenth session was held. Archbishop Eunomius of Nicomedia had appealed to the Emperor, and petitioned for protection and for the restoration of the privileges of his see, which had been forcibly violated by Bishop Anastasius of Nicæa, in opposition to all previous custom; and the Emperor had made over the decision of the question to the Synod. Eunomius therefore now brought his petition before this high assembly, and after his petition to the Emperor had been read, the commissioners requested an explanation from Anastasius. He, on his side, not only denied that he had been guilty of any offence, but asserted, on the contrary, that the Bishop of Nicomedia had made encroachments on his diocese. Eunomius was therefore required to give details, and said: “According to ancient custom, I have under me the churches which lie in the eparchy of Bithynia, but Anastasius has excommunicated clerics of Basilinopolis who are subject to me, a thing which is forbidden by the canons.”

Anastasius replied that, on the contrary, Basilinopolis belonged to the Church of Nicæa, for it had previously been a village belonging to Nicæa, and when it had been raised to the position of a city by the Emperor Julian or another, he had removed men of business thither from Nicæa. This state of things still continued, and men of business, as necessity arose, were constantly removed backwards and forwards from one town to the other. Since Basilinopolis had become a city, the Bishop of Nicæa had also taken part in the consecrations there. He could bring forward a letter of the sainted Bishop John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople to the Bishop of Nicæa, in which the latter was exhorted to go to Basilinopolis and there to regulate the Church. He could also prove how many (clerics and bishops of Basilinopolis) had been ordained from Nicæa.

Eunomius replied: “If that ever took place, it was improperly done, and this cannot prejudice my rights; besides, I can prove that many more ordinations at Basilinopolis have proceeded from Nicomedia than from Nicæa, from which city probably only one ordination had taken place, and that either surreptitiously or during a vacancy in the see of Nicomedia.”—From further statements and replies it came out that both parties had previously appealed to the Archbishop of Constantinople for a settlement of the dispute, and further, that Eunomius of Nicomedia had cited the bishop of Basilinopolis to answer to an accusation brought by the clergy of that city, but that he had fled to Nicæa, that he might receive the protection of Anastasius.

As before, so here again, the commissioners, in order to lead to a settlement of the case, caused an ancient canon to be read, namely, the fourth of Nicæa, which had previously been recited at the close of the fourth session (see above, p. 341 f.). If the superscription in the present Acts were correct, it would have stood as No. 6 in the collection of canons used at Chalcedon; as, however, all the old collections begin with the canons of Nicæa, it is not improbable that No. 4 should be read instead of No. 6. It runs: “The bishop shall be appointed by all the bishops of the eparchy; if, however, that is difficult on account of pressing necessity, or on account of the length of journeys, three bishops at the least shall meet and proceed to the imposition of hands, with the written consent of those who are absent. The confirmation and supervision of what is done belongs in each eparchy to the Metropolitan.” Anastasius of Nicæa remarked that this canon spoke in favour of him, for he was certainly Metropolitan, in proof of which he had a decree of the Emperors Valentinian I. and Valens read, in which the title of metropolis, which had been previously assigned to the city of Nicæa, was confirmed, and the same privileges were conceded to it which were possessed by Nicomedia.—On the other hand, Eunomius appealed to a later decree of Valentinian, in which it was expressly said that the new honour which had been conferred upon the city of Nicæa could in no way interfere with the rights of Nicomedia, but, on the contrary, it was only a greater honour for Nicomedia itself, when the city which stood next after it bore the title of metropolis. The imperial commissioners remarked quite correctly that in both decrees there was nothing said of the bishoprics, but only of the civil honours of the two cities. But according to the canons of the Church there could be but one ecclesiastical metropolis in each province. The Synod then asserted definitely that Nicomedia was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Bithynia, and that the bishop of Nicomedia had to consecrate all the bishops of the province. The Bishop of Nicæa had only this superiority (on account of the civil rank of his city), that he had precedence over all the other suffragans.

After this judgment was pronounced, Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople requested that no prejudice should hence arise to the rights of the Archbishop of Constantinople, since it could be proved that he was authorized either to consecrate at Basilinopolis or to give permission for consecration. The Synod, however, refused then to declare that the patriarchal rights of Constantinople extended over Bithynia, but simply exclaimed: “The canons must remain in force;” and the imperial commissioners cut short all hesitation by the remark, that the right of the Church of Constantinople to ordain in the provinces should be examined at its proper time by the Synod, and in fact the 28th canon was made to contain a remarkable regulation on this subject. At the close, Eunomius of Nicomedia offered thanks for the just judgment which had been pronounced, and gave the assurance that he honoured the Archbishop of Constantinople in accordance with the canons.

SEC. 199. Fourteenth Session, October 31, 451, and its two continuations

On the following day, at the fourteenth session, Bishop Sabinian of Perrha presented a petition addressed to the Emperors, and one to the Synod, representing that he had been unlawfully removed from his bishopric, and that he prayed for an inquiry. From his youth up he had been in a convent, and had not thought of a bishopric. But suddenly the Metropolitan of the province (Stephen of Hierapolis, as is clear from what follows), together with the comprovincial bishops, had come to him and had consecrated him bishop of Perrha in the place of Athanasius, who had been deposed by a Synod at Antioch, A.D. 445. At the Robber-Synod, however, Athanasius had been reinstated by command of Dioscurus, while he had been expelled, to the great sorrow of the city.

The three imperial commissioners who have been mentioned requested Athanasius of Perrha, who was also present, to give an explanation on this subject, and he appealed first of all to letters of S. Cyril of Alexandria and Proclus of Constantinople, who had interceded for him with Domnus of Antioch. After the death of Cyril, Domnus, taking advantage of the moment, cited him before his Synod, and he had promised to attend if Domnus and the Synod would not go beyond the opinion of the two archbishops (Cyril and Proclus). He now requested that the letters of these two archbishops should be read. The first of them, that from Cyril to Domnus, complains that some clerics of Perrha had behaved in a very insubordinate manner towards their Bishop Athanasius, as he asserted that they had banished and deposed him, had arbitrarily appointed other stewards, and had struck his name out of the diptychs. As Perrha was somewhat remote from Antioch, Archbishop Domnus was requested to send commissioners thither to inquire into the matter, and to bring those accused by Athanasius to account, and, in case they were guilty, to depose them. Besides this, Athanasius had complained of the partiality of his present Metropolitan (Panoblius of Hierapolis). The same was set forth also in the much more copious letter which the deceased Patriarch Proclus of Constantinople had written to Domnus on this matter, and it was clear from both letters that Cyril and Proclus had expressed themselves in no way so favourably on behalf of Athanasius as he represented, although they were inclined to attribute the greater injustice to the side of his opponents.

The imperial commissioners then caused to be read the minutes of the Antiochene Synod in question of A.D. 445, which, as we know, had deposed Athanasius, because, in spite of several citations, he had not vindicated himself from the charges which were brought against him, and had never appeared for examination, and had requested the Metropolitan John of Heliopolis to appoint a new bishop for Perrha.

After the reading of these extensive Acts, those seven bishops who had been present at this Antiochene Synod, and were now also members of the Council of Chalcedon, were obliged, at the request of the imperial commissioners, to relate what had passed, and they all laid chief stress upon the fact that Athanasius, in spite of all the citations, had not appeared. In excuse for himself he could only plead that Domnus, who was then Archbishop of Antioch, had been unfavourable to him; and on the proposal of the commissioners it was now decreed that, in the meantime, Sabinian should remain in possession of the see of Perrha, but that within eight months the Archbishop of Antioch should, with his council, examine whether the serious accusations brought against Athanasius were well-founded or not. If they were well-founded, then he must not only be removed from the bishopric, but handed over to the secular tribunal. If, however, no inquiry should be instituted against him within the period stated, or he should not be found guilty, then he should be reinstated in the bishopric of Perrha by Maximus of Antioch, but a maintenance should be allowed to Sabinian from the property of the Church there, the amount of which should be determined by Maximus of Antioch, in proportion to the value of the property of the Church of Perrha.

On the same 31st of October a further session was held, the minutes of which are given by the Ballerini alone, from Greek manuscripts in the library of S. Mark’s at Venice. In accordance with the manner in which these Venetian manuscripts reckon the sessions of Chalcedon, they had given the number 16 to the session which is now to be spoken of. But the Ballerini have properly remarked (l.c. p. 1491) that it ought to be placed immediately after the session which is noted as No. 14 in the usual collections. We reckon it therefore as only a division or continuation of the fourteenth session, while Mansi has erroneously, and apparently by an oversight, regarded it as a part of the very last or sixteenth session (according to the ordinary reckoning).

The contents of these newly-discovered minutes are, that now the papal legates, especially Julian of Cos, handed in to the Synod a letter from Leo, his 93d epistle, in the Latin original and in a Greek translation, and that the imperial commissioners approved, and ordered that it should immediately be read. This is the letter which Pope Leo had, on the 26th of June 451, addressed to the Synod which at first, as we know, had been summoned to Nicæa, and the contents of which have already been given at p. 280. Why this letter came so late before the Synod, after its contents were no longer of importance for the proceedings, is unknown.

The Ballerini, too, and Mansi as well, by means of a newly-discovered document (in a Latin translation), have given us information respecting a third session which took place on the same day (October 31). Archbishop Maximus of Antioch, it is said, [pri]die Kal. Nov., again brought forward for consideration his two matters which had been before discussed in the seventh and tenth sessions (see above, pp. 355 and 370), namely, (a) the cession of the three ecclesiastical provinces of Palestine to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and (b) the agreement with his predecessor Domnus; and now, at his suggestion, it was confirmed by the Synod, and particularly by the papal legates, that (a) the two Phœnicias and Arabia should again be united to Antioch, while the three provinces of Palestine should belong to Jerusalem; and (b) that Domnus should henceforth live only in the communio laicalis, but should annually receive 250 solidi.

The fact that the very ancient Vatican manuscript (No. 1322) contains this very document, and also the other two referring to Maximus of Antioch, namely, the two earlier transactions concerning Domnus, and respecting the agreement with Jerusalem, is explained by the Ballerini (l.c. p. 1230 sq.) very satisfactorily by the consideration that Maximus, when he began to regret the agreement with Jerusalem, had at a very early period sent these three documents by themselves in a Latin translation to Rome, in the hope of bringing about the annulling of that agreement. In fact, too, Pope Leo, in the answer which he sent back to Maximus, declared that which had been done in this respect at Chalcedon as void because contrary to the 6th canon of Nicæa, and the assent of his legates as invalid. In spite of this, Jerusalem remained in possession of the three ecclesiastical provinces of Palestine.

SEC. 200. Fifteenth Session. The Canons

From the minutes of the sixteenth session we learn that the imperial commissioners and the papal legates departed at the close of the fourteenth session, and that the other members of the Synod, on the same 31st of October, in a new discussion, which is reckoned as the fifteenth session, drew up the 28th canon of Chalcedon, and in this canon assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople a great patriarchal province, equal rights with the Roman see, and a rank next to that. According to the testimony of Archdeacon Liberatus of Carthage and the Roman deacon Rusticus, who, on account of the controversy of the three chapters, both occupied themselves ex professo, in the sixth century, with the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, the whole of the canons of Chalcedon, and not merely the 28th, were drawn up in this fifteenth session (Liberatus calls it, according to his manner of reckoning, the eleventh). With this, too, agree those manuscripts of the Greek Acts which were made the basis of the work when the collections of Councils, and first the Roman collection, were drawn up (see vol. i. p. 69 ff.), and therefore all the canons of Chalcedon are universally ascribed to the fifteenth session. That this is in fact the more accurate view, Van Espen has attempted to prove on various grounds; while before him the learned Baluze, and more recently the celebrated brothers Ballerini, resting principally upon the authority of Evagrius (Hist. Eccl. ii. 18), maintained that, after the Emperor Marcian had, as we saw, proposed these canons, in the sixth session, the Synod immediately afterwards had drawn up, in its seventh session, a series of canons, including the three of the Emperor, while in the fifteenth session only the 28th and last genuine canon was brought forward by the Orientals, and in the absence of the papal legates gave occasion for a new session of the Synod, the sixteenth and last.

An unhesitating decision on this point is impossible so long as no new documents are discovered. It remains, however, most natural to assume that our Synod followed that which, as far as we know, was the usual practice in all the old Councils, and passed all the canons at one session. If the papal legates foresaw that among the canons to be put forth, the 28th would be one, and after the statement made by Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople, at the sixteenth session, on the whole proceedings (see below, § 201), they could not help foreseeing it, it was natural that they should withdraw at the beginning of this discussion, notwithstanding the petitions of many (as appears from the Acts of the sixteenth session), in order to induce the Synod to omit this canon, and to preserve their own freedom of action. It is somewhat more difficult to explain the absence of the imperial commissioners, particularly as they had themselves requested the Synod to take in hand the discussion of the privileges of the see of Constantinople (see below, § 201), and their master, the Emperor, expressly wished the nature of these privileges to be settled (see below, § 203). But prudential considerations appear also to have prevented them from taking part in the drawing up of the important canon. If they foresaw that the Roman legates would protest against them, and if they were afterwards to take the place of judices, they could not from the beginning formally belong to one of the parties. If, however, they did not wish to be present at the passing of the 28th canon, it was necessary that they, like the legates, should withdraw at the beginning.

Certainly it may be objected that the papal legate Paschasinus, in his speech at the beginning of the sixteenth session, made no distinction between good and bad regulations, which had been drawn up in his absence, but speaks as though the matter contained in the 28th canon had alone been then considered. But this, too, may be explained, when it is considered that Paschasinus laid hold only of that point, and brought it forward on account of its great importance, and its, to him, objectionable character.

As to the number of canons put forth by the Synod of Chalcedon, for the present we permit ourselves only the short remark that the 28th is the last genuine one. Many manuscripts, however, contain only 27, others 30, a difference which we shall be able to explain later on, after we have considered the individual canons. These canons are:—

CAN. 1

Τοὺς παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων καθʼ ἑκάστην Σύνοδον ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν ἐκτεθέντας κανόνας κρατεῖν ἐδικαιώσαμεν.

“The canons hitherto put forth by the holy fathers in all the Synods shall have validity.”

Before the holding of the Council of Chalcedon, in the Greek Church, the canons of several Synods, which were held previously to that of Nicæa, were gathered into one collection and provided with continuous numbers (cf. vol. i. p. 367); and such a collection of canons, as we have seen (pp. 337, 372, and 378), lay before the Synod of Chalcedon. As, however, the most of the Synods whose canons were received into the collection, e.g. those of Neo-Cæsarea, Ancyra, Gangra, Antioch, were certainly not Œcumenical Councils, and were even to some extent of doubtful authority, such as the Antiochene Synod of 341, the confirmation of the Œcumenical Synod was now given to them, in order to raise them to the position of universally and unconditionally valid ecclesiastical rules. It is admirably remarked by the Emperor Justinian, in his 131st Novel, c. i.: “We honour the doctrinal decrees of the first four Councils as we do Holy Scripture, but the canons given or approved by them as we do the laws.” The Corpus jur. can. received this canon into c. 14, C. xxv. q. 1.

CAN. 2

Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἐπὶ χρήμασι χειροτονίαν ποιήσαιτο, καὶ εἰς πρᾶσιν καταγάγῃ τὴν ἄπρατον χάριν, καὶ χειροτονήσῃ ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἐπίσκοπον ἢ χωρεπίσκοπον ἢ πρεσβύτερον ἢ διάκονον ἢ ἕτερόν τινα τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ καταριθμουμένων, ἢ προβάλλοιτο ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἢ οἰκόνομον ἢ ἔκδικον ἢ προσμονάριον ἢ ὅλως τινὰ τοῦ κανόνος, διʼ αἰσχροκέρδειαν οἰκείαν• ὁ τοῦτο ἐπιχειρήσας ἐλεγχθεὶς περὶ τὸν οἰκεῖον κινδυνευέτω βαθμὸν• καὶ ὁ χειροτονούμενος μηδὲν ἐκ τῆς κατʼ ἐμπορίαν ὠφελείσθω χειροτονίας ἢ προβολῆς, ἀλλʼ ἔστω ἀλλότριος τῆς ἀξίας ἢ τοῦ φροντίσματος οὗπερ ἐπὶ χρήμασιν ἔτυχεν. Εἰ δέ τις καὶ μεσιτεύων φανείη τοῖς οὕτως αἰσχροῖς καὶ ἀθεμίτοις λήμμασι, καὶ οὗτος, εἰ μὲν κληρικὸς εἴη, τοῦ οἰκείου ἐκπιπτέτω βαθμοῦ• εἰ δὲ λαϊκὸς ἢ μονάζων, ἀναθεματιζέσθω.

“If a bishop confers ordination for money, and turns the grace which cannot be bought into merchandise, and consecrates a bishop, or chorepiscopus, or priest, or deacon, or any other cleric, or appoints for money an œconomus, or advocate, or prosmonarios, or any other servant of the Church, for the sake of base gain, upon conviction he shall endanger his own office, and he who is ordained shall have no advantage from his ordination or office obtained by purchase, but shall lose the dignity or the post which he has received for money. But if any one has acted as mediator in these shameful and unlawful transactions, then, if he is a cleric, he shall lose his own post; but if he is a layman or a monk, he shall be anathematized.”

As we see, this canon forbids all simony, not only the sale of ordinations and of properly clerical posts, but also the appointment for money to those Church offices for which ordination is not necessary; for example, a steward of Church property, an ecclesiastical advocate or proctor, etc. The difference of the two kinds of offices is designated in our canon (α) by the expressions ἀξία = clerical dignity, and φοόντισμα = administrative position; and (β) by the difference between χειροτονεῖν and προβάλλειν, of which the former refers to specifically spiritual or clerical offices, the latter to the appointment of Church officials. Besides, a distinction must be made between the expressions ἐν κλήρῳ and τινὰ τοῦ κανόνος to this extent, that, while all clerics are ἐν τῷ κανόνι ἐξεταζόμενοι, i.e. are contained in the list of the servants of the Church, there could also be among the men τοῦ κανόνος those who, without clerical ordination, did business for the Church. Among the servants of the Church the προσμονάριος (Mansionarius) is also named in our canon, whose duty it was, according to Suicer (Thesaurus e patribus Græcis, s.v.), to remain in the church until all had left, and then to shut it up, and also to extinguish the lamps, and again to light them at the proper time. He had at the same time some of the duties of the ancient Ostiarius. According to Van Espen, however, who here supports himself upon Du Cange, by προσμονάριος or Mansionarius, in the same way as by οἰκόνομος, a steward of Church property was to be understood. He adds, too, that Bishop Ibas of Edessa had been charged with simony, as appears from the Acts of the tenth session (see above, p. 362), and this may have occasioned the drawing up of our canon. This inserted in the Corpus jur. can. c. 8, C. i. q. 1.

As the ancient monks were almost without exception laymen, they were punished as laymen. Cf. Kober, Deposition, etc., S. 341.

CAN. 3

Ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Σύνοδον, ὅτι τῶν ἐν τῷ κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένων τινὲς διʼ οἰκείαν αἰσχροκερδείαν, ἀλλοτρίων κτημάτων γίνονται μισθωταὶ, καὶ πράγματα κοσμικὰ ἐργολαβοῦσι, τῆς μὲν τοῦ Θεοῦ λειτουργίας καταῤῥᾳθυμοῦντες, τοὺς δὲ τῶν κοσμικῶν ὑποτρέχοντες οἴκους, καὶ οὐσιῶν χειρισμοὺς ἀναδεχόμενοι διὰ φιλαργυρίαν. Ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία καὶ μεγάλη Σύνοδος, μηδένα τοῦ λοιποῦ, μὴ ἐπίσκοπον, μὴ κληρικὸν, μὴ μονάζοντα, ἢ μισθοῦσθαι κτήματα, ἢ πράγματα, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν ἐαυτὸν κοσμικαῖς διοικήσεσι• πλὴν εἰ μή που ἐκ νόμων καλοῖτο εἰς ἀφηλίκων ἀπαραίτητον ἐπιτροπὴν, ἢ ὁ τῆς πόλεως ἑπίσκοπος ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἐπιτρέψοι φροντίζειν πραγμάτων, ἢ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρῶν ἀπρονοήτων, καὶ τῶν προσώπων τῶν μάλιστα τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς δεομένων βοηθείας, διὰ τὸν φόβον τοῦ Κυρίου. Εἰ δέ τις παραβαίνειν τὰ ὡρισμένα τοῦ λοιποῦ ἐπιχειρήσοι, ὁ τοιοῦτος ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὑποκείσθω ἐπιτιμίοις.

“It has become known to the holy Synod that some members of the clergy, from shameful covetousness, hire other people’s property, and occupy themselves in worldly business for the sake of gain, disparaging the service of God, and going about among the houses of secular people, and taking in hand the administration of property from love of gain: therefore the holy and great Synod decrees that for the future no bishop, cleric, or monk shall hire goods, or transact business, or mix himself in secular affairs, unless when he is called by the laws to be a guardian of minors, without being able to put off the duty, or when the bishop of the city gives him a commission, for God’s sake, to take charge of the affairs of orphans or of unprotected widows, or of those persons who are in especial need of the assistance of the Church. And if any one in future transgresses these regulations, he shall be subjected to ecclesiastical penalties.”

This canon (in the Corpus jur. can. c. 26, Dist. lxxxvi.) is almost a verbal repetition of the second of those which the Emperor Marcian had proposed in the sixth session of the Synod, with the addition (a) that a cleric could discharge the office of guardian of infants, widows, and orphans only in case he could not legally decline it; or (b) if the bishop expressly gave him the charge. But again, the latter (c) would only happen when these widows and orphans were otherwise without protection. The Greek mediæval commentator on the canons, Zonaras, complains that unfortunately this prescription was not sufficiently respected in the Byzantine Empire; and Van Espen adds: “Would to God that we, Latins, had not also to lament the same!”

CAN. 4

Οἱ ἀληθῶς καὶ εἰλικρινῶς τὸν μονήρη μετιόντες βίον τῆς προσηκούσης ἀξιούσθωσαν τιμῆς. Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες τῷ μοναχικῷ κεχρημένοι προσχήματι τάς τε ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὰ πολιτικὰ διαταράττουσι πράγματα, περιϊόντες ἀδιαφόρως ἐν ταῖς πόλεσιν, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ μοναστήρια ἑαντοῖς συνιστᾶν ἐπιτηδεύοντες• ἔδοξε μηδένα μηδαμοῦ οἰκοδομεῖν, μηδὲ συνιστᾶν μοναστήριον, ἢ εὐκτήριον οἶκον, παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ τῆς πόλεως ἐπισκόπου• τοὺς δὲ καθʼ ἑκάστην πόλιν καὶ χώραν μονάζοντας, ὑποτετάχθαι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, καὶ τὴν ἡσυχίαν ἀσπάζεσθαι, καὶ προσέχειν μόνῃ τῇ νηστείᾳ καὶ τῇ προσευχῇ, ἐν οἷς τόποις ἐπετάξαντο προσκαρτεροῦντας, μήτε δὲ ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς μὴτε βιωτικοῖς παρενοχλεῖν πράγμασιν ἢ ἐπικοινωνεῖν, καταλιμπάνοντας τὰ ἴδια μοναστήρια, εἰ μή ποτε ἄρα ἐπιτραπεῖεν διὰ χρείαν ἀναγκαίαν ὑπὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως ἐπισκόπου• μηδένα δὲ προσδέχεσθαι ἐν τοῖς μοναστηρίοις δοῦλον ἐπὶ τῷ μονάσαι παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου δεσπότου. Τὸν δὲ παραβαίνοντα τοῦτον ἡμῶν τὸν ὅρον, ὡρίσαμεν ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι, ‘ἵνα μὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Θεοῦ βλασφημῆται.ʼ Τὸν μέντοι ἐπίσκοπον τῆς πόλεως, χρὴ τὴν δέουσαν πρόνοιαν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν μοναστηρίων.

“Those who lead a true and genuine monastic life shall receive due honour. As, however, some, assuming the monastic state only for a pretext, confuse the affairs of Church and State, and go about in the cities indiscriminately, and at the same time wish to found monasteries for themselves, the Synod decrees that no one shall anywhere build or set up a monastery or a poorhouse without the consent of the bishop of the city; (further) that the monks of each neighbourhood and city shall be subject to the bishop, that they love quiet, and give themselves only to fasting and prayer, stopping in the places to which they are assigned; that they do not encumber themselves with ecclesiastical and secular affairs or take part in them, leaving their monasteries, except when, in case of necessity, they are required to do so by the bishop of the city; that no slave shall be received into the monasteries to become a monk without permission of his master. Whoever transgresses this our ordinance shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not blasphemed. The bishop of the city ought to take careful oversight of the monasteries.”

Like the previous canon, this one was brought forward by the Emperor Marcian in the sixth session, and then as No. 1, and the Synod accepted the Emperor’s proposed canon almost verbally. Occasion for this canon seems to have been given by monks of Eutychian tendencies, and especially by the Syrian Barsumas, as appears from the fourth session (see above, p. 336). He and his monks had, as Eutychians, withdrawn themselves from the jurisdiction of their bishops, whom they suspected of Nestorianism.—Gratian has inserted our canon in the Corpus jur. can. c. 12, C. xvi. q. 1, in part (with the omission of the central portion), and in c. 10, C. xviii. q. 2, has put together the remaining portion with a part of the 8th canon of Chalcedon.

CAN. 5

Περὶ δὲ τῶν μεταβαινόντων ἀπὸ πόλεως εἰς πόλιν ἐπισκόπων ἢ κληρικῶν ἔδοξε τοὺς περὶ τούτων τεθέντας κανόνας παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἔχειν τὴν ἰδίαν ἰσχύν.

“In regard to the bishops and clerics who go from one city to another, the canons set forth by the holy fathers respecting them shall have validity.”

The principal occasion for this fresh enforcement of older canons (see vol. i. pp. 185, 195, 422, 423, 463; vol. ii. p. 68) seems to have been given by the affair of Bassianus in the eleventh session. In the Corpus jur. can. our canon is found as c. 26, C. xii. q. 1.

CAN. 6

Μηδένα δὲ ἀπολελυμένως χειροτονεῖσθαι, μήτε πρεσβύτερον μήτε διάκονον μήτε ὅλως τινὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ ἐκκλησιαστικῷ τάγματι, εἰ μὴ ἰδικῶς ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ πόλεως ἢ κώμης, ἢ μαρτυρίῳ ἢ μοναστηρίῳ ὁ χειροτονούμενος ἐπικηρύττοιτο. Τοὺς δὲ ἀπολύτως χειροτονουμένους, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος ἄκυρον ἔχειν τὴν τοιαύτην χειροθεσίαν, καὶ μηδαμοῦ δύνασθαι ἐνεργεῖν ἐφʼ ὕβρει τοῦ χειροτονήσαντος.

“No one shall be absolutely ordained either priest or deacon, or to any other clerical order, unless he is appointed specially to the church of the city or of the village, or to a martyr’s chapel or monastery. In regard to those, however, who have been absolutely ordained, the [holy] Synod decrees that such ordination shall be without effect, and that they shall nowhere be allowed to officiate, to the shame of him who ordained.”

It is clear that our canon forbids the so-called absolute ordinations, and requires that every cleric must at the time of his ordination be designated to a definite church. The only titulus which is here recognized is that which was later known as titulus beneficii. As various kinds of this title we find here (a) the appointment to a church in the city, (b) to a village church, (c) that to the chapel of a martyr, (d) the appointment as chaplain of a monastery. For the right understanding of the last point, it must be remembered that the earliest monks were in nowise clerics, but that soon the custom was introduced in every larger convent, of having at least one monk ordained presbyter, that he might provide for divine service in the monastery.

Similar prohibitions of ordinationes absolutæ were also put forth in after times. The Corpus jur. can. inserts our canon as c. i. Dist. lxx., and the Council of Trent renewed (Sess. xxiii. c. 16, De Reform.) the prohibition in question, with express reference to the canon of the Council of Chalcedon. According to existing law, absolute ordinations, as is well known, are still illicitæ, but yet validæ, and even the Council of Chalcedon has not declared them to be properly invalidæ, but only as without effect (by permanent suspension). Cf. Kober, Suspension, S. 220, and Hergenröther, Photius etc., Bd. ii. S. 324.

CAN. 7

Τοὺς ἅπαξ ἐν κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένους ἢ καὶ μονάσαντας ὡρίσαμεν μήτε ἐπὶ στρατείαν μήτε ἐπὶ ἀξίαν κοσμικὴν ἔρχεσθαι• ἢ τοῦτο τολμῶντας καὶ μὴ μεταμελουμένους, ὥστε ἐπιστρέψια ἐπὶ τοῦτο ὃ διὰ Θεὸν πρότερον εἵλοντο, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι.

“Those who have been once received into the number of the clergy, or have become monks, must not serve in war, or enter a secular calling: those who venture to do so, and do not repent so as to return to the calling which they had previously chosen for the sake of God, shall be anathematized.”

Something similar was ordered by the 83d (82d) apostolic canon, only that it threatens the cleric who takes military service merely with deposition from his clerical office, while our canon subjects him to excommunication. As generally an offence which, in the case of clerics, drew deposition after it, was, in the case of laymen, punished with excommunication, it is clear that our canon treats those clerics and monks who leave their state and serve in war or enter a secular office, exactly as laymen. The Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras think that our canon selects a more severe punishment, that of excommunication, because it has in view those clerics who have not merely taken military service, etc., but at the same time have laid aside their clerical dress and put on secular clothing. One who has laid aside the clerical dress is, for this first crime, deposed and degraded, and if he has further taken military service, etc., then the second punishment, that appointed for laymen, is also inflicted upon him. In the Corpus jur. can. this canon stands as c. 3, C. xx. q. 3.

CAN. 8

Οἱ κληρικοὶ τῶν πτωχείων καὶ μοναστηρίων καὶ μαρτυρίων ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἑκάστῃ πόλει ἐπισκόπων τὴν ἐξουσίαν, κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων παράδοσιν, διαμενέτωσαν, καὶ μὴ καταυθαδιάζεσθαι ἢ ἀφηνιᾶν τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου. Οἱ δὲ τολμῶντες ἀνατρέπειν τὴν τοιαύτην διατύπωσιν καθʼ οἱονδήποτε τρόπον, καὶ μὴ ὑποταττόμενοι τῷ ἰδίῳ ἐπισκόπῳ, εἰ μὲν εἶεν κληρικοὶ, τοῖς τῶν κανόνων ὑποκείσθωσαν ἐπιτιμίοις, εἰ δὲ μονάζοντες ἢ λαῑκοὶ, ἔστωσαν ἀκοινώνητοι.

“The clergy of the poorhouses, monasteries, and martyr chapels shall remain under the jurisdiction of the bishops belonging to the cities, and shall not conduct themselves in a self-willed or disobedient manner towards their own bishops. Those, however, who venture to violate this ordinance in any manner whatever, and do not submit to their bishop, if they are clerics, shall be subject to the canonical penalties, and if they are monks or laymen, they shall be excommunicated.”

In its first part our canon speaks only of the clergy and of their subordination to the bishop. As, however, the second part of it refers also to monks and laymen, the Greek commentators Balsamon and Zonaras inferred that our canon subjects not only all clerics, but all monks and laymen, to the bishop of their diocese, and knows nothing of exemptions.—As has already been remarked (see p. 390), Gratian has woven together our canon with a part of the fourth, as c. 10, C. xviii. q. 2.

CAN. 9

Εἴ τις κληρικὸς πρὸς κληρικὸν πρᾶγμα ἔχοι, μὴ ἐγκαταλιμπανέτω τὸν οἰκεῖον ἐπίσκοπον καὶ ἐπὶ κοσμικὰ δικαστήρια κατατρεχέτω• ἀλλὰ πρότερον τὴν ὑπόθεσιν γυμναζέτω παρὰ τῷ ἰδίῳ ἐπισκόπῳ, ἤγουν γνώμῃ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου, παρʼ οἷς ἂν τὰ ἀμφότερα μέρη βούλεται τὰ τῆς δίκης συγκροτεῖσθω. Εἰ δέ τις παρὰ ταῦτα ποιήσει, κανονικοῖς ὑποκείσθω ἐπιτιμίοις• Εἰ δὲ καὶ κληρικὸς ἔχοι πρᾶγμα πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον ἐπίσκοπον ἢ πρὸς ἕτερον, παρὰ τῇ συνόδῳ τῆς ἐπαρχίας δικαζέσθω. Εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὸν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπαρχίας μητροπολίτην ἐπίσκοπος ἢ κληρικὸς ἀμφισβητοίη, καταλαμβανέτω ἢ τὸν ἔξαρχον τῆς διοικήσεως ἢ τὸν τῆς βασιλευούσης Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνον, καὶ ἐπʼ αὐτῷ δικαζέσθω.

“If a cleric has a difference with another cleric, he must not pass by his bishop and have recourse to the secular judges, but he must first unfold the matter before his own bishop, or, if the bishop so wills, the dispute may be settled by umpires who are acceptable to both parties. If any one acts in opposition to this, he shall be subject to the canonical penalties. If a cleric, however, has a difference with his own or with another bishop, he shall bring the dispute before the Synod of the eparchy (province). If, however, a bishop or cleric has a difference with the metropolitan of the province himself, then let him choose either the exarch of the diocese (the superior metropolitan) or the see of Constantinople, and bring the dispute before this.”

That our canon would refer not merely the ecclesiastical, but the civil differences of the clergy, in the first case, to the bishop, is beyond a doubt. And it comes out as clearly from the word πρότερον (=at first) that it does not absolutely exclude a reference to the secular judges, but regards it as allowable only when the first attempt at an adjustment of the controversy by the bishop has miscarried. This was quite clearly recognized by Justinian in his 123d Novel, c. 21: “If any one has a case against a cleric, or a monk, or a deaconess, or a nun, or an ascetic, he shall first make application to the bishop of his opponent, and he shall decide. If both parties are satisfied with his decision, it shall then be carried into effect by the imperial judge of the locality. If, however, one of the contending parties lodges an appeal against the bishop’s judgment within ten days, then the imperial judge of the locality shall decide the matter.”

There is no doubt that the expression “Exarch” employed in our canon, and also in canon 17, means, in the first place, those superior metropolitans who have several ecclesiastical provinces under them. Whether, however, the great patriarchs, properly so called, are to be included under it, may be doubted. The Emperor Justinian, in c. 22 of his Novel just quoted (l.c.) in our text has, without further explanation, substituted the expression Patriarch for Exarch, and in the same way the commentator Aristenus has declared both terms to be identical, adding that only the Patriarch of Constantinople has the privilege of having a metropolitan tried before him who does not belong to his patriarchate, but is subject to another patriarch.—In the same way our canon was understood by Beveridge. Van Espen, on the contrary, thinks that the Synod had here in view only the exarchs in the narrower sense (of Ephesus, Cæsarea), but not the Patriarchs, properly so called, of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as it would be too great a violation of the ancient canons, particularly of the 6th of Nicæa, to have set aside the proper patriarch, and have allowed an appeal to the Bishop of Constantinople (with this Zonaras also agrees in his explanation of canon 17). Least of all, however, would the Synod have made such a rule for the West, i.e. have allowed that any one should set aside the Patriarch of Rome and appeal to the Patriarch of Constantinople, since they themselves, in canon 28, assigned the first place in rank to Rome.

It appears to me that neither Beveridge etc., nor Van Espen are fully in the right, while each is partially so. With Van Espen we must assume that our Synod, in drawing up this canon, had in view only the Greek Church, and not the Latin as well, particularly as neither the papal legates nor any Latin bishop whatever was present at the drawing up of these canons. On the other hand, Beveridge is also right in maintaining that the Synod made no distinction between the patriarchs proper and the exarchs (such a distinction must otherwise have been indicated in the text), and allowed that quarrels which should arise among the bishops of other patriarchates might be tried at Constantinople. Only that Beveridge ought to have excepted the West and Rome.

The strange part of our canon may be explained in the following manner. There were always many bishops at Constantinople from the most different places, who came there to lay their contentions and the like before the Emperor. The latter frequently transferred the decision to the bishop of Constantinople, who then, in union with the then present bishops from the most different provinces, held a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα (cf. below, p. 416, and vol. i. p. 4), and gave the sentence required at this (see below, the remarks on canon 28, p. 418 f.). Thus gradually the practice was formed of controversies being decided by bishops of other patriarchates or exarchates at Constantinople, to the setting aside of the proper superior metropolitan, an example of which we have seen (above, p. 189) in that famous Synod of Constantinople, A.D. 448, at which the case of Eutyches was for the first time brought forward.

Both Dionysius and Isidore of Seville translate the word ἔξαρχον by Primatem, and Pope Nicolas I., too, understood by it the Pope, since in a letter to the Greek Emperor Michael he thus referred to our canon: “A metropolitan must, ex regula, be accused only before the Primate of the Church, the Pope; in those parts, however, which are near Constantinople, appeal may be made ex permissione (from Rome) to the Bishop of Constantinople, and his judgment may suffice.” In the Corpus jur. can. our canon stands as c. 46, C. xi q. 1.

CAN. 10

Μὴ ἐξεῖναι κληρικὸν ἐν δύο πόλεων καταλέγεσθαι ἐκκλησίαις κατὰ τὸ αὐτὸ, ἐν ᾗ τε τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐχειροτονήθη, καὶ ἐν ᾗ προσέφυγεν, ὡς μεὶζονι δῆθεν, διὰ δόξης κενῆς ἐπιθυμίαν• τοὺς δέ γε τοῦτο ποιοῦντας ἀποκαθίστασθαι τῇ ἀδίᾳ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἐν ᾗ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐχειροτονήθησαν, καὶ ἐκεῖ μόνον λειτουργεῖν. Εἰ μένοτοι ἤδη τις μετετέθη ἐξ ἄλλης εἰς ἄλλης ἐκκλησίαν, μηδὲν τοῖς τῆς προτέρας ἐκκλησίας, ἤτοι τῶν ὑπʼ αὐτὴν μαρτυρίων ἢ πτωχείων ἢ ξενοδοχείων, ἐπικοινωνεῖν πράγμασι. Τοὺς δέ γε τολμῶντας μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τῆς μεγάλης καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς ταύτης Συνόδου πράττειν τι τῶν νῦν ἀπηγορευμένων, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος, ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ οἰκείου βαθμοῦ.

“It shall not be lawful for a cleric to be enrolled in the churches of two cities at the same time (in the list of the clergy), namely, in that for which he was at first ordained, and in that to which, as the greater, he has removed from motives of ambition. Those who do this must be sent back to their own church in which they were at first ordained, and must serve there only. If any one, however, is removed from one church to another, he shall then no longer take part in the affairs of the former church, or of the martyr chapels, poorhouses, and hospitals connected with it. If any one shall venture, after this regulation of this great and Œcumenical Synod, to do any of the things now forbidden, the holy Synod decrees that he shall lose his position.”

Gratian has divided this canon, and inserted it in two different places of his decree as c. 2, C. xxi. q. 1, and c. 3, C. xxi. q. 2.

CAN. 11

Πάντας τοὺς πένητας καὶ δεομένους ἐπικουρίας μετὰ δοκιμασίας ἐπιστολίοις εἴτουν εἰρηνικοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς μόνοις ὡρίσαμεν ὁδεύειν καὶ μὴ συστατικοῖς, διὰ τὸ τὰς συστατικὰς ἐπιστολὰς προσήκειν τοῖς οὖσιν μόνοις ἐν ὑπολήψει παρέχεσθαι προσώποις.

“All poor persons and such as are in need of support shall, after inquiry made, be provided only with ecclesiastical certificates and letters of peace for their journey, and not with letters of commendation, as the latter are to be given only to those who are marked (suspected).”

The mediæval commentators, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, understand this canon to mean that letters of commendation, συστατικαὶ, commendatitiæ litteræ, were given to those laymen and clerics who were previously subject to ecclesiastical censure, and therefore were suspected by other bishops, and for this reason needed a special recommendation, in order to be received in another church into the number of the faithful. The letters of peace (εἰρηνικαί), on the contrary, were given to those who were in undisturbed communion with their bishop, and had not the least evil reputation abroad.

Our canon was understood quite differently by the old Latin writers, Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, who translate the words ἐν ὑπολήψει by personæ honoratiores and clariores, and the learned Bishop Gabriel Aubespine of Orleans has endeavoured to prove, in his notes to our canon, that the litteræ pacificæ were given to ordinary believers, and the commendatitiæ (συστατικαί), on the contrary, only to clerics and to distinguished laymen; and in favour of this view is the 13th canon of Chalcedon. Cf. also on the meaning of ὑπόληψις, below, c. 21, p. 406.

CAN. 12

Ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ὥς τινες παρὰ τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς θεσμοὺς προσδραμόντες δυναστείαις, διὰ πραγματικῶν βασιλικῶν τὴν μίαν ἐπαρχίαν εἰς δύο κατέτεμον, ὡς ἐκ τούτου δύο μητροπολίτας εἶναι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ. Ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος, τοῦ λοιποῦ μηδὲν τοιοῦτο τολμᾶσθαι παρʼ ἐπισκόπῳ, ἐπεὶ τὸν τοιοῦτο ἐπιχειροῦντα ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ οἰκείου βαθμοῦ• ὅσαι δὲ ἤδη πόλεις διὰ γραμμάτων βασιλικῶν τῷ τῆς μητροπόλεως ἐτιμήθησαν ὀνόματι, μόνης ἀπολαυέτωσαν τῆς τιμῆς καὶ ὁ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν αὐτῆς διοικῶν ἐπίσκοπος, σωζομένων δηλονότι τῇ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν μητροπόλει τῶν οἰκείων δικαίων.

“It has become known to us that some, in opposition to the ordinances of the Church, have had recourse to the rulers, and have by imperial edicts (pragmatics) divided an ecclesiastical province in two, so that by that means there are two metropolitans in one province. The holy Synod therefore decrees that for the future no bishop shall venture to do so, since he who ventures upon it shall lose his office. And those cities which have already received the title of metropolis by imperial letters shall, together with the bishop who is over them, enjoy only the title of honour, but the peculiar privileges shall be retained by the true metropolis.”

The division into ecclesiastical provinces corresponded, as a rule, to the civil division. Every civil province formed also an ecclesiastical eparchy with a metropolitan (cf. vol. i. p. 381 f.). If, then, a civil province were divided into two, this generally had the result that the city which was now elevated to the position of a civil metropolis also rose to the dignity of an ecclesiastical metropolis. The principle, that the ecclesiastical dignity of a city should be regulated by the civil, had been already expressed by the Synod of Antioch, A.D. 341, in its 9th canon; and this was done more clearly by our Council of Chalcedon in canons 17 and 28. But it also occurred (a) that some bishops had their sees raised to the rank of an ecclesiastical metropolis, without their cities having obtained the same civil rank; and (b) that, when a city became merely a (civil) titular metropolis, its bishop assumed to himself a metropolitan diocese. An example of the first kind we meet with in regard to the church of Berytus; an example of the second kind is furnished by Nicæa (see above, pp. 341 and 377 f.). It is probable that those two controversies gave occasion for the drawing up of this canon.

Gratian has received only the first part of our canon, as c. 1, Dist. ci.

CAN. 13

Ξένους κληρικοὺς καὶ ἀναγνώστας ἐν ἑτέρᾳ πόλει δίχα συστατικῶν γραμμάτων τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου μηδʼ ὅλως μηδαμοῦ λειτουργεῖν.

“Strange clerics and readers must on no account officiate in another city without letters of commendation from their own bishop.”

Instead of ἀναγνώστας two manuscripts (Vatic and Sforz.) have ἀγνώστους, i.e. unknown clerics, as synonym for ξένους. The mediæval commentators, Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus, had also this reading. Thus they know nothing of the express mention of readers, which must certainly seem strange here, as readers are already included in the term clerics. The old Latin translations, however, the Prisca, that of Dionysius Exiguus, and that of Isidore, have all translated lectores, and therefore must have had ἀναγνώστας in their manuscripts. Perhaps the Synod meant to say, “All strange clerics, even readers, etc.”—On the letters of commendation, compare what was said above (p. 397). The contents of our canon are repeated by the Council of Trent, Sess. xxiii. c. 16, De Reform., thus: “Nullus præterea clericus peregrinus (the lectors are not specially mentioned) sine commendatitiis sui ordinarii litteris ab ullo episcopo ad divina celebranda et sacramenta administranda admittatur.”

CAN. 14

Ἐπειδὴ ἔν τισιν ἐπαρχίαις συγκεχώρηται τοῖς ἀναγνώσταις καὶ ψάλταις γαμεῖν, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος μὴ ἐξεῖναί τινα αὐτῶν ἑτερόδοξον γυναῖκα λαμβάνειν• τοὺς δὲ ἤδη ἐκ τοιούτου γάμου παιδοποιήσαντας, εἰ μὲν ἔφθασαν βαπτίασι τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν τεχθέντα παρὰ τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς, προσάγειν αὐτὰ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας• μὴ βαπτισθέντα δὲ, μὴ δύνασθαι ἔτι βαπτίζειν αὐτὰ παρὰ τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς• μήτε μὴν̣ συνάπτειν πρὸς γάμον αἱρετικῷ ἢ Ἰουδαίῳ ἢ Ἕλληνι, εἰ μὴ ἄρα ἐπαγγέλλοιτο μετατίθεσθαι εἰς τὴν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν τὸ συναπτόμενον πρόσωπον τῷ ὀρθοδόξῳ. Εἰ δέ τις τοῦτον τὸν ὅρον παραβαίη τῆς ἁγίας Συνόδου, κανονικῶς ὑποκείσθω.

“As it is permitted to the readers and singers, in some provinces, to marry, the holy Synod decrees that none of these shall take a heterodox wife; but those who already have children from such unions (with heretical wives), if they have already allowed them to be baptized by heretics, must bring them to the communion of the Catholic Church. If, however, they are not yet baptized, then they must not allow them to be baptized by heretics, nor to marry heretics or Jews or heathen, unless the person who is to be united with the orthodox party promises to adopt the orthodox faith. If any one transgresses this ordinance of the holy Synod, he shall be punished according to the canons.”

According to the Latin translation of Dionysius Exiguus, who speaks only of the daughters of the lectors, etc., the meaning may be understood, with Christian Lupus, as being that only their daughters must not be married to heretics or Jews or heathen, but that the sons of readers may take wives who are heretics etc., in respect that men are less easily led to fall away from the faith than women. But the Greek text makes here no distinction between sons and daughters.—The first part of our canon is inserted by Gratian, c. 15, Dist. xxxii.

CAN. 15

Διακόνισσαν μὴ χειροτονεῖσθαι γυναῖκα πρὸ ἐτῶν τεσσαράκοντα, καὶ ταύτην μετὰ ἀκριβοῦς δοκιμασίας• εἰ δέ γε δεξαμένη τὴν χειροθεσίαν καὶ χρόνον τινὰ παραμείνασα τῇ λειτουργίᾳ ἑαυτὴν ἐπιδῷ γάμῳ, ὑβρίσασα τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριν, ἡ τοιαύτη ἀναθεματιζέσθω μετὰ τοῦ αὐτῇ συναφθέντος.

“No woman shall be ordained a deaconess before she is forty years old, and then after careful trial. If, however, after she has received ordination and has been for some time in the service, she marries, disparaging the grace of God, then she shall be anathematized, together with him who has united himself with her.”

In the year 390 a law of the Emperor Theodosius the Great requires that, in accordance with the prescription of the Apostle Paul (1 Tim. 5:9), only women who are sixty years of age should be appointed as deaconesses (Cod. Theodos. Tit. de episcopis, lex. 27, and Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. vii. 16). Our canon has fallen away a little from the ancient strictness. It shows, further, that hands were laid upon deaconesses at their consecration; but Morinus, resting upon the authority of Epiphanius (Hær. 79), pointed out the distinction between such benediction and the proper clerical ordination.—In the Corpus jur. can. our canon stands as c. 23, C. xxvii. q. 1.

CAN. 16

Παρθένον ἑαυτὴν ἀναθεῖσαν τῷ Δεσπότῃ Θεῷ, ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ μονάζοντα μὴ ἐξεῖναι γάμῳ προσομιλεῖν. Εἰ δέ γε εὑρεθεῖεν τοῦτο ποιοῦντες, ἔστωσαν ἀκοινώνητοι. Ὡρίσαμεν δὲ ἔχειν τὴν αὐθεντίαν τὴς ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς φιλανθρωπίας τὸν κατὰ τόπον ἐπίσκοπον.

“A virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, and also a monk, shall not be allowed to marry. If they do so, they shall be excommunicated. But the bishop of the place shall have full power to show them kindness.”

The last part of the canon gives the bishop authority in certain circumstances not to inflict the excommunication which is threatened in the first part, or again to remove it. Thus all the old Latin translators understood our text; but Dionysius Exiguus and the Prisca added confitentibus, meaning, “if such a virgin or monk confess and repent their fault, then the bishop may be kind to them.” That the marriage of a monk is invalid, as was ruled by later ecclesiastical law, our canon does not say; on the contrary, it assumes its validity, as also the marriages contracted by priests until the beginning of the twelfth century were regarded as valid.

Gratian has inserted our canon twice, c. 12 and 22, C. xxvii. q. 1; the first time, where he ascribed it falsely to the Concilium Tiburiense, in the translation of Dionysius Exiguus, the second time, under the name of the Synod of Chalcedon, in the translation of Isidore.

CAN. 17

Τὰς καθʼ ἑκάστην ἐκκλησίαν ἀγροικικὰς παροικίας ἢ ἐγχωρίους μένειν ἀπαρασαλεύτους παρὰ τοῖς κατέχουσιν αὐτὰς ἐπισκόποις, καὶ μάλιστα εἰ τριακονταετῆ χρόνον ταύτας ἀβιάστως διακατέχοντες ᾠκονόμησαν. Εἰ δὲ ἐντὸς τῶν τριάκοντα ἐτῶν γεγένηταί τις ἢ γένηται περὶ αὐτῶν ἀμφισβήτησις, ἐξεῖναι τοῖς λέγουσιν ἠδικῆσθαι περὶ τούτων κινεῖν παρὰ τῇ Συνόδῳ τῆς ἐπαρχίας. Εἰ δέ τις παρὰ τοῦ ἰδίου ἀδικοῖτο μητροπολίτου παρί τῷ ἐπάρχῳ τῆς διοικήσεως, ἢ τῷ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνῳ δικαζέσθω, καθὰ προείρηται. Εἰ δέ τις ἐκ βασιλικῆς ἐξουσίας ἐκαινίσθη πόλις ἢ αὖθις καινισθείη, τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δημοσίοις τύποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολουθείτω.

“The village or country parishes belonging to each church shall remain unaltered with those bishops who have them, particularly if these have exercised jurisdiction over them for thirty years without dispute. If, however, within a period of thirty years a controversy has arisen, or shall arise, then those who allege that they have been injured may bring the matter before the synod of the eparchy. If, however, in such a case a bishop believes that his own metropolitan has wronged him, then he shall bring the dispute before the eparch of the diocese (superior metropolitan), or before the see of Constantinople, as was said before. If the Emperor has newly raised, or shall raise, a place to the dignity of a city, then the regulation of ecclesiastical parishes shall follow the political and civil arrangement.”

The meaning of our canon is: “When it is doubtful, in the case of a country parish which lies between two bishoprics, to which of them it belongs, it shall remain with that bishop by whom it has been administered without dispute for thirty years. If, however, no such period has thus elapsed, then the two bishops who contend for the possession of the country parish shall bring their dispute before the provincial synod, and in case one of them is the metropolitan himself, they shall bring it before the Exarch or the Bishop of Constantinople. If a village, etc., is raised to the position of a city by the Emperor, then the village church shall also be an episcopal church [cathedral], and have its own bishop; and as the newly founded city is now no longer a chapelry to its neighbour, but is immediately subjected to the civil metropolis of the province, so shall also the bishop of the new city be placed immediately under the ecclesiastical metropolitans of the province, and not under the bishop to whom the church previously belonged as a village church.” In the text of our canon two kinds of country parishes are distinguished, the ἀγροικικαὶ and the ἐγχώριοι. The Greek commentators say (l.c.) that by the former are meant only quite small chapelries with a few houses, but by the latter, actual villages.—On the subject of the privilege here conceded to the see of Constantinople, compare above the remarks on canon 9; on the principle that the ecclesiastical division is regulated by the civil, compare our remarks on canon 12 (above, p. 398 f.) and canon 28 (below, p. 410 ff.).

CAN. 18

Τὸ τῆς συνωμοσίας ἢ φρατρίας ἔγκλημα καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἔξω νόμων πάντη κεκώλυται• πολλῷ δὴ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦτο γίνεσθαι ἀπαγορεύειν προσήκει. Εἴ τινες τοίνυν ἢ κληρικοὶ ἢ μονάζοντες εὑρεθεῖεν συνομνύμενοι ἢ φρατριάζοντες, ἢ κατασκευὰς τυρεύοντες ἐπισκόποις ἢ συγκληρικοῖς, ἐκπιπτέτωσαν πάντη τοῦ οἰκείου βαθμοῦ.

“Secret unions and associations are forbidden even by the secular laws; and much more is it becoming that they should be forbidden in the Church of God. If, then, clerics or monks are found to conspire or to combine or to make intrigues against their bishops or their brother clerics, they shall certainly lose their office.”

Occasion for this canon was probably given by the conspiracy of some clergy of Edessa against their bishop, Ibas, of which we spoke before (p. 358). Gratian has twice inserted our canon partially, in c. 21 and 23, C. xi. q. 1.

CAN. 19

Ἦλθεν εἰς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἀκοὰς, ὡς ἐν ταῖς ἐπαρχίαις αἱ κεκανονισμένοι σύνοδοι τῶν ἐπισκόπων οὐ γίνονται, καὶ ἐκ τούτου πολλὰ παραμελεῖται τῶν διορθώσεως δεομένων ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων• ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος κατὰ τοὺς τῶν ἀγίων πατέρων κανόνας, δὶς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συντρέχειν καθʼ ἐκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τοὺς ἐπισκόπους, ἔνθα ἂν ὁ τῆς μητροπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος δοκιμάσῃ, καὶ διορθοῦν ἔκαστα τὰ ἀνακύπτοντα• τοὺς δὲ μὴ συνιόντας ἐπισκόπους ἐνδημοῦντας ταῖς ἐαυτῶν πόλεσι, καὶ ταῦτα ἐν ὑγιείᾳ διάγοντας, καὶ πάσης ἀπαραιτήτου καὶ ἀναγκαίας ἀσχολίας ὄντας ἐλευθέρους, ἀδελφικῶς ἐπιπλήττεσθαι.

“It has come to our ears that in the eparchies (provinces) the synods of bishops prescribed by the canons are not held, and therefore many ecclesiastical matters which need improvement are neglected. The holy Synod therefore decrees that, in accordance with the canons of the holy fathers, the bishops of each province shall assemble twice a year wherever it seems good to the metropolitan, and regulate all the cases which come before them. Those bishops who do not appear, but remain in their cities, and are in good health, and free from all unavoidable and necessary business, shall be fraternally punished.”

The Nicene Council had already, in its fifth canon, put forth the necessary regulations respecting the holding of provincial Synods, and to these the present Council in the canon before us simply refers. Gratian inserted it in c. 6, Dist. xviii.

CAN. 20

Κληρικοὺς εἰς ἐκκλησίαν τελοῦτας, καθὼς ἤδη ὡρίσαμεν, μὴ ἐξεῖναι εἰς ἄλλης πόλεως τάττεσθαι ἐκκλησίαν, ἀλλὰ στέργειν ἐκείνην ἐν ᾗ ἐξ ἀρχῆς λειτονργεῖν ἠξιώθησν, ἐκτὸς ἐκείνων οἵτινες ἀπολέσαντες τὰς ἰδίας πατρίδας ἀπὸ ἀνάγκης εἰς ἄλλην ἐκκλησίαν μετῆλθον. Εἰ δέ τις ἐπίσκοπος μετὰ τὸν ὅρον τοῦτον ἄλλῳ ἐπισκόπῳ προσήκοντα δέξεται κληρικὸν, ἔδοξεν ἀκοινώνητον εἶναι καὶ τὸν δεχθέντα καὶ τὸν δεξάμενον, ἕως ἂν ὁ μεταστὰς κληρικὸς εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπανέλθῃ ἐκκλησίαν.

“Clerics who serve in one church, as we have already ordered, must not be removed to the church of another city, but must remain attached to that church at which they were authorized to serve from the beginning, with the exception of those who had lost their home, and so have, from necessity, passed over to another church. If a bishop, in opposition to this ordinance, receives a cleric who belongs to another bishop, then he who is received, and he who receives him, shall be excluded from communion, until the deserting cleric has returned to his own church.”

In their 5th canon our Synod had already forbidden in general terms the translation of the clergy, but now they put forth a more detailed regulation on the subject, which is nothing but a verbal repetition of the third article previously proposed (Sess. vi.) by the Emperor Marcian.

Whether by the threatened “exclusion,” excommunication proper=anathema is to be understood, is doubtful. Van Espen thinks it means only, either that with such an one the other bishops are temporarily to break off intercourse, or that he shall be suspended from the exercise of his episcopal functions until he has sent back the cleric. The latter penalty, the suspension ab exercitio pontificalium, was by later Synods, particularly that of Trent, pronounced upon the bishop who ordained a stranger.

Similar prohibitions of removal from one church to another were given by the Synods of Nicæa (canons 15 and 16) and Sardica (canons 1 and 2), which should be compared (see vol. i. p. 422 f., and vol. ii. p. 109 ff.). In the Corpus jur. can. our canon stands as c. 4, Dist. lxxi.

CAN. 21

Κληρτκοὺς ἢ λαϊκοὺς κατηγοροῦντως ἐπισκόπων ἢ κληρικῶν, ἁπλῶς καὶ ἀδοκιμάστως μὴ προσδέχεσθαι, εἰ μὴ πρότερον ἐξετασθῇ αὐτῶν ἡ ὑπόληψις.

“Clerics or laymen who bring a complaint against bishops or clerics shall not be listened to without further evidence and inquiry, unless their testimony is first examined.”

A detailed regulation on this subject is given in vol. ii. p. 363 ff. [2d canon of Constantinople], which may be regarded as a commentary on our canon. The latter is found in the Corpus jur. can. as c. 49, C. ii. q. 7.

CAN. 22

Μὴ ἐξεῖναι κληρικοῖς μετὰ θάνατον τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου διαρπάζειν τὰ διαφέροντα αὐτῷ πράγματα, καθὼς καὶ τοῖς πάλαι κανόσιν ἀπηγόρευται• τοὺς δὲ τοῦτο ποιοῦντας κινδυνεύειν εἰς τοὺς ἰδίους βαθμούς.

“It is not allowed to clerics, after the death of their bishop, to appropriate to themselves the (private) property belonging to him, a thing which is forbidden by the ancient canons. Those who so act shall be in danger of losing their posts.”

The ancient canons which are here mentioned are the 40th (39th) Apostolic and the 24th Antiochene of A.D. 341. Cf. vol. i. p. 474 and vol. ii. p. 73. Instead of τοῖς πάλαι κανόσι, Zonaras and Balsamon read τοῖς παραλαμβάνουσιν, so that it gives the meaning: “as this is also forbidden to the metropolitans, who have for a time to take charge of that which is left by the deceased, and hold it by themselves (παραλαμβάνειν).” The incorrectness of this reading was shown by Beveridge, and Van Espen agreed with him. Dr. Nolte has, however, remarked (in a letter to me of August 7, 1874), that instead of the meaningless παραλαμβάνουσιν we should read: τοῖς προλαβοῦσιν, i.e., in anterioribus, jam prius editis canonibus. Gratian has inserted our canon as c. 43, C. xii. q. 2.

CAN. 23

Ἦλθεν εἰς τὰς ἀκοὰς τῆς ἁγίας Συνόδου, ὡς κληρικοί τινες καὶ μονάζοντες, μηδὲν ἐγκεχειρισμένοι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου, ἔστι δὲ ὅτε καὶ ἀκοινώνητοι γενόμενοι παρʼ αὐτοῦ, καταλαμβάνοντες τὴν βασιλεύουσαν Κωνσταντινούπολιν, ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐν αὐτῇ διατρίβουσι, ταραχὰς ἐμποιοῦντες καὶ θορυβοῦντες τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν κατάστασιν, ἀνατρέπουσί τε οἴκους τινῶν. Ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἀγὶα Σύνοδος, τοὺς τοιούτους ὑπομιμνήσκεσθαι μὲν πρότερον διὰ τοῦ ἐκδίκου τῆς κατἀ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας ἐπὶ τῷ ἐξελθεῖν τῆς βασιλευούσης πόλεως• εἰ δὲ τοῖς αὐτοῖς πράγμασιν ἐπιμένοιεν ἀναισχυντοῦντες, καὶ ἄκοντας αὐτοὺς διὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκδίκου ἐκβάλλεσθαι καὶ τοὺς ἰδίους καταλαμβάνειν τόπους.

“It has come to the ears of the holy Synod that certain clerics and monks, without having commission from their bishop, and even when excommunicated by him, have betaken themselves to the chief city, Constantinople, and remained there a long time, exciting disturbances and destroying ecclesiastical order, and disturbing private houses. The holy Synod therefore decrees that such shall first be admonished by the Ecdicus (advocate) of the most holy Church of Constantinople to leave the city; if, however, they shamelessly persist in the same line of conduct, they shall be expelled by the same Ecdicus, and shall return to their home.”—In Gratian, c. 17, C. xvi. q. 1.

CAN. 24

Τὰ ἅπαξ καθιερωθέντα μοναστήρια κατὰ γνώμην ἐπισκόπου μένειν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς μοναστήρια, καὶ τὰ προσήκοντα αὐτοῖς πράγματα φυλάττεσθαι τῷ μοναστηρίῳ, καὶ μηκέτι δύνασθαι γίνεσθαι ταῦτα κοσμικὰ καταγώγια• τοὺς δὲ συγχωροῦντας τοῦτο γενέσθαι, ὑποκεῖσθαι τοῖς ἐκ τῶν κανόνων ἐπιτιμίοις.

“Convents once consecrated by the will of the bishop shall always remain convents, and the goods belonging to them shall be kept for the convent. The convents must not again become secular dwellings. Whoever allows their being again changed into such shall be subject to the canonical penalties.”

That convents should not be erected without the consent of the bishops, our Synod ordered in its 4th canon. It now forbids the secularization of the already existing convents, and threatens those who do this with the penalties appointed by the canons.—As, however, no older canon is known which specially treats of this kind of offence, we must suppose that the expression “canonical penalties” is identical with “ecclesiastical penalties.”—In Gratian, c. 4, C. xix. q. 3.

CAN. 25

Ἐπειδὴ δέ τινες τῶν μητροπολιτῶν, ὡς περιηχήθημεν, ἀμελοῦσι τῶν ἐγκεχειρισμένων αὐτοῖς ποιμνίων καὶ ἀναβάλλονται τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν ἐπισκόπων, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγιᾳ Συνόδῳ ἐντὸς τριῶν μηνῶν γίνεσθαι τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν ἐπισκόπων, εἰ μή ποτε ἄρα ἀπαραίτητος ἀνάγκη παρασκευάσῃ ἐπιταθῆναι τὸν τῆς ἀναβολῆς χρόνον• εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο ποιήσῃ, ὑποκεῖσθαι αὐτὸν ἐκκλησιαστικῷ ἐπιτιμίῳ• τὴν μέντοι πρόσοδον τῆς χηρευούσης ἐκκλησίας σώαν φυλάττεσθαι παρὰ τῷ οἰκονόμῳ τῆς ἐκκλησίας.

“As, according to what we have heard, certain metropolitans neglect the flocks committed to them, and put off the consecrations of bishops, the Synod decrees that the consecrations of bishops must be celebrated within three months, unless an unavoidable necessity occasions the prolongation of the time. If a metropolitan acts otherwise, he shall be subject to the canonical penalty. The revenues of the endowed Church shall be preserved undiminished by the steward of the Church.”

Here, too, the expression “canonical penalty” must be taken with the same general meaning as in the former canon, since no older canon specially treats of the manner in which a metropolitan who postpones the consecration of a suffragan is to be punished.—The three months, however, within which the new consecration is to take place, are, according to the meaning of our canon, to be reckoned from the day of the vacancy. Something similar to this regulation of our Synod is that of the Council of Trent, Sess. xxiii. c. 2, De Reform., that the elected bishops shall within three months (of the papal confirmation) present themselves for consecration. If they do not, they must restore the income which they have already enjoyed; and if they do not have themselves consecrated within six months, they lose the bishopric.—The Council of Trent, however, threatens only those who are to be consecrated, and not also the metropolitans, because for a long time many of the former had been accustomed to put off the reception of consecration, while the metropolitans did not delay the bestowal of it. Finally, the Tridentine Council made regulations similar to those of the canon before us in reference to the income of a diocese during a vacancy, in Sess. xxiv. c. 16, De Reform.—In the Corpus jur. can. the ordinance of Chalcedon appears as c. 2, Dist. lxxv.

CAN. 26

Ἐπειδὴ ἔν τισιν ἐκκλησίαις, ὡς περιηχήθημεν, δίχα οἰκονόμων οἱ ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ χειρίζουσι πράγματα, ἔδοξε πᾶσαν ἐκκλησίαν ἐπίσκοπον ἔχουσαν καὶ οἰκονόμον ἔχειν ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου κλήρου, οἰκονομοῦντα τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου• ὥστε μὴ ἀμάρτυρον εἶναι τὴν οἰκονομίαν τῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ ἐκ τούτου τὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας σκορπίζεσθαι πράγματα, καὶ λοιδορίαν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ προστρίβεσθαι• εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο ποιήσῃ, ὑποκεῖσθαι αὐτὸν τοῖς θείοις κανόσι.

“As, according to what we have heard, in some churches the bishops administer the property of the Church without stewards, the Synod decrees, that every church which has a bishop must also have a steward from its own clergy, who shall administer the property of the Church by commission from his bishop; so that the administration of the Church may not be uncontrolled, and thereby the property of the Church exposed to waste, and the clerical character exposed to evil fame.”

The subject of ecclesiastical œconomi of ancient times is fully treated in the remarks of Beveridge and Van Espen upon our canon; further, by Binterim, Thomassin, and Hergenröther.—The Corpus jur. can. has our canon twice, c. 21, C. xvi. q. 7, and c. 4, Dist. lxxix.

CAN. 27

Τοὺς ἁρπάζοντας γυναῖκας καὶ ἐπʼ ὀνόματι συνοικεσίον, ἢ συμπράττοντας ἤ συναινοῦντας τοῖς ἁρπάζουσιν, ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία Σύνοδος, εἰ μὲν κληρικοὶ εἶεν, ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ οἰκείου βαθμοῦ, εἰ δὲ λαϊκοὶ, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι αὐτούς.

“In regard to those who carry off women, even when it is done that they may live with (marry) them, further, in regard to those who assist those who carry them off, and approve of their action, the holy Synod decrees, that, if they are clerics, they shall lose their office, and, if they are laymen, they shall be anathematized.”—Cf. Corpus jur. can. c. 1, C. xxxvi. q. 2.

CAN. 28

Πανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι, καὶ τὸν ἀρτίως ἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλεστάτων ἐπισκόπων γνωρίζοντες, τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομεν καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας τῆς αὐτῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ῥώμης. Καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα, καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ κινούμενοι οἱ ἑκατὸν πεντήκοντα θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἶσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσαν πόλιν, καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πρὰγμασι, δευτέραν μετʼ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν, καὶ ὥστε τοὺς τῆς Ποντικῆς καὶ τῆς Ἀσιανῆς καὶ τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ἀγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας, δηγαδὴ ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων μετὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπους, καθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανίσι διηγόρευταν• χειροτονεῖσθαι δὲ, καθὼς εἴρηται, τοὺς μητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κω̇νσταντινουπόλεως ἀρχιεπισκόπου, ψηφιομὰτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γενομένων, καὶ ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ἀναφερομένων.

“As in all things we follow the ordinances of the holy fathers, and know the recently read canon of the 150 bishops (at the second Œcumenical Synod), so do we decree the same in regard to the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople (= New Rome). Rightly have the fathers conceded to the see of Old Rome its privileges on account of its character as the imperial city, and moved by the same considerations the 150 bishops have awarded the like privileges to the most holy see of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and the senate (that is, where the Emperor and the senate reside), and which (in a civil respect) enjoys the same privileges as the ancient imperial city, should also in its ecclesiastical relations be exalted, and hold the second place after that. And (we decree) that for the dioceses of Pontus, Asia (Proconsularis), and Thrace, only the metropolitans, but in those of the neighbourhoods of the dioceses named which are inhabited by barbarians, also the (ordinary) bishops, shall be consecrated from the holy see of the Church of Constantinople; while, naturally, each metropolitan in the dioceses named shall, in union with the bishops of the eparchy, consecrate the new bishops of those dioceses, as it is ordered in the holy canons. The metropolitans of the dioceses named shall, however, as has been said, be consecrated by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after their election has been first unanimously agreed upon in the customary manner, and the election has been made known to the Bishop of Constantinople.”

Since Constantinople had been made the imperial residence and second capital of the empire by the Emperor Constantine the Great, and had received the title of New Rome, the bishops of that city had begun to make the attempt to elevate their rank, and to obtain an equal position with the Roman bishop. They gained a foundation for this in the principle which had become a rule with the Greeks, that the ecclesiastical rank of a bishopric should be regulated in accordance with the civil rank of its city (cf. canon 9 of the Synod of Antioch of A.D. 341, vol. ii. p. 69). This principle had in the Greek Church been carried into practice without opposition, and the Synod of Chalcedon had no hesitation in expressing it nakedly in the 17th canon, and in that which is now before us. It also evidently had the same principle as the foundation of a previous regulation (canon 12). Consequently it also says that even Old Rome had received its privileged ecclesiastical position, and the fathers had bestowed this upon it, on account of its character as chief city. The latter is evidently quite unhistorical, for if any one had been able, in the course of time, to grant for the first time its prerogatives to the Roman see, this would have been possible only to an Œcumenical Synod, as the see of Constantinople was able to receive its privileges only through two Œcumenical Synods. But the first Œcumenical Council of Nicæa did not first establish the ecclesiastical rank of Rome, but simply recognized it, as its 6th canon shows (vol. i. p. 388 ff.), and as the whole of ancient Church history testifies.

But the other assertion, too, that the ecclesiastical rank of a city had always been regulated by its civil rank, and must always be regulated in accordance with this, was rightly contested and opposed by Pope Leo the Great (Ep. 104, n. 3): “There is a difference,” he says, “between the secular and ecclesiastical order (alia tamen ratio est rerum sœcularium, alia divinarum), and it is the apostolical origin of a church, its being founded by an apostle, which gives it a right to a higher hierarchical rank.” The apostles had certainly founded the first churches in the greatest and most distinguished cities because those natural centres of intercourse must necessarily serve as a useful substratum for the more rapid extension of Christianity, and thus it came to pass, as a matter of fact, that in ancient times the cities having civil metropolitan rank were also the ecclesiastical capitals. But the real origin of the hierarchical rank was not the civil quality of the city, but the high antiquity and the apostolic origin of its church. This was strikingly expressed by S. Cyprian. Rome is to him the ecclesia principalis and the centre of unity, unde unitas sacerdolalis exorta est, because it is the Cathedra Petri (Ep. 52, p. 86, ed. Rig.). To the same effect the Council of Sardica says: Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si ad caput, i.e. ad Petri sedem de singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant sacerdotes. The same principle is set forth by S. Augustine: Dominus fundamenta ecclesiæ in apostolicis sedibus collocavit, and every church must have its position from the radices apostolicarum sedium. So Pope Pelagius I. expresses the principle of Augustine, Ad Episcopos Tusciæ, a. 556. Further, S. Augustine, in his 43d Epistle (§ 7, alias Ep. 162), speaks of the precedence of the apostolic Churches, and exclaims to Petilian: Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiæ Romanæ, in qua Petrus sedit, et in qua hodie Anastasius sedet; vel ecclesiæ Hierosolymitanæ in qua Jacobus sedit, et in qua hodie Joannes sedet? In agreement with this Pope Leo the Great, in his letter to the Emperor Marcian, says: “Anatolius of Constantinople must be satisfied to be bishop of the imperial residence city, he cannot make it an apostolic see.” In another letter (Ep. 106) he derives the rank of Alexandria from the Evangelist Mark, that of Antioch from the Apostle Peter. In the 104th Epistle, already quoted, Pope Leo also acknowledges the other element, namely, that the privilegia ecclesiarum are instituta by the canones sanctorum patrum, and specially brings forward the fact that the Synod of Nicæa has settled them.

The effort of the bishops of Constantinople to reach a higher rank obtained its first successful result by means of the second Œcumenical Synod (see vol. ii. p. 357 f). This Council held itself bound to confirm in its 2d canon the privileges of the great superior metropolitans approved at Nicæa, and particularly to the Church of Alexandria the primacy in Egypt, to the Church of Antioch the primacy in the East, to the Church of Ephesus the primacy in Asia proconsularis, to the Church of Cæsarea that in Pontus. In the same way this canon speaks of the diocese of Thrace, but tacite already regards Constantinople as the ecclesiastical capital of Thrace, instead of the previous metropolis, Heraclea, and in canon 3 takes the further step of giving to this new exarchal see the rank immediately after that of Rome, and thus violates the rights of precedence belonging to Alexandria and Antioch, which had been guaranteed at Nicæa.

Quesnel maintains that the Roman legates at the Council of Chalcedon had formally recognized these new prerogatives of Constantinople, namely, its rank immediately after Rome. When, in the first session of Chalcedon, the Acts of the Robber-Synod were read, it was found that the deceased Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople was there mentioned only quinto loco. At this discovery the Oriental bishops exclaimed: “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” And the papal legate Paschasinus remarked upon this: “We will, please God, recognize the present Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first (after us), but Dioscurus made Flavian the fifth.”

We concede that the words of Paschasinus seem to contain a recognition (although not express) of the 3d canon of Constantinople; but, on the other hand, it is to be observed that the second apostolic legate, Lucentius, in the sixteenth session of Chalcedon, declared most definitely that the regulation on the subject by the 150 bishops at Constantinople, which eighty years before had been put forth in opposition to the Nicene decree, had not been admitted into the collection of canons (received at Rome). The like was maintained by Pope Leo the Great in his 106th letter to Anatolius: “That document of certain bishops (i.e. the 3d canon of the Council of the year 381) has never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the apostolic see” (cf. vol. ii. p. 371). In another place (Ep. 105 to Pulcheria) he says: “To this concession (of the 150 bishops) a long course of years has given no effect,” and by this he means that Rome and the West have not recognized it, for that the 3d canon of Constantinople had passed into practice in the East, the Pope was certainly not unaware.

Having these important utterances in view, we cannot possibly see, in the words of Paschasinus adduced by Quesnel, a formal recognition of the 3d canon of Constantinople; but we may venture to assert that the papal legate was able to concede to Anatolius of Constantiuople, without difficulty, the first rank and seat (after Rome) among the voters at Chalcedon, because (a) the Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscurus (as well as Juvenal of Jerusalem), was in the position of one accused; and (b) in regard to Antioch, it was doubtful whether Maximus or Domnus was the legitimate bishop.

But although Rome and the West had not acknowledged the 3d canon of the second Œcumenical Synod, the precedence of the Bishop of Constantinople in the East had passed into use, and so early as 394 Nectarius of Constantinople presided, without any opposition, at a Synod, at which the Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria and Flavian of Antioch were present (see vol. ii. p. 406). So Sisinnius of Constantinople presided at a Council in the year 426, at which Theodotus of Antioch was also present (see vol. ii. p. 482). But the bishops of Constantinople were not yet satisfied with the privilege conceded to them by the second Synod, but, on the contrary, had endeavoured, in the course of time, to enlarge it in various ways. The first opportunity for this was given by the circumstance that, in spite of the prohibition of Sardica (see vol. ii. pp. 135 ff., 157 f.), almost continually bishops came from all parts of the empire to Constantinople, in order to present this or that concern, or some complaint or other, before the Emperor. Either the Emperor decided the matter himself, but generally after taking counsel with the bishop of his residence, or else he directed the parties to the bishop and his Synod (cf. above, p. 396). This was the often mentioned and specially assembled σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα, a σύνοδος of the bishops present at the time in the city (ἐνδημούντων), from the most different neighbourhoods, at which the Bishop of Constantinople presided. This Synod, among other things, not unfrequently decided controversies between bishops and metropolitans, which belonged entirely to other patriarchates, as, for example, that Synod of the year 448, at which Flavian of Constantinople punished Eutyches with anathema (see p. 189 f.). This encroachment, although not sanctioned by the canons, had yet, by the consent of the parties, become a kind of privilege or customary right. To this the following was added: The high consideration in which the bishop of the residence stood, and his influence at Court, brought it about that in important cases he was invited to Synods and the like even outside the exarchate of Thrace, when it was sought by his presence to avoid controversies which threatened in connection with the election of a new bishop, or to decide an election which had become contested, and to depose illegitimate or unworthy bishops. Such invitations were permitted according to the 2d canon of the second Œcumenical Council. In such cases he naturally had the presidency, and, in particular, the consecration of newly-elected bishops was willingly left to him, in order by that means to have a powerful assistant against any opponents that might arise.

Even in the second year after the holding of the second Œcumenical Synod, we see how Nectarius of Constantinople, in the year 383, pronounced the sentence in the business of a bishop in Cappadocia, who, however, belonged to the exarchate of Cæsarea; and it was to the same Nectarius that S. Ambrose applied, in order to procure the deposition of Gerontius, who had left the Church of Milan and had himself consecrated bishop of Nicomedia. That which was already existing in the time of S. Chrysostom was shaped more definitely by him, so that Theodoret says of him that he ruled the three dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, with twenty-eight provinces. In particular, he held, in the year 400, at Constantinople a σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα for the deposition of the Exarch Antonine of Ephesus, and presided in the same year over a Synod at Ephesus, which deposed six Asiatic bishops for simony, and raised Heraclides to the bishopric of Ephesus. That he also consecrated as Bishop of Ephesus that Memnon who is so famous in the history of the third Œcumenical Synod, and also took charge of the filling up of the episcopal sees in Bithynia, we have already seen (see pp. 374, 377, 379). In this way he had practically exercised patriarchal rights over the exarchate of Asia Proconsularis and over Bithynia which lay nearer to him. That Atticus, the second successor of S. Chrysostom, procured a special imperial law, according to which he alone had power to officiate at ordinations even beyond the limits of Thrace, we learn from Socrates (vii. 28), from the occasion of the election of a bishop for the metropolitan see of Cyzicus which belonged to the exarchate of Asia. The same Church historian informs us (vii. 48) that in the year 439, after the death of Bishop Firmus of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, the clergy of this city petitioned Archbishop Proclus of Constantinople, the predecessor of Flavian, for the appointment of a new bishop, and that he then elected and consecrated Thalassius, hitherto prefect of Illyria. This is the same Thalassius whom we have so often met. So also Proclus of Constantinople consecrated Basil as Bishop of Ephesus (see above, p. 375). Both facts show that the Bishop of Constantinople had now extended his spiritual jurisdiction over the exarchates of Pontus and Asia as well. Some further facts were mentioned in the sixteenth session which followed (see below).

These extensions of power on the part of the see of Constantinople were certainly to some extent opposed. Particularly it was made a reproach to S. Chrysostom, and it was included among the charges brought against him, that, in opposition to the canons, he had interfered with foreign dioceses. The inhabitants of Cyzicus refused to accept the bishop whom Sisinnius of Constantinople had given to them. (This bishop was the same Proclus who was afterwards Bishop of Constantinople, and whom we have often met, see p. 14.)—But these cases were too much isolated to avail in restraining the efforts of Constantinople, and, in particular, the present occupant of the see, Anatolius, had ventured to appoint Maximus as Bishop of Antioch, in the place of Domnus, who had been deposed at the Robber-Synod, and thus to assume rights of supremacy over this ancient and famous patriarchal see. It was only from love of peace, Pope Leo the Great said (Ep. 104), that he had not quashed this illegal election. He knew quite well that Anatolius was bent upon the extension of his power, and therefore, when his legates departed for the East he charged them, in case any of the bishops, taking their ground upon the importance of their episcopal cities, should endeavour to assume new powers to themselves, that they should resist this vehemently (see above, p. 283). At Chalcedon, too, on several occasions, discontent was expressed at the pretensions of Constantinople, thus at the end of the fourth session, when the decree of Anatolius and his σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα in regard to Bishop Photius of Tyre was rescinded (see above, p. 341 f.). Moreover, in the eleventh session the bishops of the Asiatic exarchate urgently entreated that, in future, the Bishop of Ephesus should no longer be consecrated from Constantinople (see above, p. 375); and at the close of the thirteenth session the desire of Constantinople was not complied with (see above, p. 379).

Notwithstanding this, Anatolius, at the fifteenth session, urged the passing of the 28th canon with success, inasmuch as most of the Greek and Oriental bishops were practically dependent upon him, or did not venture to offer decided opposition, and also because the Emperor supported the views and the plan of the bishop of the imperial residence. From the bishops of the most distinguished sees, with the exception of Rome, Anatolius had no opposition whatever to apprehend; Alexandria and Ephesus were not occupied, Maximus of Antioch was a creature of Anatolius, and even Juvenal of Jerusalem was under obligations to him, as he had assisted him to gain the three provinces of Palestine (see p. 382). The Primate of Heraclean Thrace was absent, and was represented by Lucian of Byzia, a friend of Anatolius; Thalassius of Cæsarea, on the other hand, did not subscribe the 28th canon, and seems, in the short but unintelligible vote which he gave in the sixteenth session, to have held decidedly neither with Constantinople nor with Rome, but rather to have suggested a compromise.

A kind of introduction or pioneer to the 28th canon was formed by canons 9 and 17, which already ascribed extraordinary powers to the Bishop of Constantinople, which, however, find their true explanation in this, that the σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα at Constantinople had already for some time in practice formed a court of judgment for the controversies of bishops, to the disregard of their own exarchs. It is also clear that canon 28 falls of itself into two parts. In the first it only repeats and confirms the 3d canon of Constantinople; but in its second part it goes far beyond this, and sanctions that which, particularly since the days of Chrysostom, had been the practice, namely, that outside the diocese of Thrace the previously independent dioceses of Pontus and Asia should be subject to the Bishop of Constantinople. Yet it was the metropolitans alone, and not also the ordinary bishops of these dioceses (as was often the case, see below, pp. 426, 428, note
and 432), who had to receive their consecration from Constantinople. The strong opposition which was offered to this canon in the following session by the Roman legates, and afterwards still more by Pope Leo the Great (as we shall shortly see), occasioned its not being received into many copies of the minutes of Chalcedon, or into many not merely Latin, but also Greek and Arabic collections of canons, so that in these only twenty-seven canons were preserved, since the two following numbers also, 29 and 30, but for other reasons, were lacking in them. Thus the Latin collections of Dionysius Exiguus and Isidore, as well as the Prisca, the Greek by John of Antioch (cf. vol. i. p. 450), and the Arabic by Josephus Ægyptius, give only twenty-seven canons of Chalcedon.

On the 28th canon of Chalcedon, cf. Hergenröther, Photius, Bd. i. S. 74 ff., and Moy’s Archiv etc., Heft 4, S. 142 f.

CAN. 29

Ἐπίσκοπον εἰς πρεσβυτέρου βαθμὸν φέρειν, ἱεροσυλία ἐστίν. Εἰ δὲ αἰτία τις δικαία ἐκείνους ἀπὸ τῆς πράξεως τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀποκινεῖ, οὐδὲ πρεσβυτέρου τόπον κατέχειν ὀφείλουσιν• εἰ δὲ ἐκτός τινος ἐγκλήματος ἀπεκινήθησαν τοῦ ἀξιώματος, πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἀξίαν ἐπαναστρέψουσιν.

Ἀνατόλιος ὁ εὐλαβέστατος ἀρχιεπίσκοπος Κωνσταντινουπόλεως εἶπεν• Οὗτοι οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐπισκοπικῆς ἀξίας εἰς τὴν τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου τάξιν κατεληλυθέναι, εἰ μὲν ἀπὸ εὐλόγων τινῶν αἰτιῶν καταδικάζονται, εἰκότως οὐδὲ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου ἐντὸς ἄξιοι τυγχάνουσιν εἶναι τιμῆς; εἰ δὲ δίχα τινὸς αἰτίας εὐλόγου εἰς τὸν ἥττονα κατεβιβάσθησαν βαθμὸν, δίκαιοι τυγχάνουσιν, εἴγε ἀνεύθυνοι φανεῖεν, τὴν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς ἐπαναλαβεῖν ἀξίαν τε καὶ ἱερωσύνην.

“To degrade a bishop to the position of a presbyter is sacrilege. If, however, there is just cause for such being removed from the exercise of the episcopal office, then they shall no longer occupy the place of a priest; if, on the other hand, they are removed from the office without fault, then they shall return again to the episcopal dignity.”

Anatolius, the pious bishop of Constantinople, said: “Those of whom it is said that they have been degraded from the episcopal dignity to the position of a priest, if they have been condemned for sufficient reasons, are evidently no longer worthy of the honour of being priests. If, however, they have been degraded to the lower position without sufficient reason, then justice requires that, if they appear guiltless, they shall again receive the dignity and the holy office of the episcopate.”

This so-called canon is nothing but a verbal copy of a passage from the minutes of the fourth session in the matter of Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus. Moreover, it does not possess the peculiar form which we find in all the genuine canons of Chalcedon, and in almost all ecclesiastical canons in general; on the contrary, there adheres to it a portion of the debate, of which it is a fragment, in which Anatolius is introduced as speaking. Besides, it is wanting in all the old Greek, as well as in the Latin collections of canons, and in those of John of Antioch and of Photius, and has only been appended to the twenty-eight genuine canons of Chalcedon from the fact that a later transcriber thought fit to add to the genuine canons the general and important principle contained in the place in question of the fourth session. Accordingly, this so-called canon is certainly an ecclesiastical rule declared at Chalcedon, and in so far a κανών, but it was not added as a canon proper to the other twenty-eight by the Synod.

CAN. 30

Ἐπειδὴ οἱ εὐλαβέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τῆς Αἰγύπτου, οὐχ ὡς μαχόμενοι τῇ καθολικῇ πίστει, ὑπογράψαι τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τοῦ ὁσιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Λέοντος ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἀνεβάλλοντο, ἀλλὰ φάσκοντες, ἔθος εἶναι ἐν τῇ Αἰγυπτιακῇ διοικήσει, παρὰ γνώμην καὶ διατύπωσιν τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου μηδὲν τοιοῦτο ποιεῖν, καὶ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐνδοθῆναι αὐτοῖς ἄχρι τῆς χειροτονίας τοῦ ἐσομένου τῆς τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων μεγαλοπόλεως ἀρχιεπισκόπου• εὔλογον ἡμῖν ἐφάνη καὶ φιλάνθρωπον, ὥστε αὐτοῖς μένουσιν ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκείου σχήματος ἐν τῇ βασιλευούσῃ πόλει ἔνδοσιν παρασχεθῆναι, ἄχρις ἄν χειροτονηθῇ ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, ὅθεν μένοντες ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκείου σχήματος ἢ ἐγγύας παρέξουσιν, εἰ τοῦτο αὐτοῖς δυνατὸν, ἢ ἐξωμοσίᾳ καταπιστευθήσονται.

“As the bishops of Egypt have hitherto deferred subscribing the letter of the holy Archbishop Leo, not as from opposition to the Catholic faith, but because they say it is the custom to do nothing of this kind in the Egyptian diocese without the consent and order of the Archbishop (of Alexandria), and have asked for delay until the election of the future bishop of Alexandria, we hold it reasonable and in accordance with Christian love that they should be allowed to remain in their present position (that is, without any ecclesiastical penalty being suspended over them) at Constantinople, and wait until the Archbishop of Alexandria is consecrated, so as they either give pledges for their remaining, or take an oath that they will not go away.”

This paragraph, like the previous one, is not a proper canon, but a verbal repetition of a proposal made in the fourth session by the imperial commissioners, improved by the legate Paschasinus, and approved by the Synod. Moreover, this so-called canon is not found in the ancient collections, and was probably added to the twenty-eight canons in the same manner and for the same reasons as the preceding.

SEC. 201. Sixteenth and last Session, November 1, 451

As already remarked, the 28th canon gave occasion for the holding of a new session, the sixteenth, which took place on the 1st of November 451. The Greek manuscripts, it is true, give another date (v. Kal. Nov.), but from the minutes of the session, particularly from the words of the papal legate, it unmistakeably comes out that it was solemnized one day later than that (fourteenth) session respecting Bishop Sabinian of Perrha etc., after the close of which the papal legates had departed (p. 383), while the other members remained to draw up the twenty-eight canons.

In the sixteenth session the papal legates first of all asked permission to be allowed to make a statement; and after the imperial commissioners, of whom again only Anatolius, Palladius, and Vincomalus were present, gave their consent, Paschasinus spoke as follows:—

“The Emperors have not merely shown anxiety for the faith, they have besides had a care that the controversies among the bishops, the schisms and offences, should cease. Yesterday, however, after your highnesses (the imperial commissioners) and our insignificance had departed, something was decreed, which in our view is contrary to the canons and to ecclesiastical order. We request that this be now read.”

The commissioners immediately ordered that this should be done, and Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople remarked that it was customary in Synods that, after the principal subjects were discharged, anything else that was necessary might be discussed and established. Now, the Church of Constantinople had another subject needing to be settled, and the Roman legates had been requested to take part in the transactions relating to it, but they had refused to do so, declaring that they had no commission for this. The imperial commissioners, on the contrary, had commanded the Synod to take the matter into their consideration. After their departure all the bishops had risen and had demanded this discussion, which had taken place, not secretly or stealthily, but in an orderly and canonical manner. The consistorial secretary, Beronicianus, then read the 28th canon, which was subscribed by about two hundred bishops, and by some also in the name of several colleagues. Of the members of the Synod who had hitherto appeared in the minutes, only about one half had subscribed, and, in particular, the Exarch Thalassius of Cæsarea was wanting, although he stood in high favour at Constantinople, and had been raised to the episcopate, as we know, by Proclus. Further were wanting Anastasius of Thessalonica, Eusebius of Ancyra, Peter of Corinth, Eunomius of Nicomedia, Julian of Cos, Olympius of Constantia, Onesiphorus of Iconium, and other highly distinguished metropolitans and bishops, particularly the Illyrians.

After the reading was finished, the legate Lucentius gave expression to the suspicion that many bishops had been tricked or forced into subscribing the canons which had been mentioned, and which were hitherto unknown (non conscriptis). As he speaks in the plural of canons, he shows that it was not the 28th canon alone which was drawn up in the fifteenth session. His expressions, too, are differently given in the Greek text from those in the Latin translation, and Mansi suggests, in a marginal note, that the latter was derived from a better text. It is not quite clear what Lucentius meant by the expression NON CONSCRIPTIS canonibus subscribere. In the Greek text there is nothing corresponding to the non conscriptis. As soon as his expression was interpreted by Beronicianus in Greek, the bishops exclaimed: “No one was forced.” But Lucentius continued: “Besides, it is clear that the ordinances of the 318 bishops at Nicæa have been set aside, and that those of the 150 have been followed, which have not been received into the number of the synodal canons (and which were put forth only eighty years ago). If the bishops of Constantinople have, since that time, exercised these privileges, why are they now demanded? They have, however, not possessed them in accordance with the canons.” Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, wished that the papal legates, if they had any instructions on this point, should communicate them, and the third of them, the presbyter Boniface, now read from a document (see above, p. 283) the words: “The decision of the holy fathers (at Nicæa) you must not allow to be violated, and you must in all ways preserve and defend my prerogative in your person. And if any, taking their stand on the importance of their cities, should endeavour to arrogate anything to themselves, you must resist this with all decision.”

The imperial commissioners requested both parties to bring forward the ecclesiastical laws upon which they based their position. The legate Paschasinus then read from his copy the 6th Nicene canon in connection with the 7th, in a form which departs from the genuine Greek text (vol. i. p. 388), in one point in a very remarkable manner (since it ascribes the primacy to the bishop of Rome, cf. vol. i. p. 401 f.); but in that part with respect to which there is here question, namely, in reference to the rights of Alexandria and Antioch,—in opposition to Constantinople,—it was quite correct.

According to the synodal Acts, as we now possess them, the consistorial secretary, Constantine, next read from a Greek manuscript, which Archdeacon Aetius gave him, the same 6th Nicene canon, and immediately afterwards the first three canons of the second Œcumenical Synod. The Ballerini have, however, made it probable that a later insertion is here before us, and that a transcriber, when he remarked the difference between the Greek text of the 6th Nicene canon and the Latin text of the legates, had inserted the former for comparison, and that at Chalcedon the consistorial secretary, Constantine, had read from the manuscript of Aetius only the first three canons of Constantinople, since only these could be adduced for the object of the Synod, whilst the 6th canon of Nicæa had pronounced against it, that is, against the raising of the rank of the see of Constantinople.

This suggestion the Ballerini have further supported by an old Latin version of the passage relating to the sixteenth session, and have also pointed out that the Synod of Constantinople could hardly have been designated as δευτέρα σύνοδος, as it is called in the contested passages.

We add further: If the Greek text of the 6th Nicene canon had been opposed at Chalcedon to the corrupt Latin text which the legates read, on purpose and in order to prove its corruption, it certainly was very remarkable that not the least remark was made on the relation of the two texts. Without indicating the slightest doubt respecting the Latin text, the imperial commissioners requested the bishops of Pontus and Asia, who had subscribed the 28th canon of Chalcedon, to make a solemn declaration whether they had done so freely, that is, whether they had voluntarily subjected themselves to the see of Constantinople, and Diogenes of Cyzicus, Florentius of Sardis, Romanus of Myra, Calogerus of Claudiopolis, Seleucus of Amasia, Eleutherius of Chalcedon, Peter of Gangra, Nunechius of Laodicea, Marinianus of Synnada, Pergamius of Antioch in Pisidia, Critonianus of Aphrodisias, Eusebius of Dorylæum, Antiochus of Sinope, and others asserted, each of those mentioned by name in a short speech, that they had subscribed willingly and freely. Seleucus of Amasia and Peter of Gangra, in particular, declared that three of their predecessors had already been ordained from Constantinople; and Eusebius of Dorylæum asserted, that “when he had been at Rome (see above, p. 271), he had read to the Pope the canon of Constantinople in question, and he had accepted it.”—That his reference here was at least inexact there is no doubt; for Pope Leo asserts too frequently that he had never assented to that canon, and had never received it among the approved laws of the Church. It is, however, possible, that when Eusebius read it to him he made no unfavourable remark at the moment, and the other may have misinterpreted his silence.

Those bishops of Asia and Pontus who had not signed the 28th canon were next called upon to express their opinion. Eusebius of Ancyra replied, and alleged, with reference to facts, that he had never put himself forward to undertake ordinations, but that he had been repeatedly requested by the inhabitants of Gangra to undertake one, and that his predecessors, too, had ordained several bishops of Gangra. At the same time, he admitted that Proclus of Constantinople had also consecrated a bishop for Gangra, and further, that the present bishop of that city, Peter, had been ordained at Constantinople, because he (Eusebius) had withdrawn his claim to ordain. By this he had shown that he had no wish to usurp the power of consecrating other bishops. Further, he only wished that every ordination might be gratuitous, for he had himself been obliged, on entering upon his office, to take over a great debt which had come down from the consecration of his predecessor.—On the reply of Philip, a priest of Constantinople, that these payments had now been done away with at Constantinople by Anatolius, Eusebius of Ancyra remarked that “Anatolius might die, and then another practice might be again introduced;” and to a further question, added the avowal that he had himself been ordained by Proclus of Constantinople. He said “unfortunately,” because he regretted that he had received the episcopal dignity. The special question, why he had not subscribed the 28th canon, he did not answer at all; but it is clear from his speech that he did not contest the right of Constantinople to confer ordination so extensively, but would not positively approve of it.

Thalassius, Exarch of Pontus, spoke next, but did not explain even by one syllable why he had not subscribed the 28th canon, but spoke only the few words, that “it was best to meet with Anatolius and arrange the matter.” He apparently meant to say that the relation of the bishops of Pontus and Asia to the see of Constantinople should be arranged by agreement.

Without agreeing to this suggestion, the imperial commissioners summed up: “From all that has been discussed and brought forward from every side, we perceive that the first right of all (τρὸ πάντων τὰ πρωτεῖα) and the chief rank of honour (καὶ τὴν ἐξαίρετον τιμήν) is to be accorded to the Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of New Rome must enjoy the same prerogatives of honour (τῶν αὐτῶν πρεσβείων τῆς τιμῆς), and have the right to ordain the metropolitans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in this manner, that each of them should be either unanimously or by a plurality of votes elected by the clergy of the metropolis and the most distinguished men of the city and the bishops of the province, and should be presented to the Archbishop of Constantinople, so that he, if he so willed, should summon him to Constantinople and there consecrate him, or at his discretion should leave the consecration to the bishops of the eparchy. The bishops of the common towns, however, should be consecrated by all the bishops of the eparchy, or at least by the majority of them, since the metropolitan by the old canons has a right to this, without the Archbishop of Constantinople having to take part in these ordinations. So we understand the matter. The Synod shall now say whether this is its opinion.” The bishops exclaimed: “This is the right view; so say we all; we all so will it; that is the right judgment which is decreed; this shall prevail; we pray dismiss us. Prosperity to the Emperors! Dismiss us; we all abide by this declaration; we all say this.”

The papal legate Lucentius, on the contrary, declared: “The apostolic see has ordered that everything (at the Synod) shall be discussed in our presence. If, then, anything contrary to the canons was done yesterday in our absence, we pray your highnesses (the commissioners) to annul it. If not, yet our protest must be entered in these Acts, so that we may know what we have to inform the apostolic bishop who presides over the whole Church, so that he may take some resolution upon the wrong done to his own see, or upon the violation of the canons.”—These words were received into the minutes, and the commissioners closed the business with the words: “What we previously proposed, the whole Synod has agreed to;” that is, the prerogative assigned to the Church of Constantinople is, in spite of the opposition of the Roman legate, decreed by the Synod.

Thus ended the Council of Chalcedon, after it had lasted three weeks. What was the subsequent attitude of Rome towards it we shall see hereafter.

SEC. 202. The Title: Œcumenical Patriarch

Pope Gregory the Great and Leo IX. refer to the fact that the Synod of Chalcedon offered Pope Leo I. the title of “Œcumenical Patriarch,” but that he, like all his successors, refused this unsuitable designation. This statement probably arose in the following manner. The papal legates subscribed: Vicarii apostolici universalis ecclesiæ Popæ. The Greeks translated this by τῆς οἰκουμενικὴς ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκόπου = Universæ ecclesiæ episcopus. Leo was further, at the third session of Chalcedon, in the superscriptions of the four memorials of the Alexandrians, Theodore, Ischyrion, Sophronius, and Athanasius (against Dioscurus), repeatedly called “Œcumenical Archbishop and Patriarch of Great Rome.” Similarly, almost a hundred years later, Pope Agapetus was entitled by the Orientals Œcumenical Patriarch. There is, however, no trace in the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, or in the letters of Leo, that they offered him in any of their transactions the title in question, or that he declined it.

SEC. 203. Synodal Letter to the Pope. He is asked to confirm the Decrees

In the collections of the Acts of Councils there follows after the minutes of the sixteen sessions a memorial which the Council of Chalcedon presented to the Emperor Marcian. As, however, this evidently belongs to an earlier period, we have already spoken of it (see p. 351 f.). On the other hand, a letter of our Synod to Pope Leo belongs to its close, and is preserved to us in the Greek original, and in the Latin translation of the deacon Rusticus (see p. 291). It begins with the words of the Psalmist in Ps. 125. [126.]: “Our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with joy.” The reason of this joy, they said, was the confirmation of the faith, which had been preserved by Leo, and the blissful contents of which had been transmitted by him as interpreter of the, voice of Peter. Him (the Pope) the bishops at Chalcedon had taken as their guide, in order to show to the sons of the Church the inheritance of the truth. His letter had been for them a spiritual, imperial banquet, and they believed they had had the heavenly Bridegroom present at it in the midst of them. As the head over the members, so had Leo by his representatives had the predominance (hegemony) among them. The faithful Emperors, however, had, πρὸς εὐκοσμίαν, i.e. in order that everything might proceed in the most orderly manner, had the presidency (compare above, p. 297), and had wished that the fabric of dogmas should be renovated. The Synod then speaks of the “wild beast Dioscurus” and his crimes, particularly of his having in his madness attacked even him who was by the Saviour appointed keeper of the divine vineyard (the Pope), and having dared to excommunicate him whose vocation it was to unite the body of the Church. The Synod had inflicted meet punishment upon him because he had not repented and appeared in answer to their exhortation. All their other business had been prosperously conducted by God’s grace and through S. Euphemia, who had crowned the assembly held in her bridal chamber, and had transmitted its doctrinal decree as her own to her Bridegroom Christ by the hand of the Emperor and the Empress. Then, passing on to that which was less agreeable, the Synod said: “We also make known to thee that we have decreed something else in the interest of peace and order in Church matters, and for the confirmation of the ecclesiastical statutes, knowing that your holiness will also approve and confirm (βεβαιοῦν) this. We have, in fact, confirmed the long-existing custom, by which the Bishop of Constantinople ordains the metropolitans of the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thracia, not so much in order to give a prerogative to the see of Constantinople, but rather to secure the peace of the metropolitan cities, because in these at the decease of a bishop factions often broke out, as your holiness yourself knows, and particularly for the sake of Ephesus, which caused us much trouble (by the quarrel between Stephen and Bassian, see above, p. 370 f. and p. 375 f.). We have also confirmed the canon of the Synod of the 150 fathers, by which the second rank is assigned to the see of Constantinople, immediately after thy holy and apostolic see. We have done it with confidence, because you have so often allowed the apostolic ray which shines by you to appear to the Church of Constantinople, and because you are accustomed ungrudgingly to enrich those who belong to you by allowing them participation in your own possessions. Be pleased, therefore, to embrace (περιπτύξασθαι) this decree as though it were thine own, most holy and most blessed father. Thy legates have strongly opposed it, probably because they thought that this good regulation, like the declaration of the faith, should proceed from thyself. But we were of opinion that it belonged to the Œcumenical Synod to confirm its prerogatives to the imperial city in accordance with the wish of the Emperor, assuming that, when thou hadst heard it, thou wouldst regard it as thine own act. For all that the sons have done, which is good, conduces to the honour of the fathers. We pray thee, honour our decree also by thine assent (παρακαλοῦμεν τοίνυν, τίμησον καὶ ταῖς σαῖς ψήφοις τὴν κρίσιν); and as we have assented to thy good (doctrinal) decree, so may thy loftiness accomplish that which is meet towards the sons. This will also please the Emperors, who have sanctioned thy judgment in the faith as law; and the see of Constantinople may well receive a reward for the zeal with which it united itself with thee in the matter of religion. In order to show that we have done nothing from favour or dislike towards any one, we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirmation and assent (βεβαίωσίν τε καὶ συγκατάθεσιν).”

This synodal letter was probably composed by Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, and the papal legates took it with them along with the synodal Acts, when, soon after the last session, they departed for Rome. About a month later the Emperor Marcian and Archbishop Anatolius thought good at the same time to address new letters to Pope Leo, and sent Bishop Lucian of Byzia and the deacon Basil with them to Rome. The two letters are numbered in the collection of Leo’s Epistles 100 and 101. That of Anatolius bears no date, but in the Emperor’s the 18th of December 451 is given. Anatolius explains, with abundant politeness, at the very beginning of his letter, that all that had taken place at the Synod must necessarily have been brought to the knowledge of the Pope, and that therefore he now forwarded by Bishop Lucian and deacon Basil those documents which the papal legates had not taken with them at their departure. The Pope would certainly agree to the sentence which had been pronounced upon Dioscurus, whose condemnation had been the first matter of importance before the Synod. As their second work, they had endeavoured, in accordance with the will of the Emperor, by the assistance of the papal legates, and under the protection of S. Euphemia, to draw up an unanimous declaration of the faith, and had, in fact, succeeded in doing so in accordance with the holy letter of the Pope, and had laid it upon the holy altar. They had, besides, had something else to care for, and it had been the wish of the Emperor and Empress, as well as of the imperial commissioners and the senate, that the see of the residence city of Constantinople should receive an increase in honour by the assent of the Synod to the canon (3) of the 150 fathers at Constantinople. This had been done in the confidence that his holiness regarded the honour of the see of Constantinople as his own, since the apostolic throne had from early times cared for the throne of Constantinople, and had ungrudgingly imparted to it of its own. As there was no doubt that his holiness and his Church possessed still higher precedence (τιμὴ), the Synod willingly confirmed the canon of the 150 fathers, that the bishop of Constantinople should have the next rank after the Roman bishop, since his city is New Rome, and they further decreed that he should have to consecrate the metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, but not the other bishops of those parts, a decree by which the Bishop of Constantinople had lost again several rights of ordination which he had exercised for sixty or seventy years. The papal legates, not rightly understanding Leo’s intention, had unfortunately protested against this decree, although it had been drawn up in accordance with the will of the Emperor, and thus had thrown all into confusion, and had wronged him (Anatolius) and his Church, while he had constantly done all for the honour of Leo and his legates. From reverence for the Pope, the Synod and himself as well had transmitted that decree (τύπος, i.e. the 28th canon) to him for his approval and confirmation (συναίνεσις καὶ βεβαιότης), and he adjured him to give this, for the apostolic throne was the father of that of Constantinople, and so forth.

The letter was shorter which was addressed to Pope Leo by the Emperor Marcian, also in the name of his Western colleague Valentinian III. (in official style). He is glad that the true faith has received its expression, and this in accordance with the doctrinal letter of Leo to Flavian, and he asks the Pope to rejoice with them. He hopes that he will also give his assent to the decree in reference to the see of Constantinople.

SEC. 204. Answer of the Pope. He rejects the 28th Canon

Pope Leo was not the man to let himself be caught by fine words. In his answer to the Emperor, of the 22d May 452, he also expresses his joy at the happy termination of the Synod, particularly at this, that, with the exception of the heretical leaders, all the bishops had been unanimous, and he commends the zeal which the Emperor had displayed for this cause. But he is surprised, he says, and sorry that, after accomplishing the special object of the Synod, the newly established peace of the Church should again be invaded by ambition. Anatolius had been right in breaking loose from the error of those who had ordained him (Dioscurus), and in passing over to the Catholic faith. Out of regard for the Emperor, he (the Pope) had from the beginning exercised not justice, but gentleness towards Anatolius, and this should have made him modest rather than proud. But even if he were a highly meritorious man, and had been appointed quite regularly, still his violation of the canons could not be excused, and, in truth, Anatolius did as much harm to his position as he endeavoured improperly to add to its importance. “May Constantinople,” proceeds Leo, “have the honour which belongs to it, and under God’s protection long enjoy thy government. But secular affairs are one thing, and the divine another (i.e. the secular and the ecclesiastical arrangements are distinct from each other, cf. above, p. 412 f.), and there is no other firm foundation but upon the Rock which the Lord laid as a foundation-stone. To the before-named (Anatolius) it ought to suffice that, with the help of thy piety and by my consent, he has received the bishopric of so great a city. He should not esteem lightly the imperial city; but he cannot make it an apostolic see; nor must he hope to increase by injury done to others, for the privileges of the Churches, which are defined by the canons of the holy fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the venerable Synod of Nicæa, must be destroyed by no injustice and altered by no innovation. On this point I must, by the help of Christ, persistently discharge my duties, because this care (dispensatio, i.e. the guarding of the canons) is committed to me (by God), and it would involve me in blame if the regulations drawn up, under the teaching of the Holy Spirit, at Nicæa (on the rank of the Churches) were violated with my consent,—be that far from me,—and if the wish of one brother (Anatolius) had more weight with me than the common good of the whole house of God. I pray therefore … thy glorious Grace not to confirm the unrighteous attempts of Anatolius, which are dangerous to Christian unity and peace, and that thou wilt wholesomely restrain his mischievous desire if he persists in it.… Do what seems fitting to thy Christian and imperial piety, that the before-named bishop may obey the ordinances of the fathers, may have regard to peace, and not believe that it is allowed to him, in opposition to all precedents and canons, to consecrate a bishop for Antioch. Only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith, I have abstained from annulling this ordination. Henceforth let him abstain from violating the ecclesiastical rules, so that he may not cut himself off from the Church.”

On the same day Pope Leo wrote also to the Empress Pulcheria: “It would have been best if the Synod had been contented with that which was its special object, and had added nothing which is contrary to the good result of that object (the peace of the Church). My brother and fellow-bishop Anatolius, not considering that he obtained his bishopric only through your beneficence and through the consent of my favour, has not been contented with what he has obtained, but has allowed himself to be inflamed by the desire for excessive honour, and has thought to satisfy this by extorting from several the required subscription.… By this means the regulations of the Nicene Synod are violated, whilst it is only by all the bishops faithfully observing these that peace can continue among the Churches. This was also represented by my legates at the Synod to those who grow up from being little, and wish to pass over from being small to be the greatest. But what does the Bishop of Constantinople wish more than he has already? Or what will satisfy him, since the glory and the fame of so great a city do not suffice him? It shows pride and a want of moderation when one wishes to overstep his bounds, and to violate the rights of others which have been confirmed by antiquity. In order that the importance of a single see may increase, the primacies of so many metropolitans (tot metropolitanorum primatus) must be invaded, and provinces which were at peace and regulated by the Nicene laws must be disturbed. In order to do away with the decrees of the fathers (of Nicæa), an appeal is made to the decree of some bishops (the 150 at Constantinople in 381), to which so long a course of years has given no effect. It must now be sixty years since this privilege was conceded to the Bishops of Constantinople; but whether the one or the other attempted to gain it, none succeeded. Anatolius should consider whose successor he is, and imitate Flavian in faith, in modesty, in humility.… As for the resolution of the bishops, which is contrary to the Nicene decree (i.e. the 28th canon of Chalcedon, and the resolution of the sixteenth session), in union with the piety of your faith I declare it to be invalid, and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter. You will, however, restrain my brother Bishop Anatolius within the limits which are wholesome for him.”

The third letter of the same date (May 22, 452) was addressed by Pope Leo to Anatolius himself, and first of all he commends him for having abandoned the error of those who had ordained him, and acceded to the Catholic faith. But the true Christian, he proceeds, must be free not only from heresy, but from craving (for that which is unlawful), and from pride, which was the cause of the first sin. But Anatolius, although first the beginning of his pontificate, and then his consecrating a Bishop of Antioch had been irregular, had unfortunately gone so far astray that he had endeavoured to abolish the regulations of Nicæa, and thought that the fit time had come to deprive the sees of Alexandria and Antioch of their rank, and in the districts subject to Constantinople to deprive all the metropolitans of their honour. He had abused for the ends of his own ambition the holy Synod which had been assembled by the Emperor only for the extinction of heresy and for the confirmation of the faith, as if that which a number of bishops unrighteously decreed were inviolate, and as if the canons of Nicæa, which had been inspired by the Holy Ghost, could be partially abolished. Even a Synod so numerous must not compare itself with the 318 fathers at Nicæa, and still less prefer itself to them; on the contrary, everything was invalid which had been established even by so great a Synod in contradiction to the Nicene Council.… This pride, which had misled the bishops who were assembled only for the question of the faith, partly by corruption, partly by intimidation (into passing the 28th canon), went even to the confusion of the whole Church, for which reason the papal legates had properly entered their protest. He (the Pope) could not possibly give his consent, for the Nicene canons were valid to the end of time, and whatever was in opposition to them must without delay be annulled. Anatolius could not appeal to the resolution which, as he said, had been drawn up by some bishops sixty years ago, for this had never been sent to the Pope, and had been invalid from the beginning.… The rights of the provincial primacies (provincialium jura primatuum) must not be disturbed, nor the metropolitans robbed of their ancient privileges, nor the see of Alexandria deprived of the dignity which it received on account of Mark the disciple of Peter, notwithstanding the apostasy of Dioscurus; nor Antioch, where Peter preached, and where the name of Christian first arose, be lowered from its third rank. The episcopal sees were one thing, the (secular) presidents another, and each must preserve his honour inviolate. Anatolius should therefore lay aside his ambition, apply himself to the spirit of love, and be mindful of the words (Apoc. 3:11): Tene quod habes, ne alius accipiat coronam tuam; for if he aspired after that which was not allowed, he would by the judgment of the Church be deprived of that which he possessed.

Finally, Leo wrote on the same day also to Bishop Julian of Cos, and blamed him for having, in a letter to the Pope, spoken in favour of the assumption of Anatolius, and recommended him to confirm it.

SEC. 205. Imperial Edicts in favour of the Synod of Chalcedon, and against the Monophysites

In the meantime the Emperor Marcian, in his own name and in that of his co-Emperor, on the 7th of February 452, had put forth an edict, dated from Constantinople, for the observance of the doctrinal decree of Chalcedon. Its contents are as follows: “That which has been so greatly and universally desired is at last accomplished. The controversy respecting orthodoxy is over, and unity of opinion is restored among the nations. The bishops, assembled in Chalcedon at my command from various exarchies, have taught with exactness in a doctrinal decree what is to be maintained in respect to religion. All unholy controversy must now cease, as he is certainly impious and sacrilegious who, after the declaration made by so many bishops, thinks that there still remains something for his own judgment to examine. For it is evidently a sign of extreme folly when a man seeks for a deceptive light in broad day. He who, after discovery has been made of the truth, still inquires after something else, seeks for falsehood. No cleric, no soldier, and generally no one, in whatever position he may be, must venture publicly to dispute concerning the faith, seeking to produce confusion, and to find pretexts for false doctrines. For it is an insult to the holy Synod to subject that which it has decreed and fundamentally established to new examinations and public disputes, since that which was recently defined concerning the Christian faith is in accordance with the doctrine of the 318 fathers and the regulation of the 150 fathers. The punishment for the transgressors of this law shall not be delayed, since they are not only opponents of the lawfully established faith, but also by their contentions betray the holy mysteries to Jews and heathen. If a cleric ventures openly to dispute respecting religion, he shall be struck out of the catalogue of the clergy, the soldier shall be deprived of his belt, other persons shall be removed from the residence city, and shall have suitable punishments inflicted upon them, according to the pleasure of the courts of justice,” and so forth.

In a second edict, of the 13th of March 452, the Emperor Marcian set forth with all brevity that the Synod, in agreement with the declarations of faith of the Councils of Nicæa, Constantinople, and Ephesus, had rejected the heresy of Eutyches, and had confirmed the faith. He had, by his previous edict (that which has just been mentioned), confirmed this venerable Synod, and had forbidden all disputation on the faith for the future. He had, however, learnt that nevertheless there were some who in their folly did not cease publicly to contend on the subject of religion before the people. They had deserved to have immediately inflicted upon them the punishments threatened; but since God had special pleasure in mercy, he would put off their punishment, and would again send forth a prohibition of such disputations on the subject of religion. If any one should now still transgress this prohibition, he should, without further indulgence, be subjected to punishment.

In a third edict, of the 6th of July 452, the Emperor Marcian annulled the decree which his predecessor, Theodosius II., led astray by others, had put forth after the Robber-Synod against Flavian, Eusebius of Dorylæum, and Theodoret of Cyrus. Still more important is his fourth decree, of the 28th of July 452, according to which the Eutychians as well as the Apollinarians are forbidden to have any clergy, and if they should nevertheless venture to appoint such, both those who undertook the consecration of them and those who were consecrated were to be punished with confiscation of their goods and banishment for life. Moreover, they were not allowed to hold any assemblies whatever, or to build any monasteries, or to live together in monasteries. The places in which they assembled should be confiscated if the assembly took place with the knowledge of the proprietor; but if not, then he who had hired the building (at the request of the heretics) should be beaten and punished with confiscation of property and banishment. Further, the Eutychians should be incapable of inheriting anything left by will, or of appointing those who shared in their heresy as their heirs; nor should they be allowed to be received into the army, except among the auxiliaries (cohortalitia) or the boundary troops. If any of them should already be in the army, or should after entering it fall into this error, he should be expelled, and confined to his home. Those Eutychians, moreover, who had previously been clergy of the orthodox faith, and also the monks who inhabited the stable of Eutyches, which did not deserve the name of a monastery, should be driven entirely from the soil of the Roman Empire, as had been ordered by older laws in regard to the Manichæans. Further, the writings of the Eutychians were to be burnt, and those who composed and circulated such should be punished with confiscation of goods and banishment, and all instruction in this heresy should be most rigorously punished. Finally, all governors in the provinces, their officials, and the judges in the cities, if they should be negligent in carrying out this law, were threatened, as despisers of religion and the laws, with a penalty of ten pounds of gold.

At the same time Eutyches and Dioscurus were condemned to banishment. The former, however, who was greatly advanced in years at the outbreak of the controversies, seems to have died at this very time, whilst Dioscurus lived in banishment until the year 454 at Gangra in Paphlagonia.

SEC. 206. Further Correspondence between Rome and Constantinople. Leo confirms the Doctrinal Decree of Chalcedon

But with all this the Monophysite heresy was in no way extinguished; on the contrary, in some provinces, particularly in Palestine and Egypt, as we shall see later on, it made considerable progress; and as the erroneous and misleading report went abroad in the Greek Empire, about the middle or in the second half of the year 452, that Pope Leo had in his letters already mentioned (Nos. 104–108) repudiated the decrees of Chalcedon, this gave again a powerful impulse to the heresy, and encouraged various acts of violence. The Emperor Marcian therefore, in a letter of the 15th of February 453, earnestly urged upon the Pope not to delay in putting forth his confirmation (βεβαιοῦσθαι) of the Synod of Chalcedon in a letter destined for publication in the churches, so that no one should longer doubt of his agreement, and thereby be able to excuse his own perversity. One thing the Pope had indeed done excellently, namely, his guarding the ecclesiastical canons and tolerating no innovation; but he might also learn how his letters had been abused by some. He should therefore as soon as possible send a decree of confirmation (βεβαιοῦν) for the Synod of Chalcedon, so that no one might have any further doubt as to the judgment of his holiness.

A good while before Marcian thus wrote to the Pope, he, on hearing of the advances of the Monophysites in Palestine, had, in his letter to Julian of Cos, of the 25th November 452, expressed himself decidedly against them, and in behalf of the Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem, whom they had driven away. Somewhat later, but also before the reception of the last imperial letter, Leo had again appealed to the Emperor and the Empress Pulcheria with complaints against Anatolius, because the Bishop of Constantinople had removed from his post his Archdeacon Aetius, the zealous opponent of the Nestorians and Eutychians, who is so well known to us, and appointed him to be priest of a cemetery, and in opposition to all the rules had ordained him at the sixth hour of a Saturday (instead of in the night between Saturday and Sunday), and thus, under the pretext of promoting him, had exiled him, and had in his place promoted an Eutychian to be archdeacon, the deacon Andrew, whom he had himself previously deposed for heresy. At the same time Leo requests the Emperor and the Empress to regard Bishop Julian of Cos as his Nuntius at the court of Constantinople, and to be favourable to him.

From the expulsion of Aetius and the appointment of Andrew, as well as from some other occurrences at Constantinople, Leo thought himself justified in concluding that Anatolius was again in some measure favouring Eutychianism, to which he had formerly adhered. He therefore wrote, on the 11th of March 453, to Julian of Cos, and requested him on this account to use double care and circumspection that no heresy might find its way into Constantinople. If he remarked anything of the kind, he should only appeal to the orthodoxy of the Emperor, and he (the Pope), whenever he was hesitating or doubtful, would willingly give him directions. And if the Emperor had, at the request of the Pope, found fault with Anatolius on account of the charge brought against him, Julian should also, on his side, show all zeal to the end that all offences might be removed, and the persecution of Aetius might cease. Subsequently, Leo speaks of the risings of the Eutychian monks in Palestine and Egypt, and requests Julian to collect all the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon into one codex, and to translate them exactly into Latin, since the copies of the Acts already in Rome, on account of the difference of the language (only a few of the principal portions were as yet translated into Latin), could not be perfectly understood.

Immediately after the despatch of these letters, the above-mentioned letter of the Emperor, in which he requested from the Pope the solemn confirmation of the Synod of Chalcedon, must have arrived in Rome, and Leo without delay sent forth a circular letter, dated March 21, 453, addressed to all the bishops who had been present at the Synod of Chalcedon, as follows: “I doubt not, brethren, that you all know how willingly I have confirmed the doctrinal decree of the Synod of Chalcedon. You would have been able to learn this not only from the assent of my legates, but also from my letters to Anatolius of Constantinople, if he had brought the answer of the apostolic see to your knowledge. But that no one may doubt my approving of that which was decreed at the Synod of Chalcedon by universal consent in regard to the faith, I have directed this letter to all my brethren and fellow-bishops who were present at the Synod named, and the Emperor will, at my request, send it to you, so that you may all know that, not merely by my legates, but also by my own confirmation of it, I have agreed with you in what was done at the Synod, but only, as must always be repeated, in regard to the subject of the faith, on account of which the General Council (generale concilium) was assembled at the command of the Emperors, in agreement with the apostolic see. But in regard to the regulations of the fathers of Nicæa, I admonish you that the rights of the individual churches must remain unaltered, as they were there established by the inspired fathers. No unlawful ambition must covet that which is not its own, and no one must increase by the diminution of others. And that which pride has obtained by enforced assent, and thinks to have confirmed by the name of a Council, is invalid, if it is in opposition to the canons of the aforesaid fathers (of Nicæa). How reverentially the apostolic see maintains the rules of these fathers, and that I by God’s help shall be a guardian of the Catholic faith and of the ecclesiastical canons, you may see from the letter by which I have resisted the attempts of the Bishop of Constantinople.”

There is no doubt that Leo in this letter, on the one side, declares canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon as invalid, and, on the other side, that he formally recognizes as œcumenical this Synod itself, which was assembled as an Œcumenical Synod with his concurrence, and repeatedly called itself by this name (see pp. 265, 278, 328, and 430); but only in its doctrinal portion (and only the first six sessions treated of doctrine). This recognition by Leo is also clear from several of his subsequent letters, as from Ep. 144 to Julian of Cos, in which he says: The decrees of Chalcedon are instruente Spiritu Sancto ad totius mundi salutem definita; and in Ep. 145 to the succeeding Emperor, Leo, where he writes: “The Synod of Chalcedon was ex divina inspiratione prolata. In the same manner a Roman Council, under one of his nearest successors, Felix III., in the year 485, reckoned our Council with the Nicene and the Ephesine (without mentioning that of Constantinople); and Gregory the Great placed it among those four Synods, which, as we know, he compared to the four Gospels (see vol. ii. p. 371). Moreover, in the long course of the centuries there has never arisen in the Church the slightest doubt of the œcumenical character of this Synod.

The decree of confirmation now described was transmitted by Pope Leo to the Emperor with an accompanying letter of the same date, in which he again declares that there could have been no doubt as to his confirmation of the Synod, unless Anatolius had kept back the letter which had been addressed to him, because it rebuked his ambition. Leo then thanks the Emperor for having commended his zeal in guarding the canons (see p. 441), and experiences a double joy because Marcian, as he sees, is disposed to maintain both the Nicene faith and the rights of the Churches. The formal confirmation of the definition of the faith at Chalcedon, which the Emperor had desired, he had now despatched, and he hoped that this would remove all occasion for discord, and would bring it about that apostolic doctrine and peace would everywhere prevail.

On the same day he wrote in very nearly the same terms to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. 116), adding: “the present rulers combine princely power with apostolic doctrine;” and in a fourth letter of the same date, he charged his Nuntius at Constantinople, Bishop Julian of Cos, to use his influence with the Emperor, so that the papal decree confirming the Synod should be sent to all the bishops of the Empire. To the Empress Eudocia, the widow of the Emperor Theodosius II., who supported the Monophysites in Palestine, he has, he adds, at the wish of Marcian, addressed a hortatory letter; but in the matter of the deposed Archdeacon Aetius, Julian must take no further steps lest harm should be done. Finally, he says that to Anatolius he writes no longer, since he persists in his presumption, and has induced the Illyrian bishops also to subscribe the 28th canon.

He also expressed his displeasure with Anatolius in his 119th letter to Archbishop Maximus of Antioch (June 11, 453), and in the letter to Proterius, the new Bishop of Alexandria, dated March 10, 454 (Ep. 129), and had the more reason for doing so as undoubtedly Anatolius was in fault, since the papal decree confirming the Synod was not publicly read in its entirety in the churches of the Greek Empire, but only its first part, containing the confirmation of the doctrinal decree; while the second, the rejection of canon 28, had not been published. Leo complained of this in his 127th letter, addressed to Julian of Cos (dated January 9, 454); he declared, however, two months later, in a letter to the Emperor (Ep. 128), who had interceded for Anatolius, that he would willingly restore his favour to him, if he would do justice in the matter of the canons, and cease to violate the rights of other bishops.

SEC. 207. The Greeks seem to sacrifice the 28th Canon

Pope Leo again entered into correspondence with Anatolius, wrote to him on the 29th of May 454 (Ep. 135), and blamed him for wishing to lay all the blame upon the clergy, and not also confessing his own fault. He must now lay aside the desire for privileges which would not be conceded to him, and be contented with the limits which the regulations of the fathers had appointed, and observe and maintain the decrees which the Council of Nicæa had given for the honour and confirmation of the episcopal office.—At the same time Leo wrote also to the Emperor (Ep. 136), that he would again be reconciled to Anatolius on condition that he would increase more by humility than by presumption, and would observe the canons of the fathers which had been given for the peace of the Church.

Upon this Anatolius himself appealed again to the Pope in a very courteous letter, written in the month of April 454, and assured him how greatly he was pained by the interruption of correspondence, and how far he was from setting himself against any order contained in Leo’s letters. He had therefore restored Archdeacon Aetius and excluded Andrew from the Church. In regard to that which the Synod of Chalcedon had decreed in favour of the see of Constantinople, he was not in fault, since he had always loved peace and humility. But the clergy of Constantinople and the bishops belonging to this province had demanded that decree; but the confirmation of it depended upon the Pope (cum et sic gestorum vis omnis et confirmatio auctoritati vestræ Beatitudinis fuerit reservata).

Pope Leo again entered into correspondence with Anatolius, wrote to him on the 29th of May 454 (Ep. 135), and blamed him for wishing to lay all the blame upon the clergy, and not also confessing his own fault. He must now lay aside the desire for privileges which would not be conceded to him, and be contented with the limits which the regulations of the fathers had appointed, and observe and maintain the decrees which the Council of Nicæa had given for the honour and confirmation of the episcopal office.—At the same time Leo wrote also to the Emperor (Ep. 136), that he would again be reconciled to Anatolius on condition that he would increase more by humility than by presumption, and would observe the canons of the fathers which had been given for the peace of the Church.

From that time Leo continued to exchange letters with Anatolius and his successor Gennadius, but there was nothing more said between them on the subject of the 28th canon, and Leo was able and was bound to assume that, as it had not received the papal sanction, it was now given up by the Greeks. Not only the Synod of Chalcedon itself, but in particular Anatolius, and also the Emperor Marcian, had expressly declared that this canon required, in order to its validity, the approbation of the apostolic see (see above, p. 431). Anatolius had at last himself said this most clearly in the Latin words of his Eirenicon quoted above. In fact, the Greeks for a long time made no further appeal to this canon, and even omitted it from their collections, so that they, too, adduced only twenty-seven canons of Chalcedon (see above, p. 420). On the other hand, Anatolius and his successors practically retained the privileges conceded to their see at Chalcedon, and never gave actual effect to their courteous words and the assurances which they made to the Pope. Indeed, Bishop Acacius of Constantinople set himself with peculiar energy (472) to exercise to the utmost the extended privileges of his see. The consequence was, that several of the successors of Leo, particularly Simplicius and Felix III., also protested against this, and the latter pronounced a sentence of deposition upon Acacius. In the controversy which grew out of this, Pope Gelasius, in his letter, Ad episcopos Dardaniæ, expressed himself very strongly, not only on the rights of the Roman see, but also on the arrogated right of Constantinople, and remarked, in particular, that if the accidental and secular circumstance that the Emperor resided anywhere should make the church of that place a patriarchal church, then must Ravenna, Milan, Sirmium, and Trier (Trèves) be also patriarchates, since these cities had also long been residences.

As, however, the bishops of Constantinople were protected and supported on this point by the Byzantine Emperors, they remained in possession of the contested prerogatives, and even began to make the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem more and more dependent upon them. The Emperor Justinian also, in his 131st Novel, c. 1, again expressly confirmed the high rank of the see of Constantinople, and the Trullan Synod, in its 36th canon, renewed precisely the 28th canon of Chalcedon. At last the loud protest of Rome became silent, although, as the Ballerini maintain, an express recognition of that canon has never been given by Rome. This must, however, be limited by the fact that at the time when the Latin Empire and a Latin patriarch was established at Constantinople, the fourth Lateran Synod, under Pope Innocent III., A.D. 1215, in its 5th canon, declared that the patriarch of Constantinople should take rank immediately after Rome, and before Alexandria and Antioch.

SEC. 208. Subsequent History of Monophysitism

Completeness requires that we should briefly relate the further history of the Eutychian or Monophysite heresy, since it was most solemnly rejected at Chalcedon, but for all that was by no means practically suppressed, but, on the contrary, continued for centuries to disturb the Church, and even to some extent contended with it. The first province in which, immediately after the close of our Synod, it attained to great power was Palestine. Hither an Alexandrian monk, named Theodosius, who had been present at Chalcedon, hastened immediately and represented to the monks of Palestine that the Synod of Chalcedon had betrayed the true faith and sanctioned Nestorianism. Misled by him, almost all of the more than 10,000 monks of Palestine were ready indeed to condemn the doctrine of Eutyches, that the human nature [of Christ] was, as it were, absorbed by the divine; but they would not accept the Dyophysitism of the Synod of Chalcedon, on the ground that the confession of two natures must logically lead to the confession of two persons, and thus to Nestorianism. They persisted, therefore, strongly in the assertion of only one nature, without explaining in what manner the Godhead and the manhood could be one nature. This new tendency, which on the one side rejected Eutychianism, and on the other the Synod of Chalcedon, is called the Monophysite in specie, in distinction from the Eutychian.

As the Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem did not respond to the demand of the monks of Palestine, that he would anathematize the decrees of Chalcedon, they, supported by Eudocia, the widow of Theodosius II., stirred up an insurrection, drove away Juvenal, raised the monk Theodosius, already named, to the patriarchate, even set fire, in the tumult, to some houses, and killed several of the leading Dyophysites. They acted in the same manner in the other cities of Palestine, and everywhere deposed the legitimate bishops. The Emperor took measures to instruct and quiet the fanatical rioters, and to punish the most guilty of them, and we still possess edicts belonging to this question. Theodosius himself fled, in 453, to the monks of Mount Sinai; Juvenal and the other expelled Catholic bishops were reinstated, and many of the Monophysites, but by no means all, were again united with the Church.

The second region in which the Synod of Chalcedon was repudiated and the banner of Monophysitism raised was Egypt. Even at Chalcedon, thirteen Egyptian bishops had refused to subscribe, on the empty pretext that, since the deposition of Dioscurus, they had no patriarch, and that without his permission they had no right to take such an important step (see p. 333 f.). In order to appease the monks, the Emperor Marcian wrote to them and assured them that the Synod of Chalcedon had made no innovation in the faith. When Proterius, a very upright man, had been chosen patriarch of Alexandria, the very numerous party of Dioscurus came forward in opposition to him, and made use of the same means of riot as in Palestine. The imperial soldiers, who were to have quieted the rising, were driven by the populace into the Serapeum and burnt alive, and it was only a great military force that was able to restore order. But now two distinguished clerics, Timothy, surnamed Ælurus (αἴλουρος = Cat), and Peter Mongus (μογγός = Hoarse), fell away from Proterius, and brought the monks and several bishops and others to their side, pronounced an anathema on the Synod of Chalcedon, and availed themselves of the death of the Emperor Marcian (A.D. 457), in order, with the help of the populace of Alexandria, by a sudden attack, to get possession of the cathedral of the city. Timothy then had himself there immediately consecrated bishop, and then again consecrated other bishops and priests. Proterius was murdered in the baptistry, and Timothy raised to the see of Alexandria. He did not neglect, moreover, to depose the Dyophysite bishops and priests in all the other cities of Egypt, and to confer their offices upon his adherents. A Synod held by him also pronounced an anathema on Chalcedon, Leo, and Anatolius.

Both parties in Egypt, the orthodox and the Monophysite, appealed to the new Emperor, Leo I., for protection and confirmation, while Pope Leo demanded that severity should be used towards the heretics. The Emperor then required of all the bishops of his Empire an opinion respecting the Synod of Chalcedon and Timothy Ælurus; and almost all the bishops, to the number of 1600, agreed that the decrees of Chalcedon should be maintained, and that Ælurus must be deposed. This was done, and Ælurus was at the same time banished to Cherson, and another Timothy, named The White and Salophaciolus, was raised to the see of Alexandria, and was able to preserve ecclesiastical peace there until 475.

The third patriarchate of which the Monophysites got possession, after the Synod of Chalcedon, was that of Antioch. A monk of Constantinople, Peter, surnamed γναφεύς, Fullo (the fuller), from the trade which he carried on in the monastery, succeeded in gaining the special favour of Zeno, the son-in-law of the Emperor Leo, and, when he received a command in the East, proceeded with him to Antioch, and there founded, with the allied party of the Apollinarians who were still here, a strong faction against the Patriarch Martyrius, and made his position so uncomfortable that he shortly resigned his office. Peter Fullo now himself took possession of the see of Antioch, and, in order to strengthen the Monophysite party, he introduced into the Trisagion the words: (Holy Lord God) “Who for us wast crucified.” Per communicationem idiomatum we may say, without objection, “God was crucified;” but when the idioma “crucified” is united with the invocation Ter sanctus in the Trisagion, then it is implied that, together with the Son, the Father and the Spirit had also suffered upon the cross. For the Eutychian such an extension of the suffering to the Father and the Spirit was consistent; for, in his opinion, after the union there was present in Christ only one nature, the divine, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit. If, on the contrary, the Dyophysite says: “God (i.e. the Son of God) was crucified,” he adds (expressly or tacitly): “in the flesh,” and so not in that which He has in common with the Father and the Spirit, but in that which He has in common with us.

The Emperor Leo, however, soon caused Peter Fullo to be again deposed by a Synod and banished to Oasis, and generally maintained the importance of the Synod of Chalcedon. He was succeeded by his grandson, Leo II., and he, again, dying early, by his father Zeno, husband of the daughter of Leo I., who, however, was expelled in 475 by the usurper Basiliscus. The latter immediately showed himself as protector of the Monophysites, restored Ælurus and the Fuller again to their patriarchates, and issued an edict, requiring that the celebrated letter of Pope Leo to Flavian (Ep. 28) and the “innovations” of the Synod of Chalcedon should be anathematized by all the bishops. About 500 bishops from the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem subscribed, in part with servile additions. On the contrary, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, himself refused his signature persistently, and was supported in his refusal by the whole populace, which rose in a threatening manner against the usurper. As at the same time the expelled Emperor Zeno drew near with an army, Basiliscus was under the necessity of reconciling himself with Acacius as quickly as possible, and of recalling his edict, but was nevertheless immediately afterwards overthrown by Zeno, and taken prisoner.

About the same time Timothy Ælurus died, and his friend Peter Mongus was chosen patriarch of Alexandria. But the Emperor again deposed him and Peter Fullo of Antioch, and for a time took some further steps against the Monophysites. But before long Zeno altered his point of view, and took up that unhappy plan of union which had been worked out by Acacius of Constantinople and Peter Mongus, who for this reason was again restored to favour. Zeno sent forth, in the year 482, his famous Henoticon, that is, an edict to the bishops, clergy, monks, and all Christians of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, in which, on the one hand, the true manhood and the true Godhead of Christ were declared, Nestorius as well as Eutyches anathematized, and the anathematisms of Cyril approved; but, on the other hand, every other creed than that of Nicæa, as completed at Constantinople, and thus that of Chalcedon, was rejected, the expressions “one” or “two natures” were intentionally avoided, and very equivocal reference was made to the Synod of Chalcedon in the words: “If any one thinks or has thought otherwise, at Chalcedon or at any other Synod, let him be anathema.” This edict, with its spirit of compromise and its patching up of the points of controversy, was now to be received by both parties, the orthodox and the Monophysite, as a means of union and a bond of communion, and thus the whole of the more recent development of the Christian doctrinal consciousness was to be effaced.

As we saw, the Henoticon was in the first instance addressed to the Christians in Egypt etc., but its application was at the same time universal, and it was intended to establish religious peace in the whole Empire. It produced, in fact, the very opposite, and satisfied none of the different parties. The strict Monophysites, for instance, demanded the simple repudiation of the Synod of Chalcedon and of Dyophysitism; to the Nestorians and Antiochenes the approval of the anathematisms of Cyril was an offence; and the orthodox were offended not only by the attack upon the importance of the Synod of Chalcedon and the spirit of compromise generally, but by the fact that the Emperor presumed to prescribe the faith.

A beginning was made with the introduction of the Henoticon at Alexandria by Peter Mongus, one of its originators, who, as a reward for doing so, was again elevated to the see of that place, the orthodox patriarch, John Talaia, being removed. He now, in fact, brought about in Alexandria, on the basis of the Henoticon, an external ecclesiastical reunion of the Monophysites and the orthodox, and, at the desire of the Emperor, sent an account of this soon afterwards to Rome and to Constantinople. But a portion of his previous adherents, especially many of the monks, were highly dissatisfied with this concession to the orthodox, and therefore separated themselves from the patriarch, and founded a special Monophysite sect, under the ambiguous designation of ἀκέφαλοι (i.e. “Headless”).

The results were similar in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, where the majority of the Monophysites and the orthodox now united on the basis and in the sense of the Henoticon, and the opposing bishops were deprived of their posts, chiefly by the efforts of Peter Fullo, who for this service was again raised to the see of Antioch. From all sides, from Egypt and from the East, complaints of this were brought to Rome, and Felix III. (Pope since 483) sent two bishops to Constantinople in order to obtain a recognition of the legal importance of the Synod of Chalcedon, and to assert the rights of the bishops who had been dispossessed. The Emperor, by imprisonment and bribery, brought over the legates to his side; but the Pope saw through the intrigue, and at a Synod in Rome (484) pronounced an anathema upon Acacius, the originator of all this confusion. As, however, Acacius refused to receive the papal decree, some monks fastened it to his cloak as he was about to leave the church. For this they were punished, some with death, some with imprisonment. In revenge Acacius now struck the name of the Pope out of the diptychs of Constantinople, and, under the protection of the Emperor, remained in his office. Thus arose a temporary schism between the Latin and Greek Churches, which lasted on after the death of Acacius (489), Peter Mongus (490), Peter Fullo (488), and the Emperor Zeno (491), under his and their successors. The Emperor Anastasius, for example, violently maintained the point of view of the Henoticon, and was guilty of all kinds of arbitrary measures; in his later years he more and more visibly approached to Monophysitism proper. This occasioned here and there, particularly in the chief city, violent scenes, and even bloody fights between the parties, and the deposition and excommunication of Macedonius of Constantinople, who had returned to orthodoxy (511), could only still further increase the hatred against the Emperor. The new Patriarch Timothy wavered hesitatingly between the two sides, and when the Emperor at last determined to introduce by force the addition already mentioned to the Trisagion, the combustible material in Constantinople kindled to a thorough insurrection.

About the same time, at the beginning of the sixth century, Flavian, the new Patriarch of Antioch, from being a supporter of the Henoticon, had become an adherent of Chalcedon; for which reason his neighbour, Bishop Xenaias or Philoxenus of Hierapolis, stirred up a rebellion against the patriarch, and although the people of Antioch took the part of the latter, yet he was expelled from his see, and it was conferred, A.D. 513, upon one of the most violent enemies of the Synod of Chalcedon, the Monophysite monk Severus. At the same time the Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem was expelled from his office because he did not agree with Severus. At that time (since 508) there sat upon the episcopal throne of Alexandria John Niceota (Machiota), who quite openly passed over, beyond the Henoticon, to strict Monophysitism.

The General Vitalian, availing himself of the universal discontent of the orthodox with the Emperor, advanced upon Constantinople in the year 514 with 60,000 men, and extorted from the Emperor a promise to reinstate the deposed friends of the Synod of Chalcedon, and to re-establish the unity of the Church by a new Œcumenical Synod. But the Emperor was not in earnest, and although under constraint from Vitalian, he entered into communication with Pope Hormisdas, with a view of putting an end to the schism; he refused to accept the first necessary condition laid down by the Pope, namely, the recognition of the Synod of Chalcedon, and of the famous letter of Pope Leo the Great. Scarcely, however, was the Emperor Anastasius dead, in the year 518, when better times began for the orthodox party. In Constantinople itself it had only been suppressed by force; as, however, the orthodox were favoured by the new Emperor, the Emperor Justin I., and still more by his afterwards so famous nephew, Justinian, to whom he, so to speak, entrusted the department of public worship, the people of Constantinople compelled the Patriarch John to recognize solemnly the Synod of Chalcedon, and to pronounce an anathema upon the Monophysite Patriarch Severus of Antioch. Soon afterwards, this Severus, then the most important man among the Monophysites, and also their most fruitful writer, was accused of many crimes, and even of bloody acts of violence, against the orthodox, and was removed from his office. It was only by flight that he was able to escape from a more severe punishment, and the above-named Philoxenus, also a writer of the Monophysites, was sent into banishment, and even, as the story went, put to death in exile. The orthodox party now became again dominant in Antioch and in the whole of Syria, and being so they did not always keep within the bounds of moderation. But that which was most important was the reconciliation between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, which took place in the year 519, and was solemnly accomplished in the latter city through the legates of Pope Hormisdas. The imperial court and the Patriarch John recognized the anathema formerly pronounced upon Acacius, the name of Acacius and of several of his followers, as well as those of the Emperor Zeno and of Anastasius, were struck out of the Church books, and the patriarch recommended complete agreement with the Roman Church. This example was followed by most of the other Greek and Oriental bishops, so that now, everywhere in the Roman Empire, with the exception of Egypt, the faith of Chalcedon obtained the upper hand.

When, in the year 527, the Emperor Justinian came to the throne, he continued the favour to the orthodox which he had shown under his uncle, and gave command that all the Churches of the East should receive the four Œcumenical Synods, and so also that of Chalcedon. His consort Theodora, on the contrary, favoured Monophysitism, and even among the inhabitants of Constantinople sympathy was shown for the heresy. It was, perhaps, for this reason that the Emperor appointed in the year 533 a conference of the leading men of both parties. At the head of the Catholic bishops stood Hypatius of Ephesus, and the Monophysite members of the conference were adherents of Severus, who had now become the head of a distinct party, the Severians. It is worthy of notice that it was at this religious conference that the writings of the pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita were first publicly named, and this on the side of the Severians. The attempt at union remained fruitless, but in Constantinople itself the new Patriarch Anthimus clearly leaned to the side of Monophysitism. He was deposed, and his successor, Mennas, in union with the Emperor, again expelled the heads of the Monophysites from the capital, where they had already settled; and even in Alexandria an orthodox patriarch, Paul, formerly an abbot, came to the archiepiscopal throne.

But at this very time the cunning Empress endeavoured to set up a citadel for Monophysitism even in Rome, promising to Vigilius, the Roman deacon and secretary at Constantinople, the papal dignity on condition that he would again reinstate Anthimus of Constantinople, and declare against the Synod of Chalcedon. The ambitious Vigilius consented to these conditions; and then the imperial general in Italy, the famous Belisarius, received from Theodora the charge to depose Pope Silverius on any pretext whatever, and to bring about the elevation of Vigilius. In order, like Pilate, to salve his conscience, Belisarius said, “She shall answer for it before Christ,” and brought forward the false accusation that Silverius had entered into a treasonous alliance with the Ostrogoths, promising to deliver over to them the city of Rome, and on this pretext he imprisoned the Pope in a monk’s habit. Under the influence of Belisarius, Vigilius was immediately elected Pope (538), without being able to conceal from himself that, as long as Silverius lived, the see could not be vacated. Silverius, however, died so early as 540, a prisoner in the island of Palmaria (in the Mediterranean Sea), as it was asserted, of hunger, and by the fault of Vigilius. The latter upon this resigned, as Baronius supposes (ad ann. 540, n. 5), in the hope of being, by the influence of Belisarius, elected anew, and now regularly, and so it actually happened. From this time Vigilius came forward as defender of the Synod of Chalcedon, having never been Monophysite at heart.

For all this the contentions were not ended, but occasion was given for new disturbances by the addition in the Trisagion: “One of the Trinity was crucified.” Very many of the orthodox took no offence at this statement; but as it was with the Monophysites that it was chiefly in use, the others determined to reject it, and named the adherents of this formula Theopaschites. Thus it came to pass that this formula now (518) became an apple of discord among the Catholics themselves. The monk John Maxentius of Constantinople, and other monks, for instance, wished to represent this formula as the standard of orthodoxy, and as absolutely necessary; but the Patriarch John of Constantinople and the legates of Pope Hormisdas, to whom Maxentius appealed, would not consent to this exaggeration, although they did not themselves reject the formula. The Emperor Justinian, on the contrary, took the side of the formula, and wished to obtain its confirmation from the Pope; but Hormisdas declared, after protracted delay, that this proposition in the Trisagion was useless, and even dangerous (not because it was wrong in itself, but because it was explained with a heretical meaning by the Monophysites). In the meantime the friends of Maxentius had asked from other theologians their opinion of their formula, and had obtained from Fulgentius of Ruspe and Dionysius Exiguus the recognition of the orthodoxy of its contents.

A new element was now introduced by another party of Greek monks, named from their strict watchfulness ἀκοίμητοι, that is, the “Sleepless,” who in their opposition to this phrase fell back into Nestorianism, and again rejected the expression θεοτόκος. This gave to the dogma-loving Emperor Justinian occasion to obtain from Rome an anathema on these monks and an approval of the formula: “One of the Trinity suffered.” Pope John II. almost responded to his wish, although he did not directly approve of the formula, and his successor, Agapetus I., acted in the same way; and at last Justinian brought it about that the fifth Œcumenical Council, held in his reign, directly approved the formula in question.

As the Theopaschite controversy was evidently only an outcome of the Monophysite, so the great dispute respecting the three chapters, which broke out somewhat later also in the camp of orthodoxy, is closely connected with the Monophysite controversies. Under the pretext that even the strictest Monophysites might easily again be united with the Church, if only a sentence were issued against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa, as suspected of Nestorianism, the Origenist Theodore Ascidas, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, entrapped the Emperor Justinian, about the middle of the sixth century, into the so-called controversy of the three chapters, which could not be brought to a full conclusion even by the fifth Œcumenical Synod (553).

But still more numerous contentions broke out among the Monophysites themselves. One of their heads, already named, Severus, formerly Patriarch of Antioch, who had been living at Alexandria since 518, here put forth (519) the assertion that “the body of Christ was corruptible.” Another head of the Monophysites, Bishop Julian of Halicarnassus, at that time also in Alexandria, on the other hand, declared for the incorruptibility of the body of Christ, on the ground that if it were corruptible then it would be necessary to assume the existence of two natures in Christ, a divine and a human. Almost the whole of Alexandria took part in this controversy, and the adherents of Severus received the name of φθαρτολάτραι or Corrupticolœ (i.e. worshippers of the corruptible), while those of Julian were entitled ἀφθαρτοδοκῆται (that is, teachers of the incorruptible) or Phantasiastæ (because they could believe only in an apparent body). When, soon after this, Timothy the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria died, each of the two parties, the Phthartolatrai and Aphthartodocetæ, chose a patriarch for themselves; the former Theodosius, the latter Gaianas; thus came into use the party names of Theodosians (the adherents of Severus) and Gaianites (the Julianists). The latter were also called by their opponents Manichæans, because any one who regarded the body of Christ as incorruptible could only, like the Manichæans, hold a mere seeming suffering of Christ. In fact, the doctrine of the before-named Philoxenus or Xenaias, who was also an Aphthartodocete, came quite near to Docetism, since he said: “Christ was properly subject neither to suffering nor to any other human necessities, but had voluntarily undertaken them, by a certain condescension, in order to accomplish our salvation.” The statement that the body of Christ is incorruptible pleased so greatly the Emperor Justinian, now enfeebled by age, and seemed to him so well adapted to the orthodox system of doctrine, that he wanted to compel the bishops of his Empire to adopt it. But he died in the year 565, more than eighty years old.

The Phthartolatrai as well as Aphthartodocetæ fell again into smaller parties, the latter into the κτιστολάτραι and ἀκτιστηταί, since the former affirmed the question: “Was the incorruptible body of Christ created?” while the others enthusiastically negatived it. Similarly the Phthartolatrai quarrelled over the question: “Whether, if the body is corruptible, it must not be admitted that there was something which Christ did not know, as He Himself often shows in Holy Scripture?” This assertion of the defect of knowledge in Christ was first put forward by the Monophysite deacon Themistius of Alexandria, and his adherents received the name of Agnoetæ (ἀγνοηταί) or Themistians. As the Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria and his successor Theodosius (about A.D. 537–539) opposed them and excommunicated them, since the hypothesis of ἀγνοεῖν must logically lead to the acceptance of two natures, they henceforth formed a separate sect, which lasted until the eighth century.

It further caused very evil repute to the Monophysites that the Tritheists afterwards proceeded from them. The founder of this sect was not, as was formerly supposed, the philosopher John Philoponus, but, as is clear from the publications of Assemani, the Monophysite John Ascusnages, the president of a school of philosophy at Constantinople in the sixth century, who in presence of the Emperor Justinian thus expressed his view: “In Christ I acknowledge only one nature, but in the Trinity I ascribe to each Person a particular nature.” The Emperor banished him, the Patriarch of Constantinople excommunicated him; but Philoponus and other Monophysites took his side, and developed this view further. In particular, Philoponus brought it into connection with the Aristotelian distinction of genus, species, and individuum, by the proposition: “The three Persons are related to the Godhead as three individuals to their species.” In this manner the Persons were certainly made to be Gods, and Tritheism was taught. A leading defender of this tendency was also the monk Athanasius, a grandson of the Empress Theodora, the consort of Justinian, who, like Philoponus, endeavoured to defend this doctrine by his writings. No less does Stephen Gobarus (about A.D. 600) belong to the celebrated writers of the Tritheistic party. For the rest, nearly all the other Monophysites declared against these Tritheists, who, from their place of assembly, the Condobaudos in Constantinople, were named Condobaudites. These, however, soon petitioned the Emperor Justin II. (565–578) to have their controversy with the other Monophysites examined. Both parties appointed their representatives, and the decision of the question was left to the Catholic Patriarch John of Constantinople, and it was given against the Tritheists. These now began to have controversies among themselves, since Philoponus maintained in reference to the resurrection of the flesh: “The body of man passes into corruption in matter and form,” whilst another leader of the Tritheists, Bishop Conon of Tarsus in Cilicia, declared the matter but not the form to be corruptible. Then arose the parties of the Cononites and the Philoponists, who applied to each other the greatest variety of nicknames which they could invent. It is probable that Philoponus also denied altogether the resurrection of the flesh, as Photius (Bibl. cod. 21) informs us.

The contentions among the Monophysites, however, did not yet cease, especially as the Patriarch Damian of Alexandria, in his opposition to the Tritheists, again went close to Sabellianism, reduced the divine Persons almost to mere attributes, and, on the other side, assigned a special ὕπαρξις to the divine nature (essence) which is common to the three Persons. The patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Callinico, entered the lists against him, and the adherents of the Alexandrian Patriarch received the names of Damianites and Tetradites, because they had taught the doctrine of four Gods,—the three Persons, and the higher Godhead (the divine nature) which is common to them, but which yet has a proper existence.

Another controversy was kindled by Stephen Niobes, teacher of sciences (Sophist) at Alexandria, by the assertion “that the previous Monophysitism is a half measure, for if only one nature is admitted, then there could be no longer any distinction between the divine and the human in Christ.” Both the Alexandrian and the Antiochene patriarchs, Damian and Peter (of Callinico), declared against him; but other distinguished Monophysites, particularly the priest Probus of Antioch and the abbot John of Syria, took his side, and thus formed the sect of the Niobites. They were expelled by the other Monophysites, and many of them afterwards returned into the Catholic Church.

The very opposition of the Niobites to the ordinary Monophysites leaves us to suppose that many Monophysites, since they distinguished the divine and the human in Christ, deviated from the doctrine of the Church only in words, and that their Shibboleth, “only one nature,” did not quite agree with their own views. As now, besides, on the one hand intellectual superiority, and on the other protection and advancement by the Emperors were distinctly on the side of the orthodox, imminent destruction threatened the Monophysites under the Emperor Justinian, about the middle of the sixth century. But the indefatigable monk, Jacob Baradai (i.e. “The Ragged”) of Syria, consecrated Bishop of Edessa and general head of all the Monophysites in the East in the year 541, succeeded, by an activity carried on through thirty-three years, in rearranging and strengthening Monophysite Christianity within and without the Roman Empire, by everywhere appointing new bishops and priests for his party. In particular, he revived the Monophysite patriarchate of Antioch, which, to the present day, forms the centre of all the Monophysite Churches of Syria and of many other provinces in the East. Out of gratitude to him, first the Syrian, and afterwards almost all the other Monophysites called themselves Jacobite Christians.

The Monophysites have maintained their position until now—(1) In Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Palestine; and all are subject to the Patriarch of Antioch (without a fixed see), and a Maphrian (a kind of primate), who is dependent upon him, for the provinces lying east from Syria. But as in earlier times, so in later, and especially in the Middle Ages, there have not been wanting divisions and controversies among these Monophysites, so that for a considerable time there were three Syrian patriarchates among them. At present their patriarch resides in the monastery of Zapharan, near Mardin (in the neighbourhood of Bagdad), and the Maphrian in the monastery of S. Matthew, near Mosul; but they have not now many bishops under them. A portion of the Jacobites united in the year 1646 with Rome, and for these Uniates the patriarchate of the Catholic Syrians was erected at Aleppo.

(2) The second centre of the Monophysites is Armenia, where the Patriarch Nerses of Ashtarag is said to have anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, in the year 527, at the Synod of Devin. That this was not so will appear later on. Monophysitism, however, about that time was firmly established in that country; and along with heresy all kinds of superstition, and even half Judaic ceremonies, found their way among the Armenians. Their patriarch bears the title of Catholicus; but here, as in Syria, party divisions have at times produced several patriarchates. By degrees, however, they reunited, so that the Catholicus of Etshmiadsin became l’ope among them, while the other Armenian patriarchs—at Jerusalem, Sis, and Constantinople—became his suffragans. The patriarch of Constantinople has, however, in later times, succeeded in making himself again independent. Etshmiadsin, which was formerly under the Persian rule, was (in 1827), with other parts of Armenia, embodied by Paskewitsch in the Russian Empire. So early as the year 1439 a portion of the Armenians, at the Synod of Florence, became again united with the Catholic Church, and these Uniates have their patriarch at Constantinople. To them belong also the Lazarists and the Mechitarists.

(3) The third centre of the Monophysites is Egypt, where, with the name of Jacobite, they bear also that of Coptic Christians.—As under Justinian and Justin II. they were persecuted not without violence, they gave their opponents the name of Melchites (מֶלֶךְ), Royalists, or court party; while they took the name of Copts, that is, original Egyptian Christians.

Because they were oppressed by the Byzantine government, the Copts assisted in the conquest of Egypt by the Saracens in the year 640, and were by these reinstated in the possession of the patriarchate of Alexandria, but nevertheless, in the course of centuries, have often been forced to experience the intolerance of the Mahometans. They number now about 100,000 adherents. Their language in divine service is the old Coptic, they having, at the time of the rise of Monophysitism, out of hatred to the Byzantines, given up the Greek, which was then in universal use. The union concluded with them also at Florence, February 4, 1442, had no effect.

(4) With the Monophysite patriarchate of Alexandria is connected also the Church of Abyssinia, which, by the very circumstance of this hierarchial union, was, in the fifth and sixth centuries, also involved in the Monophysite heresy. It is under a metropolitan or Abbuna, who is nominated by the Patriarch of Alexandria.—From these four Monophysite centres several branch communities have extended into various provinces of Western and Central Asia, but without possessing any considerable importance.

Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com