HOME CHAT NAB PRAYERS FORUMS COMMUNITY RCIA MAGAZINE CATECHISM LINKS CONTACT
 CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC SAINTS INDEX  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
 CATHOLIC DICTIONARY  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Home
 
Bible
 
Catechism
 
Chat
 
Catholic Encyclopedia
 
Church Fathers
 
Classics Library
 
Church Documents
 
Discussion
 
Mysticism
 
Prayer
 
Prayer Requests
 
RCIA
 
Vocations
 
Ray of Hope
 
Saints
 
Social Doctrine
 
Links
 
Contact
 







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

SEC. 267. The first Session and the Acts of the Synod

IN accordance with the imperial command, but without the assent of the Pope, the Synod was opened on the 5th of May 553, in the Secretarium of the Bishop’s Church at Constantinople. Among those present were the Patriarchs Eutychius of Constantinople, who presided, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domninus of Antioch, three bishops as representatives of the Patriarch Eustochius of Jerusalem, and 145 other metropolitans and bishops, of whom many came also in the place of absent colleagues. At the close of the Synod 164 members signed. At the first session six Africans came up, at the last eight, among them Bishop Sextilian of Tunis as representative of Archbishop Primosus (Primasius, sec. 262B) of Carthage.

The Greek Acts of our Synod have been lost; but we still possess a Latin translation of them, which was probably prepared at the time of the Synod for the use of Pope Vigilius, and can be shown to have been used by one of his nearest successors, Pelagius II. (578–590). The questions whether these Acts are genuine, gave occasion to an extensive inquiry at the sixth Œcumenical Council in the year 680. At its third session the Acts of the fifth were read from a manuscript which was divided into two books; and in the first book the so-called preliminary Acts seem to be contained, and in the second the minutes proper of the sessions with appendices. When from the first book a supposed letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius on the unity of the will in Christ (in the sense of Monothelitism) began to be read, the papal legates protested, and declared this document spurious. It was immediately shown, in fact, that it was written by another hand than the other pieces in the first book, and upon leaves which had been added afterwards, and were not paged like the others. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus therefore would not allow this document to be read further at the sixth Synod; and in the course of time it has completely disappeared; it is not now extant.

The second book of the Acts of the fifth Council was then read, and when they came to those two letters which Vigilius was said to have written to the Emperor Justinian and to his consort (with the expression unam operationem, sec. 259), the papal legates also protested against the genuineness of these two documents, and an examination was instituted, the result of which we find in the minutes of the fourteenth session. So far there were used, at the sixth Synod, two manuscript collections of the Acts of the fifth Council, taken from the archives of the patriarchate of Constantinople: (1) a parchment codex, divided into two books, which, in its first book, contained, as we have remarked, that spurious letter of Mennas; (2) a paper codex which contained only the Acts of the seventh session. On further examination, the Dean and Chartophylax George found in the archiepiscopal archives of Constantinople, besides, (3) a third codex, also written on paper, and containing the Acts of the whole of the fifth Synod. He declared on oath that, in these old books, neither by him nor, with his consent, by anyone else, had any alteration whatever been made; and he was now commissioned by the sixth Synod to compare these three codices with one another, and with other old paper manuscripts of the earlier Council (where these were found we are not told). It was then discovered (a) that the latter and the codex No. 3 did not contain those letters of Mennas and Vigilius; (b) that in the first book of the parchment codex No. 1, three quaterns (sheets of four leaves each) had been added by a later hand, and that in these the letter of Mennas was found (besides that, probably other documents); (c) that in the second book of that parchment codex, in the section relating to the seventh session, between the original fifteenth and sixteenth sheets, a sheet had been at a later period inserted, not paged, and containing the two supposititious letters of Vigilius; and that (d) the paper codex No. 2 had been falsified in the same manner. The Council therefore decided to cancel the three documents thus shown to be spurious in MSS. No. 1 and No. 2, to mark them respectively with an obelus, and anathematise them.

By another way we arrive at the same result, that these three pieces were not found in the oldest collections of the Acts of the fifth Council. In the fourteenth session of the sixth Œcumenical Synod the following is related by Constantine, a presbyter of Constantinople and a Latin grammarian (Grammaticus Latinus). Not long before (about thirty years), Paul, then patriarch of Constantinople, had visited the archives, and had there discovered a codex which contained a Latin translation of the Acts of the fifth Œcumenical Council. At the command of the patriarch he, the Grammaticus, had compared this codex with the Greek, and had found that the two letters of Vigilius were lacking in it. At the express command of the patriarch he had translated them from the Greek, and added them to the Latin codex. Accordingly the two letters were not in the old Latin codex, but only in a Greek translation of the Latin original. That Latin codex, however, which the Patriarch Paul found about the year 650, was certainly nothing but a copy of the original Latin translation, which, if we are not mistaken, was made for Vigilius. Such a Latin codex, either the original codex of Vigilius itself or a copy, the papal legates had naturally brought from Rome with them, and as the letter of Mennas and the two letters of Vigilius were lacking in it, they made their protest both on this formal ground, and on account of the Monothelite tendency of the contents of these two documents. There are two alternatives possible: Either these documents are entirely spurious, and had no existence at the time of the fifth Synod, but were fabricated at a later period by a Monothelite, and are therefore to be removed from the collection of the Acts; or they are—at least the two letters of Vigilius (the lost one of Mennas was, without doubt, quite spurious)—for the most part genuine, and they were certainly read in the seventh session of our Council, but they had not yet the addition unam operationem, and this must have been interpolated by a Monothelite.

Baluze declared for the latter theory in his fine Præfatio in acta Concilii V.; and even Baronius (ad ann. 680, n. 47) anticipated him here. Moreover, it must not be overlooked that the two letters of Vigilius in question, apart from the phrase unam operationem, entirely fit that time of Vigilius, and certainly have witnesses for their genuineness in the Emperor Justinian, in his minister Constantine, and in Facundus of Hermione, since all three declare that Vigilius at that time (before his Judicatum) had privately promised the Emperor, in writing, an anathema on the three chapters (sec. 259). That these two letters are wanting in the oldest collections of the Acts of the fifth Council in no way proves their entire spuriousness, for the collections of conciliar Acts have always been very different in completeness, and in many there were wanting documents of uncontested genuineness.

The first who printed the Acts of the fifth Œcumenical Synod, now extant only in Latin, was Surius, in the year 1567. He had at command only one old manuscript. The Roman editors restricted themselves to reprinting his text, as they had no manuscript at hand. Labbé was, on the contrary, fortunate enough to be able to compare a second manuscript, Codex Parisiensis, belonging to Joly, precentor of Paris; but he did not make his work sufficiently thorough. Baluze was the first to make full use of the Paris codex, and found in it a series of the most important variations from the text of Surius. He was able, besides, to compare a Codex Bellovacensis, which Hermant, the learned canon of Beauvais, had lent him, and which almost entirely harmonised with the text of Surius. Thus equipped, Baluze brought out a much better edition of the Acts of the fifth Council, accompanied with critical notes, and introduced by a very interesting Præfatio. We find his work also completely copied in Mansi (t. ix. p. 163 sqq.), whilst Hardouin has made only partial use of it.

Besides the genuineness of our Acts, their completeness has also become subject of discussion. This is connected with the question whether the fifth Œcumenical Synod was merely occupied with the controversy on the three chapters, or also held several sessions on Origen and his adherents. The most important defender of the latter view was Cardinal Noris, who maintained that, before the eight sessions, the Acts of which have come to us, there were one or several other sessions for the purpose of examining and censuring Origen, but that their Acts are entirely lost. So also, that the Synod, after settling the matter of the three chapters, occupied themselves further with Origenism, and anathematised two Origenists long dead, Didymus the Blind and the deacon Evagrius Ponticus († 399). That the first part of this hypothesis, namely, that the eight sessions, whose Acts we have, and which were occupied only with the matter of the three chapters, were preceded by others, is not tenable, was seen by the Ballerini, in their defence of Noris’s dissertation against the Jesuit Garnier. As we related above, the Acts of our Council were examined at the sixth Œcumenical Synod, particularly a codex which contained only the seventh session, and it was there shown that what is now called the seventh session was originally marked by the same number. We cannot, therefore, assume that one or more sessions were held before those of which we possess the Acts. This decided the Ballerini to alter the hypothesis of Cardinal Noris to this extent, that it was not until after the eight sessions on the three chapters that some further sessions were held on account of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, Our Acts, they thought, were thus incomplete, as, moreover, is clear, since the usual acclamations in honour of the Emperor, etc., are wanting.

A direct proof from antiquity, that the Acts of the fifth Synod had once been more complete, Noris and the Ballerini could, therefore, not discover; but they thought that they were justified in such an assumption, or even forced to it, by inferences from passages in the Fathers.

(a) The priest Cyril of Scythopolis, who was a contemporary of the fifth Council, a disciple of S. Sabas, and one who, as a member of the great Laura in Palestine, took part in the Origenist controversy of that time, says, in his biography of S. Sabas, c. 90, quite expressly: “When the holy and Œcumenical fifth Synod was assembled in Constantinople, they smote with common and catholic anathema Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and also what Evagrius and Didymus had taught on pre-existence and restitution.

(b) Of almost equal antiquity with the priest Cyril was the ecclesiastical historian Evagrius, at the time when our Synod was held, a youth of about fifteen years. He also writes, in his Church History (lib. iv. c. 38), that the fifth Œcumenical Synod, after the Palestrinian monks Eulogius, Conon, etc., had presented a memorial against Origen (after the anathematising of the three chapters), had also pronounced a condemnation on Origen and his adherents, particularly on the blasphemies of Didymus and Evagrius.

(c) The third witness whom Noris and the Ballerini adduce is the Lateran Synod of 649, at which (c. 18), and in an utterance of Bishop Maximus of Aquileia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius are mentioned among those anathematised by the first five Synods. Since, then, no decree was drawn up against these three men by the first four Councils; this must have been done by the fifth Œcumenical Synod.

(d) The sixth Œcumenical Council, too (A.D. 680), declares, in its seventeenth and eighteenth sessions, that the fifth Synod was assembled on account of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius.

(e) To the same effect the seventh Œcumenical Synod expresses itself in its seventeenth session (Hardouin, t. iv. p. 454), not to mention other less important witnesses. From all these utterances Noris and the Ballerini are led to the supposition, that, besides the eight sessions of the fifth Council, of which we possess the Acts, others must have been held on account of Origen, etc.

The contentions of Cardinal Noris on this subject were opposed by the Jesuit Garnier in his dissertation contributed to the Breviarium of Liberatus, De quinta Synodo, c. 2, and particularly c. 5. In the re-editing of this treatise in the Actuarium of his edition of the works of Theodoret, he left out the greater part of this (the old fifth chapter); but he retained the principal portion, maintaining that Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius were not anathematised at the fifth Synod.

It is not to be denied that the argument of Cardinal Noris and the Ballerini has much to recommend it, and that their witnesses are of importance; nevertheless, we are unable to agree with them, and can go no further than to say that certainly the fifth Synod anathematised Origen, but not in a special session, and not in consequence of special transactions, but only transeundo and in cumulo, since, in their eleventh anathematism, among a number of older heretics, they brought forward his name (see below). The names of Evagrius and Didymus we do not find in the Acts of our Synod at all. The reasons which we oppose to Noris and the Ballerini are the following:—

(a) That only half of the Acts of the fifth Œcumenical Council have come to us is hinted at by none of the ancients, and yet this is the main assumption of Cardinal Noris, etc.

(b) In the imperial edicts which called our Council into being, and prescribed the direction of its activity, there is nowhere any reference to Origen, but only the τρία κεφαλαία are always indicated as the subject with which the Synod has to deal.

(c) To the same effect Pope Vigilius, in the two edicts in which he confirmed the fifth Synod several months after its close, speaks only of the three chapters, and not in the least of Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, as little as of the other old heretics who are brought forward in the eleventh anathematism of the Synod.

(d) The inferences that the close of our Acts is wanting, because no acclamations are contained in them, and that only that part of the minutes was translated into Latin for Vigilius which dealt with the three chapters, because only this interested him, and not the part concerning Origen, are two quite arbitrary assumptions of the Ballerini (l.c. p. 1019) which have nothing to support them.

(e) In subscribing the minutes of the eighth session, the Patriarch Eutychius recapitulated in brief all that had been decreed without giving one syllable of a reference to Origen, from which (in spite of Noris) it is clear that, at least up to this time, no special transaction had taken place at our Synod on account of Origen. If, however, he was named only transeundo in the eleventh anathematism, Eutychius had no more reason to refer to him than to the other old heretics there brought forward.

(f) Pope Gregory the Great says: “The Synod which dealt with the three chapters anathematised only one single person, namely, Theodore of Mopsuestia.” This he could not have said, if the Roman copy of the synodal Acts had contained a special sentence against Origen. Only in the eleventh anathematism the Roman copy of the synodal Acts also contains the name of Origen along with those of other old heretics; and Gregory names these here as little as Origen, because the anathema on them did not belong to the special business of the fifth Council.

(g) We have already remarked that the Church historian Evagrius, one of the chief witnesses of Cardinal Noris, confounded the fifth Synod with the one held somewhat earlier (A.D. 543) under Mennas, which did anathematise Origen and drew up fifteen propositions against him.

(h) With Cyril of Scythopolis, however, we may perhaps suppose a slight error. Victor of Tununum says, ad ann. 565 (Galland. t. xii. p. 231), that the Emperor Justinian, in this year, exiled Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, the damnator trium capitulorum, et Evagrii eremitæ diaconi ac Didymi monachi. This points to the fact that the Patriarch Eutychius, after the holding of our Synod at which he presided, published an edict in his diocese, and therein made known the decrees of the fifth Council, at the same time pronounced anathema on Evagrius and Didymus, and also on Origen (perhaps renewed the decrees of the Synod under Mennas). If this was so, then Cyril, living as a hermit in the remote Laura, might easily confound the edict of Eutychius following the fifth Synod with this, and so arrive at his conclusion respecting Origen. If, however, the statement was once circulated by him and Evagrius, that the fifth Council had also anathematised Origen and the others, this might have been repeated by a hundred others bonâ fide. So, too, at the sixth Œcumenical Council, in their copy of the Acts of our Synod, amplified as we know, a passage may have been found on Origen, Diodorus, and Evagrius. It is quite true that here a critical examination of the copies was ordered; but this extended, as far as we can see from the text of the fourteenth session of the sixth Council, only to the supposed letter of Mennas and the two letters of Pope Vigilius; for a comparison and examination, extending to all particulars, there seemed no great need, nor had they sufficient time.

After the 151 bishops had taken their places at the opening of our Synod, the imperial Silentiarius Theodore begged for admission, and presented a letter from the Emperor, dated on the same day (May 5), addressed to the Synod. This letter was immediately read by the deacon and notary Stephen, and ran as follows: “The effort of my predecessors, the orthodox Emperors, ever aimed at the settling of controversies which had arisen respecting the faith by the calling of Synods. For this cause Constantine assembled 318 Fathers at Nicæa, Theodosius 150 at Constantinople, Theodosius the younger the Synod of Ephesus, the Emperor Marcian the bishops at Chalcedon. As, however, after Marcian’s death, controversies respecting the Synod of Chalcedon had broken out in several places, the Emperor Leo wrote to all bishops of all places, in order that everyone might declare his opinion in writing with regard to this holy Council. Soon afterwards, however, had arisen again the adherents of Nestorius and Eutyches, and caused great divisions, so that many Churches had broken off communion with one another. When, now, the grace of God raised us to the throne, we regarded it as our chief business to unite the Churches again, and to bring the Synod of Chalcedon, together with the three earlier, to universal acceptance. We have won many who previously opposed that Synod; others, who persevered in their opposition, we banished, and so restored the unity of the Church again. But the Nestorians want to impose their heresy upon the Church; and, as they could not use Nestorius for that purpose, they made haste to introduce their errors through Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, who taught still more grievous blasphemies than his. He maintained, e.g., that God the Word was one, and Christ another. For the same purpose they made use of those impious writings of Theodoret which were directed against the first Synod of Ephesus, against Cyril and his twelve chapters, and also the shameful letter which Ibas is said to have written. They maintain that this letter was accepted by the Synod of Chalcedon, so would free from condemnation Nestorius and Theodore who were commended in the letter. If they were to succeed, the Logos could no longer be said to be ‘made man,’ nor Mary called the ‘God-bearer.’ We therefore, following the holy Fathers, have first asked you in writing to give your judgment on the three impious chapters named, and you have answered, and have joyfully confessed the true faith. Because, however, after the condemnation proceeding from you, there are still some who defend the three chapters, therefore we have summoned you to the capital, that you may here, in common assembly, place again your view in the light of day. When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in writing the three chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the three chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. (sec. 259). You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended the three chapters, but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Arles, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly. But now he had altered his view, would no longer have a Synod, but required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the Synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese. We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo, and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter (of Ibas) was received by the Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon. You will thence see that he and his heresies have since been condemned, and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that no one who has died is to be anathematised; consider further the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation of the Word is denied, the expression ‘Godbearer’ and the holy Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And, as they say that the Council of Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter, and commend you, holy fathers, to the divine protection.”

After the reading of the imperial letter, the Silentiarius was required to withdraw; and the Synod gave orders that, as the Emperor spoke of a correspondence with Vigilius, the documents connected with it should be communicated. The notary Stephen then read the letter of Eutychius of Constantinople to Vigilius, and then the answer of the Pope, from both of which documents we have given extracts above (sec. 266). The Acts add correctly that Apollinaris of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch, together with their suffragans who were present in the residence, had addressed quite the same letters to the Pope as Eutychius, and had received the same answer. The bishops then declared that although several of them and the imperial officials had already frequently exhorted Vigilius to enter into common consultation with them, yet it was reasonable to do this once more; and thereupon, whilst the rest remained assembled, there went a highly distinguished and numerous deputation, among them the three Oriental patriarchs, to the Pope, to invite him to take part in the Synod. They returned with the intelligence that Vigilius had stated that, on account of being unwell, he was unable to give them an immediate answer, and he requested the deputies to come again next day in order to receive his answer. In expectation of this they closed the first session.

SEC. 268. Second and Third Sessions on the 8th and 9th of May

On the 8th of May 553, the same bishops came together again in the same place, and on request the deputies sent in the first session to Vigilius gave an account of their second visit to the Pope. “As the Pope of Old Rome,” they said, “appointed the next day for us, so we betook ourselves again to him on the 6th of May, two days ago, reminded him of the letters already exchanged between us and him, and requested him, in accordance with his promise, now to declare whether he would take council in common with us on the subject of the three chapters. He refused to take part in the Synod, with the remark, that the number of Orientals was so great, and that he had only a few bishops with him; so that he had begged the Emperor to allow more bishops to come from Italy. We replied that neither by us nor by the Emperor had the promise been given to await the arrival of the Western bishops; whilst Vigilius had promised in writing to meet with us, and it was not right for him to distinguish so abruptly between Western and Eastern, as they both held the same faith, and that in the case of the first four Œcumenical Synods not many Westerns had been present. And besides, there were, in fact, a good many Western bishops from Africa and Illyria present at Constantinople. He replied, we will come together in equal numbers, I will take three bishops with me; from the other side, let the three patriarchs come with one other bishop, so that there may be four on each side. We made the counter proposal, that at least each patriarch should bring with him the same number of bishops as the Pope, and added that it was, moreover, unbecoming, that out of so many bishops who were here, the matter should be decided by so few. As he persevered in his refusal, we added, that, as the Emperor had commanded us, as well as him, to deliver an opinion on the three chapters, we, on our part, should assemble without him and express our view. He then declared: I have asked the Emperor for a delay of twenty days, within which time I will answer his written question. If I have not by that time expressed my opinion, then I will accept all that you decree on the three chapters. We replied: In the correspondence between us and you there was nothing said of a separate, but of a common declaration on the three chapters. If your Holiness only wishes for delay, it is to be considered that the matter has already lasted seven years, since your Holiness came into this city. Moreover, you are perfectly informed on the subject, and have already frequently anathematised the three chapters, both in writing and orally. Vigilius refused to give any further answer. We, however, persevered in the request that he would come with us, and immediately gave the Emperor information of our conference with Vigilius. He promised to send some State officials (Judices) and bishops to him, in order to admonish him anew.”

Diodorus, the Archdeacon and Primicerius of the Notaries, now declared that yesterday, May 7, the Emperor had actually sent several State officials, together with a number of bishops, to the Pope, and the former were ready to give a report concerning their mission. They related: “At the command of the Emperor, we had recourse to Pope Vigilius on the 1st of May in the company of Belisarius and others, and again on the 7th of May in company with Theodore, bishop of Cæsarea, and others, and presented to him both times the same command of the Emperor, that he would either negotiate with all the bishops in common, or, if he did not like this, that he would first with the patriarchs and some other bishops consider the question of the three chapters, so that the judgment of this commission might then be received by the other bishops. He refused, however, both the consultation with all and that with the patriarchs, and demanded delay, in order that he might give his answer alone. We told him that he had already frequently anathematised the three chapters alone, both in writing and orally, but that the Emperor desired a common sentence upon them. Vigilius, too, had already himself communicated to the Emperor his wish for a delay; and had received for answer, that, if he were really ready for a common consultation with the bishops or patriarchs, then he should receive a still longer delay. As, however, he was now visibly trying to put the matter off, it was necessary that the other bishops should give their judgment in a Synod.… We presented this to him, and besought him repeatedly to take part in the Synod. But he persisted in his refusal.” This report of the imperial officials was confirmed by the bishops who went with them to Vigilius. The former now withdrew again from the session with the words: “The bishops, having the fear of God before their eyes, should make a short end to the affair, and be convinced that the Emperor held inviolable and defended the definitions of the faith of the four holy Synods, and rejected all that was in opposition to them. At his command, also, those four Synods were inscribed in the diptychs—a thing which was never done before.”

The Synod thereupon sent deputies to the Western bishops present in Constantinople, Primasius of Africa (sec. 262B), Sabinianus, Projectus, and Paul from Illyricum, in order to request their appearance. The envoys speedily returned with the intelligence that Primasius would not come because the Pope was not there; and the other three had said that they must first take counsel with their archbishop, Benenatus. The Synod resolved to inform the latter that Benenatus was in fellowship with the Synod, and one of his suffragans, Phocas, was even present. As to Primasius, however, his case should be decided, in due time, according to the rules of the Church, that the Emperor should immediately receive information on this point also, and that a new session should be held on the following day.

In this, the third session, on May 9, 553, the minutes of the two previous transactions were read, and then a confession of faith was drawn up by the bishops, which was partly identical with that of the Emperor in his edict of May 5, and declares adhesion to the decrees of the four early Councils, and to the doctrine of the Fathers, Athanasius and others. To this the Synod adds the threat of anathema on all who should separate themselves from the Church (certainly with allusion to Vigilius), and closes with the words: “In regard to the controversy on the three chapters, with respect to which the Emperor questioned us, a special meeting is necessary on another day.”

SEC. 269. Fourth Session on the 12th or 13th of May

When the bishops again assembled on the 12th, or, according to the Paris codex, on the 13th of May, they caused to be read, from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the passages already collected, on account of which he had been accused of heresy by the holy Fathers. Callonymus, the deacon and notary, read no fewer than seventy-one passages, together with the infamous creed of Theodore (see sec. 267). The first of these passages from the third book of Theodore against Apollinaris, declares the difference between the Word and Him who was born of Mary, between the temple and the dweller therein, in a strong Nestorian sense. The same meaning is given by the second passage, which leaves it doubtful whether the Logos was united with the Son of Man in the womb of Mary, or only afterwards. The mere dwelling of the Word in a man is then declared very distinctly in Nos. 3, 4, etc. Twelve of these passages are taken from the books of Theodore against Apollinaris, others from his commentaries on John, Matthew, Luke, Acts of the Apostles, Epistle to the Hebrews, Psalms, and Prophets, from the works, De Incarnatione, Ad baptizandos, De creatura, and others. Some of them we have used above (vol. iii. sec. 127) in order to set forth Theodore’s teaching, and this has been done more completely by Dr. Gengler in the Tübingen Theolog. Quartalschrift, 1835, S. 223 ff.

Even during the reading, after the twenty-seventh passage which speaks of a dwelling of the Godhead in man, and, as though the latter had been supported and healed by the former, the Synod exclaimed: “That we have already condemned, that we have already anathematised. Anathema to Theodore and his writings … a Theodore, a Judas.” And after the whole reading was ended, they exclaimed: ‘This creed (Theodore’s) Satan has made. Anathema to him who made this creed! The first Synod of Ephesus anathematised this creed with its author. We know only one creed, that of Nicæa: the other three Synods have also handed this down; in this creed we were baptized and baptize others. Anathema to Theodore of Mopsuestia! He has rejected the Gospels, insulted the incarnation of God (dispensatio, οἰκονομὶα, cf. Suicer, Thesaur. s.v.). Anathema to all who do not anathematise him! His defenders are Jews, his adherents heathens. Many years to the Emperor!… We all anathematise Theodore and his writings.” The Synod hereupon declared: “The multitude of blasphemies read out, which Theodore has spit out against our great God and Saviour, essentially against his own soul, justifies his condemnation. Yet because we will be quite exact in the examination of the matter, we must hear further on another day.”

SEC. 270. Fifth Session on May 17

The day on which the fifth session was held is given differently in the manuscripts of the synodal Acts. The codex of Surius had viii Idus Maii (= May 8). But this reading cannot possibly be received, since the previous session took place on the 12th or 13th of May. The Roman editors, in their Collection of the Councils, corrected viii Idus into iii Idus (= May 13), and endeavoured to justify this assumption by a passage from a speech of Archdeacon Diodorus presently to be noticed. Baluze found, however, in his two codices, the date xvi Kal Junias (= May 17), and showed that this reading must be retained, which was then taken by Hardouin into the text.

At the beginning of this session Diodorus, archdeacon of Constantinople, spoke thus: “The holy Synod remembers that, on a former day, they had recognised the impiety of Theodore and his writings, but at the same time had resolved in another session to have read aloud what the holy Fathers and the imperial edicts pronounced concerning Theodore.” The Synod adhered to this resolution, and after, as in all the other sessions, the minutes of the earlier ones had been read, a deacon brought forward from the now lost treatise of Cyril against Theodore of Mopsuestia, ten passages which contained first Theodore’s own words and then Cyril’s answer. This was followed by a rather large fragment from the very violent letter of the Armenian and Persian clergy to Proclus, formerly bishop of Constantinople, in which Theodore is called a pestifer homo, nay, a wild beast in human form, and his influence and his errors are described. From the answer of Proclus to the Armenians two small passages are extracted; then four passages from four letters of Cyril, one from the letter of Nabulas to Cyril, and one from the now lost Church History of Hesychius, a priest of Jerusalem (in the fifth century), in which the biography of Theodore of Mopsuestia is given in brief, and a very severe judgment pronounced upon him. Next followed two imperial edicts of Theodosius the younger, and two utterances of Gregory of Nyssa against Theodore. Finally, in proof that the writings attacked by Cyril really proceeded from Theodore, and that he was accused of heresy at so early a period, three passages from Theodoret were held sufficient.

The examination immediately proceeded to another point: Whether it was true that S. Cyril, in one of his writings, had praised Theodore and called him bonus Theodorus. In order to clear up this question, a passage was read from the treatise of Cyril against Theodore, in which this phrase certainly occurs: “Scriptum est a bono Theodoro adversus hæresin Arianorum,” etc.; but that which goes before and that which follows show quite clearly that on one point Cyril commended the zeal of Theodore and yet acccused him of false doctrine. So also several letters of Gregory of Nazianzus were read, in order to prove that the Theodore to whom they were addressed was not the Mopsuestian, but the bishop of Tyana (sec. 263); which was confirmed by Euphranta, who was then bishop of Tyana, and was present at the Synod, and by Bishop Theodosius of Justinianopolis.

In order to weaken the further objection of the opponents, that no dead man should be anathematised, the deacon Photinus read several passages from Cyril; and the African bishop, Sextilian, declared that the old African Synods had decreed that those bishops who left their property to heretics should be anathematised even after their death; Augustine, too, had expressed himself in a letter in favour of the lawfulness of anathematising one who is dead (see sec. 263). In proof three passages were read from Augustine, upon which Bishop Benignus of Heraclea remarked that, as a matter of fact, many had been anathematised after their death, e.g. Valentinus, Marcian, Apollinaris, etc., and many Eusebians. In agreement with this, Rabulas of Edessa had anathematised Theodore of Mopsuestia after his death, and so had the Roman Church Dioscurus, bishop of Rome (antipope), after his death, although he had never offended against the faith.

Theodore Ascidas, John of Nyssa, and Basil of Justinianopolis now alleged that the defenders of Theodore relied upon a supposed letter of S. Cyril to John of Antioch, in which the former disapproved of the anathema on Theodore. They produced the letter, and showed its spuriousness by quoting the genuine utterances of Cyril on the Mopsuestian. From other passages of Cyril they showed that he considered an anathema on one who was dead as allowable, and they added that the opponents could not support themselves by the fact that Cyril at one time (vol. iii. sec. 160), with prudent regard to the circumstances, was unwilling to obtain an anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia. As, however, this toleration (dispensatio) did not win back those who had gone astray, Cyril and Proclus had afterwards expressed themselves the more violently against Theodore. The Apostle Paul, too, had used similar toleration towards the weak, and had even kept the ordinances of the old law: So, Basil the Great and Athanasius had in some measure commended Apollinaris, and Pope Leo, at one time, Eutyches (vol. iii. sec. 171); but afterwards they anathematised those heretics. So, many others had been anathematised after their death, e.g. Origen. Whoever would go back to the times of Theophilus of Alexandria and still further, would find this. Indeed, the bishops present and Pope Vigilius had done the same in regard to Origen. A supposed letter of Chrysostom in honour of the Mopsuestian, which was circulated by the opposition, was spurious, and contradicted the genuine letter of Chrysostom to Theodore, in which he blamed him for abandoning the monastic life. Nor could they say that Theodore had died in the communion of the Church, for only he who held the true faith until death died in Church communion.—At the close the bishops recited another passage from Gregory of Nyssa, which declared the doctrine of two Sons, and so the doctrine of Theodore, to be unchristian.

After the long addresses of the three bishops the Acts of the recently held Synod of Mopsuestia (sec. 262), with the imperial edicts prefixed, were read, in proof that the name of Theodore had long ago been struck out of the diptychs of his own church.

Here the inquiry concerning Theodore closed, and Theodoret of Cyrus came next in his turn. Several passages from his writings against Cyril, etc., were read; namely, four fragments from his polemic against the twelve anathematisms of Cyril, four fragments from some discourses of Theodoret, and five nearly entire letters of his. Theodoret declared himself here as openly heterodox, whilst he himself wanted to make the doctrine of Cyril to be heretical. In order to oppose the supposed mingling of the divine and the human with Cyril, he made a separation in a Nestorian sense between Godhead and manhood in Christ, and rejected expressions which, up to the present day, are the Shibboleth of orthodoxy in the Church. In the first fragment, e.g., he says, “God the Word is not incarnate”; in the second, “an hypostatic union we do not acknowledge at all”; in the third and fourth he opposes the communicatio idiomatum; in the fifth he calls S. Cyril an impius; in the sixth an impugnator Christi; in the seventh a novus hæreticus, who confuses the natures in Christ, etc.

After the reading was finished the Synod declared: “The accuracy of the Council of Chalcedon is wonderful. It recognised the blasphemies of Theodoret, at the beginning it directed many exclamations against him, and received him only after he had anathematised Nestorius and his blasphemies.—On a subsequent day an inquiry was to be instituted on the last chapter, the letter of Ibas.”

SEC. 271. Sixth Session on May 19

In the sixth session, May 19, 553, the minutes of the previous meetings were again read at the beginning, and the Synod then declared: “As certain persons maintain that the supposed letter of Ibas was received by the Council of Chalcedon, and, in proof, appeal to the utterances of one or another member of that assembly, whilst at the same time all the other bishops were not of the same view, the letter in question must first of all be read.” This was done, and our Acts contain here the Latin translation of the letter which is preserved in the Greek original in the minutes of the tenth session of Chalcedon. We gave its chief contents above (vol. iii. sec. 196). The Synod then ordered the reading of the letter of Proclus to John of Antioch, in which the former relates that Ibas had been accused before him of being an adherent of Nestorianism, and of having translated writings of Theodore into Syriac and circulated them. After, then, the Synod had pronounced the rejection of the letter to Maris in general, Theodore Ascidas and three other bishops gave an account of the transactions held on the subject of Ibas more than a hundred years ago (vol. iii. sees. 169 and 196), how he had been accused, but at Tyre had pronounced anathema on Nestorius, and maintained that, since the union between Cyril and the Orientals, he had written nothing more against him. At the same time, he had denied the authorship of the letter. Subsequently, because of his opposition to Cyril, he had been deposed, together with Domnus of Antioch (the bishops do not mention that this was done at the Robber-Synod, see vol. iii. sec. 179), and that, at Chalcedon, putting aside the question about the letter, he had spoken only of the other charges which were brought against him. The bishops then say, further, that the opposition, with heretical slyness, referred to one or two utterances on Ibas which were made by individual members at Chalcedon, in order to prove that the Synod had accepted his letter. But in Councils nothing was decided by the utterance of one or another. Moreover, these votes should be considered more closely, and it would be found how these very voters (indirectly) rejected the letter, since they demanded of Ibas that he should acknowledge the Council of Ephesus and anathematise Nestorius, the direct contrary of which was contained in the letter.

The bishops then adduced some of the testimonies (vota) given at Chalcedon, particularly that of Eunomius of Nicomedia, to which the opposition particularly appealed, as if he had blamed the first part of the letter, but commended the second. They show that, by the words in posterioribus recte confessus, not the latter part of the letter, but the later confession of Ibas at Chalcedon, is meant. All the bishops at Chalcedon had demanded from Ibas an anathema on Nestorius, who was commended in that letter; and Ibas had given such an anathema; and so had done it twice over. On the one hand, he had denied the authorship of the letter; on the other hand, he had (indirectly) anathematised the letter itself. The bishops, however, pass over the most important votes in silence, namely, that of the papal legates and that of the Patriarch Maximus of Antioch (vol. iii. sec. 196). The former said: “Relectis chartis agnovimus ex sententia reverendissimorum episcoporum (the commission at Tyre) Ibam innoxium probari. Relecta enim ejus epistola agnovimus eum esse orthodoxum.” Similarly Maximus: καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἀναγνωσθέντος δὲ ἀντιγράφου τῆς ἐπιστολῆς … ὀρθόδοξος ὤφθη αὐτοῦ ἡ ὑπαγορία.

In order to make it more completely clear, by comparison, that the letter to Maris is heretical, they caused a series of documents of the Synods of Ephesus and Chalcedon to be read, as follows:—

1. The second letter of Cyril to Nestorius (vol. iii. sec. 129), with some utterances of Cyril and other bishops at the Œcumenical Synod of Ephesus, bearing upon it.

2. The answer of Nestorius to Cyril (ib. and sec. 134) again in connection with the judgments rendered at Ephesus.

3. The letter of Cœlestius of Rome to Nestorius.

4. The letter of Cyril and the Alexandrian Synod to Nestorius, together with the twelve appended anathematisms of Cyril (secs. 131 and 134).

5. From the minutes of the second session of Chalcedon (sec. 190) they read, first, the demand of the imperial commissaries, that the bishops should now quickly declare the true faith (sec. 190), and next the famous Epistola dogmatica of Leo should be read (sec. 176). Also,

6. An expression of Bishop Atticus from the same session of Chalcedon (sec. 190), from which it is plain that the Synod had recognised the letter of Leo just named, and also the letter of Cyril and his Synod to Nestorius as an expression of the true faith, and had put it into the hands of the bishops for their own more careful guidance.

7. A number of other documents were taken from the fourth session of Chalcedon: (a) a demand of the imperial commissaries, that the bishops would now publish their view on the faith without fear (sec. 192); (b) the second demand, that they would lay their hand upon the Gospels and declare whether the letter of Leo agreed with the creed of Nicæa and Constantinople; and (c) the votes of the bishops on these subjects.

8. Finally, they brought forward, from the Acts of the fifth session of Chalcedon, the confession of faith of this Council, together with the creeds of Nicæa and Constantinople inserted in it (see sec. 193).

After this was done, the deacon and notary Thomas was required to read a short document, prepared beforehand, in which utterances of the Council of Chalcedon and statements from the letter to Maris were set over against each other, in order to show that the Council had taught the opposite of that which was to be read in the letter. The Council said: “God the Word has become flesh and man, is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity”; the letter, on the contrary, called everyone a heretic and an Apollinarist who spoke of an incarnation and a becoming man of the Divine Word. The Council called Mary the Godbearer; the letter contested this predicate. The Council declared its consent to follow the decrees of Ephesus, and anathematised Nestorius; the letter insulted the Synod of Ephesus, and defended Nestorius. The Council honoured Cyril as a teacher, and had accepted his letter with the twelve anathematisms; the letter to Maris called Cyril a heretic, his anathematisms impious, and blamed his doctrine of two natures and one person, and of the Communicatio idiomatum. The Fathers of the Council confess repeatedly that they teach exactly as Cyril did; the letter scoffs at the teaching of Cyril. The Council anathematises all who introduce another creed; the letter praises Theodore, who drew up an impious creed. Generally, the doctrine of the letter was quite opposed to that of Chalcedon, and even when it spoke of two natures, as did the Synod of Chalcedon, it signified by that properly two persons, like Nestorius.

After all this the Synod pronounced the sentence: “The transactions which have taken place show clearly that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is thoroughly contradictory to the declaration of faith of Chalcedon. Therefore all the members of that Synod demanded that Ibas should anathematise Nestorius, whom that letter defended, and should subscribe the declaration of faith. In doing so they showed that they regarded as invalid what one or two had said in favour of that letter; whilst these also united with the others, and accepted Ibas only after he had done penance and anathematised Nestorius, and had subscribed the confession of faith of Chalcedon.” All exclaimed: “The letter is heretical; we all condemn this letter; it is foreign to the Synod of Chalcedon. It is quite heretical, quite blasphemous. Whoever accepts it is a heretic; the declaration of faith of Chalcedon condemned this letter. Anathema to Theodore, to Nestorius, and to the letter ascribed to Ibas. Whoever does not anathematise this letter insults the Synod of Chalcedon. Many years to the Emperor! many years to the orthodox Emperor!”

SEC. 272. The Constitution of Vigilius, May 14, 553

During the sessions of the Synod heretofore described, Pope Vigilius prepared that comprehensive memorial to the Emperor, of the composition of which he had already informed the commissaries sent to him in the words: He would within twenty days set forth his view of the three chapters separately from the Synod (sec. 268). It is headed, Constitutum Vigilii Papæ de tribus capitulis, and therefore is called Constitutum, and is dated May 14, 553, from Constantinople, and is subscribed by sixteen other bishops, besides Vigilius, and three Roman clergy. Of those sixteen bishops, nine were Italians—from Marsi, Scyllacium, Silva Candida, Cingulum, Ariminum, Malta, Nomentum, Lipara, Numana; two Africans—from Nasaita and Adrumetum; two from Illyricum—from Ulpianum and Zappara; and three from Asia—from Iconium, Claudiopolis, and Melitene in Armenia. The three Roman clerics were Archdeacon Theophanius and the two deacons Pelagius and Peter.

The Constitutum begins by praising the Emperor for having demanded declarations of faith from all the bishops, with a view to removing the discord in the Church. Two such, the Pope proceeds, had already been given, and he inscribed them here verbally, namely, that of Mennas and Theodore Ascidas, and the somewhat later one of Eutychius, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and others (sec. 265). He had wished that soon an assembly (Synod) might be held in Italy or Sicily, in order to consider the subject of the three chapters; but the Emperor had not agreed to this, and, on the contrary, had made the proposal to summon to Constantinople, from Africa and other Western provinces, those bishops whose names the Pope would put down, and whom he wished as councillors. Out of love for peace, he had assented. A short time before Easter the Emperor had resolved that an equal number of the bishops present in Constantinople should consider the matter (i.e. as Vigilius understood it, as many Greeks as Latins; whilst the Emperor meant that the same number of bishops should be chosen from each patriarchate). Whilst, then, the Pope, in giving effect to his view of the matter, was occupied with the three chapters, the officer of the palace, Theodore, had handed him an imperial letter, not many days before Easter—an imperial letter in which Justinian already pronounced his judgment on the three chapters, and also demanded a declaration upon them from the Pope (this means the edict which was read at the first session of the fifth Synod, sec. 267). The Greek bishops had not agreed to consider the matter in a number equal to that of the Pope and his bishops, nor even that the Pope should set forth his view in writing, on the assumption that he would make concessions by word of mouth which he would be afraid to put in writing. Moreover, the Emperor had again sent officials to him with the demand that he would, as soon as possible, make a declaration concerning the three chapters. In order also to respond to this wish, he had now asked for a delay of twenty days, in reference to his well-known sickness, and had sent the deacon Pelagius to the bishops with the explanation, that, as the customary way and manner of meeting had not been observed they ought to wait twenty days longer, and not, in opposition to the rule of the Church, give their own judgment before the appearance of the sentence of the apostolic see, by which course new troubles might arise. He had now carefully examined the Acts of the four old holy Synods, the decrees of his predecessors, and the writings of other tried Fathers, in regard to the matter of the three chapters, and had scrutinised the paper codex which the Emperor had sent to him through Bishop Benignus of Heraclea, in Pelagonia. This contained, in its first part, many expressions (of Theodore of Mopsuestia) which were thoroughly opposed to the orthodox doctrine, which he therefore solemnly anathematised, and thought well to embody in his Constitutum.

There now follow, in sixty numbers, the most of those seventy-one passages from several books of Theodore of Mopsuestia which we met with at the fourth session (sec. 269). Immediately after each of these verbally quoted Capitula Theodori, Vigilius makes his Responsio follow, in which he endeavours to set forth briefly their heretical character. After he had once more condemned them ex apostolicæ sententiæ auctoritate, he proceeds: As the codex communicated to him by the Emperor ascribed these infamous passages to Theodore of Mopsuestia, he had thought it necessary to inquire in the old Fathers what had been said and concluded by them respecting Theodore. He had found that S. Cyril, after the death of Theodore, had communicated the following concerning him in a letter to John of Antioch: “As the declaration of faith read at Ephesus, ascribed to Theodore, contained nothing sound, the holy Synod had rejected it, as full of perversities, and had condemned all who thus thought. Of the person of Theodore, however, in particular, they did not speak, did not anathematise him or any other by name” (vol. iii. sec. 206). In the Acts of the first Synod of Ephesus, he (Vigilius) had formed no judgment at all on the person of Theodore, and it was clear that Cyril, holding the priestly moderation in regard to the dead, had not wished that Theodore’s name should be inscribed in the Acts, as he, lower down in his letter, also blamed those who directed their arrows against the ashes of Theodore (vol. iii. sec. 160). In proof that it was not right to anathematise the dead, the Pope appeals further to some utterances of Bishop Proclus of Constantinople, who declared that he had demanded an anathema on the propositions of Theodore, but not on his person. The Council of Chalcedon, too, Vigilius goes on, had decreed nothing on the person of Theodore, and had uttered nothing prejudicial thereto, whilst they had referred with recognition and commendation to that letter of John of Antioch and his Synod to Theodosius the younger, then Emperor, in which Theodore is excused, and a condemnation of him after his death deprecated. And this allocution the Emperor Justinian himself had adduced as testimony in his edict on the sentence, “One of the Trinity was crucified.” The Pope said, he had further inquired carefully what his predecessors had said on the question, whether anyone who had not been anathematised in his lifetime could be anathematised after his death. Against such harshness Leo and Gelasius had, in particular, declared themselves, saying that the dead should be left to the judgment of God. The Roman Church, too, had always, in practice, followed this rule, and in like manner Dionysius the Great, of Alexandria, had indeed condemned the books of the departed Bishop Nepos, because they contained chiliastic error, but not his person (see vol. i. sec. 8). Accordingly, the Pope said he did not venture to pronounce anathema on the person of the departed Theodore of Mopsuestia, and did not allow that others should do so. But it did not, in the least, follow from this that he should tolerate or find admissible those utterances ascribed to Theodore, or any other heretical utterance.

In the second place, as regarded the writings circulated under the name of Theodoret, he wondered that anything was undertaken to the dishonour of this man, who, more than a hundred years ago, had subscribed without hesitation the sentence of Chalcedon, and had willingly given his assent to the letters of Pope Leo. Although Dioscurus and the Egyptian bishops at Chalcedon had called him a heretic, yet the holy Synod, after a careful examination of Theodoret, had required nothing else from him than that he should anathematise Nestorius and his heresy. He had done this with loud voice, and therewith had anathematised at Chalcedon all statements of Nestorian tendency, whencesoever they might proceed (thus even if they proceeded from himself). If these Nestorianising propositions were condemned, in connection with the name of Theodoret, this would be an insult to the Synod of Chalcedon; and it would be the same as to say that some of its members (namely, Theodoret) had on one side rejected the Nestorian heresies, and on the other had upheld them. Nor should it be said that the Fathers at Chalcedon had neglected to enter upon the insults which Theodoret had cast upon the twelve anathematisms of Cyril. On the contrary, this shows either that Theodoret had not been guilty of this offence, or that the Fathers had chosen to follow the example of Cyril, who, at the union, passed over in silence all the insults of which the Orientals had before that been guilty at Ephesus. By this, that Theodoret solemnly accepted the doctrine of S. Cyril, he had given him adequate satisfaction. For this reason also nothing should now be undertaken to the dishonour of Theodoret; but the Pope anathematises all statements favourable to Nestorianism or Eutychianism, whether they are circulated under the name of Theodoret or of any other. It must certainly suffice that he (the Pope) should anathematise Nestorius with Paul of Samosata and Bonosus, Eutyches with Valentinus and Apollinaris, and all other heretics with their heresies. He will, however, add specially five anathematisms.

1. If anyone does not confess that, without encroachment on the unchangeableness of the divine nature, the Word became flesh, and by the conception in human nature was hypostatically united with it, but, on the contrary, says that the Word united Himself with an already existing man, and therefore does not call the holy Virgin in the full sense Godbearer, let him be anathema.

2. If anyone denies the hypostatic union of the natures in Christ, and says that God the Word dwelt in a separately existing man, as one of the righteous, and does not confess an hypostatic union of the natures, in such a manner that God the Word remained one subsistence or person with the flesh assumed, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone so separates the expressions of the Gospels and apostles, which refer to the one Christ, that he introduces also a separation of the natures, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone says that the one Jesus Christ, the true Son of God, and at the same time the true Son of man, had no knowledge of the future, and specially of the last judgment, and knew only so much of it as the Godhead, who dwelt in Him as another, revealed thereof, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone understands the passage, Heb. 5:7, 8, only of Christ stripped of the Godhead, … and introduces two Sons, let him be anathema.

Finally, the Pope says he had instituted inquiries with respect to the letter of the venerable Ibas, and, as he was not himself acquainted with Greek, he had caused those who were about him to look out this subject in the Acts of Chalcedon. They had there found the testimonies (vota) of the papal legates, of Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch, which the Pope verbally inserted (see vol. iii. sec. 196, and above, sec. 271). It was clear that the legates of the apostolic see regarded Ibas as orthodox after the reading of his letter; that Anatolius said: “From all that has been read, the innocence of Ibas results”; and Maximus: “From the letter read his catholic confession is clear.” The other bishops had not only not contradicted, but evidently had agreed. They had therefore found the confession of Ibas orthodox; because in the letter in question he had commended the union between the Orientals and Cyril, and had accepted the confession of faith of the union. The attacks on Cyril, which Ibas allowed himself to make in his letter, from want of complete knowledge, were not approved by the Fathers at Chalcedon; indeed they were condemned by Ibas himself upon fuller information, as is shown by the testimony of Eunomius in stating an historical fact: “Illa quæ culpaverat refutavit.” The testimony of Juvenal shows the same. Moreover, before this, as is shown by the sentence of judgment of Photius and Eustathius, Ibas had quite publicly recognised the decrees of the first Ephesine Synod, and placed them beside those of Nicæa, and had also had communion with Cyril after the latter had explained his anathematisms. So long as he misunderstood the propositions of Cyril, he had opposed them in an orthodox sense; but after better understanding, he had himself accepted them.

At the second Synod of Ephesus (the Robber-Synod) he had been wrongly deposed; but the Synod of Chalcedon had rightly declared and accepted him as orthodox; he had given adequate satisfaction for his attacks on Cyril, which had proceeded from ignorance. The Pope therefore declared that the judgment of the Fathers at Chalcedon, as in all other points, so in regard to the letter of Ibas, must remain inviolate. No cleric must oppose this judgment, or venture to alter the sentence of Chalcedon on the letter of Ibas as incomplete. Let no one, however, suppose that this could derogate from the letter of Cyril and his anathematisms, as it was well known that Ibas, after the explanation of the words of Cyril which ensued, had maintained Church communion with him until his death. Moreover, no one must maintain that the papal legates at Chalcedon (who led the way in the restoration of Ibas to his bishopric) had authority only in points of faith, but not in regard to the restoration of wrongfully deposed bishops. Such an opinion was contradicted by the express words of Pope Leo, who had learned and confirmed all that had taken place at Chalcedon. The same Leo had also repeatedly declared that nothing was to be altered in the decrees of Chalcedon. So Pope Simplicius, and Vigilius himself, in his letter to Mennas (i.e. the Judicatum), of which five fragments were communicated (see sec. 259). They must also abide by that which was contained in the testimonies of the bishops and of the papal legates at Chalcedon in regard to the letter of Ibas and his person, and that must suffice for all Catholics which that holy Synod had regarded as sufficient, when it declared: “He shall only anathematise Nestorius and his doctrines.” The Constitutum finally closes with the words: “We ordain and decree that it be permitted to no one who stands in ecclesiastical order or office, to write or bring forward, or undertake, or teach anything contradictory to the contents of this Constitutum in regard to the three chapters, or, after this declaration, begin a new controversy about them. And if anything has already been done or spoken in regard of the three chapters in contradiction of this our ordinance, by any one whomsoever, this we declare void by the authority of the apostolic see.”

SEC. 273. Seventh Session, May 26

Immediately after the opening of the seventh session an imperial commissary entered, in order, by his master’s commission, to give information respecting the conduct of Pope Vigilius. The Paris codex places this seventh session on the 3rd of June; the manuscript of Beauvais, on the contrary, as well as that which Surius used, on the 26th of May; and the latter is to be preferred, since the 2nd of June is given in all the MSS. without exception as the date of the eighth session. Generally speaking, the manuscripts in regard to the Acts of the seventh session differ more widely than at any other place. The Paris codex, which we follow, is again much more complete than the two others, which agree with one another.

All three codices relate that after the reading of the minutes of the earlier sessions, and before the Synod passed to any new business, the quæstor of the imperial palace, Constantine, entered, and spoke substantially as follows: “You know how much the Emperor has always thought of having the doubts respecting the three chapters resolved. For this reason also he has required that Vigilius should come to you, and draw up a decree on this matter in accordance with the orthodox faith. Although, therefore, Vigilius has already frequently condemned the three chapters in writing, and has done this also by word of mouth in the presence of the Emperor, imperial ministers, and many members of this Council (sec. 259), and has smitten with anathema all who defend Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the letter ascribed to Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, etc., yet he has refused to do this in communion with you and your Synod.… Yesterday Vigilius sent Servus-Dei, a subdeacon of the Roman Church, and invited Belisarius, Cethegus, and some other high officers of State, as well as Bishops Theodore Ascidas, Benignus, and Phocas, to come to him, as he wished to give through them an answer to the Emperor. They came, but speedily returned, and informed the Emperor that Vigilius wished to give them a document just prepared by him, in order that they might read it, and then communicate it to the Emperor. As they hesitated to receive it, the papal subdeacon Servus-Dei was now standing at the door of the Emperor, in order to convey that document to him. The Emperor, however, did not admit the subdeacon, but sent him, by his minister, the following answer to Vigilius: ‘I invited you to take measures in common with the other patriarchs and bishops with respect to the three chapters. You have refused this, and now wish, for yourself alone, to give a judgment in writing (in the Constitutum). But, if you have, in this, condemned the three chapters, I have no need of this new document, for I have from you many others of the same content. If, however, you have, in this new document, departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself.’ This answer the Emperor gave only by word of mouth. Before, however, you bring the matter in regard to the three chapters quite to an end, the Emperor wishes to communicate to you some more documents, namely, two letters from Vigilius, an autograph to the Emperor, and one written by another hand, but signed by him, to the Empress; further, the edict in which Vigilius deposed the Roman deacons Rusticus and Sebastian, etc., his letters to the Scythian Bishop Valerian, and to Bishop Aurelian of Arles, and finally that written promise, in which he had declared on oath that he would anathematise the three chapters if his Judicatum were given back to him, which was necessary (secs. 259, 260, and 261). To-day the Emperor allowed the Western bishops and the clergy of Vigilius, together with Bishop Vincentius of Claudiopolis, to meet together, and sent to them the patrician Cethegus, myself, and others. We placed before them that written promise of Vigilius, just named, to which the subdeacon Servus-Dei and Bishop Vincentius had affixed their seal. This seal was broken, the document read, and Vincentius declared that he had then been still subdeacon in the Roman Church, and in this capacity had taken part in the affair.—Further, by commission of the Emperor, I must inform you that Vigilius and his clergy often said to the Emperor, that he must maintain the state of the Church as it was in the time of his father (adoptive father, Justin I.). In order, therefore, to show that his father had the same opinion with regard to the three chapters, the Emperor communicates to you his letter to Hypatius, the Magister militum in the East. This letter was occasioned by an incident in the city of Cyrus, where Theodoret’s likeness was carried round in triumph, and an ecclesiastical festival was celebrated in honour of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodoret, and Nestorius, which led to the deposition of Sergius who was bishop there. All these documents it was necessary to bring to the knowledge of the Synod.”

The bishops naturally agreed to this, and had read:—

1. The letter of Vigilius to the Emperor (secs. 259 and 267).

2. His letter to the Empress Theodora (ibid.).

3. The edict in which the Pope pronounced the deposition of Rusticus, Sebastian, and other Roman clerics (sec. 260).

4. The letter of the Pope to the Scythian Bishop Valentinian (sec. 260).

5. The letter to Bishop Aurelian of Arles (ibid.).

6. The document in which the Pope asserted on oath that he was willing to anathematise the three chapters on receiving back the Judicatum (sec. 261); and finally—

7. The letter of the Emperor Justin I. to Hypatius on account of the incident in the city of Cyrus, August 7, 520.

The Synod declared that from this the zeal of the Emperor for the true faith was clearly to be recognised, and promised daily to pray for him. As, however, they wanted to close the session, the quæstor Constantine presented one other letter of the Emperor, containing the command, that the name of Vigilius should be struck from all the diptychs, because, through his defence of the three chapters, he had participated in the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore. The Emperor, however, did not mean by this entirely to break off communion with the apostolic see, neither did he wish the Synod to do so. The minutes inform us that this letter was read, and approved by the Synod with the words: “This is in accordance with the efforts of the Emperor for the unity of the Churches, and we will preserve unity with the apostolic see of Old Rome.”

It is remarkable that this letter of the Emperor is, in the Acts, dated July 14, whilst the seventh session took place on the 26th of May. Remi Ceillier and Du Pin inferred from this, that it could not have been read at the seventh session, nor even at the eighth and last; but the synodal minutes, as they stand in the Paris codex, places the reading of this letter so decidedly and with such details at the seventh session, that we prefer to believe that the imperial edict was then, indeed, communicated to the Synod, but that it was not until the 14th of July that it was publicly posted up, and therefore it bears the date.

SEC. 274. Eighth and last Session, June 2, 553

It had already been determined, at the end of the previous session, at once to publish the final judgment on the matter of the three chapters, and the deacon and notary Collonymus therefore read immediately the uncommonly copious sketch of the synodal sentence which had been prepared beforehand, probably by Eutychius and Ascidas. Its beginning is still extant in Greek, the whole, however, only in the old Latin translation; and the substance of it is as follows: “Because we saw that the adherents of Nestorius were making the effort by means of the impious (impium = heretical) Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings, moreover by that which Theodoret impiously wrote, and by the shameful letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to the Persian Maris, to impose their impiety upon the Church of God, therefore have we risen up to prevent this, and have come together, by the will of God and at the command of the pious Emperor, in this city of the residence. And, as Vigilius is also residing here, and has often condemned the three chapters, orally and in writing, and has agreed in writing to take part in a Synod, and to take counsel in common with us on the three chapters … the Emperor exhorted both him and us to come together, and we requested him to fulfil his promise, and drew his attention to the apostolic Council and the old Synods.… We and the Emperor sent frequently to him; but he declared that he wished to give his view of the three chapters in writing for himself alone. After we received this answer, we remembered the word of the apostle: ‘Every one of us shall give account of himself unto God’ (Rom. 14:12), assembled at the Synod, and first of all made confession of the orthodox faith … united with an anathema on all who had been condemned by the four previous holy Synods. We then began the inquiry as to the three chapters, and first on Theodore of Mopsuestia. His blasphemies were produced from his books … and we were so angered thereby, that we immediately anathematised Theodore by acclamation.… Further, there were read utterances of the holy Fathers, who opposed Theodore, and imperial laws, etc. (at the fifth session), and the questions examined, whether heretics could still be anathematised after their death, and whether Cyril and Proclus really spoke in favour of Theodore (both points were here, in the sentence, copiously discussed). Then there was read a little from the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, against the first Ephesine Synod, and the true faith, also (at the sixth session) the supposed letter of Ibas was read … and it was examined whether the latter had been accepted by the Council of Chalcedon. In order to put aside all objections, we also caused to be read utterances of S. Cyril and Pope Leo (the Epistola dogmatica), and also presented the declaration of faith of Chalcedon, in order to show that the letter of Ibas was in entire contradiction to this.… The testimonies (vota) of some few bishops at Chalcedon, however, which seem favourable to the letter, cannot be adduced by the opposition, since all the members of that Synod demanded of Ibas an anathema upon Nestorius and his doctrines, also on the contents of that letter.… We now condemn and anathematise, with all other heretics who have been condemned and anathematised at the four holy Synods, and by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, also Theodore, formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, likewise that which Theodoret wrote impie against the true faith, and against the twelve anathematisms of Cyril, against the first Synod of Ephesus, and in defence of Theodore and Nestorius. Besides this, we anathematise the impious letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris, in which it is denied that God the Word became flesh and man of the holy Godbearer and perpetual Virgin Mary. We also anathematise the three chapters named, i.e. the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his mischievous books, and what Theodoret impie wrote, and the impious letter which Ibas is said to have composed, together with their defenders who declare the three chapters to be right, and who sought or shall seek to protect their impiety by the names of holy Fathers or of the Council of Chalcedon. Finally, we find it necessary to put together the doctrine of truth and the condemnation of heretics and their impiety into some chapters (anathematisms).

As these fourteen anathematisms, besides the old translation, are still extant in the Greek original text, we give the latter with a German (English) translation added, and remark at the same time that these anathematisms are, to a large extent, verbally identical with those contained in the Emperor’s ὁμολογία (sec. 263).

Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγιου πνεύματος μίαν φύσιν, ἤτοι οὐσιάν, μίαν τε δύναμιν καὶ ἐξουσίαν, τριάδα ὁμυούσιον, μίαν θεότητα ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν ἤγουν προσώποις προσκυνουμένην• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω• εἵς γὰρ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ εἶς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, διʼ οὗ τὰ πάντα, καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα ἃγιον, ἐν ὧ τὰ πάντα.

If anyone does not confess that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have one nature or essence, one power and might; (or does not confess) the co-essential [consubstantial] Trinity, one Godhead in three hypostases or persons worshipped, let him be anathema. For there is one God and Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου εἶναι τὰς δύο γεννήσεις, τήν τε πρὸ αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀσωμάτως, τήν τε ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν, τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατελθόντος ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ σαρκοθέντος ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ἐνδόξου θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας, καὶ γεννηθέντος ἐξ αὐτῆς• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone does not confess that there are two births of God the Word, the one from eternity of the Father, out of time and incorporeal, and the other in the last days, in that He came down from heaven, and was made flesh of the holy, glorious Godbearer, and ever-virgin Mary, and was born of her, let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις λέγει, ἄλλον εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον τὸν θαυματουργησάντα, καὶ ἄλλον τὸν Χριστὸν τὸν παθόντα, ἢ τὸν θεὸν λόγον συνεῖναι λέγει τῷ Χριστῷ γενομένῳ ἐκ γυναικὸς, ἦ ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι ὡς ἄλλον ἐν ἄλλῳ, ἀλλʼ οὐχ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τά τε θαύματα καὶ τὰ πάθη, ἅπερ ἑκουσίως ὑπέμεινε σαρκί• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone says that the Word of God who worked miracles is one, and that Christ who suffered is another; or says that God the Word is become the same as the Christ who was born of a woman, or is in Him as one is in another, and that it is not one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who became flesh and man, and that the miracles which He wrought and the sufferings which He voluntarily endured in the flesh are not His, let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις λέγει, κατὰ χάριν, ἢ κατὰ ἐνέργειαν, ἢ κατὰ ἰσοτιμίαν, ἢ κατὰ αὐθεντίαν, ἢ ἀναφορὰν, ἢ σχέσιν, ἢ δύναμιν, τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι, ἢ κατὰ εὐδοκίαν, ὡς ἀρεσθέντος τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἀπὸ τοῦ εὖ καὶ καλῶς δόξαι αὐτῷ περὶ αὐτοῦ, καθὼς Θεόδωρος μαινόμενος λέγει, ἢ κατὰ ὁμωνυμίαν, καθʼ ἢν οἱ Νεστοριανοὶ τὸν θεὸν λόγον Ἰησοῦν (perhaps υἱὸν) καὶ Χρίστον καλοῦντες, καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον κεχωρισμένως Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζοντες, καὶ δύο πρόσωπα προφανῶς λέγοντες, κατὰ μόνην τὴν προσηγορίαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀξίαν καὶ προσκύνησιν, καὶ ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ ἕνα Χριστὸν ὑποκρίνονται λέγειν• ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς σάρκα ἐμψυχωμένην ψυχῇ λογικῇ καὶ νοερᾷ, κατὰ σύνθεσιν ἤγουν καθʼ ὑπόστασιν γεγενῆσθαι, καθὼς οἱ ἅγιοι πατέρες ἐδίδαξαν• καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, εἱς τῆς ἁγίας τρίαδος• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω• πολυτρόπως γὰρ νοουμενὴς τῆς ἑνώσεως, οἱ μὲν τῇ ἀσεβείᾳ Ἀπολλιναρίου καὶ Εὐτυχοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντες, τῷ ἀφανισμῷ τῶν συνελθόντων προκείμενοι, τὴν κατὰ σύγχυσιν τὴν ἕνωσιν πρεσβεύουσιν• οἱ δὲ τὰ Θεοδώρου καὶ Νεστορίου φρονοῦντες, τῇ διαιρέσει χαίροντες, σχετικὴν τῆν ἕνωσιν ἐπεισάγουσιν• ἡ μέντοι ἁγία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησία ἑκατέρας αἱρέσεως τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἀποβαλλομένη, τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὴν σάρκα κατὰ σύνθεσιν ὁμολογεῖ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν• ἡ γὰρ κατὰ σύνθεσιν ὁμολογεῖ, ὅπερ ἐστὶ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν• ἡ γὰρ κατά σύνθεσιν ἕνωσις ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου, οὐ μόνον ἀσυγχύτα τὰ συνελθόντα διαφυλάττει, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ διαίρεσιν ἐπιδέχεται.

If anyone says that the union of God the Word with man has taken place only by grace, or by operation, or by equality of honour and distinction, or by a carrying up and condition (see No. 6), or by power, or by good pleasure, as though God the Word were pleased with man, from its seeming well and good to Him concerning him—as the raving Theodore says; or that it has taken place through the sameness of name, according to which the Nestorians call God the “Word Jesus (Son) and Christ, and so name the man separately Christ and Son, and so clearly speak of two persons, and hypocritically speak of one person and of one Christ only according to designation, and honour, and dignity, and worship. But if anyone does not confess that the union of God the Word with the flesh enlivened by a reasonable and thinking soul, according to synthesis (combination), or according to hypostasis, as the holy Fathers said, and that therefore there is only one person, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema. As, however, the word union (ἕνωσις) is taken in different senses, those who follow the impiety of Apollinaris and Eutyches, assuming a disappearance of the natures which come together, teach a union by confusion; whilst the adherents of Nestorius and Theodore, rejoicing in the separation, introduce a merely relative union. The Holy Church of God, on the contrary, rejecting the impiety of both heresies, confesses the union of God the Word with the flesh by a combination, i.e. personally. For the union by combination (synthesis) not only preserves, in regard to the mystery of Christ, that which has come together (the two natures) unconfused, but allows of no separation (of the persons).

Εἴ τις τὴν μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ οὑτῶς ἐκλαμβάνει, ὡς ἐπιδεχομένην πολλῶν ὑποστάσεων σημασίαν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰσάγειν ἐπιχειρεῖ ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίον δύο ὑποστάσεις ἤτοι δύο πρόσωπα, καὶ τῶν παρʼ ἀυτοῦ εἰσαγομένων δύο προσώπων ἓν πρόσωπον λέγει κατὰ ἁξίαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ προσκύνησιν, καθάπερ Θεόδωρος καὶ Νεστόριος μαινόμενοι συνεγράψαντο• καὶ συκοφαντεῖ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀσεβὴ ἔννοιαν χρησαμένην τῷ τῆς μίας ὑποστάσεως ῥήματι, ἀλλὰ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον σαρκὶ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθῆναι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἤτοι ἓν πρόσωπον, οὕτως τε καὶ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογῆσαι• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Οὔτε γὰρ προσθήκην προσῶπου ἤγουν ὑποστάσεως ἐπεδέξατο ἡ ἁγία τριὰς, καὶ σαρκωθέντος τοῦ ἑνὸς τῆς ἁγίας, τρίαδος θεοῦ λόγου.

If anyone so understands the expression, one Hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, that thereby is meant the designation of the union of many hypostases, and hereby undertakes to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases or two persons, and often having introduced two persons, speaks of one person according to dignity, honour, and worship, as Theodore and Nestorius in their madness maintained; and if any one slanders the holy Synod in Chalcedon, as though it had used the expression, one hypostasis, in this impious sense, and does not confess that the Word of God was personally united with flesh, and that therefore there is only one hypostasis or one person, as also the holy Synod in Chalcedon confessed one hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ,—let him be anathema! For the holy Trinity, when God the Word, one of the holy Trinity was incarnate, did not suffer the addition of a person or hypostasis.

Εἴ τις καταχρηστικῶς, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀληθῶς, θεοτόκον λέγει τὴν ἁγίαν ἔνδοξον ἀειπαρθένον Μαρίαν, ἢ κατὰ ἀναφορὰν, ὡς ἀνθρώπου ψιλοῦ γεννηθέντος, ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σαρκωθέντος (καὶ τῆς) ἒξ αὐτῆς, ἀνάφερομένης δὲ (κατʼ ἐκείνου) τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου γεννήσεως ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν λόγον, ὡς συνόντα τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ γενομένῳ• καὶ συκοφαντεῖ τὴν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς κατὰ ταύτην τὴν ἀσεβῆ ἐπινοηθεῖσαν παρὰ Θεοδώρου ἔννοιαν θεοτόκον τὴν παρθένον εἰποῦσαν• ἢ εἴ τις ἀνθρωποτόκον αὐτὴν καλεῖ, ἢ Χριστοτόκον, ὡς τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ ὄντος θεοῦ, ἀλλὰ μὴ κυρίως καὶ κατʼ ἀλήθειαν θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὁμολογεῖ, διὰ τὸ τὸν πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ πατρο͂ς γεννηθέντα θεὸν λόγον ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς σαρκωθῆναι, οὕτω τε εὐσεβῶς καὶ τῆν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον θεοτόκον αὐτὴν ὁμολογῆσαι• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἐστω.

If anyone says that the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary is called Godbearer by abuse and not truly, or by analogy, as though a mere man were born of her, and not as though God the Word were incarnate of her, but that the birth of a man were connected with God the Word, because HE was united with the man born; and if anyone slanders the holy Synod of Chalcedon, as though, in accordance with this impious opinion held by Theodore, it called the virgin Godbearer; or, if anyone calls her manbearer or Christbearer, as though Christ were not God, and does not confess her as Godbearer, in the proper sense and in truth, because God the Word, who was begotten of the Father before all worlds, was incarnate of her in the last days; and (does not confess) that in this pious sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon confessed her to be Godbearer,—let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις ἐν δύο φύσεσι λέγων, μὴ ὡς ἐν θεότητι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητι τὸν ἓνα κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν γνωρίζεσθαι ὁμολογεῖ, ἵνα διὰ τούτου σημάνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν φύσεων, ἐξ ὧν ἀσυγχύτως ἡ ἄφραστος ἓνωσις γέγονεν, οὔτε τοῦ λόγου εἰς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς μεταποιηθέντος φύσιν, οὔτε τῆς σαρκὸς πρὸς τοῦ λόγου φύσιν μεταχωρησάσης,—μένει γὰρ ἑκάτερον ὅπερ ἐστὶ τῇ φύσει, καὶ γενομένης τῆς ἑνώσεως καθʼ ὑπόστασιν,— ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ διαιρέσει τῇ ἀνὰ μέρος τὴν τοιαύτην λαμβάνει φωνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ Χριστὸν μυστηρίου, ἢ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν φύσεων ὁμολογῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἑνὸς κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ θέου λόγου σαρκωθέντος, μὴ τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ τὴν διαφορὰν τούτων λαμβάνει, ἐξ ὧν καὶ συνετέθη, οὐκ ἀναιρουμένην διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν,—εἵς γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, καὶ διʼ ἑνὸς ἀμφότερα—ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τούτῳ κέχρηται τῷ ἀριθηῷ ὡς κεχωρισμένας καὶ ἰδιοϋποστάτους ἔχει τὰς φύσεις• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone, speaking of the two natures (see vol. iii sec. 173), does not confess that he acknowledges in the Godhead and manhood the one Lord Jesus Christ, so that by this he signifies the difference of natures, of which the unspeakable union takes place without confusion, without the nature of the Word being changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into the nature of the Word—for each remains what it was in nature after the personal union has taken place—or who takes that expression in reference to the mystery of Christ in the sense of a separation into parts, or, confessing the two natures in relation to the one Lord Jesus, the incarnate Word of God, takes the difference of these of which HE was composed, but which is not destroyed by the union—for HE is one of both, and through one both—takes this difference not as an abstraction, but uses the duality in order to separate the natures, and to make them separate persons (hypostases),—let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις ἐκ δύο φύσεων, θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ὁμολογῶν τὴν ἕνωσιν γεγενῆσθαι, ἢ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην λέγων, μὴ οὕτως αὐτὰ λαμβάνῃ, καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι πάτερες ἐδίδαξαν, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς θείας φύσεως καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης, τῆς ἑνώσεως καθʼ ὑπόστασιν γενομένης, εἶς Χριστὸς ἀπετελέσθη, ἀλλʼ ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων φωνῶν μίαν φύσιν ἤτοι οὐσίαν, θεότητος καὶ σαρκὸς τοῦ χριστοῦ εἰσάγειν ἐπιχειρεῖ• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. καθʼ ὑπόστασιν γὰρ λέγοντες τὸν μονογενῆ λόγον ἡνῶσθαι, οὐκ ἀνάχυσιν τινα τὴν εἰς ἀλλήλους τῶν φύσεων πεπρᾶχθαι φαμέν• μενούσης δὲ μᾶλλον ἑκατέρας, ὅπερ ἐστὶν, ἡνῶσθαι σαρκὶ νοοῦμεν τὸν λόγον. διὸ καὶ εἶς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς, θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ αὐτὸς ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν ὁ αὐτὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. ἐπίσης γάρ καὶ τούς ἀνὰ μέρος διαιροῦντας ἤτοι τέμνοντας, καὶ τοὺς συγχέοντας τὸ τῆς θείας οἰκονομίας μυστήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀποστρέφεται καὶ ἀναθεματίζει ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκκησία.

If anyone does not take the expressions, of two natures, the Godhead and the manhood, the union took place, or, the one incarnate nature of the Word, as the holy Fathers taught, that from the divine nature and the human, personal union having taken place, one Christ was constituted, but endeavours, by such expressions, to bring in one nature or essence of the Godhead and manhood of Christ, let him be anathema. For, when we say that the only-begotten Word was personally united, we do not say that a confusion of the natures with each other has taken place; but rather we think that, whilst each nature remains what it is, the Word has been united with the flesh. Therefore, also, there is one Christ, God and man, the same who is of one substance with the Father as to His Godhead, and of one substance with us as to His manhood. For the Church of God equally condemns and anathematises those who separate and cut asunder the mystery of the divine economy of Christ, and those who confuse it. (See secs. 127, 158, 193, 269.)

Εἴ τις προσκυνεῖσθαι ἐν δυσὶ φύσεσι λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν, ἐξ οὗ δύο προσκυνήσεις εἰσάγονται, ἰδία τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰδία τῷ ἀνθρωπῷ• ἢ εἴ τις ἐπὶ ἀναιρέσει τῆς σαρκὸς, ἢ ἐπὶ συγχύσει τῆς θεότητος καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, ἢ μίαν φύσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαν τῶν συνελθόντων τερατευόμενος, οὓτω προσκυνεῖ τὸν Χριστὸν, ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει τὸν θεὸν λὸγον σαρκωθέντα μετὰ τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός προσκυνεῖ, καθάπερ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησία παρέλαβεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone says that Christ is to be worshipped in two natures, by which two kinds of worship are introduced, the one for God the Word, the other for the man; or if anyone, by taking away the flesh, or by confusion of the Godhead and manhood, or preserving only one nature or essence of those which are united, thus worships Christ, and does not worship God made flesh together with His flesh with one worship, as the Church of God received from the beginning,—let him be anathema.

Εἵ τις οὐχ ὁμολοεῖ, τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον σαρκί κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν εἶναι θεὸν ἀληθινὸν, καὶ κύριον τῆς δόξης, καὶ ἓνα τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ crucified in the flesh is true God, and Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις μὴ ἀναθεματίζει Ἄρειον, Ἐυνόμιον, Μακεδόνιον, Ἀπολλινάριον, Νεστόριον, Ἐυτυχέα, καὶ Ὠριγένην, μετὰ τῶν ἀσεβῶν αὐτῶν συγγραμμάτων, καὶ τοὺς ἂλλους πάντας αἱρετικοὺς τοὺς κατακριθέντας καὶ ἀναθεματισθέντας ὑπὸ τῆς ἁγίας καθολικῆς καὶ ἀποστολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῶν προειρημένων ἁγίων τεσσάρων συνόδων, καὶ τοῦς τὰ ὅμοια τῶν προειρημένων αἱρετικῶν φρονήσαντας ἢ φρονοῦντας, καὶ μέχρι τέλους τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἀσεβείᾳ ἐμμείναντας• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω

If anyone does not anathematise Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, together with their impious writings, and all other heretics condemned and anathematised by the Catholic and Apostolic Church and by the four holy Synods already mentioned, together with those who have been or are of the same mind with the heretics mentioned, and who remain till the end in their impiety, let him be anathema.

Halloix, Garnier, Basnage, Walch and others suppose, and Vincenzi maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a later insertion in this anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas, the Origenist, was one of the most influential members of the Synod, and would certainly have prevented a condemnation of Origen; further, (b) because in this anathematism only such heretics would be named as had been condemned by one of the first four Œcumenical Synods, which was not the case with Origen; (c) because this anathematism is identical with the tenth in the ὁμολογία of the Emperor (sec. 263), but in the latter the name of Origen is lacking; and, finally, (d) because Origen does not belong to the group of heretics to whom this anathematism refers. His errors were quite different.

All these considerations seem to me of insufficient strength, on mere conjecture, to make an alteration in the text, and arbitrarily to remove the name of Origen. As regards the objection in connection with Theodore Ascidas, it is known that the latter had already pronounced a formal anathema on Origen, and certainly he did the same this time, if the Emperor wished it or if it seemed advisable. The second and fourth objections have little weight. In regard to the third (c), it is quite possible that either the Emperor subsequently went further than in his ὁμολογία, or that the bishops at the fifth Synod, of their own accord, added Origen, led on perhaps by one or another anti-Origenist of their number. What, however, chiefly determines us to the retention of the text is—(a) that the copy of the synodal Acts extant in the Roman archives, which has the highest credibility, and was probably prepared for Vigilius himself, contains the name of Origen in the eleventh anathematism; and (b) that the monks of the new Laura in Palestine, who are known to have been zealous Origenists, withdrew Church communion from the bishops of Palestine after these had subscribed the Acts of the fifth Synod. In the anathema on the three chapters these Origenists could find as little ground for such a rupture as their friend and former colleague Ascidas: it could only be by the Synod attacking their darling Origen. (c) Finally, only on the ground that the name of Origen really stood in the eleventh anathematism, can we explain the widely-circulated ancient rumour that our Synod anathematised Origen and the Origenists. (See sec. 255 and 267.)

Εἴ τις ἀντιποιεῖται Θεοδώρου τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς, τοῦ Μοψουεστίας, τοῦ εἰπόντος, ἄλλον εἶναι τὸν θεὸν λόγον καὶ ἄλλον τὸν Χριστὸν ὑπὸ παθῶν ψυχῆς καὶ τῶν τῆς σαρκὸς ἐπιθυμιῶν ἐνοχλούμενον, καὶ τῶν χειρόνων κατὰ μικρὸν χωριζόμενον, καὶ οὕτως ἐκ προκοπὴς ἔργων βελτιωθέντα, καὶ ἐκ πολιτείας ἄμωμον καταστάντα, ὡς ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον βαπτισθῆναι εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς, καὶ υἱοῦ, καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, καὶ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος τὴν χάριν τοῦ ἁγίον πνεύματος λάβειν, καὶ υἱοθεσίας ἀξιωθῆναι, καὶ κατʼ ἰσότητα βασιλικῆς εἰκόνος εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου προσκυνεῖσθαι, καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἄτρεπτον ταῖς ἐννοίαις, καὶ ἀναμάρτητον παντελῶς γενέσθαι• καὶ πάλιν εἰρηκότος τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀσεβοῦς Θεοδώρου, τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὸν Χριστὸν τοιαύτην γεγενῆσθαι, οἶαν ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐπὶ ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικός• “ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σαρκὰ μίαν•” καὶ πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀναριθμήτοις αὐτοῦ βλασφημίαις τολμήσαντος εἰπεῖν, ὃτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἐμφυσησας ὁ κύριος τοῖς μαθηταῖς, καὶ εἰπών•” “Λάβετε πνεῦμα ἃγιον,” οὐδέδωκεν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἀλλὰ σχήματι μόνον ἐνεφύσησε• οὗτος δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμολογίαν Θωμᾶ, τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ ψηλαφήσει τῶν χειρῶν καὶ τῆς πλευρᾶς τοῦ κυρίου μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, τὸ “ὁ κύριος μου καὶ ὁ θεὸς μου” εἶπε, μὴ εἰρῆσθαι περὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρὰ τοῦ Θωμᾶ, ἀλλʼ ἐπὶ τῷ παραδόξῳ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐκπλαγέντα τὸν Θωμᾶν ὑμνῆσαι τὸν θεὸν, τὸν ἐγείραντα τὸν Χριστόν• τὸ δὲ χεῖρον, καὶ ἐν τῇ τῶν πράξεων τῶν ἀποστόλων γενομένῃ παρʼ αὐτοῦ δῆθεν ἐρμηνείᾳ, συγκρίνων ὁ αὐτὸς Θεόδωρος τὸν Χριστὸν Πλάτωνι, καὶ Μανιχαίῳ, καὶ Ἐπικούρῳ, καὶ Μαρκίωνι, λέγει ὅτι ὣσπερ ἐκείνων ἕκαστος εὑράμενος οἰκεῖον δόγμα, τοῦς αὐτῷ μαθητεύσαντας πεποίηκε καλεῖσθαι Πλατωνικοὺς καὶ Μανιχαίους, καὶ Ἐπικουρείους, καὶ Μαρκιονιστὰς, τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ εὑραμένου δόγμα, ἐξ αὐτοῦ χριστιανοὺς καλεῖσθαι• Εἴ τις τοίνυν ἀντιποιεῖται τοῦ εἰρημένου ἀσεβεστάτου Θεοδώρου καὶ τῶν ἀσεβῶν αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων, ἐν οἶς τάς τε εἰρημένας καὶ ἄλλας ἀναριθμήτους βλασφημίας ἐξέχεε κατὰ τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ• ἀλλὰ μὴ ἀναθεματίζει αὐτὸν καὶ τὰ ἀσεβῇ αὐτοῦ συγγράμματα, καὶ πάντας τοὺς δεχομένους ἢ καὶ ἐκδικοῦντας αὐτὸν, ἢ λέγοντας, ὀρθοδόξως αὐτὸν ἐκθέσθαι, καὶ τοὺς γράψαντας ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀσεβῶν αὐτοῦ συγγραμμάτων, καὶ τοῦς τὰ ὅμοια φρονοῦντας ἢ φρονησαντας πώποτε, καὶ μέχρι τέλους ἐμμείναντας τῇ τοιαύτῃ αἱρέσει• ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who says (a) God the Word is one, and another is Christ who was troubled with sufferings of the soul and desires of the flesh, and who by degrees raised himself from that which was more imperfect, and by progress in good works and by his way of life became blameless; and further, that as mere man he was baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and through baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit, and was deemed worthy of sonship, and was worshipped with reference to the person of God the Word, like the image of an emperor, and that (only) after the resurrection he became unchangeable in his thoughts and completely sinless; and (b) again, as the same impious Theodore says, the union of God the Word with Christ was of such a nature as the apostle says there is between man and wife: “they two shall be one flesh”; and (c) among other blasphemies, dared to say that, when the Lord, after the resurrection, breathed upon His disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Ghost,” He did not give them the Holy Ghost, but only breathed upon them as a sign; (d) and again, that the confession of Thomas, on touching the hands and the side of the Lord after the resurrection, “My Lord and my God,” was not spoken concerning Christ by Thomas, but that, astonished at the miracle of the resurrection, Thomas praised God who raised Christ; (e) and what is still worse, in his exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, Theodore compares Christ with Plato, Manichæus, Epicurus, and Marcion, and says that, as each of these devised his own doctrine and gave to his disciples the name of Platonists, Manichæans, Epicureans, and Marcionists, in the same manner, when Christ also devised a doctrine, after Him they were called Christians.—If anyone, then, defends the forenamed most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he poured out the above-mentioned and other countless blasphemies against the great God, our Saviour Jesus Christ, and does not anathematise him and his impious writings, and all who adhere to him, or defend him, or say that he has given an orthodox interpretation, or who have written in defence of him and his impious writings; and who think or have ever thought the same, and remained to the end in this heresy,—let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις ἀντιποιεῖται τῶν ἀσεβῶν συγγραμμάτων Θεοδωρίτου, τῶν κατὰ τῆς ἀληθοῦς πίστεως, καὶ τῆς ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πρώτης καὶ ἁγίας συνόδου, καὶ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου, καὶ τῶν ιβʼ αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων, καὶ πάντων ὧν συνεγράψατο ὑπὲρ Θεοδώρου καὶ Νεστορίου, τῶν δυσσεβῶν, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄλλων τῶν τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς προειρημένοις Θεοδώρῳ καὶ Νεστορίῳ φρονούντων, καὶ δεχομένων αὐτοὺς καὶ τὴν αὐτῶν ἀσέβειαν, καὶ διʼ αὐτῶν ἀσεβεῖς καλεῖ τοὺς τῆς ἐκκλησιάς διδάσκαλους, τοὺς καθʼ ὑπόστασιν τὴν ἕνωσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου φρονοῦντας καὶ ὁμολογοῦντας• καὶ εἴπερ οὐκ ἀναθεματίζει τὰ εἰρημένα ἀσεβῆ συγγράμματα, καὶ τοὺς τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις φρονήσαντας ἢ φρονοῦντας, καὶ πάντας δὲ τοὺς γράψαντας κατὰ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως, ἢ τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου, καὶ τῶν δώδεκα αὐτοῦ κεφαλαίων, καὶ ἐν τοιαύτῃ ἀσεβείᾳ τελευτήσαντος• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone defends the impious writings of Theodoret which are directed against the true faith, and against the first and holy Synod of Ephesus, and against the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and (defends) all that he wrote in defence of Theodore and Nestorius, the impious ones, and others who think the like with those named, with Theodore and Nestorius, and receive them and their impiety, and for their sakes calls the teachers of the Church impious, who maintain and confess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if he does not anathematise the impious writings named, and those who thought and think the like, and all who have written against the true faith or the holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, and have persevered in such impiety,—let him be anathema.

Εἴ τις ἀντιποιεῖται τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τῆς λεγομένης παρὰ Ἴβα γεγράφθαι πρὸς Μάρην τὸν Πέρσην, τῆς ἀρνουμένης μὲν τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας θεοτόκου καὶ ἀειπαθένου Μαρίας σαρκωθέντα ἄνθρωπον γεγενῆσθαι, λεγούσης δὲ ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐξ αὐτῆς γενηθῆναι, ὃν ναὸν ἀποκαλεῖ, ὡς ἄλλον εἶναι τὸν θεόν λόγον καὶ ἄλλον τὸν ἄνθρωπον• καὶ τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλον τὴν ὀρθὴν τῶν Χρισπανῶν πίστιν κηρύξαντα διαβαλλούσης ὡς αἱρετικὸν, καὶ ὁμοίως Ἀπολλιναρίῳ τῷ δυσσεβεῖ γράψαντα• καὶ μεμφομένης τὴν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πρώτην ἁγίαν σύνοδον, ὡς χωρὶς κρίσεως καὶ ζητήσεως Νεστόριου καθελοῦσαν• καὶ τὰ δώδεκα κεφάλαια τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Κυρίλλου ἀσεβῆ καὶ ἐναντία τῇ ὀρθῇ πίστει ἀποκαλεῖ ἡ αὐτῆ ἀσεβὴς ἐπιστολὴ, καὶ ἐκδικεῖ Θεόδωρον καὶ Νεστόριον καὶ τὰ ἀσεβῆ αὐτῶν δόγματα καὶ συγγράμματα• εἴ τις τοίνυν τῆς εἰρημένης ἐπιστολῆς ἀντιποιεῖται, καὶ μὴ ἀναθεματίζει αὐτὴν καὶ τοὺς ἀντιποιουμένους αὐτῆς, καὶ λέγοντας αὐτὴν ὀρθὴν εἶναι, ἢ μέρος αὐτῆς, καὶ γράψαντας καὶ γράφοντας ὕπερ αὐτῆς ἢ τῶν περιεχομένων αὐτῇ ἀσεβειῶν, καὶ τολμῶντας ταύτην ἐκδικεῖν, ἢ τὰς περιεχομένας αὐτῇ ἀσεβείας ὀνόματι τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων, ἢ τῆς ἁγίας ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνόδου, καὶ τούτοις μέχρι τέλους ἐμμείνντας• ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.

If anyone defends the letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, in which it is denied that God the Word became flesh and man of the holy Godbearer and ever-virgin Mary, and in which it is maintained that he was born of her a mere man, called the temple; and that God the Word is one and the man is another; and in which the holy Cyril who proclaimed the true faith of Christ is accused as a heretic, and as if he had written the same as the impious Apollinaris; and in which the first holy Synod of Ephesus is censured, as though it had condemned Nestorius without examination and trial; and the twelve chapters of the holy Cyril called impious and opposed to the true faith, and Theodore and Nestorius and their impious doctrines and writings defended; if anyone defends the letter in question, and does not anathematise it, together with those who defend it, and say that it is right, or a part of it, and who have written or do write in defence of it or of the impieties contained in it, and venture to defend it or the impieties contained in it by the name of holy Fathers or of the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and persevere therein to the end,—let him be anathema.

In the appendix to these fourteen anathematisms, the Synod declares that, “if anyone ventures to deliver, or to teach, or to write anything in opposition to our pious ordinances, if he is bishop or cleric, he shall lose his bishopric or office; if he is a monk or layman, he shall be anathematised.” All the bishops present subscribed, the Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople first, altogether 164 members, among them eight Africans. It is nowhere indicated that any debates took place over the plan.

That the fifteen anathematisms against Origen, ascribed to the fifth Synod, do not belong to it, but to an earlier assembly, has already been shown in sec. 257.








Copyright ©1999-2018 e-Catholic2000.com