PART I

ay lifes Phe Alor Ay al pike =|
q Mi
CHAPTER ONE
Prologue
The problems confronting the fifth century of the Christian era were, like those of our own day, at once ideological and political. In the West, the barbarian nations were on the march. In 410, Alaric sacked Rome. In 452 Pope Leo the Great was able to dissuade Attila and his Huns from doing likewise. At the same time, grave theological dissensions further worsened matters. A species of Arianism had spread through the barbarian nations. Added to the social and economic ills of the age, this theological disunity resulted in the creation of a state of unrest and upheaval that encircled the Medi- terranean from the upper sectors of Italy through Gaul and Spain, and reached the northern shores of Africa where, in 430, St. Augus- tine lay dying with the Vandals on his threshhold.
In the Orient, a measure of political peace reigned within the con- fines of the eastern half of the empire itself. Yet the imperial armies were fully occupied in fighting off barbarian threats from the north ' and east. Besides, and here the dissimilarity with events in our own times is merely apparent, a series of Christological disputes rocked the fabric of the Church to its very foundations.?
The importance of these religious difficulties can only be properly appreciated when we recall the testimony of a St. Gregory Nazianzen in late fourth century Constantinople, describing the interest in ecclesiastical affairs and theological doctrines taken by a people who were deprived of all share in governmental administration and civic policies. ‘Thus instead of party loyalties and political slogans, the clauses of the Athanasian creed and the syllables of ‘homoiousion’ rent the air, to be followed by such catch phrases as the ‘Theotokos’ and the ‘en miai phuset’—in one nature, or in two—in the course of the next century.
In detail, Gregory describes going into a bake shop in Constan- tinople to ask for bread, only to be confronted by the proprietor, with not the price, but “an argument that the Father is really greater than the Son. ‘The money changer will talk about the ‘Begotten’ and the ‘Unbegotten’ instead of giving you your money. And the bath keeper assures you along with your bath that the Son surely proceeds from nothing.’ If anything, these theological debates were aggravated by the single other source of popular distraction, the rabid support of the Blues and the Greens in the Hippodrome.
3
4 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
The events of the fifth century leading up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 were, then, a series of political and ecclesiastical _developments complicated by the passionately debated doctrinal dis- putes of the century. But parallelling this question of faith was the question of national origin and preponderance.
To the men of the Oriental Church, principally the Egyptians out- side Alexandria, the Syrians, the Persians and Armenians, Christianity from the beginning had been an organ for national aspirations and ideals. Ransacked for centuries by contending imperialisms, the lower classes in these Eastern regions while still kept in bondage, had taken comfort from the new religion with its promise of salvation for all mankind; its distinctively soul satisfying liturgical observances; and its adaptability to local aspirations while retaining its universal char- acter. This is reflected in the popular poetry of the period; but more particularly, in the spread of monasticism, which in Egypt and in Syria for example, quickly populated the Thebaid, the Nile valley, and the Syrian desert, producing the spiritual insight of a Pachomius or a Macarius, but also the extravagances of a Simon Stylites and the fanaticism of the parabolani or armed monks who accompanied the Patriarch of Egypt as bodyguards, and frequently filled the streets of Alexandria and Jerusalem with strife and bloodshed.
Such a temper tended to look askance at the dialectic and strict
logical categories of western thought. While the upper classes of the coastal cities in the East such as Antioch and Alexandria had suc- cumbed to Hellenistic culture, utilizing its oratorical subtlety and logical technique in the sifting of Christian dogmas, the peasants and the semi-nomadic peoples of the hinterlands tended to adhere unmovingly to the idea of a Godhead inaccessible to human thought and reasoning. For them it was “the divine darkness that is beyond being and eternity, and transcends every category of human thought,” that best exemplified the proper approach to the Deity. » Thus when it came to a question of the Godhood of Christ, the tendency of the Eastern churchmen had been to adhere to some sort of Monophysitism—and to see in the Incarnation only the appear- ance on earth of the Divinity in bodily form; whereas, by contrast, the men of the West did not hesitate to apply the dialectic of the schools to their theological problem, and had thus arrived at the | orthodox notion of the two natures, the human and divine, in- |rimately united in the one Person of Christ, the Son of God. The contrast is particularly evident in the Eutychian insistence upon St. Cyril’s favored phrase: “One is the nature of the word incarnate,” when that equivocal statement had been diplomatically passed over in the Formula of Union signed by Cyril himself and by John of heres in 433,
PROLOGUE 5
There was, then, a fundamental difference in spiritual outlook and temperament underlying the great quarrel that broke out at Ephesus in 431, and at Chalcedon in 451, and that was to disrupt the unity of Christendom for over fifteen hundred years.
But meanwhile, two further factors clamor for consideration: the pressure for unity that was the constant care of the Emperors; and the determination in favor of theological orthodoxy and canonical regularity that characterized the See of Rome with its claim to a preeminence of jurisdiction, and its high moral character as exempli- fied in a Pope of the temper of a Leo the Great.
The final element that served as a sort of catalytic, and that over- shadowed the Council at Chalcedon, destroying its efficacy as a peace- maker, was the rivalry and struggle for precedence on the part of the Patriarchal Sees—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch in Syria, and Jerusalem. It was here that nationalism finally made itself the determining factor, outlasting both theological and imperial con- siderations. It was this factor also that was destined to destroy the unity of the West, eventually leading to the momentous impasse of our own times. In this regard, Chalcedon was but a stop-over on the way. But its hopes and achievements have a peculiar significance for the world of today. In its own right it was a fifth century attempt to attain religious and political unity. Its mistakes in the realm of nationalism, and its achievement on an ideological plane, should prove of immense interest for our own times, on this, the fifteenth cen- tenary of its assembly.
IT
Dramatis Personae
The two men whose influence was most far reaching at the Council of Chalcedon were not in attendance at that august assembly. They were St. Cyril of Alexandria, dead since 444, but whose theological terminology had served at once as the sounding board of orthodoxy and the magnet round which the heretically-minded erected their determined stand; and St. Leo the Great, Pope and Bishop of Rome, whose permission had been needed for the opening of the council, whose Dogmatic Tome dominated its doctrinal decisions, and whose approval, hesitatingly and disjunctively given, certified Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council, though at the same time it disparaged its doings in the sphere of ecclesiastical politics.
Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril had become Archbishop of Alexandria upon the death of his uncle, Theophilus, in 412. A learned, extremely well trained theo- logian, he was animated by a forceful zeal for orthodoxy, which
6 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
led him to break with his close friend Nestorius, Archbishop of Con- stantinople and to bring about the latter’s condemnation at the General Council of Ephesus in 431. Of a precipitate and impulsive temperament, Cyril had not hesitated to ride roughshod over the rights and sensibilities of his fellow bishops, forcing the acceptance of his Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius upon the gathering at Ephesus without sufficient explanation of, their difficult theology, and before the arrival of his fellow champion, Bishop John of Antioch, utilizing the prestige of his own patriarchal see and the intimidation of armed bands of monks—the parabolani—who had accompanied him from Egypt, and even distributing presents and gratuities among the imperial officers, to assure the triumph of his orthodox views.’
This had resulted in a complete denouement at Ephesus, with Cyril’s own condemnation, imprisonment, and escape, despite the fact that the orthodox teaching which he had championed was even- tually sustained by the council. In explanation of such conduct, there was the fact that Cyril enjoyed the full confidence of the Pope in Rome, St. Celestine, that his doctrine was actually of a completely orthodox nature, and that, once he returned to his own see, he had the good sense to enter into pacific negotiations with his orthodox foes, eventually reaching agreement with John of Antioch in a Formula of Reunion signed in 433.
Referred to frequently by historians as the new Pharaoh, Cyril, like his uncle Theophilus before him, had not hesitated to make use of the power and prestige generated by his eminent office, whereby he had become not only the religious, but actually the political leader of the Egyptian peoples. But it cannot be insisted upon too strongly that, although he did overreach himself by interference in sees outside his jurisdiction, his motives were invariably disinterested and high. This is evident from a letter of his written at the beginning of the notorius controversy over Nestorianism:
“I love peace, and there is nothing I hate more than quarrels and disputes. I love the whole world, and if I were able to cure a brother by the loss of my possessions and goods, I am ready to make the sacrifice with joy. For concord is that which I esteem the most ... But it is something else again where there is question of the Faith, and of scandal which affects all the Churches of the Roman empire ... I am prepared to bear tranquilly all wrongs and humiliations, and all sorts of injuries, but on the one condition that the Faith suffer no harm.
“I have a real love for Bishop Nestorius; no one loves him more ardently than I... But when the Faith is attacked, we cannot hesitate to make sacri- fice of our own very lives. And if we hesitate to preach the truth because in so doing we will cause trouble, how can we in our churches chant the victories and the battles of the holy martyrs when we are praising them in
PROLOGUE 7
particular for having made actual the words of Ecclesiasticus: “Fight for the truth even unto death”? (4:28).4
In his Christological teaching, Cyril adhered to an orthodox line midway between the heresy of Apollinaris who, to safeguard the one- ness of person in Christ, was tempted to sacrifice the human nature, robbing Christ of his human intelligence and human liberty; and that of Nestorius, who, going to an opposite extreme, predicated two personalized natures in Christ joined in a moral union, and thus had to deny that Mary was the mother of God—the Theotokos— since she was the mother of the human nature alone, and not of the Divine Person.
For Cyril there was in Christ one sole Person, the Person of the Word, the Son of God, which was united substantially with a com- plete humanity. Unfortunately, in an endeavor to completely entrap and rout the heresy of Nestorius, Cyril had issued a series of twelve propositions to be repudiated (his Twelve Anathemas) which had been worded round the teaching of Nestorius, and which had to be evaluated in the light of that heretic’s terminology. ‘The controversy awakened by these Anathemas combined with the use of the pseudo- Athanasian formula, “One incarnate nature of the Word God’, led in later years to the Eutychian aberration that postulated “two natures before the Incarnation of the Word, but only one incarnate nature after,” and brought about the convocation of the Council of Chalce- don. Thus, Cyril’s shadow lingers in the background, and his forceful politics and theological preconceptions haunt the proceedings of the Fathers in the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
St. Leo the Great®
A similar influence at Chalcedon is exercised by Pope St. Leo the Great, elected to that high office in August, 440, after having served as counsellor and emissary for his predecessors, Celestine and Xystus. A man of fortitude, high talent, fearless integrity, he was like St. Cyril a well trained theologian quite capable of coping with the Christological controversies that bothered his pontificate. Ordained deacon shortly before the Council of Ephesus in 431, Leo had been the recipient of an urgent appeal from Cyril of Alexandria, calling his attention to the ambitious designs of Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem who was even then aiming at obtaining from the greater sees of | Christendom a recognition for his de facto independence of the Bishop of Caesarea in Syria, his metropolitan.
Leo, as far back as the vigil of Ephesus, seems to have realized that something more was at stake in the events leading up to that as- semblage than the rights of the see of Alexandria to rank after Rome, and that of Jerusalem over Caesarea among the greater sees of the
8 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Christian world. Hence he had prevailed upon John Cassian, a re- nowned ascetic and theologian, to publish his treatise ‘On the In- carnation’ wherein the Christological problems of the hour were thoroughly analyzed, and an alarm set against the danger of Nes- torianism.*®
It was thus that Leo, even before attaining the pontificate, was abreast of the issues that he would face as ‘Pope, and with which he would have to deal on such intimate terms in the Council of Chalce- don. Continually in contact with the great and small historical per- sonages of his generation, Leo received frequent letters and appeals from emperors and metropolitans, bishops and monks, orthodox de- fenders of the faith and potential heretics—from Theodosius II and Pulcheria his sister, from Cyril of Alexandria and Flavian of Con- stantinople, from the monk Eutyches and the deposed bishop Nes- torius. And in regard to one and all he exercised a firm and positive guiding hand that could leave no one unaware of his pre-eminence, and of the active primacy he exercised as the Vicar of Christ and the successor to the Prince of Apostles, St. Peter. It is thus his word that finally sanctioned the theological achievement at Chalcedon as the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It was his authority that stood behind the Roman Legates in their strong but futile attempt to undo the ambitious machinations of nationalism that all but wrecked the Council, and left it but a wayside station, despite its splendid theo- logical achievement, on the path to universal peace.
The Roman Legates
Leo was represented at the Council by his Roman legates, Bishop Paschasinus, of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who seems to have had some previous contact with the East, Bishop Lucentius, whose see is un- known to us, and the Roman priest, Boniface. As none of these men were well acquainted with Greek, the Pope likewise appointed Julian, Bishop of Chios in Bithynia, as the final member of his lega- tion.? Julian had evidently spent time in Rome, and was serving as the Pope’s permanent agent in the imperial capital. Hence in his letter to Julian, Leo explicitly expresses confidence that, with his aid, the Roman Legates would be safeguarded from making any false step. In the Council, these men represented Leo’s sovereign authority, and, as such, enjoyed the presidency of that august body, though the actual governance of procedure was controlled by Imperial Com- missioners.
Marcian and Pulcheria®
By happy coincidence, looked upon by orthodox churchmen as an act of Divine Providence, the man sitting on the imperial throne in
PROLOGUE 9
451 was the fifty-nine year old military commander and distinguished man of affairs, Marcian. He owed his imperial office to Pulcheria, the sister of the childless Theodosius II, who upon her brother’s death in 450 had seized the reigns of government and taken Marcian as her consort, making him ruler of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire.
Pulcheria herself was an able, well educated woman, who had taken a most active part in the government of the Empire until supplanted in 440 by the eunuch Chrysaphius. Her first move upon taking over the government was to order the execution of her brother’s evil genius and the protector of the heresiarch Eutyches. Both she and her con- sort then set about the restoration of political and religious unity within the Empire. They immediately entered into cordial relations with Pope Leo and Rome, and let it be known that their reign would tolerate nought but orthodoxy in the Roman version.
The Imperial Commussioners®
_ In the Council of Chalcedon, as in all the great gatherings of Christendom since Nicaea in 325, the imperial interests were repre- sented by a group of imperial Commissioners and Senators who were present to assure the peace of the assembly, to safeguard the rules of parliamentary procedure, and to make sure that the Emperor’s view- point was properly respected. In general, they ran the council, but in such fashion as to disassociate themselves from the voting on ecclesiastical affairs or theological questions. They could abuse this power, as at the Robber Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus in 449; but, on the whole, their presence was a guarantee that things would be expeditiously and canonically done.
Dioscorus of Alexandria‘
The figure who in a sense dominates the earlier sessions of Chalce- don is Dioscorus, successor to Cyril as archbishop of Alexandria from 444. He was the one who had engineered the exoneration of the monk and heretic Eutyches at the ‘“Latrocinium’ or Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, and had thus set the stage for Chalcedon. During the course of the Council’s proceedings he was to be charged with crimes of every variety from gross ingratitude to the family of his predecessor Cyril, to personal immorality, and the instigation of the death of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople.
No theologian, Dioscorus yet manifests a shrewdness and a fear- lessness in the course of his trial at the Council that well accounts for the power he wielded at the imperial court, and throughout his native Egypt. It was clearly not on theological grounds that he had become the partisan of Eutyches. Before the Council opened he did
10 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
not hesitate to excommunicate the Pope of Rome himself. At its end, though broken, he showed himself ready to defy the world. He died in exile at Grangra in Paphlagonia on September 4, 454.
The Archimandrite Eutyches'
The monk Eutyches was an aged ascetic, archimandrite of a monastery in the environs of Constantinople, who had steadily gained | in reputation for his austerity and asceticism until he was recognized as the leader of the monastic movement in the Eastern World. Upon the elevation of the eunuch Chrysaphius as the imperial favorite in 440 or so, his influence became absolute, for Chrysaphius was his godson. Unfortunately, together with his monks, he became em- broiled in the theological disputes of the hour. Not being a trained theologian, his political power outweighed his doctrinal competence. Attacked as an extreme reactionary in the battle against Nestorianism, he was the central figure round whom three councils were assem- bled: the local synod of Constantinople under Flavian in 448, where he was condemned and deposed; the general but discredited Council at Ephesus in 449 under Dioscorus, wherein he was exonerated; and finally, the Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451, where his teaching was finally repudiated. For all this, Eutyches had not the makings of a real heresiarch in the sense that he was not enough of a theologian to have reached an independent doctrinal position. His heresy was forced upon him by the logical insistence of his ad- versaries, in particular by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. In was actually for his stubbornness that he was condemned and exiled. Rejected by both Rome and the Monophysites, Eutyches has come down in his- tory as the shadowy, if chief proponent of a great Christological heresy.
The Assembled Fathers??
Finally the Council of Chalcedon was composed of a magnificent assemblage of some six hundred bishops from every section of the Orient including Illyricum and Egypt. The West was represented solely by the Papal Legates and two African bishops who happened to be in voluntary exile before the ravages of the Vandals in their native land. The bishops were divided into what has come to be in modern times, ‘nations’, seated with the metropolitan of their diocese—which was a civil designation, and had the meaning and extent of a modern province. They usually voted in a block by acclamation after the patriarchs and metropolitans had registered their individual votes. At the time of Chalcedon the word patriarch was just coming into regular usage, and eventually was used to designate the bishops of the main sees of Christendom—Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch in Syria, and Jerusalem.
PROLOGUE 1]
As will be seen, many of the bishops had views of their own on the matters discussed, and most of them had the courage of their convic- tions. But they could not help being influenced, if not intimidated,
by the metropolitans of their groups and the fear of reprisal for their sentiments upon their return home.
CHAPTER TWO
The Background: Ephesus to Chalcedon (A.D. 431-451)
In the year 431, at Ephesus in Asia Minor, the Third General Council had condemned Nestorius, Patriach of Constantinople, as a heretic. He was accused of having refused to acknowledge the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. Nestorius had come to such a doctrinal position because he favored a theology regarding the Incarnation of the Savior that really required a dual personality in Christ, and that, therefore, considered Mary as the mother of the human person alone. The condemnation of Nestorius was at once a triumph for the orthodox cause, and for St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. The latter maintained that Christ was composed of two natures, the human and the divine, united in one Divine Person. This was traditional doctrine supported by Pope Celestine, and it triumphed at Ephesus.?
Yet the council itself had been a turbulent affair, and served but to further worsen the political and nationalistic difficulties then troubling the Church in the Orient. This turn of events was due in no little part to the zealotry of St. Cyril, who was not unwilling to utilize the overthrow of the Patriarch of Constantinople to further his ambition to function as ‘the New Pharaoh’ and even ‘the Pope of the Church in the East.’ As a consequence, the council ended in enmity and mutual excommunication between Cyril and John, the Patriarch of Antioch in Syria. John’s faith was fully orthodox, but he had been angered by Cyril’s precipitate conduct; he had been somewhat scandalized by the terminology Cyril had used against Nestorius in this famous Twelve Anathemas; and he was definitely determined to put a check to Cyril’s stretching the surveillance claims of the See of Alexandria. In the matter of doctrine, it was eventually conceded that the Twelve Anathemas had been worded with Nes- torian heresy in mind. Hence they were open to misapprehension. in the general theological field. Thus, in 433 by mutual concessions, and an agreement between John and Cyril to by-pass the anathemas, peace was made between Antioch and Alexandria.? It endured for over a decade.
Unfortunately, for more than a century now, differences in ecclesias- tical circles had not been confined to doctrinal matters. ‘There were
12
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 13
continual attempts on the part of the Patriarchal Sees of Alexandria and Constantinople in particular to extend their influence through- out the East: national pride was part of the motivation; a callous desire for the wielding of wider power further complicated the situa- tion. In this sphere, St. Cyril had been a decided offender. His suc- -cessor, Dioscorus, who replaced him in June of 444, was worse. A man of violence, proud, obstinate and unscrupulous, in the reaction against Nestorianism that followed the Council of Ephesus, he found himself pushed to an opposite theological extreme. Cyril had used the pseudo-Athanasian expression: “One is the nature of the Word Incarnate.” Groups of his followers, Dioscorus among them, tended to exaggerate the unity implied in that definition, holding that the human nature in Christ, instead of retaining its own proper activity and identity, was completely absorbed by the divine. Thus was be- gotten the heresy known as Monophysitism.*
From the very start, the monks of the East, and particularly those _ round about Constantinople, had taken a lively interest in the theo- logical disputes of the day. They made themselves rabid supporters of Cyrillan doctrine, condemned Nestorius, and felt themselves the watchdogs of orthodoxy throughout the Orient. These monks were, of course, but poorly educated; they knew little of precise theological definition. They were easily disturbed, and could be employed as tools of individual factions striving after distinctly political goals under the guise of theological truth.
Of the Constantinopolitan monks, One in particular, the seventy- year old ascetic named Eutyches, had achieved a long standing repu- tation for austerity of conduct and sanctity of life. Unfortunately, with great political influence at his command, he had developed distinct and personal ideas in regard to the outstanding theological question of the day. In the matter of the Incarnation, he held fast to the terminology defended by St. Cyril in the Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius—extremely intricate theology, beyond the competence of the pious and aged monk. This became apparent,when Eutyches came forward with the theory that Christ was not consubstantial with men; that, while before the Incarnation there were two natures, the divine and the human, after the union, there was but one sole nature.
In the late 440’s, rumor of this divagation from orthodoxy got bruited about. But among the Oriental bishops there was much hesitation. ‘The scene had changed considerably since the days fol- lowing Ephesus. Dioscorus was the new Patriarch of Alexandria; Domnus had replaced John of Antioch, and was at first, apparently, a less forthright figure than his uncle, Bishop John, had been. In July 446, Flavian succeeded to the See of Constantinople in place of
H
14 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Proclus. He proved too mild and honest an ecclesiastic for the further- ance of Dioscorus’ political machinations.
Meanwhile too, in Syria and the further East, a sort of turbulence prevailed. The replacement of bishops and metropolitans there fre- quently entailed strife and bitter enmity. Regularly, appeals were made to the metropolitans in Edessa and Antioch; but eventually the litigation was carried to Constantinople and Alexandria. And in the latter see, the patriarch was only too happy to utilize such a pretext for extending his power and claim to guardianship over the affairs of the whole Orient. Hence, an ecclesiastical uncertainty as well as a political uneasiness spread throughout the Near Eastern world.
When, then, through the machinations of the monks, evidence of the new Eutychian approach to the Incarnation made its appear- ance, the regions round Edessa and Antioch experienced great con- fusion until a champion finally arose. In 447, Theodoret of Cyrus, an able theologian, published a dialogue in three books entitled Eranistes (the Beggarman).> It was a direct attack upon the Mono- physites. Theodoret set out to prove that God is unchangeable; that the two natures in Christ co-existed after the Incarnation with- out confusion or immixture; and that, therefore, Christ, as a single Person, was at once both human and divine. The opposite doctrine— overemphasizing the ‘oneness of nature’—which he was refuting, was, set out by the Monophysitic interlocutor in the dialogue thus: “I - say that after the Incarnation the divinity remains, and that it has absorbed the humanity, just as the water of the sea dissolves and absorbs a drop of honey that falls into it. This is not to say that the humanity is annihilated in its union with the divinity; but that it is changed by it.’’6 ~
Theodoret had named no names in his book: but is was not long before all the world pointed to Eutyches as the center of attack. Then, to bring matters to a head, Domnus of Antioch wrote a letter to the Emperor, complaining that many of the eastern monks were professing a sort of Apollinarism; and he accused Eutyches in par- ticular of being their leader.’ Eutyches, it is true, had produced no letter or treatise expounding such doctrine. But in any case many good and orthodox men were convinced that he was a heretic.
First attempts at having the Constantinopolitan archimandrite silenced, however, failed. Both the Emperor and his evil genius, Chrysaphius, favored the aged monk. Hence in a shrewd partisan move, an imperial edict of February 16th condemned anew the pro- ponents of the already discredited Nestorianism, ordering them to be excommunicated and deposed, and their writings burnt. In particular, the edict selected Irenaeus of Tyre for deposition.2 As an imperial
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 15
count, he had been a close friend of Nestorius, up to the condemna- tion at Ephesus. His subsequent selection as Bishop of Tyre had . been an indication that theological peace had returned to the Church. But now it was used by the supporters of Eutyches as a proof that Nestorianism was really rife in the East.
To combat this purported renewal of heresy, the Emperor orderec the works of St. Cyril, and in particular, his —I'welve Anathema against Nestorius, to be taken as the rule of faith. This was imperia interference against ecclesiastical canons with a vengeance, and it was bound to have dire consequence. For in the peace conferences of 433, even Cyril himself had not brought up the matter of the Twelve Anathemas since they were liable to such controversial interpretation.
In the sphere of ecclesiastical politics too, matters began to move ominously. Ibas of Edessa, a controversial figure since he had replaced his former enemy Rabbula in that metropolitan see in 436, was accused by a number of his own priests and clerics of maladministration of his diocese, and of conduct and doctrine not far from heretical.® It soon became evident that a plot was at work, when the nephew of Ibas, Bishop Daniel of Carrhae was accused of similar delinquencies, to which were added charges of adultery and sacrilege. The clerical complainants came up to Antioch in the spring of 448; they were accompanied and seconded by Bishop Uranius of Himeria. Domnus, the metropolitan, had the matters investigated by a synod of nine bishops. But before the evidence was in, two of the complainants fled to Constantinople. Hence the synod ended without decision. But the complainants with Bishop Uranius were then able to petition the Emperor and Flavian, the bishop of the imperial city, for an inquiry into their charges, and into the manner in which they had been handled at Antioch."
Agitation against Domnus of Antioch was now spread throughout the East. Dioscorus in Alexandria, only too anxious to interfere, addressed a letter to the Bishop of Antioch, veiledly accusing him of favoring the cause of heretics, and in particular of having tem- porized too long before appointing a new bishop in Tyre in place of the imperially deposed Irenaeus. Domnus appealed, but in vain, to the Emperor and to Flavian against the interference of Dioscorus in his metropolitan affairs.1?
The next move on the part of the Imperial Court was against Theo! doret of Cyrus. Originally a friend of Nestorius, though he had repudiated that heretic’s teaching, he had, on the other hand, vigor- ously opposed the terminology of St. Cyril, having served as Bishop John of Antioch’s theologian in refuting the Twelve Anathemas. Hence he was not loved by the partisans of Cyril, or of Eutyches.
16 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
He was ordered to remain within the confines of his diocese, and forbidden to attend any future council, unless explicitly summoned by the assembled bishops. With encouragement from the Court,
. Eutyches also decided to make a bold move. He addressed a letter to Pope Leo in Rome denouncing the activities of certain resur- rected Nestorians. The Pope answered on June 1, 448, praising the zeal of his correspondent, but declaring himself too poorly in- formed about the matter to be able to render judgment.
Matters developed slowly until, on November 8, 448, in a small synod of bishops gathered round Flavian in Constantinople to treat of a matter having to do with the diocese of Sardes, Eusebius of Dorylaeum took the floor and read a long memoir on the subject of current heresy. He named Eutyches explicitly as the fomenter of the new Monophysite teaching and delated him to a council for judgment.
Flavian expressed his astonishment. He knew the archimandrite weil, and could not conceive of him as guilty of heresy. But Eusebius was not to be put off. As a simple layman, years ago, he had been the first to accuse Nestorius. Now that he had become a bishop, he was still as vigorously anxious to preserve the orthodox faith. The
upshot of the matter was that a deputation was sent to Eutyches requesting his appearance before the bishops to give an explanation of his faith and action.4
Eutyches refused to honor the deputation’s request. Meanwhile, however, in a meeting on November 12, the bishops took the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius as a touchstone of orthodoxy; they certified the approbation given it at the Council of Ephesus, and compared it with Cyril’s conciliatory letter of 433 to John of Antioch entitled, “Let the heavens rejoice.’ Finally, Flavian_declared, as the expression of their common faith, that, “after the Incarnation, Christ was_‘of two_natures’ in one hypostasis, and was therefore one sole Person, one Christ, one Son and Savior.” Bishops Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of Amasia expressed a preference for the phrase “Christ was ‘in two natures’.” This formula of faith was adopted, and a letter sent to the Emperor informing him of the synod’s belief.1®
It took a great deal of persuasion to get Eutyches to leave his monastery. He offered as excuses the fact that he had taken a vow never to leave the premises, and that he was old and infirm. Be- sides, he maintained there was nothing wrong with his faith. He held explicitly with the pronouncements of the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. In reading the Scriptures and the Fathers, he found that after the Incarnation, that is after the birth of Christ, there was but one nature, that of God Incarnate and made man.
j{ As for saying that Christ was composed of or in two natures united
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 17
in the one hypostasis, he refused to hold with it, for it was not Cyrillan doctrine. This was his answer to several deputations.
Flavian was for leaving the matter drop; but not Eusebius. Hence on November 22, Eutyches finally capitulated, left his monastery, and with a large concourse of monks and civil functionaries, started for the bishop’s residence. Upon the Emperor’s orders, the Patrician Florentius, a high court official, attended the synod and took an active part in its doings. The session was long and lively. Every sort of dialectical skill was employed in an attempt to win the aged archimandrite to the orthodox viewpoint, but his final declaration stated: “I do not say that the body of the man is become the body‘ of God, but I speak of the human body of God, and I say that the, Savior has been made flesh of the Virgin. .. . I maintain that before the union of the divinity and the humanity there were two natures but after the union, I recognize but one sole nature.’’®
The Patrician Florentius tried time and again to have the old man admit the two natures in the Incarnate Christ, but in vain. Finally he was forced to proceed with the condemnation. The council de- clared Eutyches a heretic, deposed him from the priesthood, deprived | him of his status as archimandrite, and declared him cut off from commerce with the whole world.17 This condemnation of the aged and famous monk was severe. It failed to take into account the fact that his lack of learning might have lessened his culpability. It also brushed aside the circumstance that the old man was basing himself upon the terminology of St. Cyril, whose word was still a fairly uni- versa] criterion of orthodoxy.
Eutyches simply refused to accept the synod’s condemnation. Be- fore returning to his monastery, he launched appeals to councils in Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica. Then he wrote to Pope Leo, to St. Peter Chrysologus at Ravenna, and to several other influential personages demanding that justice be done for him. From Ravenna he received a courteous but unsatisfactory answer: Peter told him that he would have to refer the matter to Rome. Eutyches’ letter to the Pope arrived together with a note from the Emperor more or less in his favor. Leo answered by temporizing. He com- plained about the fact that he had not been informed of the affair by Flavian; hence he could not give a satisfactory judgment.
It was not long, however, before the acts of the synod at Constan- tinople were brought to him by emissaries of Flavian. After dili- gently studying the matter, Leo found himself in full agreement with the judgment of this local council. He added his condemnation of Eutyches to that of the metropolitan. When news of these activities against the archimandrite spread through the Orient, the local bishops took courage. Ibas of Edessa for one, brought before a second synod
18 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
presided over by Eustathius of Berytus, Photius of Tyre, and Uranius of Himeria, on February 25, 449, was able to defend himself suc- cessfully against his accusers. He returned to his diocese of Edessa in triumph for the feast of Easter, 449.
But the wind changed. Chrysaphius, Eutyches’ godson, soon pre- vailed upon the Emperor to reconsider the condemnation of the popularly revered archimandrite. Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, had refused to accept the synod’s deposition, and had remained in communion with the aged Constantinopolitan monk. At Edessa, new charges were circulated against Ibas. When brought before the civil governor, Chaereas of Osrhoene, Ibas, on the testimony of his enemies alone, was censured, exiled from his see, and imprisoned.
In short order, then, the Emperor allowed himself to be prevailed upon to convoke a General Council which would go over the whole matter of Eutyches’ faith and beliefs. This he did on March 30, 449, setting the date of the council for August 1 and Ephesus as the place of meeting. He forebade the attendance of Theodoret of Cyrus; he specified that the archimandrite, Barsauma, should represent the Oriental ascetics; he chose as his representatives at the council, Hel- pidius, Count of the Sacred Consistory, and Eulogius, ‘Tribune and Praetorian Notary; and he declared finally, that the council, should be presided over by Dioscorus of Alexandria, assisted by Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea. To anyone aware of the temper of ecclesiastical politics, these moves spelled disaster for the anti- Eutychian party. Barsauma’s invitation meant the presence of in- numerable, violent-minded monks. That the Archbishop of Alex- andria should have the presidency was unprecedented and ominous.
Meanwhile, letters of convocation of the council were also sent to Rome, arriving there on May 13. Leo felt that the case of Eutyches did not merit such great attention, but he was not in a position to get the Emperor to change his mind. He excused himself from at- tending in person on the grounds that none of his predecessors had made such a move, and that likewise the unsettled conditions in Italy —where Attila and the Huns were on rampage—rendered his leaving impossible. He dispatched as his representatives Julius, Bishop of Pozzuoli, the priest Renatus, and the deacon, Hilary. Besides, he named Julian, Bishop of Chios, as his special representative.
Matters at Constantinople had taken a bad turn. In preparation for the forthcoming council, an inquiry was instituted into the de- tails of the synod that had condemned Eutyches the preceding year. For the archimandrite maintained that the acts of this synod had been falsified; that the text of the decision taken against him had been prepared in advance; and that he had been victim of a conspiracy. A series of investigations and counter-investigations ensued, burdened
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 19
with the witness of calligraphers and hand-writing experts, of deposi- tions and altercations. The result of the whole inquiry, however, turned against the position of Bishop Flavian, and he was forced to present his own profession of faith.
Meanwhile, the Papal Legates departed from Rome on June 20 or 21 armed with a batch of letters. They were addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, to his sister, the Empress Pulcheria, to the archimandrites of Constantinople, to Bishop Flavian, and to the council itself. These letters contained a complete exposition of the doctrinal position taken by Leo. The Pope taught that in Jesus Christ there was but one sole and unique Person, and_ that in_ this Person, there were two natures, the divine and the human, without confusion | or _intermixture. Each of these natures chad its proper
and in permanent dependence upon the other, but of which it was the immediate principle. Finally, the unity in the Divine Person entailed a communication of idioms, which meant that it was per- missable to attribute to the man, Christ, that which, properly, be- longed only to God, and inversely, to attribute to the Son of God, that which was primarily true of the man.
Leo’s Tome represented fairly the doctrines contained in the agree- ment of union signed by Cyril and John of Antioch in 433: it passed over, without comment, the detailed theology of Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas; and it affirmed without ambiguity, the two natures in Christ. As such, it sustained fully Domnus and Theodoret and their friends. But it was easy to predict that the proponents of the Cyrillan terminology would not be too well pleased with the Papal defini- tions and orthodox explanations.
‘Illud Latrocinium’ Ephesus, 449
Little by little, during the month of July, the bishops and the others summoned by the Emperor began to, arrive at Ephesus. Eu- tyches was one of the first to reach the city. Barsauma was not slow to join him, and each had brought along a large company of monks. With Dioscorus of Alexandria also arrived some twenty bishops and a company of parabolani; and Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem had fifteen bishops with him, all properly briefed. —The Roman legates were prevented from debarking at Constantinople, lest they might make too early contact with Flavian. They were directed straight to Ephesus, having lost the priest Renatus, who died on the way.
Dioscorus had been specially selected by the Emperor to preside over the council. Matters had been so arranged that although Domnus, Bishop of Antioch was accompanied by fifteen of his bishops, he had been deprived of his better theologians: Theodoret
20 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
of Cyrus, forbidden to attend, and Ibas of Edessa, exiled and im- prisoned. Likewise the prelates who had taken part in the con- demnation of Eutyches at Constantinople the year before, including Flavian and a few other groups whose sentiments were doubtful, were deprived of their vote. In all, some forty-two bishops thus appeared at the council as mere spectators, or worse, as the accused.
It was soon evident that the procedure at the council was _ pre- determined by the Emperor and his confidants. The two imperial commissioners, present presumably to preserve order, really ran the council. ‘They initiated matters by having the imperial letters con- voking the council read publicly. Then Julius of Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), the Papal Legate, rose to request the reading of Leo’s Letter. This document was taken in hand by Dioscorus, apparently to comply with the legate’s request. But instead, an Imperial docu- ment concerning the archimandrite was read. Julius tried to pro- test, but in vain. Without much further ado, the council turned to the question of faith in keeping with the Emperor’s orders.
Essentially the council had met to test the orthodoxy of Eutyches. This monk was therefore brought before the assembly and asked to read a profession of his faith. He did so, declaring that he had no other belief than that of the fathers; he declared anathema to all heretics, and in particular to those who claimed that the flesh of Christ had come down from heaven; finally he made protest against his condemnation, and asked for justice. Flavian then made several attempts to have the anti-Eutychian accusations of Eusebius of Dory- laeum brought on the floor; but each time he was headed off by the Imperial Commissioner, Helpidius. Nor was Eusebius himself allowed to speak. Helpidius likewise refused to allow the reading of the papal letters and in particular Leo’s Tome, despite several attempts on the part of the Papal Legates to have them placed before the gathering.
Attention was immediately turned to the acts of the Synod of Constantinople held the previous year under Flavian. During the reading of these minutes, there were continual interruptions, the bishops crying out after the summation of accusations brought by Eusebius against Eutyches: “Throw out Eusebius! Burn him! Euse- bius should be burnt and decapitated! He has divided the Savior! Let him be cut in two...” Profiting by a moment of calm, Dioscorus exclaimed: “Can you allow this to stand; two natures after the Incarnation?” “No! no!” the council shouted. “Anathema to him who says so!”
“I have need of your hands as well as of your voices,” Dioscorus replied. “If anyone cannot raise his voice, let him raise his hands.” The hands of most went up. Meanwhile, various cries filled the air:
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 2]
“Whoever speaks of two natures should be anathamatized!” ‘Which faith then do you wish to profess,” asked Dioscorus, “that of Eutyches, or that of Eusebius?” ‘Don’t call him Eusebius, but Asebés,’’* some- one shouted from the crowd.”
Several voices of protest were raised, but they were quickly sup- pressed. A vote was taken. One hundred and fourteen bishops declared that Eutyches was orthodox, and that he should be restored to his dignities and office: Juvenal and Domnus were the first to record their vote; Dioscorus brought up the rear.
Then attention was turned to the bishops who had condemned the newly reinstated archimandrite. Dioscorus was well prepared for this stage of the proceedings. He now asked that several long quota- tions from the acts of the General Council at Ephesus be read. Then he commented: “You have just heard the Council of Ephesus warning against those who hold a doctrine different from that of Nicaea, or who change anything of the doctrine, or who bring in new ques- tions. I ask that each one now declare in writing whether he thinks they should be punished who in their theological speculations have gone beyond the Council of Nicaea.” The whole council assented to this proposal; and the Roman Legates themselves showed their agreement, without averting to the possible future use to which their vote might be put. Assured of a unanimous vote, Dioscorus pro- ceeded: “Since the Council of Ephesus has condemned all those who have changed any part of the faith of Nicaea, it follows that Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Doryleum should be de- posed and deprived of their dignities. I now propose their deposi- tion; and ask that each one here present make clear his thought on this matter.”
There was immediate confusion in the assembly. “I appeal against this!’”’ cried Flavian. ‘“Contradicitur!” shouted the Roman deacon, Hilary. Several bishops tried to approach Dioscorus, asking him to reflect on the enormous outrage that he was about to commit. But the Bishop of Alexandria, feigning that he was being threatened by them, asked the assistance of the imperial representatives. Im- mediately the church doors were thrown open and a squad of police rushed in. They were accompanied by soldiers, the parabolani, Egyptian sailors, and other trouble makers. In vain, Flavian sought to protect himself by clasping the altar. He was violently pulled away, struck by the partisans of Dioscorus and the monks of Bar- sauma, and finally dragged off to prison by the soldiers. After ad- dressing a letter of appeal to Pope Leo, he died several days later
* Eusebios = Well intentioned, pious: Asebés = impious.
op PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
at Hypaepa on ‘the road to exile to which an Imperial decree had sentenced him.
When calm was restored and the basilica enclosed to prevent escape or entrance, a vote was moved on Dioscorus’ proposal. Many did not hesitate an instant; others, like Uranius of Himeria and Theopompus of Cabasa, caused some remark by their violence. A few expressed some scrouple—but the presence of the soldiers and the threats of Dioscorus quickly settled them. Domnus of Antioch him- self consented to sign. One hundred and thirty-five bishops thus subscribed to the condemnation of their colleagues.?é
The next day, in triumph, Dioscorus sent the Emperor an account of his success. An intermission was declared and the next session was only opened on August 22. The time had arrived for Dioscorus to settle with his own personal enemies. Domnus stayed away from the meeting; and the Papal Legates were likewise absent. Hence the affair was quickly settled. The case of Ibas of Edessa was the first to be brought up. The acts of the several processes against him were read; he was declared deposed along with his nephew, Daniel of Carrhae.??
Next Irenaeus of Tyre was given short shrift. Then the name of Theodoret of Cyrus was brought up. Although he was not present at the council, it was decided that there was no necessity to hear him. Portions of his writings were read and declared to savor of Nes- torianism. Dioscorus decided that Theodoret’s books should be burned and that he should be excluded from the episcopate. The council turned to the Bishop of Antioch to execute this order.?8
But the acquiescence of Domnus in all that preceded did not spare him. Dioscorus turned the council’s attention to his affairs, and the reading of the pertinent acts were frequently interrupted by shouts of: ‘“‘Domnus is the master of Ibas! Anathema to this blasphemer! Anathema to Domnus!’” On the other hand, Dioscorus was the object of the council’s acclamation: “He has blasphemed Dioscorus! Dioscorus has spoken by God! The Holy Spirit has spoken through Dioscorus! ‘Those who remain silent in this matter are heretics!” These cries were redoubled when the Patriarch of Alexandria or- dered the reading of the Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril. With their
acclamation, the work of the council came to an end.”
449—451
The ihone had hardly departed from Ephesus when from all sides appeals and protestations were sent to Rome. After several narrow escapes the deacon, Hilary, managed to avoid the surveillance of Dioscorus and make his way to Rome. Through him Leo was first informed of the scandalous doings at Ephesus and presented
EPHESUS TO CHALCEDON 23
with a letter of appeal from Flavian. Then two of Eusebius of Dorylaeum’s clerics arrived, followed shortly by that bishop himself. Finally, several priests from Cyrus reached Rome with a third letter of appeal from Bishop Theodoret.*°
By coincidence, each year on September 29, Leo was accustomed to celebrate the anniversary of his election in Rome by surrounding himself with a number of bishops. Determined at once to protest against such a terrible scandal, Leo decided to use this gathering as a means of emphasizing and giving further weight to his protesta- tion. He read the assembled gathering a scathing attack on what he was to castigate in one of his letters as ‘Illud Ephesenum non tudicium sed latrocinium’—the ‘Robber Synod’ at Ephesus.*! Then in the first days of October, he addressed a series of letters to the East: to the Emperor Theodosius, to the Empress Pulcheria, to the clergy and people of Constantinople, to Faustus, Martin, Peter and Em- manuel, priests and archimandrites of Constantinople. When no reply was had from Theodosius, Leo addressed a second letter to him, on Christmas Day, 449, declaring in no uncertain terms that in virtue of his apostolic office he cancelled the decisions of the bishops — at Ephesus, and was calling for a new council to be convoked in Italy to examine into the matter of Flavian’s appeal. ‘Then, early in 450, the Emperor of the West, Valentinian III, together with his wife, Eudoxia and his mother, Placidia, arrived in Rome. Leo got them to write letters to Theodosius, insisting upon Leo’s authority and likewise urging the convocation of a new council in the West.*?
But these various appeals meant nought to Theodosius. He an- swered that the Council of Ephesus had handled its affairs with regularity and impartiality; that Flavian and the other deposed bishops were unworthy of consideration; and that as peace had been restored to the Church, nothing more should be. said about the matter. To prevent further difficulties he ordered the vacant sees to be filled at once: Anatolius was selected as the new Bishop of Con- stantinople—he had been an apocrisiarius of Dioscorus; Maximus replaced Domnus at Antioch; Edessa and Dorylaeum were also given new bishops. At Cyrus there was some delay, but meanwhile ‘Theo- doret was allowed to retire to a nearby monastery.
Upon being consecrated, Anatolius, the new Bishop of Con- Stantinople, wrote immediately to Leo in Rome. But instead of answering him directly, Leo addressed himself to the Emperor, stat- ing that he would be willing to accept Anatolius as the new bishop if the latter would accept the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, the Acts of the true Council of Ephesus of 431, and the Letter which Leo him- self had written to Flavian in preparation for the recent debacle.*?
24 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Then, suddenly, the scene shifted completely. On July 28, 451, Theodosius II fell from his horse and died of the injuries he thus sustained. As the Emperor had had no children, and as he was _ separated from his wife Eudoxia, his sister Pulcheria decided im- mediately to take over the reigns of government. Her first move was to have Chrysapius executed. Next, she decided to marry an old soldier and senator, Marcian, whom she had proclaimed Emperor on August 24 by both the senate and the military.*4
It became immediately apparent that the new rulers would have no traffic with the ecclesiastical policies of their predecessor. Marcian wrote a letter of introduction to the Pope, announcing his enthrone- ment; he followed this with a second letter on November 22, stating that his government was quite prepared to accede to the Pope’s request for a council, but stipulating that it be held in the Orient. News reached Rome, too, that Anatolius had caused the body of his predecessor, Flavian, to be brought to Constantinople and _ properly entombed in the Basilica of the Apostles; and that likewise he had conformed with the demands of the Pope in the matter of declaring his faith.*> Finally, he had recalled ‘from exile the bishops deposed at the recent ‘Robber Synod’ of Ephesus.
Even better news found its way into Rome. Leo was informed that the new bishop, Maximus of Antioch, was zealously persuading all his suffragan bishops to sign Leo’s Tome. At Constantinople, Eutyches had been forced to leave his monastery and retire into the wilderness. Little by little, the other bishops involved in the pro- ceeding at Ephesus announced their submission. In the face of these events, Leo judged that the projected council would be unnecessary. He felt assured that Anatolius and the legates he now dispatched to Constantinople with letters for the Emperor—Bishop Lucentius and the Roman priest Basil—would be able to conclude the business satisfactorily.
However the new Emperor Marcian thought otherwise. It seemed to him wiser once and for all to put an end to all dispute about the doctrine of the Incarnation. Hence without awaiting further word from the Pope, he had, on May 17, 451, launched letters of indiction, announcing a new General Council which was to open at Nicaea on October 1. Leo took the news with good heart. On June 26, he wrote again to Marcian to inform him that he accepted the pro- jected council, provided that the question of the faith be reserved to himself. At the same time he informed the Emperor that he was appointing as legates two bishops, Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the priest, Boniface. He likewise designated Julian of Chios as their counsel and his special representative.*¢
CHAPTER THREE
First Session: The Trial of Dioscorus
Towards the first of October, 451, over five hundred bishops, all of them from the East with the exception of the Roman Legates and the two African bishops, had arrived in Nicaea for the new Council. Dioscorus came up from Alexandria bringing seventeen suffragans with him. The monks of Constantinople and Syria had likewise marched over, ready by their manifestations to take up where they had left off at Ephesus. —The Emperor, however, was detained in Constantinople by civil and military difficulties brought about by the barbarians; hence he had not yet arrived. When it became clear to him that he could not leave his capital for the opening, he ordered a postponement of several days. It was apparently during this delay that Dioscorus took occasion to rally round him several groups of monks and to launch an excommunication against no less a figure than the Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo. In this, he was followed by only a few of his own Egyptian bishops. The rest had taken to heart lessons learned of recent events.
Meanwhile, preparatory measures were being taken: Maximus of Antioch was recognized as the legitimate ‘successor of Domnus; the cases of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, and of Theodoret of Cyrus were discussed; and it was granted that Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily should preside over the council in keeping with Pope Leo’s desires.t
Finally, Marcian sent word that the council would have to be transferred to Chalcedon, where he could keep in direct touch with it, without having to leave his capital. This Imperial order caused discontent. A number of the bishops expressed fear of the numerous monks living in the environs of this strategically placed town. But the Emperor sent word that the monks would be excluded from the neighborhood. So reassured, the bishops quit Nicaea for the new scene of the council.?
The town of Chalcedon (modern Kadikoy) is perched on a hill overlooking the Bosporus from the south and east. Its principal church is the Basilica of St. Euphemia, a magnificent memorial to this early martyr, from the front steps of which one could see the vast vista that opened out on the city of Constantinople, the New Rome, across the Strait. It was here then that the bishops assembled on October 8 to inaugurate the Fourth General Council.?
25
26 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Early in the forenoon, the Imperial Commissioners took their places in the center of the church immediately before the balustrade — of the altar. On their left, but close beside them, were the Roman Legates: Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, along with the priest, Boniface. Julian, Bishop of Chios, frequently functioned as a fourth legate, although he was not seated with the legates of the Pope, but down among the bishops. Beside the Papal Legates were seated Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, ‘Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, and the other bishops of the East and the provinces of Pontus, of Asia Minor, and_ of Thrace. These bishops formed the ‘Oriental’ block, favoring the theological terminology of Antioch, and, as a consequence, were opposed to the Egyptians and the partisans of Dioscorus who had concurred in the condemnation of Flavian and the exoneration of Eutyches at the second synod of Ephesus in 449. On the right side of the nave were Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Quintillus of Heraclea in Macedonia (substituting for Anastasius of Thessaly), Peter of Corinth, and the other bishops of the diocese of Egypt, Illyricum, and of Palestine.
The lists of names of bishops that have come down to us are not complete. In its letter to Pope Leo, the council spoke of five hun- dred bishops present. Leo himself mentions six hundred, but the final count of bishops present together with their substitutes is usually computed as six hundred and thirty.
The events of the council demonstrate clearly the position of the Imperial Commissioners with regard to the Papal Legates. ‘he direction of affairs having to do with order and procedure was in the hands of these imperial representatives. They called the vote, decided upon the order of the day, and brought the sessions to a close. But they exercised no vote themselves, and ordinarily did their best to keep themselves out of the actual theological debates, occasionally as a matter of fact absenting themselves entirely from the assembly’s deliberations. It was the legates of the Pope who officially presided over the council. Their authority was generally recognized by the assembled prelates. And it was taken for granted that any conciliar decision that failed to receive their approbation would be null and void. This becomes evident in the sixth session, for it was explicitly conceded by the bishops in their final letter to Pope Leo: ‘In your representatives, you have set up an hegemony over the members of the council, just as the head governs the mem- bers of the body.” The council added: ‘The Emperor presides in the interest of good order—that all may be carried out in accord with the rules of procedure.” The council thus recognized the superiority of the Pope by asking his confirmation of its acts. Pope
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 27
Leo himself had forthrightly proclaimed: praedictum fratrem (Paschasinum) vice mea synodo convenit praesedere—‘It is proper that my Legate (Paschasinus) preside over the synod in my place.’*
Thanks to the careful preparation made by the Imperial Com- missioners, the whole assembly had been seated apparently without confusion or dispute over protocol. With a copy of the Gospels placed in its midst, the council was officially opened “In the name of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in the consulship of the most pious rulers of Christ, the Emperors Valentinian and Marcian.”® Immediately, the Legate Paschasinus arose with his colleagues, walked to the middle of the assemblage, and announced: “The instruction of the most reverend and apostolic Bishop of the Church of Rome forbids us to sit in this council with Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alex- andria, whom we see sitting here among the judges. ‘The order here demands’—and he made manifest a rolled parchment which he held in his hand—“that Your Magnificence should command Dioscorus to take his leave, or we will depart at once.”
Beronicianus, Secretary of the Council, immediately made a Greek translation of the legates’ Latin for the assembly. Whereupon the commissioners and senators asked for specific complaints against Dioscorus. When Paschasinus did not make a satisfactory enumera- tion, the request for detail was repeated. Thereupon, Lucentius, the second legate, took over and declared that Dioscorus had unduly taken upon himself jurisdiction: that he had convoked a general council and conducted its affairs without the previous assent of the Apostolic See, a thing that had never been done before, nor should be done. Paschasinus added that the legates would stick strictly to their commission, as well as to the Church’s canons and the apostolic traditions of the Fathers.
The Commissioners then asked a third time for the specific charge. And when Lucentius rose to say: “He should not appear here as one of the judges, but as the accused,” the commissioners answered: “‘If you yourself wish to be considered a judge here, do not act as an accuser.” However, they ordered Dioscorus to leave his place, and to take his seat in the center of the assembly—thus not completely banishing him, but excluding him from a vote. This proved satis- factory to the Papal Legates. |
Eusebius of Dorylaeum now left his place, and addressed the magistrates: “I have been injured by Dioscorus,” he said, “and the faith has been injured, Flavian, that holy bishop whom I name with tears, has been killed. Finally, I have been unjustly deposed along with him. I accuse Dioscorus of all this. I directed an appeal on this matter to our holy Emperor which he has sent to you. By the
28 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
head of the rulers of the world, I demand that it ‘now be read to this assembly.”
‘The commissioners and senators signified their assent; and Bero- nicianus read Eusebius’ memoir. The bishop had said in part: “In the Synod of Ephesus which should never have been convoked, Dioscorus, abetted by a violent mob and resorting to corrupt means, denied the true religion and approved the errors of Eutyches. ... As a consequence, would the Emperors now command Dioscorus to make answer to the complaints placed before them; and for this, have the acts of the synod [that is, the latrocinium, as Leo had termed it] presented to the assembly. Thus it would be proved by these acts that Dioscorus did not profess the orthodox faith, that he had ap- proved of heresy, and that the author of this memoir had been un- justly deprived of his episcopal see.”
When the Commissioners and senators turned to Dioscorus for a reply, he demanded that the acts of the Synod of Constantinople held under Flavian in 448 be read. His adversary Eusebius said: ‘This is exactly what we want.” Whereupon Dioscorus arose and said: “I think the first thing to be done is to examine the question of the faith.” But the commissioners immediately interposed: “You have been accused. Defend yourself first.’’
The commissioners and senators now determined upon the read- ing of the acts of the previous council. At their command, Constan- tine, Secretary of the Imperial Consistory, read the first document of the gathering—the letter addressed on March 30, 449, by Theo- dosius II to Dioscorus, on the subject of the convocation of the new council at Ephesus. "The Emperor here had ordered the exclusion of Theodoret of Cyrus from that assembly. At the conclusion of this reading, the secretary remarked: “This same prohibition was placed on other bishops who are here present now.” ‘Then the Commis- sioners ruled that ‘‘since the most reverend Archbishop Leo had restored his rank as bishop, and our pious Emperor Marcian has recalled the most reverend Bishop Theodoret from exile, he may enter here.” Whereupon Theodoret came in, and immediately a tumult ensued among the bishops.
Dioscorus’ partisans, the bishops of Egypt, Ilyricum, and of Pales- tine, cried out: ‘Have mercy on us! ‘The faith is lost! A deposed bishop is being brought in! Out with this enemy of God! The canons forbid him! Out with this master of Nestorius!”
At the same time the bishops of Pontus, of Thrace, and of Asia Minor were shouting: ‘“These are the assassins of Flavian who want him excluded! Out with these Manichees! Out of here with the heretics! Throw out these rascals who beat us into signing blank condemnations!”’
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 29
Dioscorus in his turn hurled into the face of his accusers; ‘Will Cyril now be rejected, since he has been condemned by this man?” Immediately furious cries answered from the other side: “Out of here with the assassin, Dioscorus! Who is there ignorant of his mis- deeds!” The Egyptians turned on the Easterners as Nestorians: “Long life to Pulcheria the Empress! She has banished Nestorius! No orthodox council can receive Theodoret!’’?
Meanwhile, ‘Theodoret, profiting by a short respite in the clamor- ing, stood before the Commissioners and asked that his memoir of accusation against Dioscorus presented to the Emperor be read. ‘To get the assembly to subside, the Commissioners first handed down a decision that Theodoret should be permitted to stay without preju- dice to anyone’s rights since he would later be given opportunity to hear the accusations against him, and to make answer. ‘Then they ordered a continuation of the reading of the acts of the previous council.
This caused the tumult to break out more violently. ‘The Easterners cried out: “Theodoret is worthy of sitting in this assembly!’’ The Egyptians responded: “Out with this Jew! Out with this enemy of God. Don’t dare call him a bishop!” And the Easterners shouted back: “Throw out these villains! Out with these assassins! Only the orthodox should take part in this council.” The fracas continued until the Commissioners finally declared in desperation: “All this shouting and disorder is completely out of place. It is unworthy of a gathering of bishops; and besides it does not help either side. Let silence be restored, and go on with the reading of the acts.”
“We are only crying out for our religion,” the Egyptians replied, “for our orthodox faith. Let this one man be excluded, and we will all listen.” But the imperial magistrate was adamant: “Listen first,” he ordered, “that all, under God may be done within this council.’
Constantine, the secretary, then took up the reading of a series of imperial letters instructing those who were to preside over the council at Ephesus in 449 in regard to the Emperor’s wishes. They were bound together in the same codex. They included: 1) The second letter of Theodosius II to Dioscorus, dated May 15, 449; 2) a similar letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem; 3) a letter to the Abbot Barsauma of Nisibis. Beronicianus, the secretary, then took up the reading commencing with: 4) the instructions given by Theodosius II to Helpidius and Eulogius, his commissioners at the Council of Ephesus, together with the instructions sent to the Proconsul, Proclus, for the maintenance of order at Ephesus; 5) the Emperor’s letter to the council itself; and 6) finally, a third imperial letter to Dioscorus.°
Dioscorus took the floor: ‘‘You can see,” he said, ‘‘from these state- ments in the imperial rescripts, that I am not alone responsible for
30 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
what took place at Ephesus. Bishop Juvenal, Bishop Thalassius and the others had authority along with me in the assembly. And besides, everything that we adjudged was approved by a vote of the bishops. A report was made to the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory, and was confirmed by a general decree.” Whereupon, another violent outburst ensued. “It’s false,” cried the Easterners. “We did not give consent; we were forced and bullied into it. We signed blank con- demnations through fear of exile, under. the threat of sword and lash! Dioscorus well knew why he had brought his soldiers in. Throw the assassin out of here! It was his soldiers who deposed Flavian.”
The Egyptians answered ironically: “You were the first to sign!” At this, the spectators and clerics began to shout. The Egyptians turned on them: “What are these clerics shouting for? ‘This is a synod of bishops,” they cried, “not of clerics. Throw out these strangers from the council!” ‘Turning to the Commissioners, they demanded: “Let those who first signed [the condemnation of Flavian] be brought to the center. It was after them that we subscribed.”?°
When order was restored, Stephen, the Bishop of Ephesus, arose to confirm the accusations against Dioscorus’ latrocinitum. Asked by the Commissioners: “Who did you violence?” he deposed that when he had admitted certain clerics of Flavian’s to communion with him, while the Synod of Ephesus was still in session, as Eusebius of Dorylaeum had done, the Imperial Commissioners, Eulogius and Helpidius, came into his territory with about three hundred soldiers and Eutychian monks and threatened him with death for having re- ceived the enemies of the Emperor. The Commissioners asked, ‘Did Dioscorus do violence against you?’’ Stephen replied: ‘These par- tisans of Dioscorus would not leave me depart from the sacristy of the church before I gave them my signature favoring the decision of Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius.”
Thalassius followed Stephen immediately. He maintained that while it was clear that he had been signified in the imperial letter as a judge and president of the council at Ephesus, he himself did not know the reason why. With regard to the proceedings, however, he said he had tried to remedy the disorders, as he could prove by witnesses.
Next, Theodore, Bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria, avowed that he and others had been quite innocent of the manoeuvrings behind the scene, since Dioscorus and Juvenal had definitely deceived them; that the assembly had been terrified by the cries: ‘You are abettors of the heresy of Nestorius!’ and ‘Whoever separates Christ in two natures should himself be cut in two.’ ‘Strike them! Murder them! Throw them out!’ Thus they were filled with fear for themselves and for those they had baptized, and they were forced to keep silent. He added that
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 31
in accord with the order of the Emperor, it was the council that had rendered judgment in regard to Flavian. But Dioscorus and his friends had held a large number of private sessions, without giving out word of the decisions reached in them, and that they had only brought blank papers into the assembly itself, and then forced the members of the council to sign them, enforcing their wishes by means of armed bands of ruffians. ‘There had been present in all one hundred and thirty-five bishops: forty-two of these had been forced to keep silent, while the rest were of the party of Dioscorus and Juvenal, with the exception of Theodore himself and fourteen others. “What could we do?” he asked, “it had got beyond us. We were in the hands of heretics.”
The Easterners and their friends now offered proof of the truth of all this. And the Egyptians rebutted: ‘Look at these valiant bishops, doing honor to their courage! Does a Christian fear any man! Bring on the. fire, and let us see! Would there ever have been martyrs if they had blanched as these men now admit they did?’’!?
All during this scene, Dioscorus had remained calmly in his chair. He finally arose to say: “These people acknowledge that they were ignorant of the matters judged, and that they signed blank papers. They should not have signed without knowing to what they were subscribing since the faith was in question. And then, who recorded their declarations in writing? Was it not themselves? May your Magnificance now have them make answer.”
The Commissioners, however, decided that no answer should be made to these various complaints until the whole of the acts of the Second Council of Ephesus were read. Hence the secretary was sum- moned to continue with his reading. In the very first section of the minutes, it was evident that the Tome of Pope Leo was not to be received, and that the Bishop of Constantinople had been accorded only fifth rank in the assemblage. Cries of protest against both these irregularities immediately broke out, and Dioscorus used the occasion to demand that all those who were not bishops should be promptly excluded from the assembly, because it was they who had caused this outburst. However, Theodore of Claudiopolis answered that it was really Dioscorus’ own notaries who were responsible. Dioscorus assured him he was wrong, for he had only two, and they could hardly make a tumult.
Constantine then continued the reading, reaching the passage where the Papal Legates had announced that they had a letter from the Pope. ‘The archdeacon Aetius now broke in to remark that this letter had never been read, and all the Eastern bishops and their friends confirmed this affirmation. Aetius added that on seven sepa- rate occasions Dioscorus had promised with an oath that he would
32 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
have the Pope’s letter read; and Theodore of Claudiopolis confirmed this deposition. The Commissioners then asked Dioscorus for an explanation. He «said that he had twice commanded the reading of the letter, and that Juvenal and ‘Thalassius should be asked why the letter was not read. The Commissioners insisted that it was his place to do the answering, but he continued to repeat his first statement. Hence Eusebius of Dorylaeum arose to accuse him of lying.
Then Juvenal was asked to explain the proceedings. He said that John the deacon, the chancellor of Dioscorus, had been com- missioned to read the letter, but that beforehand, he had secretly switched to a letter of the Emperor, and instead of reading Leo’s, had read the latter, after obtaining Juvenal’s permission; as for the Papal letter, he knew nought further of it. When the Commis- sioners turned to Thalassius, he answered that he had neither or- dained nor forbidden the reading of the Papal epistle, and that, in general, he had not possessed nor used the authority with which he had been endowed.”
The secretary, Constantine, went on with the reading of the Acts of the Second Council of Ephesus until he came to the passage re- counting how the decisions of Dioscorus regarding the declaration of faith were accepted by the assembly. The Easterners and their friends denied categorically having given their approbation, or having used the epithets and acclamations recorded.
Theodore of Claudiopolis arose then to explain that Dioscorus had dismissed the notaries of the other bishops, and had used his own to take the minutes; and that these men had put in only what Dioscorus instructed them to write. Thus, he was able to ascribe to various bishops things they had never said, or what had been said by others. Dioscorus, in rebuttal, maintained that besides himself, Juvenal, Thalassius, and the Bishop of Corinth had each their own notary.
Eusebius of Dorylaeum then asked the commissioners to allow Stephen of Ephesus to make a deposition in regard to this matter at hand since he had some strange details to relate. Given permis- sion, Stephen deposed: “My notaries were taking notes for me. There were two of them, Julian, now Bishop of Lebedus, and Crispin the deacon. When Dioscorus noticed them, he sent over his own notaries, who seized their writing tablets, erased them, and then almost broke their fingers when they tried to regain their writing ma- terials. ‘This is the reason I do not have a copy of the acts, and I do not know what has become of the ones destined for me.” Stephen then said he was forced to sign a blank sheet; and when Dioscorus broke in to question this, Acacius of Ariarathia, affirmed that they had
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 33
all been forced to sign blank sheets. He added: “We were kept guarded in the church until nightfall, and even the infirm were not permitted to leave. We were surrounded with monks and armed soldiers, and forced to sign under the threat of swords and staves.”
Without further delay, the Commissioners had the reading of the -minutes of the Synod of Ephesus continued. They came to the en- trance of Eutyches into the assembly at Ephesus, and to his written profession of faith.‘ Therein the archimandrite had declared his absolute adherence to the Creed of Nicaea, and to no other. He had concluded by saying: “This is my faith confirmed by the [first] holy synod of Ephesus presided over by Cyril. ‘Those who gave this defini- tion commanded that anyone changing, adding to, or detracting from it should be condemned. And of this I have copies sent me by Cyril himself.’’!4
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, immediately interposed that this was a lie; that there was no such definition or ruling laid down at Nicaea or at Ephesus. Dioscorus rose and appealed to four documents which, he maintained, recorded the ruling laid down at Nicaea and confirmed at Ephesus, as Eutyches had quoted it. But Diogenes of Cyzicus re- marked that Eutyches himself had not given the full creed. For already at Constantinople, the Second General Council in 381, having in mind the Apollinarists and Macedonians, had joined the follow- ing phrase to the Formula of Nicaea: “He has descended and has become man, of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,’ and that this was not an addition but merely an explanation. He accused Eutyches of passing over the phrase, ‘of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary’ added after the words, He became man, in the Nicaean Creed, because like the Apollinarists, Eutyches did not want to admit the union of the two natures. The Egyptians shouted out: ‘“‘No one accepts any addition! No dimunition! Nothing more than the symbol of Nicaea! This is the Emperor’s will!’
Constantine went on with the reading of the words of Eutyches that followed immediately: “I anathematise Manes, etc., and those who say that the flesh of, our Savior Jesus Christ has descended from heaven.” Eusebius of Dorylaeum charged: “Eutyches in his teaching has purposely denied a descent ‘from heaven,’ but he has never said whence, in his regard, Christ has taken His humanity.” Diogenes of Cyzicus and Basil of Seleucia then stated that, despite the questions put to him, Eutyches had never wanted to explain before the council [of Constantinople, where he had been originally arrainged, nor at the Second Council of Ephesus] in what manner the Incarnation had taken place.6
Dioscorus now interposed to deplore the fact that at Ephesus in 449, this same Basil of Seleucia had falsely stated that the words he
34 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
had spoken to Eutyches in the Synod of Constantinople in November, 448, had been wrongly recorded. “If indeed,’ Dioscorus added, “Eutyches thought otherwise than according to the doctrine of the _Church, he is not only worthy of punishment but of fire. For myself, I have a care for the catholic and apostolic faith; but care not for that of any mere man.”
Basil responded, with cries of blame and of encouragement coming from both sides of the church, that in the synod at Ephesus and at all times his faith had been “to adore one only-begotten Son, the Savior Jesus Christ, and to recognize two natures after the incarnation and the becoming man.’
This caused an immediate outbreak. The Egyptians shouted: ‘““The Son is indivisible; let no one divide Him in two.” ‘To which the Easterners answered: “Anathema to Nestorius and to Eutyches.” But Basil finally gained quiet and explained: ‘‘When I spoke of a union in two natures, it meant a complete humanity and a complete divinity. For Jesus Christ had the one with the Father before all eternity; He had the other of His mother according to the flesh; and taking on this latter, he united it to himself hypostatically; hence He was called the Son of God and Son of Man!”??
He explained further that when he had given this explanation at the Robber Synod of Ephesus, someone—he knew not whom, be- cause the darkness clouded both eyes and minds—rose and shouted that this opinion was a cause of sedition for the Church. This had brought down upon him charges of being both a Eutychian and a Nestorian. For the Egyptians and the monks following Barsauma had risen shouting: “Cut him in two who says there were two natures! He is a Nestorian!”
Basil said further that when Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum was reported as asking Eutyches in the Synod of Constantinople, ‘Do you say there are two natures in Christ?”, Eutyches answered: “I say there were two natures before the union, but only one after the union!”
Basil continued: “But I, then, looking at the minutes as I am now, recalled that I had said to him: ‘If after the union you do not admit two natures which are not intermixed, but which are distinct from each other, you suppose that there had been an admixture and a confusion.’ The reading of these words at Ephesus had caused a tumult, and brought great fear on us who were up for judgment. And so, troubled, and anxious, I did say: ‘I do not remember to have said that [at Constantinople]. I know, however, that I did say to Eutyches: ‘If after the union, you speak of but one nature abso- lutely, you teach that there had been a confusion and an admixture: but if you add ‘one nature incarnate and made man in the same
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 35
sense as Cyril’, you teach the same as we do. For it is then clear that what is of the divinity is from the Father, what of the humanity is from the mother.’ Upon my so saying at Ephesus, those who had previously reprehended me, applauded loudly.”
The Commissioners now asked: ‘How is it, then, that teaching as a Catholic, you still signed the judgment rendered against Flavian?” Basil avowed that “handed over to the judgment of a hundred and twenty-three bishops, I had no choice but to obey them.”
Dioscorus immediately arose to reproach him for this weakness. Basil, obviously confused, could think of no other response than: “Before civil judges I would certainly have made proof of my courage as did the martyrs; but it was not possible to resist the fathers, that is to say the bishops.” His allies among the other Eastern bishops showed themselves more honest and courageous, crying out: “We too have sinned at Ephesus, we now ask for pardon!”
The Imperial Commissioners took this last avowal in a different sense than was meant and said: “And indeed, first you said that because of fear and pressure you were forced into signing blank sheets for the condemnation of holy Flavian!’”’ ‘They believed that the bishops were now avowing themselves guilty of calumny in pretend- ing that they had been made to sign a blank voucher, whereas these bishops were really expressing their sorrow over having given their signatures at all. However, without allowing further discussion of their meaning, the bishops, lead by Thalassius and Eustathius of Sebaste repeated their cry: “All of us have sinned, we all ask for pardon.’’8
Then Beronicianus was instructed to read further several sections from the acts of Ephesus in which Eutyches complained of the treat- ment he had previously received from Eusebius of Dorylaeum in Flavian’s synod at Constantinople. He averred that Eusebius had actually pounced upon a slip of the tongue that he (Eutyches) had made, and magnified it into a heresy. Eutyches described his con- demnation as a foregone conclusion, prepared in private by Flavian’s assembly, and read to him after a perfunctory interrogation. He said that had he ignored the subsequent pronouncements which, he main- tained, had only apparently deprived him of his priesthood and the governance of his monastery, since it was not in accord with God’s will.
Eusebius of Dorylaeum now took the floor and complained that at Ephesus he had not been allowed to voice his complaints against Eutyches. Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius invited by the Com- missioners to explain their position in relation to this complaint, answered that it was not they but the Emperor, through his delegate, Helpidius, who had prevented Eusebius from speaking.
36 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
The Commissioners declared this explanation inacceptable: for in matters of faith, the imperial delegate had really nothing to say or decide. But Dioscorus cried out: “How can you accuse me of trans- gressing the canons in doing what Elpidius demanded, you who, at this very moment, are transgressing them by allowing Theodoret to enter here.”
The Commissioners answered: ‘“Theodoret has been admitted as one of the accusers, and has taken his place.among the complainants, just as you Dioscorus, find yourself among the accused.”?®
Constantine, the secretary, was then instructed to go on reading the minutes of Ephesus, which contained the sections of the first session of the Council held at Constantinople under Flavian now under discussion. It was thus seen that Elpidius, the Commissioner, had intervened at Ephesus apparently in favor of keeping order, to prevent an airing of Eusebius’ charges, by skillfully instructing the presiding bishop to switch back to the minutes of Constantinople. Dioscorus had then polled a number of the bishops including Juvenal, Thalassius, and even the Papal Legates to cover up this move, and he had received a supporting vote. Meanwhile, an attempt had been made by Julian of Chios and the papal deacon Hilary to have Leo’s Tome read first, but it was headed off by Elpidius and Dioscorus on the score that it would prejudice the case against Eutyches. ‘The minutes of the first session of Constantinople had then been con- tinued at Ephesus and were now repeated at Chalcedon.
At the end of this reading, the Imperial Commissioners and the senators renewed their question to Dioscorus: Why had he at Ephesus prevented Eusebius of Dorylaeum from speaking, since he had been so wrought up over the fact that at Constantinople Eutyches had not been allowed full freedom to speak? Dioscorus and his associates stood in obstinate silence, and the commissioners finally continued the reading.”
They reached the second session of the minutes of the Council of Constantinople inserted in the Acts of Ephesus with the original documents and the observations then offered. They contained a further elaboration of Eusebius’ charges against Eutyches including, by way of supporting evidence, the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius, and ,also Cyril’s Letter to John of Antioch.
The reading of the last was followed by a tremendous outburst of exclamations. Both parties rivalled each other in shouting: “All honor to Cyril! We believe as he did!” The Easterners added: “Flavian believed as he did; that is the reason why he was condemned!
Eusebius of Dorylaeum deposed Nestorius; but Dioscorus has changed the faith!”
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 37
The Egyptians answered: ‘It is God who has deposed Nestorius.”
' The Easterners continued: “It is thus that Leo believes! It is thus
that Anatolius believes!” And the other bishops said in their turn:
“It is thus that we all believe.” Then the bishops, Imperial Commis-
sioners, and Senators cried out together: “It is thus that the Emperor
believes! It is thus that we all believe.” And the Eastern bishops added: “Out of here with the assassin of Flavian.”
The Imperial Commissioners now turned to the Egyptians and asked them: “If this is your faith, why have you admitted Eutyches to communion with you, since he teaches a doctrine different to this? And why on the other hand have you deposed Flavian and Eusebius?” Dioscorus could not keep silent at this bad turn of affairs, and called for the further reading of the minutes.??
Beronicianus then read what Eustathius of Berytus had presented at Ephesus to show that Cyril himself had felt it necessary in letters to various bishops to explain the orthodox meaning of the pseudo- Athanasian phrase: “It is not proper to understand two natures but the one incarnate nature of the Word God.??, The Eastern bishops cried out: “This is Eutychianism and Dioscorism.” But Dioscorus assured them that he did not admit any division or admixture of the natures.
The Commissioners turned to the assembly to know whether Eustathius was correctly quoting Cyril. But Eustathius insisted that the citation of Cyril produced at Ephesus was authentic. This was found to be true, for book in hand, Eustathius quoted the passage from Cyril’s letter to Acacius of Melitene. He concluded: “Anathema to him who speaks of one sole nature, to deny the flesh of Christ; and anathema to him who speaks of two natures, but does so to divide the Son of God!’ He felt obliged to add, in defense of Flavian, that this bishop had made use of precisely these words, notably in his letter to the Emperor. ‘The commissioners thereupon put this question to him: “If this is so, why have you yourself signed the condemnation against Flavian?” Eustathius could only answer: “I have sinned.”
Beronicianus, continuing with the minutes of Ephesus, then read an exposé of the true faith in the two natures presented by Flavian to the Synod of Constantinople, where he had likewise enjoined all the bishops to make known, in writing, their sentiments on the matter.
Flavian’s formula of faith stated ‘““The Lord Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and a body; begotten before the whole universe of the Father without beginning as to his Godhood; now, in these latter times, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary in His humanity:
38 © PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with His mother in His humanity. -For we confess that Christ is of two natures after the incarnation, acknowledging in one subsistence and in one person, one Christ, one Lord, one Son.’’2%
The commissioners and senators interposed to ask if this profession of faith by Flavian was orthodox, and they engaged the fathers to express their opinions. Paschasinus, the Papal Legate, was the first to express himself substantiating the orthodoxy of Flavian. He was followed by Anatolius of Constantinople; the second Papal Legate, Lucentius, Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, Thalassius -of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Eustathius of Berytus. Ail the Easterners and their friends then cried out in unison: “The martyr Flavian has defined his faith in an orthodox manner.”
“Hold on,” Dioscorus interposed, “read the rest of his words, and I will answer. You will see that he contradicts himself and that he professes two natures after the union.”
99 66
“Yes, I ask that you read the rest,” said Juvenal of Jerusalem, ‘‘and it will be seen that the whole is orthodox. The holy bishop Flavian has spoken as did Cyril, and in accord with the tradition of the Fathers.” sAnd he was seconded by the bishops of Palestine, who cried out: “Juvenal is correct. We all say the same thing.”
In a dramatic and unexpected gesture, Juvenal rising with his suffragans then left his seat and passed over to the other side of the church. This theatrical move threw the partisans of Dioscorus | into confusion, while the Eastern bishops accepted the coup with wild cries of delight. “Welcome! It is God who has moved you!” This move was followed by that of Peter of Corinth and Irenaeus of Naupactus in Greece. They had not been seated at Ephesus, not having then been bishops, but the recent reading had convinced them of the agreement between Flavian’s teaching and that of St. Cyril. ,
Peter’s move was greeted with the cry: ‘Peter knows what savors of Peter!’ They were imitated by the other bishops of Greece, Macedonia, and Crete: Nicholas of Stobiae in Macedonia II, Con- stantine of Demetrias in Thessaly, Eutyches of Adrianople, Claudius of Anchiasmus, Mark of Eurya, Peregrinus of Phoenice, and Soterichus of Corcyra; and also by the Egyptian bishops, Althanasius of Busiris, Ausonius of Sebennytus, Nestorius of Flagon, and Macarius of Cabassi. All of them walked over to the other side.?4
Dioscorus then made the following declaration: “It is clear that Flavian was condemned for having spoken of two natures after the union. I can prove by Athanasius, by Gregory, and by Cyril that after the union, it is not proper to speak of two natures, but of only
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 39
the one incarnate nature of the Word God. I will be condemned with the fathers; but I will defend their doctrine, and I will not fail on any point, nor do I make this statement lightly or without proof. I can cite these things in their books. And now I ask, as do many here with me, that the rest be read.”
This was done. And they came to a reading of the votes taken at Constantinople on the question of the faith. This was followed by the exclamations and remarks made at Ephesus upon the reading there of these minutes from the Synod of Constantinople. Aetherius, Bishop of Smyrna, who at Ephesus had not wanted to recognize the vote he had cast at Constantinople, and pretended to have said just the opposite, now desired to go back on what he had said at Ephesus, and to give a totally different aspect to his stand. These shifts merited him bitter reproaches from Dioscorus and Thalassius. The latter said to him: “You expressed yourself at Ephesus as you pleased, and without anyone in any way forcing you to speak. Why do you now try to go back on what you said then?’
Beronicianus then read .the depositions on the faith made by Bishops Valerian and Longinus:
I confess two births in Christ, one of the body and the other of the divinity: of the divinity from the Father, and of the body from the mother, but still only one Son of God, as all the Fathers have agreed; two nativities in one person. I so believe with the three hundred and eighteen fathers assembled at Nicaea, and as the holy Council of Ephesus decreed, and as the blessed Soin. of happy memory, ee of the city of Alexandria declared .
Again eats broke in: “I admit” he said “the expression, Christ is of two natures, but I do not admit this other: He has two natures.
I am now forced to speak with audacity, for my life here is at stake.”
Eusebius of Dorylaeum answered him that this situation was but a just reprisal for his part in the death of Flavian, and for a similar fate threatened against himself. Dioscorus answered that he would defend himself before God, here and beyond.
“And before the law?” taunted Eusebius, and he went on to remind him that they were not foregathered to chant the praises of Dioscorus, but to bring accusation against him. The Legate Paschasinus re- marked that Dioscorus was doing a whole lot more talking than he had allowed Flavian to do. But the Imperial Commissioners cau- tioned: ““The present council desires to see justice done.” And Lucentius, the second Legate, approved the Commissioners’ remark.?6
Beronicianus returned to the reading of the minutes of Ephesus, continuing with a rereading of the second session held at Constanti- nople. He was only interrupted by two short observations. Dioscorus said: “After the union, there were not two natures!” And Eustathius
40 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
of Berytus quarreled with the expression: “He has received humanity.” “It should read” he said, “ ‘He has become man and taken flesh’.” The minutes of the fourth, fifth and sixth sessions of the Council of Constantinople followed without comment; for these same had caused no commotion at Ephesus. Immediately following, however, they came to the question of the seventh session at Constantinople which had originally provoked the reading of the acts of Ephesus.
In this seventh session, Eusebius of Dorylaeum and Eutyches had been called into the assembly, as accused and accuser. After a long discussion, Eusebius had posed this decisive question for Eutyches: “Do you confess that two natures really exist, even after the Incar- nation?” Jt was now reported that when this passage was read at Ephesus, the members of the latter council cried out in anger: “Arrest Eusebius and burn him! Let him be boiled alive; let him be cut in two!” And when the minutes were finished, the whole council had shouted: “Anathema to those who speak of two natures!” But now at Chalcedon, the Eastern bishops who had been at Ephesus, positively denied that any such spontaneous outburst had taken place. It was Dioscorus himself who had asked for a show of hands as well as of voices against the opinion that there were two natures after the incarnation. The Egyptians confirmed this: “We said so
eS
then; we say so now!
The minutes of Ephesus next indicated that after a long discussion between Eutyches, Dioscorus, Basil and Florentius—count and later praetorian prefect and pavlician, concerning the belief of Eutyches, the whole assembly had seconded and approved by viva voce vote the confession of .Eutyches: “Before the union, the Savior was com- posed of two natures, but after the union there only existed one nature.”
The Easterners and their friends again protested: “No one of us said so! The Egyptians alone so agreed! This is the work of the Pharaoh! This is another piece of Dioscorism! Hail the Emporer! Long life to the Empress! Long years to the Senate!”’?*
Continuing with the proceedings at Constantinople, Eustathius of Berytus was observed to have said that the council would forestall any reproach that might possibly be. made against it for having separated the natures in Christ, after the manner of Nestorius. Basil consequently had declared in the midst of a silence of approbation: “We recognize, but we do not separate the two natures; we do not separate them, nor do we confuse them.’’?7
The minutes were then continued, outlining the final charges to Eutyches at Constantinople, his condemnation, and the subscription of the bishops attending the synod.*§
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 4]
Next, a series of documents were read which had accompanied the charge of Eutyches at Ephesus, that the minutes of the seventh session of Constantinople had been tampered with. The assembly at Chalcedon now heard them all in silence. These included the acts of a special synodal inquiry authorized by the Emperor Theodosius II at the request of Eutyches, and held on April 8, 449, immediately before the convocation of the synod at Ephesus, to make an investiga- tion into the edition of the minutes of the Council of Constantinople. It was revealed too, that after this stroke the very next day, in fact— a second such commission had been organized to determine whether the sentence of condemnation carried against Eutyches at Constan- tinople had not been prepared in advance, and merely announced at the seventh session of that synod. It became immediately apparent that these were shrewd moves on the part of the imperial party, aimed at making the condemnation of Flavian and the restoration of Eutyches at the ‘Robber Synod’ a foregone conclusion.
Finally, the session at Chalcedon came again to a section of the minutes of Ephesus wherein Basil of Seleucia explained his original questioning of Eutyches at the Synod of Constantinople, and then retracted the vote which he had cast at that synod, declaring anathema to whoever divided Christ in two natures, or persons, or substances after the union.
Now, at Chalcedon, Basil made the following declaration: “It is true that at Ephesus, at the request of the holy bishop, John, I had been persuaded to change my vote given at Constantinople; but I did this out of fear of you, Dioscorus! For you committed grave violence both in your speech and in the multitudes you stationed inside and outside the church. Armed soldiers had been brought into the church, and we were surrounded by the monks of Barsauma, by the parabolani [of Busiris], and by a crowd of people. Ausonius bishop [of Sebynnytus in} Egypt, Athanasius [of Busiris], and I had even said to Dioscorus: ‘Will you then confound, O master, the opinion of the whole world?’ ’”29 ¥ Dioscorus now asked: “I have done you violence?” Basil answered:
Yes, by the menaces of your satellites, you forced us practically to commit homicide in the condemnation of Flavian. Imagine what fear this Dioscorus was then able to conjure, since, now when he has but six adherents left, he still defies us all.” Dioscorus answered:
My notary Demetrianus can attest that you had secretly asked him to change your testimony.” re ee the commissioners and senators: yi demand of Huey ot Se interrogate the metropolitans of Lycaonia, as Sia, and of Perge; they can attest on the Gospels that we
outraged at Ephesus, and that we were not able to vote freely,
4? PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
and that Dioscorus arose and said: ‘Whoever will not subscribe will have to deal with me!’ Ask in particular, and under oath, Eusebius of Ancyra. Ask him if he was not in peril of being condemned, because he did not voice his vote loud enough!’
Dioscorus answered that this was not the first time that Basil had shifted his stand; that even before this Ephesian incident, he had caused them to modify his testimony. Without answering this par- ticular attack, Basil asked that Dioscorus bring out all his accusations against him, that he might give answer.
However, Onesiphorus of Iconium and Marinianus of Synnadus now recounted how at Ephesus they had with other bishops embraced the knees of Dioscorus, begging him not to maltreat Flavian; but Dioscorus had menaced them, calling in the counts and the soldiers armed with chains—and thus he had finally forced them to sign the condemnation of Flavian. Thereupon was read the vote cast by the Council of Ephesus on the subject of the orthodoxy of Eutyches and his acquittal; a letter of the monks of Eutyches to the council, and the approbation given to this letter by the council; finally frag- ments extracted from the acts of the Third General Council, held at Ephesus in 431, which had also been read at the ‘Robber Synod’ of Ephesus in 449.
This took an interminable amount of time; and the secretaries spelled each other with the reading. Then as night came on, candles were lit, and the reading was continued with an account of the vote on the condemnation of Flavian and of Eusebius of Dorylaeum.** This done, the commissioners took the floor and said: ““The question of faith will be treated with more care in the next session. But as the reading of these acts, and the opinion of many of the bishops who are seen now to have been deluded at Ephesus, prove that Flavian and the other bishops have been unjustly deposed, it appears proper that, if it is the will of the Emperor, the same punishment should be applied to the leaders of that last council, that is, to Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius of Berytus and Basil of Seleucia, and that the council should declare them deposed from their episcopal sees.”
The Easterners and their friends cried up: “It is but just!” ‘The Illyrians, on the contrary: “We have all sinned, all of us ask for par- don!” But the Easterners only began to clamor the more for the deposition of Dioscorus. “Long years to the Senate!’ they cried, “Holy God, strong God, God immortal, have pity on us!5?_ Long live the Emperor! May the impious always get their deserts. Christ has deposed Dioscorus the assassin. It is a just judgment. A judicious Senate and a judicious Council!”
THE TRIAL OF DIOSCORUS 43
In the end, the Commissioners postponed the business of con- demnation, but asked that each bishop express in writing, without constraint and placing himself in the presence of God, his faith on the doctrinal point at issue. On this subject, they were not to forget that the Emperor held to the declarations of the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaea, and the hundred and fifty fathers at Con- “stantinople, as well as to the writings of the Fathers—Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril, approved by the first Council of Ephesus. Besides, it was not to be forgotten that Leo, the arch- bishop of Rome, had written to Flavian, of happy memory, a letter against the errors of Eutyches. Many cried out: “We have read it!” In his office as first notary of the council, Aetius, archdeacon of Con- stantinople, then declared the first session closed.32
CHAPTER FOUR
Second Session: “Peter Speaks Through Leo”
After a day’s rest the Commissioners and bishops forgathered in the Church of St. Euphemia for the second session of the council. They were not, however, joined by Dioscorus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, nor by any of the other bishops who had been censured at the first session. Opening this assembly the Commissioners requested the fathers present to give a declaration of the true faith, in order that they might recall to an orthodox approach those who had been in error. The bishops immediately protested that they had to adhere to what had been defined by the fathers of old. No one should con- tradict this law.
Cecropius of Sebastapolis was received with acclamation when he declared: “On the question raised by Eutyches, Archbishop Leo has given us a model which we have already signed.” All the bishops then cried out: “We all say the same! The declaration given us by Leo is sufficient! There is no need to make any other regarding our faith!”
But the Commissioners were not content with this response. ‘They returned to the charge, expressing their desire that each of the pa- triarchs should take one or two bishops from the civil diocese to which he belonged, and deliberate together about the matter. They should then make known the results of their conferences, that all might accept them, and that thus there might not be any further room for dispute on the matter of doctrine; or that if, unexpectedly, there should prove to be dissident opinions, these might be brought into the open at once.
The bishops made answer: “We will not give you written pro- fessions of faith, since it is contrary to the canons; the teaching of the fathers must be adhered to.”” Florentius of Sardes, in an attempt to bring the subsequent debate to a close remarked: “Since it is impossible for anyone immediately to draw up a new formula in keeping with the ordinances of the Council of Nicaea, and of the holy and orthodox Council of Ephesus, and in conformity with the faith of our holy Father Cyril, of Pope Celestine, and the Tome of the saintly Pope Leo, we request a delay ... As for myself, I believe that the letter of Leo to which we have subscribed suffices.”’
Again Cecropius of Sebastopolis took the floor. He proposed that the documents demonstrating the ancient faith be read beginning
44
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 45
with the Creed of Nicaea. Eunomius of Nicomedia, metropolitan of Bithynia, in which Nicaea was located, was now deputed to produce - this document, which~he did, reading as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men, and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and. the dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.
But as for those who say, “There was when He was not’, and, ‘Before being he was not’, and that ‘He came into existence out of nothing’, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, or is subject to alteration of changes—these the Catholic Church anathematizes.’’?
“This is the orthodox faith,” the bishops responded in unison, “in which we believe, in which we have been baptized, and baptize!
22
This is what Cyril taught; what Leo believes!
The imperial Commissioners now signified that the Creed of Con- stantinople should be read. Aetius, the deacon of Constantinople immediately arose, document in hand and recited:
We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended to heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the Leos and the dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; and in one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
The bishops again signified their assent with loud acclamations.® A request was now made that the letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to Bishop John of Antioch which had been read in the earlier session
Ay 5) PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
among the acts of the Synod of Constantinople should now be re- peated.* This was done. Cyril’s letter to John, which ended the doc- trinal enmity between the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch by proclaiming the Union of January, 433, read in part:
““Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad!” for the wall of separation is broken down, and the cause of sorrow is removed. . . . We were delighted at the happy coming of your reverend emissary [Bishop Paul of Emesa, sent by John of Antioch in late 432 to make peace with Cyril], who possibly had anticipated that it would cost him no small exertion to persuade us that we ought to make peace between the Churches, and do away with the ridicule of heretics . . . but who found, on the contrary, that we were so prepared for that, that he had no trouble at all.
“That the variance between the Churches was altogether groundless, we are now most entirely convinced, my Lord [John], since this most religious bishop Paul has given us a document which contains a Profession of Faith that we find faultless. He affirms that it was composed by your Holiness together with your other bishops [at Antioch]. In token of our agreement with it and you, we quote it verbatim:
““Concerning the Virgin Mother of God, how we believe and speak, and concerning the mode of the Incarnation of the only begotten Son of God, we will perforce declare in a few words—not as though there were need for us to supply some lack, but by way of giving a full account of our belief, as we have held from the beginning, having received it both from the divine Scriptures and from the tradition of the holy fathers—making no addition whatever to the faith put forth by the holy fathers at Nicaea. .
“We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect Man, consisting of a rational soul and_a_ body, begotten of the Father before the universe as regards his Godhead, the same, in these last days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary as regards his manhood—the same of one substance with the Father as regards His Godhead, and of one substance with us as regards His manhood. For of the two natures a union has been made; because of which we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.
“In keeping, then, with the reality of this unconfused union, we confess that the holy Virgin is the Mother of God [Theotokos], because God the Word became incarnate and was made man, and from His very conception united to Himself the temple [His body] which was received from her. As for the terms concerning the Lord used in the Gospels and the Epistles, we are aware that theologians understand some as common, referring to the Person (of Christ), and they make a distinction between others, relating them to the two natures, and referring those that befit the divine nature to the Godhead of Christ, and those that deal with earthly things to His manhood.’®
“Having made acquaintance with these sacred ideas of yours, and finding that we ourselves are of the same mind—for there is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism,’—we gave thanks to God, the Savior of the world, rejoicing with one another that our Churches, both ours and yours, hold a faith in accord- ance with the divinely inspired Scriptures and with the tradition of the holy Fathers... .
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 47
“But when I heard that some people . . were spitting forth odious speeches against me as though I said that the holy body of Christ ‘was brought down from heaven, and was not of the holy Virgin’ I thought it necessary to say a few words to them... .
“When we say that our Lord is ‘from heaven and from above’ we say it —not as though His holy flesh was brought down from heaven, but we follow rather the divinely inspired Paul, who says distinctly: “The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven.’ ”
The secretary continued with the full text of the letter, which met with the vociferous agreement of the assembled fathers. Next the notary was instructed to proceed with the reading of the Tome of Leo to Flavian, which was given in its Greek translation, but without the patristic citations appended by the Pope in redispatching it for this Council.®
Leo’s Tome read:
i
Leo, Bishop, to his dearly beloved brother, Flavian, Bishop of Constan- tinople:
After rereading your letter, dearly beloved brother, at the tardiness of which we are not a little surprised, and after having the proceedings of your episcopal synod explained to us, we now understand the scandal which has arisen among you touching the orthodox faith. What before was obscure is now manifest. And Eutyches, who bore the honored title of a priest, is seen to be so exceedingly foolish and uninformed that the prophet’s words can be applied to him: ‘He did not desire to understand that he might do good; he has meditated on iniquity in his bed’ (Ps. 35:5)
For what is more wicked than to foster impiety, and to refuse to yield to those who are wiser and more learned than oneself? But men fall into this folly, when, on being prevented by some obscurity from becoming acquainted with the truth, they have recourse not to the authority of the Gospels but to themselves, and thus become teachers of error because they have never been disciples of the truth. What instruction has he gained from the sacred pages of the Old and New Testament who does not understand even the very rudi- ments of the Creed itself?—that truth which is recited throughout the world by the voices of those who are about to be baptized is not yet grasped by the understanding of this aged man.
it
Not knowing, then, what he was bound to believe concerning the Incarna- tion of the Word of God, and not caring to have his understanding enlight- ened by studying in the wide field of Holy Scripture, he should at least have listened attentively to that common and uniform confession, in which the whole body of the faithful profess that they believe in ‘God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.’ By these three phrases the machinations of practically all the heretics are rendered futile.
48 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
For since God is believed to be both Almighty and a Father, it follows that His Son is co-eternal of eternal, in nothing differing from the Father, because He was born God of God, Almighty of Almighty, not later in time, not inferior in power, not dissimilar in glory, not divided in essence: but the same only-begotten, eternal Son of the eternal Father was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary.
This nativity in time has made no diminution from, nor addition to that divine and eternal nativity, but has tended wholly toward the restoration of man who had been deceived, that it might both overcome death, and by its own proper power destroy the devil who had the power of death. For we could not have gained the victory over the author of sin and death unless He had taken our nature and made it His own, Whom neither sin could defile nor death hold, since He was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of His virgin mother, whose virginity remained intact in His birth as well as in His conception.
But if Eutyches was unable to draw the true meaning from this most pure fountain of Christian faith [the Creed] seeing that he had wilfully blinded himself to the brightness of transparent truth, he ought to have submitted himself to the teaching of the Gospel. He should have listened to Matthew when he says: “The book of the origin of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham’ (1:1). He-should also have sought instruction in the preach- ing of the Apostles. He should have read in the Epistle to the Romans: ‘Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he had promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son who was born to him according to the flesh of the offspring of David’ (1:1-4). He should likewise have listened with pious solicitude to the prophets locating the promise of God to Abraham: ‘In thy seed shall all nations be blessed’ (Gen. 22:18). He says not ‘in seeds,’ as of many, but as one ‘in thy seed’ which is Christ.
He should have caught, too, with his inward ear the words of Isaias: ‘Be- hold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son: and his name shall be called Emmanuel—God with us’ (7:14). He should have read with an open mind the words of the same prophet: ‘For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulders: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace’ (9:6).
The Scriptures would not have been so inconsistent as to say that the Word was made flesh in such fashion that Christ, while born of the Virgin’s womb in the form of a man, yet had not the true nature of His mother’s - body. Or did Eutyches possibly suppose that our Lord Jesus Christ was not of our same nature because when the Angel was sent to the blessed Mary ever virgin, he said: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; and therefore the Holy One to be born shall be called the Son of God’ (Luke 1:35). Is it because He who was conceived by the Virgin was conceived by divine operation, that His flesh was therefore not of the nature of her who conceived Him?
But we are not so to understand that singularly marvellous and marvelously singular birth as to think that because the mode of production was so strange
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 49
it took away the nature of a real generation. For the Holy Spirit gave fecun- dity to the Virgin, but the reality of the body was received from her body; and when Wisdom built herself a house “The Word was made flesh and dwelt in us’ (John 1:14)—that is to say, in that flesh which He took from man, and which he animated with the spirit of rational life.
lil.
Since, then, the distinctive character of each nature and substance—the divine and the human—is preserved intact and the two coalesce in one person, humility was assumed by majesty, weakness by might, mortality by deathless- ness. In order to pay the debt due to our condition, an inviolable nature is united to one capable of suffering so that as a remedy suited to our situation,
one and the same Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, might be subject to death on the one hand, and incapable of it on the other.
God therefore was actually born with the entire and perfect nature of a real man, complete in His own nature, complete in ours. Ours, I mean, which the Creator formed in the beginning and which He took upon Himself that He might reform it. For there was in the Savior no trace of that which the deceiver introduced, and which man accepted because he was deceived. But only He did not condescend to share our sins. He took upon himself the form of a servant without the defilement of sin, augmenting what was human, de- tracting nothing from what was divine. Hence His emptying of himself, whereby the Invisible rendered Himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be a mortal, was a stooping down of compassion, not a lack of power.
Accordingly, He who in the form of God had made man, the same in the form of a servant was made man. For each nature retains its own properties without defect. As the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the form of a servant makes no diminution in the form of God. For in so far as the devil rejoiced because man, whom he had deceived by his evil designs, was deprived of the divine gifts and stript of the endowment of im- mortality, and as he had incurred the stern sentence of death—and moreover since he [the devil] himself had found a sort of consolation by associating man with himself as a transgressor, God under the compulsion of justice changed his judgment in regard to man whom he had created with such great honor. There was, then, the need of a change in His hidden designs whereby the unchangeable God, Whose will cannot be deprived of its own benevo- lence, might accomplish the original intention of His goodness towards us by means of a more stupendous mystery. Thus man, driven into sin by the wicked craft of the devil, was not to perish contrary to God’s intent.
iv.
The Son of God, therefore, coming down from His heavenly throne, but not departing from the glory of His Father, enters this lower world, born under a new order, by a new mode of birth. He is born in a new order, in as much as, invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours. Existing
eternally out of time, He began to be in time. The Lord of the universe, He took upon Himself the form of a servant, throwing a veil over His infinite
50 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
majesty. Although a God incapable of suffering, He did not disdain to be- come a man capable of suffering, and though immortal, to subject Himself to death.
In the Lord Jesus Christ, born of a virgin’s womb, although the birth is marvelous, yet the nature is not therefore dissimilar to our own, for He who is true God is also true man. Nor is there any unreality about this unity, even though there is on the one hand the humility of man, and on the other, the majesty of Godhead. For as God is not changed by His suffering, so the manhood is not distorted by His dignity. For each nature in union with the other performs the actions which are proper to itself: that is to say, the Word accomplishes those things which are proper to the Word; the flesh, those which are proper to the flesh. The one shines forth by its miracles. The other succumbs under injuries. And as the Word does not lose its equality in the Father’s glory, so the flesh departs not from the nature of our race. For (and this must be stated again and again) one and the same person is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of man.
He is God, for ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God’ (John 1:1); and man, for ‘the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (1:14); God, for ‘all things were made by Him, and without Him was made nothing that has been made’ (1:3); and man, for He was ‘born of a woman, born under the law’ (Gal. 4:4). The birth of the body is a manifestation of human nature; the birth through a virgin, a token of a divine power. The infancy of the little child is exhibited in the lowliness of swaddling clothes; the majesty of the most High is declared by the voices of the angels. He whom Herod impiously seeks to kill is in the form of human infant; and He Whom the suppliant Magi rejoice to adore is God of all. |
When He came to the baptism of John his forerunner, in order that the Godhood which was covered by a veil of flesh should not be concealed, the Father’s voice thundered from heaven: “Thou art my beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased’ (Luke 3:22). He Whom the devil tempts with his subtlety as a man; the same, as God, is ministered to by angels. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, to sleep, is manifestly human; but to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and to bestow on the Samaritan woman that living water which whosoever drinks shall never thirst, to walk upon the surface of the sea without sinking, and to rebuke the tempest and to allay the surging waves, is without question divine.
Therefore, in brief, it is not the same nature which weeps with pity for a dead friend, and then with a command, upon the removal of stone which covered the grave wherein he had lain for days, raises the same restored to life; nor is it the same nature which hangs upon the cross, and then changing light into darkness, makes the elements tremble; or that which is pierced with nails, and then opens the gates of Paradise to the believing thief.
In like manner it does not belong to the same nature to say: ‘I and my Father are one’ (John 10:30), and to say: “The Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28). For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is but one whole Person, God and man, that whereby there is in both a common contumely is one thing; that from which a common glory another. Of us He has hu- manity, inferior to the Father; of the Father, divinity equal to the Father. ,
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 51 Vv;
Therefore, since this unity is to be understood of both natures, the Son of man is said to have descended from heaven, while the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, although He suffered these things, not in the divine nature in which He is the only-begotten of the Father, co-eternal, and consubstantial with Him, but in the weakness of human nature. Hence also we confess in the Creed that ‘the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried,’ according to the saying of the Apostle: ‘For if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory’ (1 Cor. 2:8).
But when the Lord and Savior by his questioning was building up the faith of His disciples: ‘Who’, ‘He asked, ‘do men say that I, the Son of man, am?’ And when they had told Him the different opinions of others—‘but you,’ He asked, ‘who do you say that I am?’ (Matt. 16:13-16). I who am the son of man, and whom you see in the form of a servant and in the verity of flesh —‘who do you say that I am?’ At this, blessed Peter, being divinely inspired, and being about to confer a munificence upon all nations by his confession, answers: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!’
Deservedly, therefore, was he called ‘blessed’ by the Lord. And from the archetypal rock he took the basis both for his power and for his name, who through a revelation from the Father confessed that the same Person was both the Son of God and the Christ, realizing that either of these, accepted without the other, would be of no avail for salvation. It would be, then, equally dangerous to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was either solely God and not at the same time man, or man only, and not likewise God.
After the resurrection of the Lord—which assuredly was that of a real body, because no one else was raised but He who had been crucified and died —what else was accomplished in the forty days interval than a removal of all obscurity from the fulness of our faith. For conversing with His disciples, and abiding with them, eating with them, and permitting those who had doubted to feel Him with a probing and searching touch, He both entered where the disciples were, though the doors were shut, and breathing on them, gave them the Holy Spirit. Then enlightening their understanding, He ex- plained to them the Holy Scriptures.
Again, He the self same showed them the wound in His side, the print of thé nails, and all the marks of his recent suffering saying: ‘See my hands and feet, that it is I, myself. Feel me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have’ (Luke 24:39). Thus, the properties of both, natures, the Divine and the human, could be seen continued in Him in- separably; and while we understand that the Word is not the same as the | flesh, we may confess the one Son of God, both Word and flesh.
Referring to this mystery of the faith, Eutyches must now be regarded as plainly uninformed, since he does not acknowledge our nature in the only- begotten Son of God, either in the humility of His mortality or in the glory of His resurrection. He has no fear, it seems, of the sentence of the blessed Apostle and Evangelist, John who says: ‘Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit that severs Jesus is not of God, but is of Antichrist’ (1 John 4:3). What else indeed is this but to ‘sever Jesus’, and by foolhardy imaginings to deprive Him of His human nature, thus to make void the mystery by which alone we have been saved?
52 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Being blinded regarding the nature of Christ’s body, he must needs be blinded with the same blindness in the matter of His suffering. For if he does not think that the Lord’s cross was unreal, and does not doubt the reality of the punishment which was undergone for the salvation of the world, let him acknowledge the flesh of Him Whose death he acknowledges. And let him not deny that He was a man with a body such as ours, Whom he knows to have been capable of suffering; since the denial of real flesh is the denial also of bodily suffering. If, therefore, he holds the Christian faith, let him realize the kind of nature it was that was pierced with nails and hanged upon the cross, and let him understand how it originated. So too, as the side of the Crucified was pierced by the soldier’s spear, and blood and water flowed out, the Church of God was washed with the water and with the chalice.
Let him listen also to the blessed Apostle Peter proclaiming that sanctifica- tion in the Spirit is brought about through the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. And let him read attentively the same Apostle’s words: ‘You know that you were redeemed from the vain manner of living handed down from your fathers, not with perishable things, with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1 Peter 1:18-19). And let him not resist the testimony of the Apostle John: “The blood of Jesus, the Son of God, cleanses us from all sin’; and again, “This is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world unless he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came in water and in blood, Jesus Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit that bears witness that Christ is the truth. For there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one’ (1 John 5:4-9); the spirit, that is, of sanctification, and the blood of redemp- tion, and the water of baptism. And these three are one, and continue in- separable, and none of them is severed from its connexion with the others, Because by this faith the Catholic Church lives and by this it increases, since in Christ Jesus, it neither confesses a manhood without a true Godhood, nor a Godhood without a real manhood.
Vi.
But questioned in the course of your examination, Eutyches replied: ‘I acknowledge that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union IJ confess one nature.’ I marvel that so absurd and so perverse a profession on his part met with no rebuke from the judges, and that so ex- tremely foolish and so extremely blasphemous an opinion was suffered to pass without notice, as though nothing offensive had been heard. The as- sertion that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation was as impious as the assertion was wicked that after ‘the Word was made flesh’ there was in Him but one nature.
Now lest Eutyches should regard this expression as correct or we be thought to consider it tolerable, seeing that it met with no refutation on your patt, we advise you, dearly beloved brother [Flavian] to take care that if by God's merciful inspiration the matter is brought to a satisfactory conclusion, the
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 53
folly of this ignorant man may be likewise turned away from this opinion of his. Indeed as the records of the proceedings indicate, he had begun to renounce his persuasion, constrained by your insistence, when he made pro- fession of saying what he had not said before, and agreed to that faith to which previously he was a stranger. But then when he would not consent to anathematize this impious dogma, your paternity realized that he still held to his wrong belief, and had to be condemned.
Now if he shows sincere contrition for this, and with good intent acknowl- edges, though tardily, that your Episcopal authority has been properly exer- cised, or if, for full satisfaction, he shall condemn viva voce and by actually subscribing all that he has held amiss, whatever leniency is shown him once corrected, will not be blameworthy. For our Lord, the true and good shep- herd, ‘who laid down His life for His sheep’ and who came to save men’s souls, and not to destroy them, would have us imitate His clemency—that justice may restrain those who sin, but mercy may not repell those who re- pent. For the true faith is most effectually defended when a false opinion is finally condemned by its own upholders.
But that the whole matter may now be piously and faithfully concluded we have appointed our brother, Bishop Julius, and Renatus the priest of the titular Church of St. Clement, and also our son Hilary, the deacon, as our representatives in this affair. We have associated Dulcitius with them as our notary, of whose fidelity we have had proof. We confidently trust that God will be present with His assistance, so that once this mischievious opinion has been condemned, he who had erred may be saved. God preserve you, dearly beloved brother.
The Ides of June [June 13, 449], in the consulship of The Most Eminent Asturius and Protogenes.
The notary had hardly finished the reading when the bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the fathers: This is the faith of the Apostles! All of us so believe! So believe the orthodox! Anathema to whoever believes otherwise! Peter has spoken through Leo! This is the teach- ing of Cyril! This is the true faith! Why was this not read at Ephesus! Dioscorus hid it away!”?
However, during the reading, the bishops of Illyricum and of Pales- tine had begun to manifest some uneasiness over several passages in the Tome. They now made manifest their doubts, objecting to three sections in particular wherein they thought the Tome established a separation of some sort between the divine and the human natures in Christ. As a consequence, they felt it contained traces of Nestorianism.
The first of these was a passage from chapter two, where Leo had said: “In order to pay the debt due to our condition, an inviolable nature is united to one capable of suffering, so that as a remedy suited to our situation, one and the same Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, might be subject to death on the one hand, and incapable of it on the other.”
54 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
To pacify these bishops, Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, immediately referred them to the passage in the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, where Cyril had said practically the same thing: ‘As indeed his proper body by the grace of God, as St. Paul says, tasted death for us all, it is said that He suffered death for us; not indeed in the sense that He had the experience of being dead—for it is folly to say or think such—but as I have said above, His flesh tasted death.’’®
The Illyrian bishops likewise objected to a passage in chapter three: “For each nature in union with the other performs the actions which are proper to itself: that is to say, the Word accomplishes those things which are proper to the Word; the flesh, those which are proper to the flesh. The one shines forth by its miracles, the other succumbs under injuries.”
In response to this passage, Aetius read a phrase from St. Cyril taken from the synodal letter to Nestorius which had accompanied the T'welve Anathemas: “Certain passages [in the Scriptures] refer most properly to God, and others are proper to the humanity; and finally, certain expressions are proper to the mixture, making it evident that the Son of God is God and man all together.” |
Finally, a second passage from chapter three was questioned: “For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is but one whole Person, God and man, that whereby there is in both a common contumely is one thing; that from which a common glory another. Of us He has humanity, inferior to the Father; of the Father, divinity equal to the Father.”
Theodoret of Cyrus now spoke up, interposing that St. Cyril had made a similar statement, and he recited the passage: “He has be- come man, and His manner of being has not changed; but He remains that which He was. He is by all means understood as One Thing in another, that is to say, His divine nature in His humanity.’®
The Commissioners now asked of the whole assembly: “Is everyone agreed? Are there any further doubts?”
The bishops shouted: “No! None!’ But Atticus of Epirus took the floor to ask a delay of a few days to allow the bishops to think these matters over with tranquil mind and undisturbed soul. He also suggested that, as the Tome of Pope Leo to Flavian had been read, a copy of the letter of Cyril to Nestorius should be furnished them, at the end of which were to be found the Twelve Anathemas, that they might thus prepare for the ensuing discussions.?°
Other bishops murmured: “If there is to be a delay, we ask that all the bishops be polled.” But the Commissioners and Senators chose to ignore this suggestion, and taking up the requested delay, ordered
“PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO” 55
an adjournment of five days on the matter. They went on, too, to instruct the demurring bishops to betake themselves to Bishop Ana- tolius of Constantinople, and to take up this matter of the faith in earnest, that all their doubts might be resolved.
At this point, they were interrupted with shouts of: “None of us has doubts. We have already signed the Tome!” But as this last state- ment was not true, the Commissioners answered: “It is not necessary for all of you to get together; but Anatolius of Constantinople should invite those among you who have doubts to go over the whole matter.”
Then, as the session was about to be adjourned, a group of Illyrian bishops took occasion to intercede for the leaders of the Robber Council of Ephesus: “We wish to intercede for the absent fathers. Let them return to the council. They agree with Leo in this synod. May the Emperor and Empress heed our prayer. All of us have erred, each of us asks for pardon.”
A great tumult broke out, with shouting for and against this pro- posal. The clerics of Constantinople said: ‘““There are only a few here who are making this clamor. The council itself has said nothing about this matter.” ‘The Easterners took up the cry: “Exile the Egyptians!”’ ‘The bishops of Ilyricum: “We pray you, pardon us all!” Again, the Easterners: “Exile the Egyptians!”’ and the Illyrians: ‘All of us have erred; have pity on all of us. Let our appeal be brought to the orthodox Emperor. The Church is being torn in two!” The clerics of Constantinople continued to cry: “Exile for Dioscorus! God has rejected him! Whoever admits him to communion is a Jew!”
But despite this outbreak, the Commissioners with a flourish of authority brought the session to a close saying: ‘““Let what we ordered above, the consultation of Anatolius, be carried out.’!!
CHAPTER FIVE
Third Session: The Condemnation of Dioscorus
During the three days that followed the second session, a series of conferences were held under the guidance of Bishop Anatolius in Constantinople, in accord with the commissioners’ instructions. The Papal Legates, Paschasinus, Lucentius, and Boniface took part in these proceedings along with a large number of other bishops. Their purpose was to convince the Illyrian bishops of the orthodoxy of the passages in Leo’s Tome that had struck them as at least ambiguous. All went off in friendly fashion; and the Illyrians eventually allowed themselves to be persuaded. Hence, even before the five day delay, they signified their willingness to have the Council proceed. On October 13, 451, then, the bishops assembled once more in the Church of St. Euphemia in Chalcedon. As this was to be a strictly ecclesi- astical session, the imperial Commissioners and Senators were not present. Most of the Egyptian bishops with Dioscorus their leader likewise abstained, making it some two hundred bishops present for the meeting.!
In his position as first notary of the council, Aetius, the arch- deacon of Constantinople, opened this new séssion with the announce- ment that Eusebius of Dorylaeum had prepared a second memoir against Dioscorus, which he was ready to present to the gathering. But the Legate Paschasinus let it be understood that as he had been charged by Pope Leo to preside at the council, everything done there should be under his control. He then ordered the reading of the charges. Thereupon Aetius began with the letter wherein Eusebius said:
“IT have already accused Dioscorus of having shared in the errors of Eu- tyches, who has been declared a heretic and anathema. At the [Robber] coun- cil of Ephesus, Dioscorus, thanks to the turbulent mob of his, and to the graft he used, misrepresented the true faith, and brought a leaven of heresy into the Church. He deprived me of my ecclesiastical functions. But now as, in the first session, it has been shown that Dioscorus taught a heterodox doctrine, that he excluded me from the Council of Ephesus, and wrought evil on me and Flavian, preventing us from defending our cause which was just—and further, since he had inserted into the minutes of that council false and imagined statements based upon blank charges forced upon the assembly; I pray you at once to have mercy on me, and to annul that which
56
CONDEMNATION OF DIOSCORUS 57
has been done against me, and to decide that this will no longer injure me; but, on the contrary, that I should be reinstated in my ecclesiastical dignity. I would have you at the same time declare these evil doctrines heretical, and punish him for his boldness as he well deserves . . .”
Eusebius went on to ask to be confronted with his adversary.
Aetius assured him that the present session had been announced to Dioscorus as well as to the other bishops by two deacons, and that Dioscorus told them that “he was prepared to attend voluntarily, but that his guards had forbidden him to do so.”
Paschasinus immediately dispatched two priests, Epiphanius and Elpidius, to see whether Dioscorus might be found in the neighbor- hood of the church. When these men returned without having seen him, upon the advisement of Anatolius of Constantinople, three bishops—Constantine of Bostra, Acacius of Ariarathia and Atticus of Zela, accompanied by the notary, Himerius, were sent to Dioscorus’ quarters, to invite him personally to attend the session. Dioscorus received them, but told them he could not attend as he was prevented by the magistriani and scholarians (imperial guards). The deputies of the council returned with his response.
But on their way they met Eleusinius, the Master of the Sacred Offices, who assured them that Dioscorus was perfectly free to attend if he so wished. They returned to him immediately, and renewed their invitation. Changing his pretext, Dioscorus now said that in the first session the Imperial Commissioners had rendered a judg- ment against him, and that someone must now wish to annul it. He demanded that his case should not be taken up except in the presence of the Imperial Commissioners. The deputies then made it clear to him that the excuse he had first given was entirely false, and that they would make a report of his attitude and statements to the council.
Three other bishops were sent next—Pergamus of Antioch, Creco- pius of Sebastopolis, and Rufinus of Samosata, accompanied by the notary, Hypatius, to bring Dioscorus the following invitation: “It is not to undo what has been decreed in the first session, but to re- examine the main accusations brought against you by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, that the council invites you, Dioscorus, and insists that you appear in accord with the sacred prescriptions of the canons.” Dioscorus then answered that he was sick. The deputies having remarked that he did not appear such to them, he assured them he would not appear unless the Imperial Commissioners were present, adding that the other leaders of the Council of Ephesus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustathius should appear with him. The deputies informed him that the new charges of Eusebius con- _cerned him alone, and that as a consequence, only his presence, and
58 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
not that of the others, was necessary. But Dioscorus persisted in his refusal. |
When the deputies reported these proceedings to the council, Euse- bius of Dorylaeum proposed a third deputation.? But before taking up this proposal, a group of clerics and lay people who had come from Alexandria were brought before the council by Aetius to make depositions against Dioscorus. The Legate Paschasinus asked them if they were prepared to prove their accusations against their arch- bishop. Upon their affirmative response, four letters of theirs, ad- dressed to Leo, archbishop of Rome, and to the Sacred General Council were read.
The first memoir, the work of Theodore, deacon of Alexandria, was concerned with the following events:
Theodore had served for twenty two years among the magistriani of the Imperial guard; then Cyril of Alexandria had taken him into his service, about the time of the Council of Ephesus (431), and had ordained him a cleric. He had served fifteen years in this position, when in 444, immediately after Dioscorus became patriarch, he was deprived of his office, but with- out specific charges brought against him either in writing or orally, and he was chased from the city. Dioscorus had proceeded in the same fashion against the family and friends of the former archbishop, Cyril; the only reason seemed to be that Dioscorus, this heretic and Origenist, hated the true faith which Cyril had defended. He had vomited blasphemies against the Trinity, he had been an accomplice in several deaths, he had chopped down trees which did not belong to him, burnt and destroyed houses; and in general he lived an infamous life. Theodore was prepared to prove all this. Dioscorus was guilty of an even greater crime than he had committed against Flavian. He had presumed to launch an excommunication against the Apostolic See of Rome, and by his threats had forced the ten bishops who had accompanied him from Egypt—for many had not wanted to come with him—to sign this excommunication. These had signed but with fear and trembling. Now that the council might assure itself of the truth of these _ charges, it should take note of the individuals named: Agorastes, Dorotheus, Eusebius, and the notary John. In due time, Theodore would present at- tested proofs.”
The deacon Ischyron read a second memoir against Dioscorus. He also recounted the brutality with which Dioscorus conducted him- self—ravaging goods, destroying the orchards and houses of his ad- versaries, menacing and exiling them, and not even showing proper respect to the sacred relics. All these were well known facts in Alex- andria, spoken of by the people as well as by the clergy. When the Emperor had sent wheat to the poor churches of Libya for the baking of eucharistic bread, and for the feeding of the poor, Dioscorus had forbidden the bishops of this land to take it, and he himself had sequestered and put it up for sale at an exorbitant price, at a time
——
eS Oe
CONDEMNATION OF DIOSCORUS 59
of famine. He had confiscated foundations given in favor of the monasteries, hospitals, etc., by the pious matron, Peristeria; and used her gifts as presents to the people of the theatre. His immorality was well known. Women of bad name came and went in his palace and his bathing quarters. In particular, the famous Pansophia, nick- named Orine, should be mentioned. There was even a popular ditty about her and her lover, Dioscorus, as he was prepared to prove. Finally Dioscorus had a number of murders on his conscience.
Then Ischyron gave an account of his own difficulties: he had been honored with the confidence of Cyril; he had made a number of painful voyages and handled touchy affairs for the latter, up to the point of having injured his health. Dioscorus had deprived him of his sacred offices, caused the monks to burn his goods, destroy his orchards, and reduced him to mendicancy. He had instructed the priest, Mennas, and the deacons, Peter and Harpocration, with other assassins to kill him; Ischyron had only saved his life by quick flight. Later he had been caught by the deacon, Harpocration, the most brutal of Dioscorus’ followers, and locked up in a sanatorium without one whit of evidence brought against him. During his stay in this prison, Dioscorus had wanted to take his life, and only gave him his liberty on the condition that he would leave Alexandria, his native city. Ischyron then asked the council’s permission to give proofs of his charges, and begged reinstatement. He asked, in closing that attention be paid to Agorastus, Dorotheus, Eusebius, Diodion, Har- pocration, Peter and Gaianus, master of the bishop’s bath, that their testimony be introduced. He likewise promised to produce at the proper moment authenticated documents.
The third memoir against Dioscorus was composed by Athanasius, a priest of Alexandria. It began as follows:
“My brother Paul and I were nephews of the blessed Cyril, sons of his sister, Isidora. In his will, he left his successor, whoever he might be, a con- siderable legacy, conjuring him by the sacred mysteries to protect his family, instead of doing it harm. Dioscorus however, from the very beginning of his episcopate, menaced us all with death, if we tried to claim the least particle of this inheritance; and by continual persecution forced us to leave Alex- andria and seek out at Constantinople the protection which we could not find at home. The patriarch had even intimidated the magistrates, who were silent before him. But his hatred followed us to Constantinople. We were calumniated before the minister, Nomus, and the eunuch, Chrysaphius, who had complete charge of affairs and shared the spoils with him. Upon our arrival here, we were taken into custody, thrown into prison, and tortured until we agreed to surrender everything we had brought with us. We were even forced to get loans at great interest rates. My brother died of these privations and sufferings, and I am left with his wife and children and aunts, and burdened with the family debts, scarcely able to show myself, so
60 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
miserable are we. But fearing that we might still have some recourse, Dios- corus commandeered our houses to change them into churches; and even turned my private estate into ecclesiastical property, although it is some four stadia away from the other patriarchal holdings, and in a place quite un- suited for the purpose. Not content still, he deposed me from the priesthood and forced me to wander a mendicant, pursued not so much by my creditors, as by Dioscorus, without liberty to remain in the churches or monasteries. When I took refuge in the Monastery of Metanoia in Canopus, which has always been a place of asylum, Dioscorus not being able to reach me, pre- vented me from using the public baths, took away the bread and food in- tended for me, so that I was forced for fear of dying of hunger to come out of my own accord; and now I am forced to beg with two or three slaves who have remained with me. The sums demanded of us, both in the matter of our possessions and loans, add up to some 1400 pounds of gold, and have passed into the hands of our persecutors. Such now is the condition of the sisters of the blessed Cyril, our aunts, and the widow of my brother and his orphans.”
Athanasius likewise was prepared to furnish proof of these charges.
The fourth and final deponent identified himself as a layman named Sophronius of Egypt. He maintained that Dioscorus had like- wise reduced him to poverty, and this in very peculiar circumstances. An officer of the Egyptian prefecture, Macarius by name, had run off with his wife, Theodota, without any separation having been obtained between husband and wife. Sophronius had complained about the matter to the Emperor, and Theodore, an official of high rank, had been sent from Constantinople to investigate the affair. Dioscorus up- on hearing of the matter had declared that the affair did not belong to the Emperor’s jurisdiction, but to himself; and he had sent the deacon, Isidore, to Sophronius with a mob to demand that Theodore take his leave. Not satisfied with this, the deacon had, under Dios- corus’ prompting, taken away all of Sophronius’ goods; whereupon he had fled. He asked then for assistance, declaring himself pre- pared to prove Dioscorus guilty of blasphemy, adultery, and treason; for when the Emperor Marcian was at Alexandria, Dioscorus had scattered money among the people through the offices of Agorastus and Timotheus to have them rebel against the Emperor. The Tribune and Notary, John could testify that if Theodore had not been Augus- tal Praefect or governor of the Diocese of Egypt at this time, the whole city of Alexandria, through Dioscorus’ doings, would have been thrown into tumult. Sophronius assured the Council that many others had suffered under Dioscorus’ violence; but that they were too poor to be able to come in person. He concluded by demanding the arrest of Agorastus.3
The council decided to insert these memoirs into the minutes, and for the third time sent a delegation, made up of Bishops Francio of
CONDEMNATION OF DIOSCORUS 61
Philippopolis in Thrace, Lucian of Bizya in Thrace, and John of Germanicia in Syria, to Dioscorus. Palladius the deacon accompanied them as their notary. They were given a letter for Dioscorus in which was outlined the falsity of his previous pretext for not attending, and in which he was engaged to come and defend himself against the charges of Eusebius and the Alexandrian deponents. If he did not present himself after this third invitation, he would be punishable by the penalties assigned by the canons for those held in contempt of the council.
This third deputation was likewise fruitless. Dioscorus declared he would not come, that he had nothing further to say; and the efforts of the bishops to stir his conscience or persuade him to attend were in vain. When they advised the council of their failure, Pascha- sinus the Papal Legate took counsel and asked the assembly if they thought it proper to pronounce the canonical penalties against Dios-: corus. Most of the bishops expressed an affirmative opinion in this matter, and demanded that the Legates themselves pronounce the judgment.
Paschasinus then resumed the charges against Dioscorus:
“Today’s session and the preceding one have demonstrated that Dicscorus
as dared to defy the sacred order and ecclesiastical discipline. In so doing, he has illegally admitted Eutyches to communion, sharing the mysteries with the latter after he had been justly deposed by his bishop, Flavian. Dioscorus had thus acted before taking counsel with the other bishops in the Synod of Ephesus. The Holy See had pardoned the other bishops and the members of the Robber Synod of Ephesus because they had not acted with complete freedom on that occasion, and are now proving themselves obedient to the holy Archbishop Leo and the Sacred General Council. Dioscorus, on the contrary, has shown himself stubborn and obstinate, when he should instead
ave proclaimed his sorrow for his wrong doing. In the Synod of Ephesus, he prevented the reading of the letter of the Pope to Flavian, although he had promised on oath to have it done, when he had been repeatedly requested to do so. Now, instead of repenting as have the other bishops, he has dared “to pronounce an excommunication against Bishop Leo. A number of charges and accusations have been brought against him here; and as he has not an- swered them after three personal invitations, he has judged himself.
“For these reasons, Leo, the very holy Archbishop of Rome, declares through us and by this very sacred council here assembled, and in union with the blessed apostle Peter, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church and the basis of its orthodox faith, that Dioscorus is deposed from his episcopacy and deprived of all ecclesiastical dignity. After this, the very sacred and great council will decide in regard to this Dioscorus what will follow in keeping with the canons.”
All those who were present, to the number of three hundred and eight, with the Patriarchs Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus
62 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
of Antioch at their head, agreed to this sentence, and subscribed at length to the deposition of Dioscorus.
The official admonition of the council directed to the Emperors thus read in part:
Be it understood that we have found this . . . Dioscorus guilty in the first place of prohibiting the reading of Leo’s letter to Flavian before the Bishops gathered at Ephesus after his promises and oaths; and secondly because he accepted, against the practice of the canons, Eutyches inté communion after the latter had been legitimately condemned and deposed by Archbishop Leo
.; now as he has not accepted the admonitions of the holy council, he has been properly deprived of his priesthood and declared unworthy of episcopal dignity.
The council sent an official notice to Dioscorus which read: “Know > you that because of disobedience to the canons, and your despising the council, without taking account of other misdeeds of which you are guilty, since you have refused to answer the three invitations which this assembly has addressed to you, you have been, on October 13th, deposed from your official episcopal position by the holy council, and declared removed frum all ecclesiastical functions.’’
This decision was communicated to the clerics of Dioscorus, present in Chalcedon, and in particular to Charmosynus, the oeconomus, and to the archdeacon Euthalius, with the recommendation that they properly administer the goods of the Church of Alexandria now placed in their hands, and that they should render a faithful account of these matters to the successor of Dioscorus.’ ‘The council ordered that an official refutation be made on placards exhibited in Chal- cedon and Constantinople of the rumors that Dioscorus had been reinstated by the council. Further, the assembly wrote to the Em- perors Valentinian III and Marcian, and joined to their letter a copy of the official minutes of the session in which Dioscorus was deposed. _In its letter, the council summarized the reasons for the deposition and expressed the hope that the Emperor would confirm it.¢ The council also wrote a letter to the Empress Pulcheria, wherein it enumerated the great services rendered by the Empress in the cause of orthodoxy, gave her notice of the deposition of Dioscorus, and expressed its confidence that she would concur in the judgment ren- dered, seeing how zealous she was for the cause of God, and expressing its certainty that she would be rewarded for all this by the Savior.’ With this, the third session was brought to a close.
CHAPTER SIX
Fourth Session: The Question of Doctrine
The Imperial Commissioners and the Senators were on hand for the opening of the fourth session of the council which took place on October 17.1 With the assembly seated, the order of business was introduced by a reading of the minutes of the first and second sessions recounting in particular the deposition made by the Com- missioners in regard to Dioscorus and his cohorts in the first session, together with their attempt to force each of the bishops into writing out a formula of faith. Finally, some time was spent on the difh- culties expressed by the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops in regard to the several passages in Leo’s ‘Tome which they had at first found unacceptable. This put the Imperial Commissioners in a position to return to the question of a doctrinal decision upon which they seemed to have set their hearts. Hence the president of the Commission introduced the business of the new session by inquiring: “What has this holy council decided in the matter of the faith?’
The Papal Legate, Paschasinus, took the floor and answered in his own and in the name of the assembly: ‘““This holy council preserves intact the rule of faith of Nicaea which was confirmed at Constan- tinople. It acknowledges, besides, the explanation of the creed fur- nished at Ephesus by St. Cyril. Finally, the venerable Leo, arch- bishop of all the churches, has given us an exposé of the true faith in his ‘Tome which condemns the heresies of Nestorius and of Eu- tyches. It is this faith which the council professes, and to which it is completely attached without modifying, deleting, or adding a sin- gle note.”
Beronicianus, the secretary, gave a Greek version of this, and immediately, the whole assemblage of bishops cried out: “So do all of us believe! We have been baptized in this faith, and we baptize in it! Thus it is that we believe!” The Commissioners then requested the bishops to swear by an oath on the Gospels placed in the midst of the assembly that the Tome of Leo conformed with the confession of faith at Nicaea and at Constantinople. Bishop Anatolius was the first to make answer, affirming that Leo’s Tome was likewise in har- mony with the explanations and decisions reached at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The three Papal Legates made a similar deposi- tion; and after them the other bishops each recorded his faith in the
63
64 — PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
agreement of Leo’s ‘l’ome with the doctrinal decisions of their prede- cessors at Nicaea and Constantinople.
The bishops of Ilyricum, through their spokesman, Sozon, Bishop of Philippi, made the following declaration:
“We adhere unshakingly to the faith of the fathers of Nicaea and of Con- stantinople, and to the conclusions of the first Council of Ephesus. We are likewise fully convinced of the orthodoxy of the most revered father and archbishop Leo. The Legates of the Pope have: explained for us, in a satis- factory manner, in session with Anatolius, those things in the Tome which at first had not seemed completely clear to us; or which seemed to involve some equivocation. They have declared anathema to whomever should separate the divinity of the Savior from His humanity, and they recognize that the divine and human attributes are found in Him without being inter- mixed, without being confused, or separated.”
Thereupon the Illyrians likewise signed the Tome of Leo.
Ananius, Bishop of Capitolias in Palestine, read, at the instance of the bishops of that region, a similar declaration:
“We adhere to the faith of . . . Nicaea, and of . . . Constantinople... and to the decisions made at Ephesus. Upon reading the Tome of Leo we subscribed to the greater portion of its contents. However as several passages there seemed to favor some separation in Christ between the human and the divine, we expressed our apprehensions. But the Roman legates have as- sured us that they do not accept any such separation, and that they profess but one sole Savior and Son of God. Thus we now adhere to the Tome of Pope Leo, and we have signed it. It would be well, however, that for the satisfaction of all, the Legates from Rome now repeat here in public the explanations that they have given us.’’?
Following these declarations, the voting continued. But when the hundred and sixty first ballot had been cast, the Imperial Commis- sioners asked the remaining bishops to vote together. Whereupon they cried out in unison: “All of us so declare; we believe thus. Whoever so adheres, belongs to the council. Long life to the Em- perors! Long years to the Empress! The five bishops [Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basil] have also subscribed and believed as Leo. Let them now be part of the council.”
The Imperial Commissioners answered: “We have written to the Emperor on the subject of the five bishops, and we await his orders. As for you, you are responsible before God for those in whose favor you intercede, as well as for everything that has taken place here at the council.”
The bishops rejoined: “God has deposed Dioscorus! Dioscorus has been justly deposed. It is Christ Who has deposed him.”
An intermission of a few hours now ensued while word was being brought from the Emperor regarding the fate of the five bishops.
THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINE 65
Marcian’s decision read: ‘““The council should take its own counsel as to what should be done.’’ Immediately there rang out acclama- tions that the bishops should be brought in. They were introduced and took their places amid the greetings proferred by their colleagues: “This is the work of God! Long life to the Emperors, to the Senate, and to the Commissioners! Union is now reestablished! Peace has returned to the Church!”
When calm was restored, the Commissioners announced that the previous evening a number of Egyptian bishops had presented a pro- fession of faith to the Emperor which he now wanted read in the assembly and commented upon. Thirteen Egyptian bishops were brought in. They took their places before the council, and the secre- tary, Constantine, read a short address, presented on the part of the two Emperors, but signed by the thirteen bishops. They there expressed their adhesion to the orthodox faith, anathematized all heresies, and in particular that of Arius, Eunomius, the Manichees, the Nestorians and those who believed that the flesh of Christ had descended from heaven different from our own, and that it had not been taken in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
As there was no mention of Eutyches or of Leo’s Tome in this pro- fession of faith, the council immediately manifested its discontent. Several even went so far as to accuse the Egyptians of disloyalty. ‘The Papal Legates demanded to know whether or not they now adhered to the Tome of Pope Leo, and if they would pronounce an anathema against Eutyches. ‘They responded through their representative, Bishop Hierax of Aphraites: “If anyone teaches a doctrine different from that which you have indicated, Eutyches or any one else, let him be anathema! As for the Letter of Pope Leo, we cannot pro- nounce upon it. All of you know that in accord with the sixth canon of Nicaea, we must follow the archbishop of Alexandria, and conse- quently, we must await his judgment in this matter—that is, the opinion of the future successor of Dioscorus.”
The members of the council showed themselves displeased with this answer by calls and shouts. Eusebius of Dorylaeum said: ““They are lying!’”’ Others cried: ‘““Anathematize Eutyches! Sign Leo’s Letter!’ There was a few minutes delay while the Egyptians consulted among themselves. Then, in a clear and decisive way, they pronounced an anathema against Eutyches. This brought acclamations of approval. But, asked once more to sign the Papal Letter, they made answer: “We cannot do so without the acquiescence of our archbishop.”
Acacius, bishop of Ariarathia, said to them: “It is not proper to
give to him who should occupy the seat of Alexandria more authority than you give to a council.” And, turning to the Commissioners, he
66 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
continued: “These Egyptians want to create a disorder here, as they did at Ephesus. Let them sign the Letter of Leo, or let them be excommunicated.”
Photius, bishop of Tyre, expressed himself in like manner, and other bishops took up the same cry. The Egyptians answered: “Have regard for the large number of bishops in Egypt! We are too few here to act in the name of all. Have some regard for us now, and allow us to follow our archbishop, otherwise you will turn all the other provinces against us.” ‘They threw themselves on their knees before the Commissioners. But Cecropius of Sebastopolis renewed the accusation of heresy against them. He said they were merely being asked for a personal adhesion to the Papal Letter and were not to act in the name of the bishops of Egypt. They answered: “We will not be able to live in our country, if we do this.”
Lucentius, the Papal Legate, responded to this: ‘““Ten men [the thirteen Egyptians] should not be allowed to withstand a council of six hundred bishops, and the faith of all of us.”
But the Egyptians cried out in turn: ‘We will be killed if we do so. It is better for us to want to die here at your hand than to be murdered in our own country. You should select an archbishop for Egypt without delay, and after that, we promise to subscribe. Have pity on our white hairs! Anatolius of Constantinople knows that in Egypt all the bishops have to obey the archbishop of Alexandria. Have pity on us! We would rather die by order of the Emperor, or by your order, than be massacred by our own people. ‘Take away our sees if you desire. Choose a new bishop for Alexandria. We will not oppose it in any way. But spare our white heads.”
Their appeal was interrupted from time to time by: “Let them subscribe to the condemnation of Dioscorus!” The Imperial Com- missioners and the Senators now interposed and said that under the circumstances it seemed proper to postpone action in the matter, but that the Egyptians should remain at Constantinople until the nomination of the new archbishop of Alexandria. The Papal Legate, Paschasinus, approved this solution and added: “Let them make promise not to leave Constantinople during this period.” And the Commissioners agreed. ‘This calmed the assembly.®
Next there entered sixteen priests and archimandrites for whose presence at the council permission of the assemblage had been asked and granted. These were announced as Faustus, Martin, Peter, Man- uel, Abraham, Job, Antiochus, Theodore, Paul, Jacob, Eusebius, Trypho, Marcellus, Timotheus, Pergamius, Peter, Asterius, and John. Once in position, they were asked whether Carosus, Dorotheus and those others imbued with Eutychianism who had sent an appeal to
THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINE 67 the Emperor Marcian before the Council of Chalcedon, were actually archimandrites or not. They affirmed that some were and that others were not. They hastened to ask that those be punished who claimed to be archimandrites but were actually imposters living in chapels of martyrs or in tombs. They should be driven from the city, for
they were not even monks.
With this deposition, the Commissioners now ordered that the Eutychian petitioners should immediately be admitted. In marched the archimandrites Carosus, Dorotheus, Elpidius, Photinus, Eutichius, Theodore, Moses, Maximus, Gerontius, Nemesius, Theophilus, ‘Thom- as, Leontius, Hypsius, Gallinicus, Paul, Gaudentius and Eugnomenas, with the monk, Barsauma, and the eunuch, Calopodius. Standing in the nave before the Commissioners, they declared themselves to be the authors of the petition to the Emperor, which was attributed to them. Immediately Anatolius of Constantinople rose and declared that two of them—Gerontius and Calopodius—had already been condemned for heresy, and he asked for their banishment, but the Commissioners signaled him to hold off for a moment. Thereupon the supplication made by this group to the Emperor was read.
Their complaint stated that because of selfishness and a lack of charity for one’s neighbor, all was in revolt; that the Faith of the Apostles had been placed in doubt, while prosperity attended the doings of the Jews and Pagans, as abominable as these were, for the latter enjoyed peace, while the Christians were continually fighting among themselves. It was the duty of the Emperors to remedy this situation. They should set themselves against the rise of schism. Having the right to make just laws, they should have prevented the reunion of the council now in session. They should arrest these growing troubles, interdict all demands of signatures, and put an end to the persecutions which clerics were indulging against each other. The Emperor in particular should forbid anyone to be thrown out of his monastery, or from his church, or his martyr’s chapel before the judgment of a synod.
Among these Eutychian monks brought into the council was the Syrian, Barsauma, who had done much to spread this doctrine in his native land, and who had been present at the Robber Council of Ephesus. Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, upon seeing him, cried out: “This Barsauma, whom you see over there, he is the murderer of Flavian!” Other bishops added: “He has set a revolution going in Syria, and has stirred up a thousand monks against us.”
Meanwhile, the Imperial Commissioners had been interrogating Carosus and his companions, asking whether they were disposed to profess the orthodox faith before the council. But they asked first
68 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
for a reading of the supplication they had addressed to the council itself. When the Commissioners signified their assent, the cry went up on all sides: “Out of here with this assassin, Barsauma.”
However, the letter was read. In it the monks and the archiman- drites made excuse for not having responded to the invitation of the council sooner. ‘They said the Emperor had not desired them to, as they had already shown in written documents. Then they asked that the holy archbishop Dioscorus and his bishops be allowed to come into the council.
Enraged over this effrontery, the bishops cried out: “Anathema to Dioscorus! Christ has deposed him! Throw this mob out! Avenge the insult to the council! There’s no need to pursue the reading of their request, for they call Dioscorus a bishop when he has been deposed.”
But the Commissioners restored calm, and ordered the continuation of the letter, which went on to accuse the fathers assembled of having unreasonably deposed Dioscorus, and threatened that if he were not reinstated, the monks would remove themselves from communion with these bishops.
Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, now arose and, reading from a collection of canons then in force, quoted the fifth canon of of the Council of Antioch to the effect that all clerics were bound to submit themselves to the bishops in the matter of faith, and that any- one who separated himself from the bishops should be deposed with- out hope of reinstatement. When he had finished, the Commissioners ordered the secretary to finish reading the monks’ letter to the council. When the list of names of the subscribers was read, and that of Bar- sauma was heard, another tumult ensued. “Out with the assassin!” rang through the church. “Deliver him to the beasts in the amphi- theatre! Exile him! Anathema to Barsuma!”’
The Commissioners and Senators now asked the archimandrites again if they were ready to confess the teachings of the present council. They answered that they held exclusively to the Symbol of Nicaea and to the decisions of the Council of Ephesus. Aetius then explained to them that all present remained faithful to the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, but that since new disputes had arisen, Cyril and Leo had explained this creed in their letters, without adding anything to the doctrine. He added that the whole council had given its adherence to these explanations and presented them for all those who desired to learn the rule of Faith; so the archimandrites should now declare whether or not they desired to adhere to these decisions of the council.
Carosus answered with a reservation, saying that it was certainly
THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINE 69
not necessary for him to pronounce an anathema against Nestorius since he had already done that many times. )
But Aetius demanded that he should at least anathematize Eutyches. Carosus answered: “Is it not written: “Thou shalt not judge?’ And why are you speaking when the bishops are seated and saying nothing?” Aetius reiterated his question in the name of the council: “Do you accept the faith of this synod?”
Carosus replied: “I hold to the Symbol of Nicaea. You can con- demn and exile me; but Paul has said: ‘Whoever teaches a doctrine different to that which you have received, let him be anathema.” For the satisfaction of the others, he added: “If Eutyches does not believe as the Church believes, let him be anathema.”
The Commissioners now commanded the reading of the letter of the archimandrites Faustus, Martin, etc., who were known as opponents of Eutychianism. ‘These leading monks praised the Emperor for the measures he had taken for the extirpation of the heresy of Eutyches, and made complaint against the obstinate monks who remained in this error. They asked permission to treat with them in accord with the rules of their order; thus to try by this means to bring them to a better way of seeing things. If they refused, they should be chastised in accordance with their own monastic rules. They likewise asked the Emperor’s permission to do something about the caves outside the city where people were living like animals and daily insulting the Savior.
The archimandrite Dorotheus then signalled for permission to speak, and again tried to sustain the orthodoxy ‘of Eutyches. But the Commissioners interrupted him: “Eutyches taught that the body of our Savior was not of the same substance as ours. What do you yourself believe in this regard?’’ Instead of answering directly, Doro- theus recited the passage from the Creed of Constantinople: “that he was baptized confessing the Savior Jesus Christ who descended and became man of the holy Virgin Mary, who took on humanity and was crucified for us in the time of Pontius Pilate’—and he added in an anti-Nestorian sense: “He in whose face they spat... is the Savior Himself. We recognize then that He who has suffered belongs to the Trinity.” He refused however to subscribe to Leo’s Tome. The archimandrites also refused a delay of two days offered them by the council to give them time for consultation. Hence, the Commissioners turned to the council and asked the bishops to render immediate judgment on Carosus and his followers.
To parry this move, the monks said that the Emperor had prom- ised them a discussion in the council between them and their ad- versaries. “The Commissioners immediately dispatched the priest Alexander to verify this statement.
70 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH -LEO
It is not clear in the acts, but the council must have adjourned at this point, to take up its session again on October 20, which was thus considered a continuation of the same fourth session. At that time, the priest Alexander was called upon to give the result of his mission to the Emperor. He reported that the Emperor had told him to return with his companion, John, the decurian, and tell the monks: “If I had wanted to decide the matter at issue myself, I would have done so at once; and would not have called a council together. But since it is in session, and has treated of you, I order you to address the council, and to find out what you do not as yet know. For whatever the council decides is a rule for me; I will accept its decisions and believe as it does.”
Requests were now made and honored to have the letter of Carosus reread, and then several canons, particularly the fourth and fifth of the Synod of Antioch, which forbade the reinstatement of bishops, | priests or deacons who, upon being deposed, had engaged in any sacred functions. After some discussion, the Commissioners asked the council to withhold judgment on the archimandrites, and to grant them a month’s respite. If by then they had not signified their willingness to adhere to the council’s decrees, they should be deprived of their offices and dignities.®
The council next turned its attention to the business of Photius, bishop of Tyre. The latter had addressed the following representa- tion to the Emperor: “Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, has overstepped the rights of the see of Tyre. Under the Emperor Theodosius II, he had been allowed to go ahead with episcopal consecrations in certain towns that really belonged to the Province of Tyre: namely, Byblos, Botrys, Tripolis, Orthosias, Arca, and Antarados. Eustathius had been forced by threats to sign a synodal letter treating of this matter. He asked now that this act, exacted by violence and hence invalid, be nullified, and that the Church of Tyre be allowed to enjoy its rights in peace.
In answer, Eustathius immediately made appeal to a decree of Theodosius. But the bishops pointed out that an affair of this type could not be settled by imperial decree; that it had to be regulated in accord with the ecclesiastical canons. Whereupon, Eustathius ac- cused Photius of calumny. He had never, he said, overstepped the rights of Tyre. It was of his own accord that the Emperor had elevated Berytus to the rank of a metropolitan see, and a recent synod held at Constantinople under Anatolius had placed the six towns mentioned under the governance of the new metropolis. Maxi- mus of Antioch had subscribed to this arrangement. The latter im- mediately objected that he had not even been present at that synod; that the document in question had been brought to him, and that
THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINE re!
having seen the signature of Anatolius of Constantinople, he had consented to affix his own.
Photius of Tyre then went on to explain that in the beginning he had not taken much notice of the new decree, and had gone on making, as in the past, his own episcopal consecrations. For this, he had been excommunicated, and the bishops consecrated by him had been deposed and reduced to the priestly state.®
Anatolius of Constantinople, taking the floor, chose not to discuss these last allegations of Photius. He contented himself with saying that, by his illegal conduct, the bishop of Tyre had forced the Coun- cil of Constantinople to excommunicate him. He took the occasion to defend the custom of the synodos endémousa, or local council.? After considerable discussion, a conclusion was reached based on the fourth canon of Nicaea, which stated that in the ecclesiastical pro- vince of Phoenicia I, Tyre was the sole metropolis, and that the bishop of Tyre alone had the right to consecrate other bishops for that pro- vince. The bishop of Berytus should no longer allege the rights con- ferred by the Emperor Theodosius, and the three bishops ordained by Photius should be recognized as such and reinstated. The Papal Legates added that it was a sacrilege to degrade a bishop and return him to the priestly state. “If a bishop has committed a crime that merits deposition, he should not even be allowed to function as a priest.”
Anatolius now rose to explain once more what had happened. But the council adhered to the words of the legates, and declared, upon the suggestion of Cecropius of Sebastopolis, that all the imperial decrees that contravened the canons, should be null and void. Thus the fourth session was brought to a close.®
CHAPTER SEVEN
Fifth Session: The Decree of Faith
In the local gatherings outside the council, a considerable amount of pressure was being generated to force it to outline a new dogmatic formula. This was the stated pleasure of the Emperor. But just as definitely, it was the intention and purpose of the Papal Legates to keep the council from coming to such a decision. Their objective was to have the ‘Tome of Leo accepted as the council’s authoritative declaration of the true faith, and to prevent further definitions which had always the possibility of introducing new ambiguities and new quarrels. However, as many of the bishops present were engaged in obtaining favors and various types of civil concessions from the cour- tiers and imperial ministers during their stay in the capital, there was no great difficulty on the part of the Emperor’s suite to win them over to his will in the matter.
Hence, despite the differences between the two groups, that is, the Illyrians, together with the Greeks and the Palestinians who had abandoned the cause of Dioscorus, and crossed from the right to the left side of the chancel, and who desired a formula that would efface all separation of the two natures after the union, and the bishops of the Orient, of Asia, Pontus and Cappadocia, who insisted on some expression that would prevent confusion regarding the two natures and the passibility of the Word in the person of Jesus Christ, Ana- tolius of Constantinople was able to line up a considerable number of groups of bishops who would vote for a new formula.
With this caucusing as background, the fifth general session was opened on Monday, October 22.1 There were only three Imperial Commissioners present: Anatolius, Palladius and Vincomalius, and no Senators.2. Likewise both the Greek and the Latin acts indicate that along with the Roman Legates, there were only the bishops of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem, together with fifty two others.
On the eve of this fifth session, Sunday, October 21, a deacon, Asclepadius of Constantinople, had read a profession of faith to a committee which was meeting with Bishop Anatolius of Constan- tinople. It had received the full consent of the gathering. Anatolius himself later defended its wording with such vigor that it was gen- erally thought that he must have been its author. However, this pro- fession was not recorded in the acts of the council and has not been
72
THE DECREE OF FAITH 73
preserved. From indications in the minutes, however, Tillemont be- lieves that there is no doubt but that it expressed an orthodox stand, without being of such clear-cut precision as to obviate fully the par- ticular errors then being condemned.’
The fifth session thus began with a consideration of this new profession of faith which was read by one of the notaries. Immedi- ately the wording was subjected to debate. John, bishop of Germani- cia, arose to remark that the formula did not strike him as adequate and requested that it be amended.
Anatolius immediately responded: “Does not this formula please all those present here?” And the bishops cried out: “It is excellent and enforces the Catholic faith. Out with the Nestorians! The expression “Cheotokos’ should be admitted in the symbol!”
“What do you want then?” cried other partisans of the project. “This is the faith of the Fathers.” And Anatolius declared: ““You see, this formula is agreeable to all the world.’”
When John was questioned further by the Commissioners, many in the assembly broke out into cries of: “Throw out all Nestorians! Out with the enemies of God!” The allusion was particularly baneful since John of Germanicia was a close friend of Theodoret of Cyrus, and was bishop of the native village of Nestorius. Hence, a terrible tumult ensued.
The Papal Legates were not at all in agreement with this demon- stration. They were unhappy over the formula, and had not assisted at the session of the commission in which it had been approved. Hence, when calm was restored, they made the following declara- tion: “If the Tome of Leo is not adhered to, we will demand the minutes recording your opposition, and return home to hold a coun- cil in the West.” |
The Commissioners, realizing that if the Legates pursued this policy, the whole purpose of the present council, which was to restore doctrinal peace, would be nullified, now suggested that a new com- mission be formed consisting of six bishops from the Orient (of the patriarchate of Antioch), three Asiatics of the exarchate of Ephesus, three Illyrians, three bishops of Pontus, and three others of Thrace, who with Anatolius of Constantinople and the Legates should retire to the oratory of the martyrium of the church, and then inform the gathering of their decisions on this matter.
The majority, however, seemed to persist in its desire to hold to the profession of faith that had just been read, and wanted to exclude anyone who refused it. To quiet them, the Commissioners said: “Dioscorus assured us that he condemned Flavian because he believed there were two natures in Jesus Christ. Now, in this new formula,
74 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
the contrary is stated: Christ is formed of two natures.” What they were intimating, of course, was that since the expression of which Flavian made use had served to condemn Monophysitism, it should be inserted in the new formula. Otherwise, the expression found there—‘‘formed of two natures’’—although orthodox, might be taken in the sense Dioscorus had given it, and for that reason could give rise to scandal.
Anatolius objected that Dioscorus had not been condemned because of errors concerning the faith, but for having excommunicated the Pope, and for not having obeyed the council. Without going into this remark, in which there was some truth, the Commissioners tried to bring the council back to the proper order of business. They stated that the council had already approved the Tome of the Pope, which was an act of adhesion to what was contained in that letter. But the majority, and in particular Eusebius of Dorylaeum, continued to plump for the formula gf Anatolius. Hence, the Commissioners de- clared a recess and immediately informed the Emperor of the pass to which things had come, sending Beronicianus on this errand.*
The Emperor responded: “Either the suggested commission should be accepted, or the bishops should be made to acknowledge their faith through the mediation of their metropolitans, so that all doubt and division should cease. If these two methods be rejected, a council should be held in the West, since here at Chalcedon, the bishops have refused to give a clear and unequivocal declaration of their faith.”
The majority cried out anew: “We hold to the formula of Ana- tolius! Else let us depart!” Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, said on his side: ‘“‘Let those who do not wish to sign take a walk for them- selves.” The Illyrian bishops cried: ““The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’’ The Commissioners interposed: “Let this be understood: Dioscorus condemned the expression: “There are in Christ two natures’; and he approved this one: ‘Christ is of two natures’. Pope Leo has said on the contrary: “There are in Christ two natures united’, Whom do you wish to follow, Leo or Dioscorus?”’ The bishops cried en masse: ‘““We believe with Leo, and not with Dioscorus! Whoever does not share these sentiments is a Eutychian!”
“In that case,” the Commissioners said, “accept the doctrine of Leo in your creed.” The response is not recorded in the acta; and the next sentence adverts to the fact that the whole assembly now agreed to accept the Commission which at first it had rejected. It was made up of Anatolius of Constantinople, the three Papal legates, plus Julian of Chios as special vicar of the Pope, Maximus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Quintellius, Atticus, and Sozon of Illyria, Diogenes of Cyzicus, Leon-
THE DECREE OF FAITH 75
tius of Magnesia, Florentius of Sardes, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, ‘Theo- dore of Tarsus, Cyrus of Anazarbus, Constantine of Bostra, Theodore of Claudiopolis, Francio, Sebastian, and Basil of Thrace, many of whom had energetically sustained the formula: ‘Christ is of two natures.’
We have no record of the proceedings of this Commission in the oratory of the Martyrium, but it is reported as having been a lively session. Evidently, the Eastern bishops were able to persuade both the Papal Legates and the Cyrillan faction of the basic agreement between their stand, that of Leo’s Tome, and the several statements of Cyril, for fundamentally, the formula resorted to was that of the Antiochene bishops, originally presented to the Emperor Theodosius I in 431 at Ephesus, and accepted by Cyril in 433 in his letter of Union ‘Laetentur coelt.’ This letter, had, of course, been read to the whole assembly before Leo’s Tome in the second session. It was now slightly modified by two passages from Leo’s Tome, and several minor phrases from Cyril’s letter. A capital change was made in substituting the phrase ‘in two natures’ for the original ‘of two natures.’ In this, Leo tri- umphed over Anatolius. But it was only finally accomplished upon the insistence of the Imperial Commissioners, who had instructed the Commission: “Therefore add to the definition, according to the thought of our blessed father Leo, that there are two natures united in Christ inseparably, incontrovertibly, and unconfusedly.’®
Upon the return of the committee, the Imperial Commissioners commanded: “Let it please the holy council to listen in silence to what the bishops have now decided in regard to the faith.’’ Aetius, the archdeacon, was handed a copy of the definition and began to read.
“This holy and great General Council—at Chalcedon in Bithynia—has de- fined as follows .... Our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ, confirming the knowledge of the faith in His disciples has said: ‘I leave you My peace, My peace I give you,’ so that no one should differ from his neighbor in the knowledge of the Faith, and that the preaching of the truth should bring to all the same understanding ....
“But as evil always finds some novelty to oppose to the truth, God, having a care for the human race, has elicited the zeal of this pious and orthodox prince, and has brought these heads of the priesthood together to keep every pestilential misrepresentation far from the sheep of Christ, and instead, to plant and nourish the truth in them. This is what we have now done. For with common accord, we have condemned all erroneous doctrine, and have renewed the orthodox faith of the fathers, which was announced to you in the creed of the three hundred eighteen [at Nicaea], and again received by the hundred and fifty [at Constantinople]. We accept likewise the ordinances and the doctrinal definitions of the first Council of Ephesus under Celestine and Cyril. We have concluded that the declaration of the three hundred
76 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
and eighteen [at Nicaea] expresses an orthodox and irreproachable faith, and that we should recognize the value of what has been accepted [at Con- stantinople] by the hundred and fifty fathers for the affirmation of the Catholic and apostolic faith.”
Then the creeds of both Nicaea and of Constantinople were read in full.6 And the Chalcedonian fathers continued:
“These two creeds have long sufficed for our knowledge of the faith and the confirmation of true holiness. For in regard to the Father, the Son; and the Holy Spirit, as well as in regard to the Incarnation of the Savior, they teach everything to those who receive them with faith. But certain people, wishing to suppress the preaching of the truth, have made up inane expres- sions for their errors’ sakes, and have dared to disfigure the mystery of the Incarnation of the Savior, and have rejected the expression ‘Mother of God.’ They have even introduced a kind of confusion of natures, amounting to this monstrous statement that “there is but one sole nature of the flesh and of the divinity,” and they maintain that the nature of the only begotten Son has become, by union with the humanity, capable of suffering.
For these reasons, this great and holy General Council has decided that ‘the faith of the three hundred Fathers should remain intact, and that the doctrine of the hundred and fifty Fathers on the subject of the Holy Spirit does retain all its value. For the latter fathers did not have the intention of filling in a lack in the symbol of Nicaea. They wished simply to make known in writing their sentiments on the subject of the Holy Spirit against the heretics.
As for those who now try to destroy the mystery of the Incarnation, and who outrageously insult Him who is born of Mary, and declare that He is but a man—this Holy Council has adhered to the synodal letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to the Orientals, which contain a refutation of Nestorianism; and they adjoin, for the confirmation of orthodox dogma, the Tome to Flavian of the most reverend Archbishop of Rome, Leo, concerning the condemnation of the errors of Eutyches, a letter which agrees with the doctrine of the blessed Peter, and stands as a column against all heretics.
“This Council also opposes itself to those who seek to divide the mystery of the Incarnation into a duality of the Son. It excludes from participation in the sacred mysteries those who dare to declare that the divinity of the only begotten Son is capable of suffering; and it contradicts those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures in Christ.
“Tt rejects those who go so far astray as to say that the form of a ave. which the Son has taken on Himself for us, is of a heavenly nature or any- thing other than the same nature as ours. It anathematizes those who have invented the fable that before the union there were two natures in the Savior, and that after the union there was but one.”
“Following the holy Fathers, we now unanimously teach one sole and the same Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, complete as to His divinity, complete also as a man; true God and at the same time true man; composed of one rational soul and of a body, consubstantial with ours; in all things like to us, sin alone excepted; begotten of the Father, before the whole universe, as to His
THE DECREE OF FAITH (ei
divinity; as to His humanity, born for us in these last times, of Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God. We confess one sole and the same Jesus Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, Whom we acknowledge to be in two natures, without any confusion, or change, or division, or separation between them; for the difference in the two natures is in no way suppressed by their union. On the contrary, the properties of each nature are preserved, and concur in one sole Person and one sole Hypostasis; and we confess that they are not parted or divided in many persons, but are indeed one sole and the same Son, the only begotten, God, the Word, our Savior Jesus Christ; such as He had been predicted by the prophets; such as He Himself has revealed Him- self to us; and such as the Creeds of the Fathers have made Him known to us.”
“Now with these various points of doctrine once determined and formulated with all the care and precision possible, this Holy and Ecumenical Council declares that it is not lawful for anyone to propose another belief, or to teach such to others. As for those who dare either to propose any other doctrine, or to present or teach such, or bring up another creed, for those who desire to return to Hellenism or to Judaism, or to any other heresies from the knowledge of the truth, whether they be bishops or clerics, let them be de- prived—the bishops, of the bishopric; the clerics, of their clerical office; and if they are monks or laymen, let them be anathema!”
No sooner had the rendering of this symbol been concluded than the bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the Fathers! Let the metropolitans subscribe to it immediately in the presence of the Com- missioners! Let no delay be suffered for that which is so well defined! It is the faith of the Apostles! We all adhere to it! All of us be- lieve it!”
The Commissioners now ruled: “What the bishops have now de- cided and what has been unanimously agreed upon shall be com- municated to the Emperor.”
There is some difficulty with regard to an allocution directed by the council to the Emperor, as to whether or not it was read in the council at this session, or at the beginning of the sixth. It ran as follows:
“God has given the council a champion against all errors, in the person of the Bishop of Rome who, like Peter -ever so zealous, wishes to lead all the world to God. Let no one now ever say, in order to prevent his own errors from being condemned, that the Tome of Leo is in opposition to the canons, under pretext that it is forbidden to give a declaration of the faith other than that of Nicaea. That of Nicaea, it is true, amply suffices for the faithful. But it is necessary to oppose those who try to alter the faith, and to give most conclusive arguments against their arguments; and this is not to add anything to the faith of Nicaea, but to refute the novelties of heresy. Thus, for example, the orthodox faith on the subject of the Holy Spirit had already been expressed in these words: ‘I believe in the Holy Spirit’. This text sufficed for the orthodox. But because of the Pneumatists, the fathers
78 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
[at Constantinople] added: “The Holy Spirit is Lord and God, proceeding from the Father’. Likewise the doctrine of the Incarnation is already con- tained in the words of the creed of Nicaea: ““He has come down and is made flesh and man.” But Satan has led many people into error, causing some to deny that God was born of a Virgin, and to reject the expression ‘Theotokos’, and others to declare that the divinity of the Son underwent a change and suffered; still others have defigured the character of the humanity taken by God; others affirm that the divinity is simply united to the body of a man and does not have a soul, at least not a rational’soul; others still have denied the mystery of the union [of natures] and represent Him Who has appeared among us as a simple, apparent man, like a prophet. Others finally try to destroy at base the difference of the natures. It is for this reason that the Fathers such as Basil the Great, Pope Damasus, etc., and the Councils of Sardica and of Ephesus have judged it necessary to add new declarations to the ancient faith of Nicaea. No one should say: They should have stopped there [at Ephesus], for the heretics themselves did not stop there. And St. Cyril, in his letter to the Orientals, as well as in those which Proclus of Constantinople and John of Antioch have acknowledged, felt the necessity of new explanations. This should then not be regarded as a novelty in the Tome of the venerable bishop of Rome. In fact, Leo has changed nothing in the faith proclaimed by the Fathers.”
By way of proof, the council added to this allocution a series of passages from Basil, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Cyril.?
CHAPTER EIGHT
Sixth to Sixteenth Sessions: Their Imperial Majesties
The sixth session of the Council of Chalcedon was celebrated with magnificent solemnity.1 It was presided over by the Emperor and Empress, with a full complement of Commissioners and Senators and the imperial cortege. ‘The Emperor Marcian himself opened the meeting with a Latin discourse, Latin being still the official language of the imperial government.
“From the beginning of my reign, when first by divine decree we were elected to the imperial office among the many necessities of the State no cause have we had at heart more than that the orthodox and true Christian faith, which is at once pure and holy, should be indubitably instilled into the. hearts of all. It is true, however, that for some time now, due to the ambition and evil intent of some who hold opinions in their own wilfulness and not as the truth and teaching of the Fathers demand, that not a few of our people have been led into error by these teachings.
It is for this reason that we have endeavored to bring this holy council into being, and that we have seemed to place such labor upon you. It is our intention, then, to do away with all error, and to dissipate uncertainty with regard to the manner in which the Divinity wished to manifest Himself to men, as the teaching of the Fathers proclaim. Thus, our religion which is pure and holy may shine down with full splendor, being instilled into the hearts of all. Nor for the future shall anyone dare to dispute about the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ otherwise than it is known to have been handed down for the convenience of posterity in the apostolic teaching, and in the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers [at Nicaea]. For it is thus, too, that the Tome sent by the saintly Leo, Pope of Rome, who governs the Apostolic See, to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, of happy memory, attests.
With all ambition, evil intent, and vested interests removed, may now this truth be known to all. For to strengthen the faith, but without exerting pressure on anyone, we have, following the example of that religious emperor, Constantine, wished to assist in person at this council, so that my people may no longer be separated by false opinions.
Because the simplicity of some is so easily deceived by the ingenuity and excessive verbosity of many, and heresies and dissensions are born of the evil assertions made by various men, it has been our endeavor that all our peo- ple with one mind may adhere to the one same religion and profess the true Catholic faith which you have explained according to the decisions of the Fathers.
te)
bu
80 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
This then is your task that, having destroyed all error, our holy religion may be fastened upon concordant minds as the true faith which has been known to all from the Council of Nicaea to our own times. Now that through this holy council, the ambiguities of these past few years, spread about by the baseness and ambition of some, have been laid, as we said above, our decisions that are made for perpetuity shall be observed. And may it be that the Divine Mystery will firmly strengthen for ever that which we desire with so fervent a heart.’’?
Cries of “Long live the Emperor! Long live the Empress! He is a true son of Constantine! Glory. to Marcian, the new Constantine!” broke out all over the assembly. Similar acclamations greeted the Greek translation. The archdeacon Aetius read then the dogmatic de- cree defined in the preceding session, and signed by four hundred and fifty five bishops in their own name and in the names of their absent colleagues. The Emperor asked if all the bishops were in accord with this profession of faith and the bishops answered: “We all so believe! We have but one faith and one will! We are all in agree- ment; we have all signed together; we are all orthodox! This is the faith of the Fathers, the faith of the Apostles, the faith of the ortho- dox. It is the faith which has saved the world. Glory to Marcian, the new Constantine! The new Paul! The new David! You are the peace of the world .. . You have confirmed the orthodox faith. Long life to the Empress! You are a shining light of the orthodox faith. By you there is peace everywhere. Marcian is the new Constantine; Pulcheria, the new Helen!” 3
The Emperor then rendered thanks to Christ the Lord for the re- establishment of religious unity. This provoked another thunderous acclamation from the bishops. Raising his hand for quiet, the Em- peror continued: “Now that the Catholic faith has been proclaimed,” he said, “we believe it just and useful to take away for the future every divisive pretext. As a consequence, whoever causes trouble in public regarding the faith, either by inciting turbulence or by haranguing the people, will be severely chastised. If he be an individual citizen, he will be banished from the Imperial City; if he is an officer, he will be cashiered; if he is in orders, he will incur deposition along with other civil disabilities.”
The bishops signified their assent, crying once more: “Long life to the Emperor! You have saved the Church! Anathema to Nestorius! Anathema to Eutyches! Anathema to Dioscorus!”
Marcian signaled for calm and continued: “There are still certain disciplinary matters which we have respectfully reserved for your judgment in accord with the canons, that they may be settled by the council rather than by our laws.”” He gave orders to Beronicianus to read the following:
THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL 81
“We hold those who embrace the monastic way of life sincerely as worthy of honor. However, there are some who through this pretext have troubled the Church and the State. Hence we have ordered that no one should build a monastery without the permission of the bishop of the place, and of the proprietor of the land. We likewise remind the monks, both those of the town and those of the country, that they should be submissive to their bishops, and that their lives should be, above all, lives of peace, of fasting, and of prayer, entirely separated from the affairs of the Church and of the State. Besides, they should not receive slaves into their monasteries without the consent of their masters.”
This was obviously directed against the numerous Eutychian monks in the environs of Constantinople. It was accepted with favor by the assembly. Hence Beronicianus went on to read a second decree forbidding monks or clerics to give or take lands on lease, or to hand over functions to monks when the bishop of the place did not confide to them the lands of the Church; and a third, inter- dicting the transfer of clerics from one church to another without the permission of the bishop on whom the cleric depended, under pain of excommunication for the cleric and the bishop who received him. New exclamations followed these recitals: “You are a priest and emperor! A conqueror in war! A doctor of the faith!”
At the close of the session, the Emperor declared that in honor of St. Euphemia and of the council, he accorded to the town of Chalce- don the title of a metropolis, without prejudice to Nicomedia in whose province it lay. All the bishops gave assent: “It is just and proper! For here reigns unity for the world!. The Holy Trinity pro- tect you! We pray for it. But let us now depart!” To this latter, Marcian replied by requesting the bishops to remain on for three or four days, to treat of affairs with his Commissioners; and he forbade anyone to leave the place until this business should be completed.‘
The Canons of the Council
In the official Greek acts, the twenty seven canons of the council are listed as the seventh action although there is no indication given as to the date on which they were codified or accepted, nor are they accompanied by the names of the bishops subscribing.» As sum- marized in the Latin edition of Dionysius Exiguus, the council de- posed:
Canon I confirmed the canons of previous legislation. Canon II forbade simony under pain of anathema. Canon III forbade clerics to take on secular business or to
serve as granters of leases.
82
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
Canon
IV
XI
XII
XIII
XIV XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX XX
PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
confirmed the Emperor’s edict placing all monas- teries under the control of the local bishop.
forbade clerics or monks to transfer from one diocese to another.
prohibited the ordination of deacon or cleric ex- cept with leave of the local bishop.
forbade clerics or monks to accept worldly office or dignity.
excommunicated monks or clerics who refused to obey their local bishop.
prescribed that clerics or monks in difficulty with their bishop or metropolitan might appeal to the bishop of the Imperial City.
forbade the holding of two churches by any one individual; or his retention of interest in a former church after transfer.
prescribed that letters of commendation from bishops alone should be given to the poor; and not synodical letters.
ordained that there should be only one metropolitan in each province.
prohibited any bishop to receive a priest without a letter from the priest’s own bishop.
forbade clerics to marry heretics or pagan women.
set the age of deaconesses at forty, and forbade them to marry.
excommunicated a monk or deaconess who should get married.
prescribed that rural parishes in the hands of a bishop for thirty years should be left inviolate; if before that time a dispute regarding local jurisdic- tion arose, it should be referred to the metropolitan, or to the Bishop of Constantinople. |
ordered the deposition of monks or clerics entering into plots or conspiracies.
ordained the holding of local synods twice a year.
excommunicated a bishop receiving an outside cleric.
MAXIMUS AND JUVENAL 83
Canon XXI prescribed that the accusation of clerics against their bishops should not be listened to unless properly supported.
Canon XXII forbade clerics, after the death of the bishop, to take things that belonged to them.
Canon XXIII discouraged excommunicated clerics from congregat- ing in the Imperial City; and forbade them to be entertained there.
Canon XXIV warned against the return of monasteries to secular pursuits or businesses.
Canon XXV prescribed that a new bishop should be consecrated within three months of the decease of the old bishop.
Canon XXVI __ ordained that each episcopal see should have its oeconomus who should look to the custody of the church’s goods and property.
Canon XXVII_ ordered excommunication for anyone attacking a | woman.
Maximus and Juvenalé
In keeping with the Emperor’s wish, the council now turned itself to particular matters of ecclesiastical regulation, holding its eighth session on Friday, October 26. The first business brought before the body by the presiding Imperial Commissioners was a dispute between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem regarding the extent of their respective jurisdictions. In the General Council of Ephesus in 431, Juvenal of Jerusalem, counting on the support of Cyril of Alexandria, had attempted to bring under his jurisdic- tion the provinces of Palestine, of Phoenicia, and of Arabia, claiming apostolic authority for his see. When Cyril had refused to give his support, Juvenal had turned to the Emperor Theodosius II, and obtained an imperial decree to this effect. The See of Antioch, then, deprived of its rights and reduced in jurisdiction, had protested this usurpation, and several times appealed to the imperial court. As a result of a recent appeal, the Emperor Marcian had advised the two bishops to hold a series of conferences to straighten out their differ- ences, and then to obtain the approbation of the council for their decision.
Maximus of Antioch was thus the first to address the assembly, announcing that “after long discussion, he had come to an agree- ment with Juvenal of Jerusalem that for the See of St. Peter at Antioch, there would be [along with its undisputed provinces] the
84 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
two Phoenicias and Arabia, while the See of Jerusalem would have jurisdiction over the three Palestines.”
Juvenal now attested his agreement, and the Fathers of the Council, with Paschasinus the Papal Legate at their head, ratified the decision, which then received the approval of the Imperial Commissioners.’ Finally, the council sanctioned the pension that Maximus of Antioch proposed to give to the deposed Domnus, his predecessor, who had retired to a monastery; and a congratulatory vote was passed prais- ing Maximus’ generosity. ‘Thus the eighth session was brought to a close.
Theordoret of Cyrus®
That same day, probably in the late afternoon, the ninth session of the council was convoked, again with the three Imperial Com- missioners in charge. Immediately upon its opening, a group of bishops asked that the renowned Theodoret of Cyrus, who had written against the terminology of St. Cyril and had been a friend of the heretic Nestorius, should be required to declare an anathema against Nestorius. Coming to the midst of the assembly, Theodoret replied: “I have placed an appeal before the Emperor, and have directed a memoir to the Roman Legates in regard to my faith. I ask that these two documents be read, for they will inform you of my sentiments.”
The bishops cried out: “No more reading. Anathematize Nes- torius!’’ Theodoret replied: “Thanks be to God, I have been brought up by orthodox parents, my education has been orthodox, my teach- ing has been likewise so, and not only do I condemn Nestorius and Eutyches, but every one who does not think with us in an orthodox manner.”
The Bishops interrupted him: “Say clearly: ‘Anathema to Nes- torius and his teachings! Anathema to Nestorius and his followers.’ ”’
Theodoret responded: “In truth I say nothing if I do not know that what I say is pleasing to God. Before all, I want to assure you that I have not come here to conserve my bishopric or my honors. I came because I have been calumniated, and to prove to you that I am orthodox; and I have said anathema to Nestorius and to Eutyches and to whomever there is that says there are two Sons.”
While he was still speaking, the bishops cried out: “Say openly: ‘Anathema to Nestorius!’ ”
Theodoret answered: “I cannot do so before I have explained my faith to you.” And he tried to speak on; but the bishops inter- rupted again: “He is a heretic, a Nestorian. Throw him out!”
Theodoret then said: “Anathema to Nestorius. Anathema to who- ever does not call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and divides in two the only begotten Son of God. I have subscribed along with
IBAS OF EDESSA 85
the others to the definition of the faith in this council and to the Tome of Leo. Such is my faith!”
The Imperial Commissioners now interposed: “There is no room now for suspicion with regard to Theodoret. He has anathematized Nestorius in your presence. He has been admitted here by the very reverend Archbishop Leo of the great city of Rome. It remains but to restore him to his bishopric by your judgment in accord with the judgment of Leo.”
All cried out: ‘““Theodoret is worthy of the episcopate. Let the church have back her orthodox doctor.” A vote was called. When the Legates, archbishops, and metropolitans had cast their vote, and the other bishops had voted by acclamation, the Commissioners con- cluded: “According to your vote, by virtue of the council’s decision, Theodoret is reinstated in the bishopric of Cyrus. Then, upon the Council’s demand, Bishops Sophronius of Constantia in Osrhoene, John of Germanicia in Syria, and Amphilochius of Side in Pamphilia were likewise required to pronounce an anathema against Nestorius. Thus was the ninth session brought to a close.
Ibas of Edessa’°
Regathered on Saturday, October 27, for the tenth session, the three Imperial Commissioners took their place before the altar rail in the center of the church, flanked by the assembled bishops. Im- mediately Ibas of Edessa entered and complained that he had been unjustly judged and deposed, though absent, by the Robber Council of Ephesus, due to the hatred that Eutyches had borne against him. To have the matter properly adjudged he requested that the pro- ceedings of the actions held under Bishops Photius and Eustathius in their local synods at Tyre and at Berytus be now read to the council. For he declared that it was out of friendship for Eutyches that Bishop Uranius of Himeria had had him, Ibas, attacked by certain of his own clerics—to wit, the priests Samuel, Moras, Eulogius and Cyrus— and then handed over to Uranius himself and to the two other bishops, Photius and Eustathius, for sentencing. Despite the fact that the falseness of the: accusation was clear to all, Ibas, whose orthodoxy was beyond question, had been condemned. He asked now for an annulment of what had been done against him at the Robber Council of Ephesus, and for reinstatement in his episcopal see.
The Legates of the Pope, in conformity with the request of Ibas, ordained that the previous actions should be examined. This was started with the acts of the Synod of Tyre, although it had been held actually after that at Berytus. But it was thought sufficient to read the most recent sentence against him. In the course of the reading of these minutes, it was evident that the original judges chosen to
86: PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
bring peace between Bishop IJbas and his adversaries had tried to accomplish that task, and had succeeded. In so doing, they had obtained of Ibas a written profession of his faith, which he gave to the satisfaction of all present. He had likewise promised to anathema- tize Nestorius and his partisans publicly in a sermon to be pro- nounced later in his own church at Edessa. He had finally declared that he “believed all the points upon which John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria had agreed in the Formula of Union in 433. He adhered to the decisions of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian, in 448, and to the General Council of Ephesus; and he made no distinction between them and the Council of Nicaea.”
After this declaration, Ibas had received the eulogies of the judges, who then demanded that the Bishop of Edessa pardon his adver- saries and promise to respect them once more as his spiritual sub- jects. These latter on their side should honor him as their father. Ibas took an oath on his part, and added two points: the revenues of his church would be, for the future, administered by the clerics of the diocese as it was done at Antioch; and if anyone thereafter among his old enemies should appear to him in need of chastisement, he would not judge the matter himself, but he would have Domnus, then archbishop of Antioch, pass the judgment.
When this reading had finished, the Papal Legates asked Eustathius of Berytus and Photius of Tyre if this decision was actually the one they had justly given. When they responded in the affirmative, the Imperial Commissioners declared themselves satisfied, but postponed the final decision of the council till the next session.
At the next meeting, the eleventh session of the council, the case | of Ibas was the first order of business. Ibas was on hand to continue his complaint: “Not only, he said, had he been unjustly deposed by the machinations of Eutyches, but he had been detained in some twenty prisons, and he had only heard of his deposition after his captivity at Antioch, following the actions of the false Council at Ephesus. He requested then, a second time, that judgment be handed down.” .
The Commissioners turned to the assembly for the bishops’ opinion. Immediately a number of them, led by Patricius of Tyana, cried out: “It was unjust to condemn an absent man. We adhere to the decisions of Tyre and declare that Ibas is a legitimate bishop.”
But others shouted: “We protest!” and “Right outside here, there are at present accusers of Ibas. Let them be brought in.”
The Commissioners had them introduced. They were the deacon Theophilus, and the clerics Euphrasius, Abraham and Antiochus, all of Edessa. Theophilus at once requested a reading of the minutes
4
BASIANUS AND STEPHEN 87
of the Synod at Berytus, insisting that these acts would prove that the condemnation of Ibas had been just. But the Commissioners first asked the new witnesses if they were present as accusers properly so- called, or whether they were speaking merely in the interest of ortho- doxy. Theophilus answered that “it would be dangerous for him, a simple deacon, to act as an accuser, and besides, the testimony for such a procedure was lacking.’ He was asked for documents, and he indicated the minutes of the Synod of Berytus, and those of the Robber Council of Ephesus. On the matter of this last synod, he appealed to the memoirs of Thalassius and of Eusebius of Ancyra. On hearing this, these two former heads of that council dodged the issue, and protested that they remembered simply the cases and deposi- tions of a number of bishops.
The Commissioners then asked whether Ibas had been present at the Brigandage of Ephesus, and when the response was in the nega- tive, the cry of the bishops arose: “It was, then, unjust!”’
Theophilus answered: “It is by the minutes of the council itself that the truth can be made known.”
Eustathius of Berytus now informed the gathering that Ibas had been originally accused by several groups of his own clerics of having made the statement: “I do not envy Christ become God;” and Photius confirmed this accusation, adding that he had tried in his Synod at Tyre to act as arbiter between Ibas and his accusers, and had finally cleared the Bishop of Edessa.
But ‘Theophilus the deacon again interposed, requesting that the minutes of the Synod of Berytus held on October 27, 448, be read. This was finally done; and the council listened to a long recitation of the doings there, of the letters of accusation introduced by Samuel and Moras against their bishop counterpoised by the approbation of some sixty-six other clerics introduced into that assembly. When it became clear that this synod had also cleared Ibas, a request was made that the minutes of the sessions of the Robber Council of Ephesus touching his case should also be read. But this provoked strong opposition on the part of the Papal Legates. Their motion excluding these acts as futile and illegal was seconded by Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople, and concurred in by the assembly. Finally, the council as a whole agreed to clear Ibas, restoring him to his episcopal see.”
Basianus and Stephen of Ephesus'*
The twelfth session of the council, convened on Monday, October 29, 451, was devoted to the complaint made by Bishop Basianus of Ephesus, seconded by the priest Cassian, and passed on from the Emperor to the council, requesting justice and restoration to his
88 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
episcopal see. In a dramatic gesture, upon the questioning of the Imperial Commissioners, Basianus pointed to Stephen of Ephesus as his adversary, “who now here occupies my seat and possessions.” Whereupon Stephen had to take his place in the center, in the docket for the accused. After a considerable exchange of testimony, it was agreed by the bishops that Basianus had been unjustly deprived of his episcopal see by the partisans of Stephen, for Basianus had been in communion with Flavian of blessed memory. However, as it was likewise determined that Basianus had originally been consecrated for another diocese, even over his own protest, the Commissioners suggested that both Basianus and Stephen be removed from Ephesus and a new bishop, untrammelled by the quarrel, be placed in that see. The council concurred in this suggestion by its vote.
Then Eusebius of Dorylaeum moved that the new bishop be selected by the assembled Fathers. But this provoked considerable opposition. The bishops of Asia rose in clamor begging the council not to intrude anyone into the see, but to let the people and clerics themselves choose their shepherd—for fear that there would only be further violence and disunity. Leontius, Bishop of Magnesia, reminded the gather- ing: “From Saint Timothy until now there have been twenty-seven bishops all ordained in Ephesus. This Basianus alone has been brought in with violence, and great difficulties have arisen since.” He was contradicted by Philip, a priest of Constantinople, and by Aetius, who maintained that a number of Syrian bishops had been ordained in Constantinople, including Basil who had been ordained by Proclus with the cooperation of Emperor Theodosius II and of Cyril of Alexandria.
But the bishops cried out: “Let the canons be obeyed!”’
The Constantinopolitan clerics said: “Let us hold on to what was decided by the hundred and fifty bishops [at the Council of Con- stantinople in 381]. The privileges of Constantinople are not to be bypassed. Let the ordination be done by our archbishop according to custom.”
But the Commissioners interposed: “We see that some delibera- tion regarding the ordination of the Bishop of Ephesus will have to be done by this synod. Therefore we had better postpone the affair until tomorrow.”
The following day, Tuesday, October 30, the thirteenth session of the council convened.'* It opened with an admonition from the Commissioners requesting a speedy settlement of all the council’s business since the press of governmental affairs was calling them back to their regular postions. Immediately then, the case of Basianus and Stephen came up for final settlement. It was agreed that both
EUNOMIUS OF NICOMEDIA 89
bishops should be honorably dismissed, and each paid a pension of two hundred gold solidi a year by the See of Ephesus; and that their successor be elected by the clerics and people of the bishopric of Ephesus.
Eunomius of Nicomediat®
That same afternoon, the fourteenth session of the council was held, once again in the presence of the Imperial Commissioners and the Papal Legates. At its commencement, Eunomius of Nicomedia took the floor to complain that his metropolitan rights and_privi- leges had been usurped by Anastasius, Bishop of Nicaea. He pointed to the fact that Nicaea enjoyed only honorary rights as a metro- politan see, granted to it on the occasion of the First General Council in 325; hence the present bishop, Anastasius, was going far beyond his rights in ordaining, and in interfering in matters that pertained to the province as such.
The council, despite a long argument between the two contenders, Eunomius and Anastasius, sustained Bishop Eunomius in full. Im- mediately, however, on the ground that the sixth canon of Nicaea granted full metropolitan rights only to the then recognized metro- politan sees, and that the law of Constantine had merely attributed an honorary position but no jurisdiction to the bishop of Nicaea, Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople interposed, calling atten- tion to the supervisory patriarchal rights claimed by Constantinople.
“We submit,” he said, “that no prejudice be exercised against the holy See of Constantinople in these matters which have now been brought before the holy archbishop, and are treated and ordained in favor of the God loving bishops, Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea. For the most -holy See of Constantinople either itself holds ordinations in Basilinopolis with the others, or permits them to be held, as written documents frequently used can and do attest. We ask that these letters be placed in evidence.”
But the bishops protested: ‘‘Let the canons be adhered to.”
‘The Commissioners said: “The most reverend Bishop of Nicomedia has the authority of metropolitan among the churches of the province of Bithynia, with the Bishop of Nicaea holding only honorary metro- politan rights. This is the decision of the council. As for the rights of the See of Constantinople over ordinations in the province, this is a matter to be taken up by the council in its proper order.”
Eunomius thanked the Commissioners and council profusely. Whereupon the Imperial Legates arose to depart; they were followed immediately by the Papal representatives, who thus signified their absolute opposition to any treatment, on the’ part of the council, of this delicate political matter. Aware of the ambition of the Con-
90 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
stantinople clerics to have their see recognized as the “second Rome,” Leo had evidently briefed his Legates to steer clear of that question altogether. The other members of the council however remained in their places and took up the question of the rights and privileges of the See of Constantinople. The minutes of this prolongation of the session were not preserved intact; but were incorporated in the seven- teenth session when the matter was gone into again.
Sabinianus and Athanasius of Perrha'’
On the morning of Wednesday, October 31, the fifteenth session was opened with the complaint brought by Sabinianus of Perrha that he had been expelled from his see by Dioscorus, and that a certain Athanasius of Antioch had been put in his place in Perrha. The bishops listened to a long account of the synod at Antioch under Domnus in which the case had been adjudicated; then called upon Athanasius, present in the council, for clarification of his position in the matter. Final judgment was eventually placed in the hands of the metropolitan, Maximus of Antioch, with the instruction that he should allow the case eight months time. If no proof were brought against Athanasius in that period, he should be confirmed in his possession of the see; meanwhile Sabinianus, retaining his episcopal dignity, should be supported by the Church of Perrha according to the arrangement set down by Maximus.
Pope Leo’s Letter to the Council
That same day, probably immediately following the preceding action, the Legate Boniface arose and asked permission to have the letter with which Leo had armed his delegates read to the council. Constantine the secretary was then handed a Greek copy by Julian of Chios. In this letter, dated June 27, 451, Leo began by acknowledg- ing the invitation he had received from the sovereigns Marcian and Pulcheria to attend the council as a special consideration shown for the privileges and the office of blessed Peter. He excused himself from attending however, on the score that:
“Neither the present emergency nor any precedent could permit my presence. So let your fraternal gathering realize that I am pre- siding at your council in the person of my brethren . . . who have been sent by the Apostolic see .. . in whom I cease not to preach the Catholic Faith.”
The Pope went on to prohibit any discussion of the subject of doctrine, which he regarded as completely determined by his Tome— “the letter which we had sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory, and in which we have set forth what is the orthodox and true faith concerning the mystery of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
LEO’S LETTER TO THE COUNCIL 91
In the hope that the bishops who had taken the lead at the Robber Council of Ephesus would prove amenable to reason, the Pope wrote that the primary duty of the assembly would be to arrange for the restoration of those who had been unjustly condemned, and for the reconciliation of the wrongdoers. Finally, he cautioned that, with a view to allaying uneasiness on the part of those favoring the Alex- andrine Christology, and lest the anticipated condemnation of Eu- tyches might in any way be misjudged as a criticism of St. Cyril, the canons of the First Council of Ephesus should be explicitly confirmed.
There is no indication in the minutes of the council as to the reason for the reading of this letter at this particular juncture, nor of the reaction that followed it. It may have been that it was brought up by the Legates as a preparatory note for the objection that they were about to raise to the activity of the council in going into the question of the privileges of the See of Constantinople, in the next session.
CHAPTER NINE
Seventeenth Session: The Twenty-Eighth Canon
The final session of the council, called explicitly to treat of the matter brought up after the departure of the Papal Legates and the Imperial Commissioners on the previous evening, was convened on October 31, with both these delegations present, along with a full complement of the bishops.1 ‘The gathering was hardly seated when the two Roman Legates, Paschasinus and Lucentius took the floor, requesting the right to make a statement. Upon receiving the assent of the Commissioners, Paschasinus declared:
“The Lords, our Emperors, have deigned in the interest of the Catholic Faith, whereby their reign is glorified and their realm increased, to decree that but one faith should be held by all the Churches, in the interest of peace. They have taken great care to foster tranquility for the future, that, in the desire of bringing to an end all litigation between bishops of God, schism and scandal may be averted.
“But yesterday, after your Highnesses and our Lowliness had taken leave, decisions were made which to our way of thinking are in opposition both to the ecclesiastical canons and to the Church’s discipline. We now ask that Your Magnificence cause these matters to be read that the whole fraternity here may see whether what was done was just or unjust.”
This was immediately translated into Greek by Beronicianus.
The Commissioners gave the authorization for the reading re- quested, but before anything could be done, Aetius, the archdeacon of Constantinople, took the floor to remark that it was the cus- tom in a General Council after the main matter had been settled, to turn to other necessary affairs. ‘““We, that is the Church of Con- stantinople, have here certain matters which must be dealt with. We asked the Lord Bishops from Rome that they take part in these doings; but they refused, saying they had no mandate for such matters. We then turned to your Highnesses, and we were instructed to continue with the business. When you left, the bishops here assembled, rising in a common gesture, requested that we go on with the matter. What we did then was not carried on in secret, nor occultly, but properly and canonically conducted.”}?
The Imperial Commissioners signified that the minutes of the meeting should be read. Aetius handed the notes to Beronicianus,
92
THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 93
who mounted the rostrum and read the decision that has been handed down in history as the “Iwenty-eighth Canon’:
“Following the judgment of the holy Fathers in all things, and acknowl- edging the canon of the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops [i.e. the Council of Constantinople in 381] which has just been read, we also determine and decree the same things with regard to the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, the new Rome: For to the throne of old Rome, the Fathers gave privileges with good reason, because it was the imperial city. Hence the hundred and fifty bishops, with the same considera- tion in mind, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome; judging with good reason that the city honored by the Emperor and the Senate, and enjoying equal political privileges with the old imperial Rome, should likewise receive equal rank in matters ecclesiastical, holding the second place after her.
“We likewise decree that the metropolitans, but only the metropolitans, of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace (together with the bishops of those dioceses who are among the barbarians) shall be consecrated by the said most holy See of the most holy Church of Constantinople. But that each metropolitan of these dioceses shall consecrate the bishops of the province, as has been laid down by the divine canons.”
The canon was followed immediately by the subscription of the bishops to the number of 214 both present and by proxy.®
Immediately Lucentius the Roman Legate arose and suggested that the Imperial Commissioners should inquire whether duplicity might have been used, or force, in obtaining these signatures.
When this remark was translated into Greek by Beronicianus, the bishops cried out: “Here, no one was forced.”
Lucentius answered: “It would seem that the ordinances of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers [at Nicaea] have been put aside, in favor of those of the hundred and fifty Fathers, which are not to be found in the conciliar canons, and which have only been published within the last eighty years. If they have been exercising these rights during this period, why are they asking for them now? If they have never been in use, why request them now?’’t
Aetius, rising, asked the Papal Legates to communicate to the council the instruction they had received on this point from the Pope. Boniface, the priest from Rome said: “The most holy and apostolic Pope among other things commanded us as follows”, and he read from a codex: “You are not to allow any addition to the decision of the Fathers [at Nicaea]. You are to protect and defend by all possible means my authority vested in your person. If anyone, basing himself upon the position of his city wishes to arrogate these rights, you are to oppose him with becoming constancy.”
It appears evident that the Pope in his instructions had not en- visioned the actual introduction of this question. Hence, the Papal
94 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Legate must be credited with considerable ingenuity in producing the above answer. But it was equally evident that the opposing forces had reached an impasse. Accordingly, the Commissioners now inter- posed, asking each group to state the canons upon which they based their contentions.
Paschasinus read the sixth canon of Nicaea, beginning: “The Church of Rome has ever held the primacy; in like manner Egypt, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may’ possess authority over all [the provinces, viz. Libya and Pentapolis]: since this custom belongs also to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner too, the bishop who is established at Antioch. And so let the privileges of the churches be preserved in the other provinces. In all this it is clear that if anyone was consecrated a bishop against the will of the metropolitan, the holy Synod decrees that he should not be considered as a bishop. Likewise in a dispute between two or three claimants to a see, all canonically consecrated, the ancient custom grants the see to the one representing the majority of clerics. In like manner ancient custom prescribes a special precedence for the Bishop of Aelia, that is of Jerusalem, while safeguarding the rights of its metropolitan.”
Constantine the secretary then received a codex from the hands of Aetius, and read the Constantinopolitan version of these canons. It omitted the statement “The Roman church has ever held the primacy.” But as no one seemed to note this difference, he went on to quote the first three canons of the Council of Constantinople in 381. ‘These repeated the regulations of Nicaea, adding: “The Bishop of Constantinople has the honor of the primacy after the Roman Bishop, because it has become the New Rome.’’®
The Commissioners now asked the bishops of Asia and Pontus who had signed the canon to signify whether or not force or persua- sion had been used on them. Rising in turn, and coming to the mid- dle of the assembly, these bishops protested before God that they had signed willingly and freely.
Among them, Eusebius of Dorylaeum added: “I have freely signed because I read this very rule to his Holiness, the Pope, in the city of Rome, with a number of Constantinopolitan clerics present, and the Pope accepted it.’’6
Explanations were then requested of Eusebius of Ancyra who had showed some hesitation in subscribing, and these were satisfactory. So the Commissioners proceeded to make the following résume:
“In view of what has taken place and of what has been said on both sides, we maintain that the primacy before all others and the chief dignity shall belong to the archbishop of old Rome, yet the archbishop of new Rome shall enjoy the same privileges of honor, and possess the right to consecrate
THE BISHOPS’ LETTER TO LEO 95
metropolitans in the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, provided that each of these metropolitans be elected by a majority of the clergy and more influential men of the place and the bishops of the province, and that this election be made known to the bishop of Constantinople, who may, if he so wish, call the man to Constantinople for consecration, or allow him to be consecrated by the bishops of the region. But the bishops of each city are to be consecrated by all, or by the majority of bishops in the province, under the regulation of the metropolitan according to the canons of the fathers, and no notice need be sent to the Archbishop of Constantinople. It is thus that we understand this whole affair. Will the council now declare whether or not this is its decision?”
The bishops cried out: “That is the correct attitude. It is so that we hold. All of us wish it to be thus. It is equitable. ‘That which has here been decided should now be put into practice. Praise the Emperor. We abide by his judgment.”
But the Roman Legate Lucentius rose to protest: “The Apostolic See must not be humiliated in our presence. ‘Therefore we ask that what was done yesterday in our absence in contradiction of the canons and rules, should be annulled. Otherwise, at least make sure that our protest is inserted in the minutes of the council, so that we may know what to bring back to that apostolic man, the Pope of the whole Church, so that he may render sentence in regard to the in- justice done to his see, and the reversal of the canons.”
The Imperial Commissioners took no official notice of this declara- tion, but immediately arose to declare: ‘““What we have decided has been approved as the opinion of the whole synod.” And with that statement the Council of Chalcedon came to an end.’
The Bishops (Letter: to. Leo®
Upon the completion of this final session of the council, a group of bishops with Anatolius of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenal of Jerusalem at their head, drafted an official report of the assembly’s achievements to be forwarded to Pope Leo in Rome. Their letter was a noteworthy document. It deferred graciously to Leo’s authority and prescriptive rights. But, at the same time, it made a diplomatic insinuation that the Pope could not but agree with and confirm its decisions in regard to the position assumed by
the See of Constantinople as the seat of the imperial administration in the East.
““Our mouths are filled with joy,’ the bishops chanted, ‘and our tongue with exultation!’” In flattering terms they then assured the Pontiff: “You have indeed preserved the faith, which has come down to us like a golden stream in the command of our divine Teacher. Constituted, as you are, the interpreter of the words of blessed Peter for all mankind, you have poured forth upon the universe the blessings he elicited by his faith. Hence we have
96 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
looked to you as the leader of our religion to our great advantage. And we have demonstrated for the children of the Church the lineage and strength of the faith, not separately and singly declaring its teachings in secret, but with one heart, together in peace, making profession of our belief.
“We have been as it were at a kingly banquet, crowned with a common joy, partaking of spiritual delights which Christ has set before His guests through your letter. Thus we were enabled to feel our heavenly Host con- versing with us. If He had said that where two or three are gathered together in His name, He is there in the midst of them, how great a familiarity has He not shown for the five hundred and twenty bishops who have in their labor and for their country given full account of their faith.
“You indeed as the head among the members presided here in the person of your representatives, who led the way by their correct counsel. Our faithful Emperors likewise took an outstanding position as an ornament to the gathering . . . for they were most concerned to renew the right ordering of doctrine.
“And the devil was there, too, like a wild beast ranting and raging out- side his cage, and having no one to destroy, himself entered into him who had once presided over the See of Alexandria. For though this latter had committed many evils before, he put them in the shade with much worse doings. For having, against every regulation of the canons, deposed and con- demned that blessed Constantinoplitan pastor Flavian, now numbered among the saints for professing the apostolic faith, as also Eusebius, a bishop dear to God, he dared in his tyrannical decrees to restore the condemned Eutyches to the dignities of which he had been deprived by Your Holiness... And after all this, he extended his fury even against him who has been en- trusted by the Savior with the guardianship of the vineyard—we mean Your Holiness—and planned his excommunication, after you had been so zealous to keep the body of the Church united. And though he ought to have re- pented of this, and begged mercy with tears, he rather rejoiced in it as in something noble, despising the letter of Your Holiness and resisting all true doctrine.
“It thus became necessary to cast him out to those whom he had himself chosen as his party. Since we confess ourselves the disciples of the Savior who ‘desires that all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth,’ we hastened in our labors to extend this mercy to him, and we summoned him to a hearing with fraternal kindness, not attempting to cut him off, but granting him opportunity to make explanations that would save him. We prayed him to show himself victorious over those who made accusations against him, that we might bring the Council to a close with festive joy, and not give Satan the advantage on any score.
“But he chose to make up his own mind. He absented himself from the judgment held in regard to the accusations against him, and rejected the three legal summonses he received.
“As leniently as we might, then, we signed the decree which he had brought upon himself by his obstinacy. We thus stripped the wolf of his pastoral raiment which he proved that until then he had been merely wear- ing as a garment. The sorrow we had been undergoing ceased at this point,
THE BISHOPS’ LETTER TO LEO 97 and the grace of good things came upon us. For by plucking up one of the weeds, we were able in joy to assure the whole world of a pure wheat.
“Since we had authority to plant as well as to pluck up, we limited our pruning to one individual, and with due care cultivated the fruitfulness of those who were well disposed. For it was God who worked in them, with the aid of the triumphant [St.] Euphemia, who with her bridal chamber lent adornment to the assembly and, receiving the definition of the Faith from us, presented it to her Spouse as her own confession, by the medium of our most devout Emperor and our Empress dear to Christ. All this, then, we have achieved with your assistance, present in spirit and in full concord with your brethren, actually all but visible to us in the prudent conduct of your legates.”
Having thus given the Bishop of. Rome a fully deferential account of the council’s activities in the line of faith, the bishops now turned themselves to a much more difficult task. Upon it they extended the full weight of tact and diplomacy of which they were capable. Their letter continued:
“We make further mention of the fact that in the interest of good order in our affairs, and for the stability of canon law, we have made other de- cisions being fully confident that Your Holiness, on learning of them, will accept and confirm them. We have, as a matter of fact, given the assembly’s vote of acceptance to a custom which is longstanding in its observance by the holy church of God at Constantinople; and that is the observance where- by the metropolitans of the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace are con- secrated by Constantinople, without adding thereby anything to the See of Constantinople, but rather in order to preserve good order among the sees of metropolitan rank.
“It happens frequently that when bishops die much disorder has arisen, and both clergy and laity have been without leaders, and have thus been led to disturb the peace of the church. Of this Your Holiness must be well aware since, especially in regard to the affairs of Ephesus, appeals have been fre- quently made to you. Moreover we have confirmed the canon of the one hun- dred and fifty Fathers, who were assembled at Constantinople in the time of Theodosius the Great, of happy memory, which states that the See of Con- stantinople shall have privileges so as to rank second after your own most Holy and Apostolic See, in the assurance that, as with your accustomed interest you have often shed forth that-shining Apostolic radiance of yours even upon the Church of Constantinople, you will increase it many times, since you share your own privileges ungrudgingly with your brethren.
“Therefore, most holy and blessed father, deign to accept our definition, the purpose of which is the removal of all confusion and the stabilizing of ecclesiastical discipline in the interests of the extension of peace, as though it were your very own.
“However, the representatives of Your Holiness, the most holy bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, together with the divinely loved priest Boniface, vehemently essayed to oppose our proposals, presumably because they were
98 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
most anxious that the credit for this beneficial act should be given to your watchful interest, and that you should have the merit of having restored not only faith but discipline as well.
“We ourselves, in obedience to the will of the most devout and Christian sovereigns, who approved of the proposal, and of the illustrious senate and, so to speak, of the whole capital, regarded the confirmation of this privilege by the present council as only fitting, and we confidently endorsed it as pro- ceeding from Your Holiness who is always so ready to strengthen us. For we believe that whatever is done by the children redounds to the credit of their parents.
“We beg you therefore to honor our decision with your approval. Thus as we have demonstrated our accord with the head in all that is right, so the leader himself may do what is fitting for his children. Thus the devout sovereigns will be obeyed, who have given legal confirmation to your de- cision, and the See of Constantinople, which has shown all eagerness in carrying out your proposals, and has accorded with your wishes, will receive its recompense. Yet, so that you may be assured that we have so acted not for favor nor in malice, but only in accordance with the divine will, we have informed you of the whole tenor of our actions, thus proving our loyalty and expecting confirmation and assent to all that we have done.”
There followed immediately the subscription of the bishops headed by Anatolius, Maximus, and Juvenal.
CHAPTER TEN
Sequel to the Council and Epilogue
First news of the council’s accomplishments was brought to the Pope in Rome by a special legation from the Emperor Marcian dis- _ patched on December 18, 451, the Pope’s own legates for some reason or other having decided to remain in Constantinople for a while. Marcian’s letter covering a copy of the official acts of the council had one obvious purpose: to assure the council of the Pope’s immediate approval, even before he had a chance to discuss the full implication of the disciplinary measures and the ‘twenty-eighth canon’ with his own representatives. ‘The Emperor’s letter was accompanied by a note from Archbishop Anatolius.*
The Emperor began by describing the decisions reached at Chalce- don as a great victory for Christ over the devil and error. He referred with evident satisfaction to the approval given by the council to the contents of the Tome. Then obviously anxious about the Pope’s immediate reaction to the question of Constantinopolitan precedence, he assured him: “This decision was actually taken so that the resolu- tions of the one hundred and fifty most holy bishops in the time of the divine Theodosius I, the Elder, concerning the honor of the venerable church of Constantinople, which have now been con- firmed by our holy council on the same subject, should be firmly up- held—namely that after the Apostolic See, the bishop of the city of Constantinople should receive the second place, since this latter most glorious city is called the second Rome.”
Marcian admitted that unhappily the Papal legates had strongly opposed this arrangement. Yet in spite of their opposition he asked for Leo’s assent to both the canons and the Constantinopolitan prerogative.
Anatolius too, after referring to the decisions of the council, and to the deposition of Dioscorus for ‘having filled the whole world with storm and tempest,’ assured the Pope that the Definition of Faith had been approved by the unanimous consent of the bishops. He likewise made it plain that the statute of the ‘twenty-eighth canon’ had been passed “so that the most holy see of this imperial city of Constantine might receive some additional honor.”
He asserted that it was at the same time a confirmation of the canon approved by all the leaders of the Church at the Cauncil of 381.
99
100 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
He felt that in view of the concern which the Roman See had ever expressed in the past for the position of this see, Leo would, no doubt, be eager to give his assent. Nevertheless, he made it plain that the new canon, far from enlarging the privileges of Constantinople, would actually deprive it of the right of consecrating diocesan bishops in the Orient—a right which it had enjoyed for the past sixty or seventy years. Anatolius further stated that he could only account for the opposition of the Papal Legates by supposing that they had acted in ignorance of Leo’s real wishes. Finally he begged the Pope to send his confirmation in writing with the returning imperial dele- gation.
There is no indication of Leo’s immediate reaction to the recep- tion of these letters other than the fact that, despite the evident urgency in the request of both Emperor and bishop, the Pope took no action until he had had the opportunity of consulting personally with his legates, and of hearing from their lips an account of what had taken place at Chalcedon. This was only possible perhaps as late as March, 452, when upon the arrival of Paschasinus, Lucentius and Boniface in Rome, the Pope was given an oral account of the acts of the council.? His reply was long in coming, being only dis- patched on May 28. Meanwhile, the Pope had also received an urgent appeal from Julian of Chios. The latter begged him to give his immediate assent to the decisions of the council including the ‘twenty- eighth canon.’
In response to the Emperor, the Pope expressed his great joy at the unanimity with which the assembled body of bishops had vindi- cated the truth “abetted by the holy and glorious zeal of Your Clemency.” He congratulated the Emperor upon the skill with which the evil doer [Dioscorus] had been set aside and deposed, while the body of faithful priests, the Emperors and the laity, were renewed in their faith “in the God-man Christ Jesus, the mediator of God and men.”
“However,” the Pope continued, ‘‘with these matters so propitiously settled, I cannot but marvel at and deplore the fact that once again the spirit of ambition is troubling the peace of the Church which has been so recently restored through the divine intervention. For although our brother Anatolius has.seen the necessity of discarding the error of those who ordained him, and now properly amended, has given full assent to the Catholic faith, he should take care that what has been achieved for your benefit, be not dissipated by the cupidity of any one individual.”
The Pope says explicitly that it was because he had in mind the Emperor’s wishes that he had shown himself “more merciful than
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 101
just” in recognizing the consecration of Anatolius as legitimate, but that nothing would move him to allow anything to be done “against the reverence due to the canonical legislation of our Fathers, against the statutes of the Holy Ghost, and against the traditions of an- tiquity.” Hence, “Let the city of Constantinople retain her great- ness, for such is our wish, and by the protection of God’s right hand, let her enjoy many years of government by Your Grace. However, the principles governing secular affairs and those regulating the affairs of God are not the same: nor can any structure be stable apart from the Rock which the Lord has laid as a foundation. He who covets what is not his, loses that which is his own. Now, let it suffice him [Anatolius] that with the aid of your favor and by my gracious ap- proval he has received the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not think too disparagingly of a city which has the imperial rank, but which he cannot make into an Apostolic See. Nor let him hope that its prestige can be increased by inflicting wrongs on others.”
Leo then makes explicitly clear the principles governing his own attitude:
“The privileges of the churches, established by the canons of the holy Fathers and prescribed by the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, cannot be set aside by presumptuous action or modified by innova- tion. In carrying out my responsibility I am bound with the help of Christ to show myself His unswerving servant.”
Leo went on to suggest that the Emperor use his authority to restrain the unlawful ambition of Anatolius who, in view of the attitude of the Papal Legates at the council, was obviously wrong in pretending that his wishes were acceptable to the See of Rome. It was enough that he had presumed to consecrate Maximus as a suc- cessor to Domnus in the See of Antioch. Though for the sake of peace, and in spite of the lack of precedent, his action in this regard could be overlooked, yet the bishop should be made to realize that if he persisted in doing things of this sort he would surely be deposed. Expressing the hope that he would be able to continue in fraternal love of his fellow bishop [Anatolius] and commending bishop Lucianus and the deacon Basil for the expeditious manner in which they had brought the Emperor’s sentiments to the Pope, Leo affixed his signa- ture to this letter of May 22, 452.
In the same post, Leo included a letter to Pulcheria.* Here the Pope was much more explicit in his outspoken condemnation of the offending decree. For immediately after his cordial greeting and congratulations, he launched into a warning against the ambition of Anatolius. He wrote:
“It is a mark of excessive pride and of the absence of modesty to reach out beyond one’s proper scope, and by spurning ancient custom to desire to
102 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
violate the rights of another; and in the interests of the rank of one individ- ual, to violate the primacy of so many metropolitans: in a word, to inflict a war of fresh disorders on peaceful provinces, the boundaries of which were determined of old by the regulations of the Council of Nicaea; and, finally in order to dispose of the decrees of the venerable Fathers, to put forward a resolution approved by certain bishops, the validity of which is excluded by the [contrary] precedent of so long a period of years.
“For it is alleged that connivance at this sort of thing has been going on for about sixty years, a fact which the aforesaid bishop [Anatolius]. sup- poses will help his: cause, while he vainly hopes that the thing which no one could allow, even if he were bold enough to wish for it, will really be of benefit to himself.”
The Pope then suggests that Anatolius take to heart the conduct of his predecessor Flavian. “Let him imitate the faith of Flavian, the modesty of Flavian, the humility of Flavian, which has brought him to the glory of a Confessor [of the faith].’”’ He goes on to cancel the offending canon: “Resolutions of bishops which are repugnant to the rules of the holy canons laid down at Nicaea, by the authority of the blessed Peter the Apostle, in co-operation with the loyalty of your faith, we annul and cancel with a decision of general applica- tion for the future, since in all ecclesiastical questions we respect those laws which the Holy Ghost defined by means of the three hundred and eighteen to be kept peaceably by all bishops.” Apologizing for the length of his letter, and commending his messengers, Leo closes with the hope that the Empress will bend every effort to bring Anatolius to a better frame of mind.
Leo’s letter in answer to Anatolius likewise opened with expres- sions of satisfaction at the doctrinal achievement of the council. But the Pope quickly changed his tone. Referring pointedly to the irregularity of Anatolius’ consecration, Leo assured him that in spite of its unfortunate augury for the future, all would have been well had not the bishop yielded to the temptation of ambition. Leo pointed out the dangers in the present situation.
“It seems,” he wrote, “that the present is a favorable opportunity for the See of Alexandria to lose the privilege of ranking in the second place, and for the Church of Antioch to be deprived of its right to third rank; with the result that, when these provinces are subjected to your authority, all metropolitan bishops will be stripped of their rightful function.”
The Pope shows himself particularly indignant that a council, which was assembled for the express purpose of confirming the Catholic Faith, should have been diverted to serve the interests of ambition, as though it were possible to change what had been decided for all time by the canons of Nicaea. He informs Anatolius that no
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 103
boasting as to the size of the council can in any way avail in sup- porting his unfounded claims. ‘For the Nicene Council has been endowed by God with so high a privilege that should ecclesiastical decisions be approved, whether by few or by many, which are incon- sistent with its decrees, such are altogether false and devoid of authority.”
In regard to the attitude of the Roman Legates, Leo affirms that they were perfectly justified in making their protest against so evident a violation of Canon Law; “for those holy and venerable Fathers, who in the city of Nicaea condemned the impious Arius with his error, and laid down laws consisting of ecclesiastical canons to abide till the end of the world, still live on in their decrees among ourselves and throughout the whole earth.”
Leo next took note of the alleged approval given by certain bishops to the authority of the See of Constantinople. Such a canon, he said, was never formally brought to the notice of the See of Rome. Since, besides, it was invalid from the outset, it could not now be validated by a belated notification. In conclusion, the Pope repeated that any consent given to the ambitious designs of Anatolius would only infringe upon the rights of the “See of Alexandria” which merited them through St. Mark the Evangelist, the disciple of the Blessed Peter .. . as well as on those of Antioch, where also, upon the preach- ing of the blessed Apostle Peter, the name Christian took its origin.’ He advised finally that Constantinople would do better to strengthen its reputation by showing itself fully obedient to the canons.
The last letter in this dispatch was addressed to the Pope’s per- sonal representative Julian.? It was in answer to the latter’s recom- mendation that the Pope give his immediate and unqualified ap- proval to the decisions of the council. Leo displayed evident indigna- tion at Julian’s suggestion that the requested assent would be a per- sonal favor to himself, and asserted that neither persuasion nor pleading could procure his endorsement of proposals which he held to be destructive of right order in the Church, and “which could not be granted by myself, nor obtained by you [Julian], without involving both of us in the commission of an illicit act.”
Events in the West encouraged Leo’s forceful and courageous stand in the matter of this disciplinary canon. In November of 451 he had received a communication from Ravennius of Arles, notifying him that all the bishops of Southern Gaul had approved the Tome. About the same time the Pope heard from Bishop Eusebius of Milan. The ‘Tome had been brought north by the bishops Abundantius and Senator who had previously served as Leo’s legates in Constantinople. The Tome had been discussed in a provincial synod held in the
104 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO.
latter part of 451. Hence the bishop of Milan was able to write enthusiastically of its reception and approval by his bishops.* Assured of unanimity of doctrinal opinion in both the West and the East, the Pope felt he could afford to withstand the evident wishes of the Emperor, and the ambition of the bishop of Constantinople.
While the Pope had been meditating upon the decisions of Chalce- don, and dispatching his replies, events were taking place in various sections of the Orient which soon indicated that the rest of the world, if for different reasons, was not happy over the conciliar activities and results. Among the chief centers of opposition were the monasteries in Jerusalem where Eudocia, the widow of Theodosius, had resided since her exclusion from the Eastern Court. News had been brought to Palestine that the Council of Chalcedon had be- trayed the cause of St. Cyril, and had reinstated Nestorianism as the official theology of the Empire. This afforded Eudocia ample oppor- tunity for increasing the difficulties of the regime of Marcian and Pulcheria, thus avenging her grievance against the Theodosian house. Hence to her influence may be traced the hostile reception accorded by the monks to their bishop Juvenal on his return from the council. So great was the opposition that he was compelled to flee the city. A local synod declared him deposed, and Theodosius, a prominent monk, and a determined adversary of the council, was installed in his place.®
News of these happenings was brought to Leo. Nor was the story that his Legate Julian had to report from Constantinople any more encouraging. Besides confirming the rumors regarding the uprising of the Monophysite Party in Palestine, the Bishop of Chios had to describe a growing wave of sympathy for Eutyches and Dioscorus in the environs of Constantinople and Alexandria. He hinted that objections were being raised against the Tome on the ground that it failed to accord with the doctrine of the Fathers. ‘The resistance which was manifesting itself in Jerusalem was being reproduced in Egypt. Great difficulty had been experienced in filling the see of Alexandria left vacant by the deposition of Dioscorus. Proterius, the elected bishop, encountered the most determined opposition and could only maintain his tenure of office by invoking imperial support. Even in Constantinople itself, Eutyches still had his supporters, and there were rumors that in spite of Anatolius’ eagerness to secure the ac- ceptance of the disciplinary canons of the council, he was showing signs of wavering in his loyalty to its doctrinal position.
These latter rumors were doubtlessly the result of a move made by Anatolius, probably for personal reasons, in replacing Aetius, the archdeacon who had taken so prominent a part in the proceedings at Chalcedon, with Andrew, who had formerly held that position, and
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 105
had been one of the chief opponents of Flavian in the Robber Synod of Ephesus, The change took place some time in the latter part of 452, and was promptly reported to the Pope by Julian. Leo decided to intervene immediately. He wrote to Marcian with anxiety, stating that he regarded the preferment of Andrew as an act prejudicial to the cause of the Catholic Faith. He suggested that Andrew should be removed at once, and that he should only be restored to the status of a deacon if he were prepared to give proof that he had abandoned the cause of Eutyches. In any event, he felt it only appropriate that Andrew’s rank should be inferior to that of those who had remained faithful to the orthodox faith."
In a letter to Pulcheria of the same date,12 Leo queried whether the promotion of Andrew might not indicate that Anatolius was really an abetter of heresy. He recommended that the Empress sup- port his Legate, Julian, in whatever steps he might deem fitting for the rectification of the matter.
Finally in a covering note to Julian,!? thanking him for forwarding the information, Leo laid emphasis on the fact that the main objec- _ tion to Andrew was that he had been one of the principal accusers of Flavian. The Pope encouraged Julian to keep him well informed of ecclesiastical doings in Constantinople by sending frequent reports. “And when you, my dear friend”—he confided—“consult me regard- ing affairs wherein you think there is room for doubt, include a sug- gestion in your reports as to the form which my reply should take; so that, apart from the conduct of those cases which ought to be determined by the examination of the bishops in their individual churches, you may undertake this duty as my legate, lest anywhere either the Nestorian or the Eutychian heresy may revive.”
Leo referred again to the disorders created by the monks in Pales- tine. But he confessed himself uncertain as to whether these zealots had so acted in support of Eutyches, or because of the resentment they felt against opinions once favored by their bishop Juvenal. As to the case of Aetius, Leo informed him that neither the docu- ments which the former archdeacon had said he was forwarding in his letter of appeal to the Pope, nor the ‘Summary of the Faith’ which Julian had stated that he had sent off, had yet reached him. Leo requested reliable information as to the state of affairs in the Church of Alexandria, and desired Julian to indicate the names of responsible persons there to whom letters might be addressed. In conclusion he referred to the Tome, a copy of which he had for- warded to Constantinople in response to a request. Finally the Pope asked Julian to make a new and accurate translation into Latin of the Acta of Chalcedon which might be the means of clearing up doubt as to the trustworthiness of existing versions.1+
106 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
During these months, it was becoming widely known that the See of Rome was raising objections to the council, although only on a disciplinary plane. But such knowledge was serving to strengthen the hands of the opposition, who were already doing all that was possible to resist the acceptance of the council on doctrinal grounds. This state of affairs was proving highly embarrassing for the govern- ment. Hence on February 15, 453, Marcian felt impelled once more to take the initiative in seeking to persuade the Pope to withdraw his objections, and to give his unconditional consent to the conciliar decrees as a whole. The Emperor’s new letter to the Pope opened on a note of polite amazement.'®
“We are considerably surprised,” he wrote, “that since the Council of Chalcedon and the dispatch of the letter sent by the reverend bishops to Your Holiness, in which all that took place at the council was reported, Your Grace has sent no reply whatever of a type that could be read in our most holy churches, and there come to the knowledge of all. This has given rise to considerable doubt in the hearts of certain people who still follow the erroneous heresy of Eutyches, as to whether Your Blessedness has actually confirmed the decrees of the holy council or not.”
Tactfully praising Leo’s zeal in the defense of canon law, Marcian concluded with the suggestion that in view of the attitude of the opposition, an immediate assent on the Pope’s part would be of utmost value.
The Emperor’s communiqué appears to have reached Rome in the middle of March 453, crossing a letter of Leo to the Emperor dated November 25, 452, suggesting that Eutyches and Dioscorus be removed to localities sufficiently distant to prevent communica- tion with their respective supporters.1® It evoked a series of letters in reply.
In the first of these, taking his cue from the Emperor’s reference to the letter sent him by the bishops at the council’s conclusion, Leo directed his answer to their report.’ He stated again his formal ap- proval of the council’s Definition of Faith, complaining that it was the failure of the Bishop of Constantinople to publish Leo’s original letter that caused the uncertainty as to the Pope’s stand. He showed himself still determined, however, not to recognize those of the council’s decisions on the canonical plane which, Leo averred, directly contradicted the canonical decrees of Nicaea.
“However much,” he writes, “presumptuous vanity may build upon votes of approval given under pressure, and may suppose that its ambitious designs are supported by the name of councils, everything which is at variance with the canons of the aforesaid Fathers will be —
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 107
null and void.” He concluded by emphasizing the fact that anyone who had read his letters could see that the Apostolic See showed due respect for those canons, and that he himself was the “guardian of the Catholic Faith and the decrees of the Fathers.”
Leo now also wrote to Marcian displaying that remarkable diplom- acy and tact of which he was the master.'* He began by referring to the royal authority and priestly zeal that had motivated the Emperor in his dealings with ecclesiastical matters; then suggested that “all sacrilegious error would be deprived of its power ... if the fact that the Apostolic See has approved the definition of the Holy Council of Chalcedon is published throughout all the churches.’’ He added, however, that there had never been any room for doubt as to his attitude since the council had itself given its approbation to the Tome. As before, Leo laid the chief blame for the present misunder- standing upon Anatolius, who had evidently failed to publish the original letter which he had received from the Roman See. He men- tioned the fact that he had been given intelligence of the disorders in Palestine from Julian, and commended that bishop, continuing him as his representative. Leo contented himself with a mere indirect allusion to the ‘twenty-eighth canon.’
Evidently realizing that this was a time to emphasize agreement rather than difference of opinion, he wrote to Pulcheria in the same vein. Then, in his letter to Julian, he explained what action he had taken in deference to the Emperor’s wishes. He acknowledged receipt of a copy of the edict published against the rebellious Palestinian monks, and also of a letter from the Empress Eudocia which laid the blame for the disturbances round about Jerusalem to the baneful influence of the archimandrites.?®
The Pope further assured Julian that at the request of Marcian, addressed to him in secret, he had himself written to Eudocia and persuaded Valentinain III, her son-in-law to do likewise, adding “‘if those who oppose the council will not accept the teaching contained in the Tome, let them acknowledge the doctrine of Athanasius, Theo- philus, and Cyril, with which it is in all respect identical.” So far as the case of Aetius was concerned, he urged patience, reassuring the archdeacon of the support of the Roman See.
In answer to Julian’s explicit request that the Pope write to Ana- tolius, Leo explained that he had refrained from doing so in view of what he had heard from the messenger who had recently brought the official notification of the election of Euxitheus to the See of Thessalonica, to the effect that the bishop of Constantinople was about to summon a local synod, at which he invited the approval of bishops from Eastern Illyricum to the canons of Chalcedon. In the
108 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
final sentence of this letter Leo revealed the highly delicate nature of the situation:
“I have now composed two letters for this council, to one of which I have appended copies of my letter addressed to Bishop Anatolius; the other lacks the addition of those copies. I leave it to your judg- ment to decide which of the two you will present to His Grace, the Emperor, and which you will keep to yourself.”
These letters had scarcely left Rome when a further communication arrived from Julian informing Leo that irregularities on the part of monks were not confined to Palestine, but had spread through Cappa- docia where Thalassius, metropolitan of Caesarea, who since his part at Ephesus in 449 was suspected of supporting Eutyches, had allowed monks to exercise the office of public preaching. Leo replied im- mediately ordering that Thalassius be admonished on the matter and enclosing relevant documents. At the same time he urged that what- ever measures might be taken by the civil power to suppress disorder, the infliction of capital punishment should not be resorted to.?°
Meanwhile, Leo’s attention had been called directly to affairs in Antioch by a letter from Maximus, the bishop who had been conse- crated after the displacement of Domnus in 449. The main burden of this communication was evidently the deprivation suffered by the See of Antioch as a result of the decision reached in the eighth session of the Council of Chalcedon, wherein its jurisdiction over the provinces of Palestine had been assigned to the See of Jerusalem.
In answering Maximus,?! Leo first called attention to the fact that he had received information to the effect that some people in his diocese were incapable of distinguishing the error of Nestorius from that of Eutyches. He urged that Maximus consider the teach- ing of St. Peter, “which he proclaimed by means of his consistent preaching throughout the whole world, and which by a special exer- cise of his authority he laid down in the cities of Antioch and Rome; so that you may recognize that he, who still reigns in the home of his martyrdom, insists on those principles which he handed on as he had received them from the Truth Itself which he had confessed.”
Therefore, the Pope insisted, no divergence from the truth of the Gospel either towards Nestorianism or towards Eutychianism ought to be permitted among the Churches of the Dioceses of the East, since ‘“The Rock of the Catholic Faith, the name of which the blessed Apostle Peter received from the Lord, is not marked by any trace of either heresy.”
Leo expressed the wish that Maximus keep him frequently informed of the state of the Churches in the East, and assured him that he would certainly uphold the privileges of the See of Antioch. He informed
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 109
him likewise that the copy of Cyril’s letter with reference to the ag- gressive claims of the See of Jerusalem presented at the first Council of Ephesus (in 431), and now forwarded to Leo for authentication, was accurate, as had been acertained by its comparison with the copy preserved in the Roman archives.
No resolutions of any council which infringe the provisions of Nicaea, the Pope said further, possessed any validity, as had been shown by the protest uttered by the Roman Legates at the Council of Chalcedon against those canons which were not concerned with questions of faith. This, Leo pointed out, was further indicated by the letter which he had addressed to Anatolius, and of which he now enclosed a copy with the intention that it should be published throughout the Dioceses of the East. He concluded by urging Maxi- mus to suppress illicit preaching on the part of monks or laity, since preaching was a function reserved to the priesthood.
That same day, June 11, 453, Leo took occasion to send a further letter to Theodoret of Cyrus, as a sort of belated answer to the appeal he had received from that bishop some three years previously.??
After expressing joy over the vindication of Theodoret’s orthodoxy at Chalcedon, the Pope pointed out that the opposition encountered by the faith defined by the Roman See had actually proved to be an advantage in that it had served to bring the truth into clearer light. He added that he regarded the council as a kind of renewal of the Incarnation itself.
“Now,” he writes, “the brightness of the Sun of Justice, impeded for a while in the East by the clouds of Nestorius and Eutyches, has shone forth anew with radiance from the West where he has placed the high zenith of his course in the persons of His Apostles and teachers.”
Dioscorus, ‘that new Pharaoh,’ he added, had met with fitting retri- bution for his crimes, and in particular for his new and unheard of presumption. As for the doctrinal decision of Chalcedon, it could not be a subject for doubt or reconsideration, nor could concessions be made either to Nestorians or Eutychians. Nor could there be any doubt as to the orthodoxy of Theodoret himself: the confidence placed in him by the Apostolic See was enough to show that he was beyond suspicion. In closing Leo recommended vigilance and fre- quent contact with himself to the Bishop of Cyrus, encouraging him in the matter of the disciplinary decrees to consult and follow the Pope’s own letter to Maximus.
The Pope’s unflagging zeal in his attempt to reconcile all who might still feel hostile to his doctrinal stand is further evidenced by another group of letters written at this time and bearing on the situa-
110 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
tion in Palestine. The first of these was addressed to Eudocia in Jerusalem; the second to the monks among whom there was such ereat disturbance that it had resulted in the deaths of priests and bishops. To the Empress, the Pope urged a strong stand against the wrong doers; he requested her to keep him informed of the progress made in putting down heretical opposition. Then in regard to certain dissatisfactions expressed against his Tome, Leo assured the monks that it must have arisen as a consequence of a poor transla- tion of the document, for in none of his writings had he ever departed one iota from the faith of the holy Fathers.?8
Some months later, Leo received another communication from Julian in Constantinople which was accompanied by letters from Marcian. The Emperor informed the Pope that the opposition in Palestine had been finally crushed, and that Juvenal had been re- stored to his see. At the same time he showed himself wroth over the continued Monophysite resistance to the council in Egypt. Julian in his turn furnished further information to the effect that at Alexandria, Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus had addressed a letter to the Roman See as an indication of his orthodoxy. He made mention of the local synod of Constantinople about which the Pope had requested information, assuring Leo that his letter had been read, with, however, the significant omission of the section that repudiated the ‘twenty- eighth canon.’ Julian further informed the Pope that Aetius had been finally cleared of the charges laid against him.
In reply Leo thanked both the Emperor and Julian for their vari- ous intelligences. He then made allusion to difficulties about the cele- bration of Easter in the year 455, requesting the Emperor to see that no divergence grew up between the Roman and the Eastern date of celebration. He deplored the omission of the passage reproving Ana- tolius’ ambition in the letter read to the recent synod at Constan- tinople, but showed himself willing to renew friendly relations on condition that some formal withdrawal of the claims based on the ‘twenty-eighth canon’ be made.
This latter willingness the Pope renewed in a further letter to the Emperor answering a complaint that he had shown no benevolence to Anatolius by communicating directly with him. The Pope assured the Emperor it was completely the bishop’s own fault since he had consistently failed to answer Leo’s correspondence, and had still to give the Pope some reassurance in regard to his attitude towards the accusation of ambition brought against him.?+
This outspoken remonstrance on the Pope’s part had an immediate effect. In the course of May 454, a letter arrived from Anatolius.25 The latter showed himself pained at Leo’s failure to write to him; he re-
SEQUEL TO THE COUNCIL 11]
assured the Pope in regard to the clearance of Aetius. Finally he made reference to the subject causing all the difficulty.
“The fault is not mine,” he wrote, “who from my earliest days am one who has loved peace and repose in modest humility. It is the clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager for this pro- posal, and were supported by the most reverend bishops of those provinces, who were in agreement with them. Even so, the validation of their acts and their confirmation was altogether reserved to Your Holiness’ authority. Let Your Holiness then be assured that this busi- ness was not of my doing, who have always believed myself as avoiding all desire of boastfulness and cupidity.”
Anatolius’ letter was composed with care and an eye to the temper of the See of Rome. Yet it scarcely concealed the one relevant fact that the ‘twenty-eighth canon’ was actually in effect. Nor was Leo deceived by it, though he answered it most generously.2” The Pope stated plainly that he would have had the same confidence in Anatolius’ zeal for the faith and the Nicene discipline, that he had in his predecessors —in the teaching of John Chrysostom, in the authority of Atticus, in the zeal of Proclus, and in the faith of Flavian, if attempts had not been made to upset the system established by Nicaea. When he had received no reply to his letters, he had naturally concluded that Ana- tolius was ill-disposed in the matter. Now, however, he rejoiced that through the intervention of the Emperor the breach had been healed. He was happy over the restoration of Aetius. He suggested that Andrew and Eufrates, another accuser of Flavian, be ordained to the priesthood if they made a full profession of faith repudiating both Nestorius and Eutyches, Referring to the explanation offered by Anatolius with regard to the usurpation of power in the ‘twenty- eighth canon’, Leo suggested that the proposal could never have been made without Anatolius’ approval. But he was satisfied now that the bishop of Constantinople was opposed to it. ‘Let the limits suffice,” he concluded, “‘which the foresight of the canons approved by the holy fathers have defined.” And he suggested a close co-operation between Anatolius and Julian in favor of the Nicene discipline.
Shortly before the receipt of Anatolius’ letter a long heralded letter from Proterius of Alexandria had arrived. It was brought by Nestor- ius, an Egyptian bishop who was himself an avid supporter of the council, and was accompanied by a covering letter from Marcian. In his reply, Leo assured Proterius of the accuracy of the doctrine con- tained in his Tome which was fully concurrent with the teaching of Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril.27 He promised unfailing support in favor of the rights of the Alexandrine See, and made it plain that the Egyptian bishops were to give their full obedience to Proterius as
112 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
their “patriarch.” To the Emperor he now suggested that Julian be instructed to prepare a new Greek translation of the council’s Defini- tion of Faith which should be sent directly to Egypt under the Emperor’s seal. Finally, the Pope wrote a letter to Juvenal of Jeru- salem reinforcing his insistence upon the full orthodoxy of the Tome, and making an appeal to the sacred sites of Palestine as further evidence for the reality of the Lord’s humanity.
EPILOGUE
Far removed from the Church in the East by distance, and the difficulty of communication, Leo could not appreciate the deep schism that opposition to the council had occasioned in Egypt and Syria. Preoccupied as he was with the legitimacy of claims regarding the Patriarchal Sees, partially obsessed with what he considered the ambi- tion and vanity of the Bishop of Constantinople, he could not ap- preciate the far vaster cataclysm that had descended upon the oriental half of the Church, and that by awakening the nationalistic conscious- ness and resentment of these subject peoples, and offending their sense of reverential awe in dealing with the all but unapproachable deity, gave full headway to the fanatical monks and bishops who were in- tent upon leading the church there into the heresy of Monophysitism. Having prevailed in the dogmatic sphere, Leo could not grasp the fact that the social and political factors would eventually undo all he had so laboriously accomplished.
Meanwhile, the Emperor Marcian was beginning to manifest the effects of age. Pulcheria had already passed on to eternity. She was to be followed by her consort in January 457. For a time, however, the aged emperor could regard with satisfaction the measure of suc- cess which appeared to reward his efforts to maintain ecclesiastical unity in his realm. Not on the immediate scene in Egypt and Syria, he felt that his imperial forces had finally suppressed the forces pro- ductive of schism, and that, as a consequence, the council’s work had been successful not only in the dogmatic sphere but also in caring for the well-being of Christendom in the East.
Unfortunately, Marcian’s dreams of imperial and ecclesiastical peace proved groundless. His death in 457 was rather the occasion for an immediate outbreak in Alexandria where the Monophysite monk, Timothy Aelurus (the Cat) usurped the Patriarchal See, and the Patriarch Proterius who adhered to the canons of Chalcedon, was eventually massacred. These incidents were followed by similar out- breaks in Syria, where Peter the Fuller took over the bishopric of Antioch; and the Monophysite epidemic spread to Palestine and Edessa. In twenty-five years of repression by imperial force, the cause of Chalcedon simply could not be maintained. For a moment all
SOURCES 113
seemed lost when a pro-Monophysite, Basilicus, usurped the imperial throne. But matters took a more hopeful turn in 477, when he was replaced by the Catholic emperor Zeno. Such turnovers, however, hardly made for doctrinal peace or imperial unity.
The history of the next hundred years is, then, a complicated see- sawing between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism that defies synthesis, but which, involving in turn the imperial power, papal intransi- geance, and a fanatical combination of doctrinal and nationalistic aberrations on the part of the great Churches in the East, in the words of Philip Hughes: “taught the East how to be Catholic without the Pope ... and set the pattern for the great schism which endures to this day.”
Chalcedon was a most remarkable event in ecclesiastical and world history. On the doctrinal plane it served as the catalytic element that _assured posterity of the orthodox and unexceptional view of the hypostatic union between the two natures in Christ. But from a political standpoint, it was a cataclysm whose divisive reverberations disturb even our own world today, though the ideological crisis of our times is far removed from such sublime matters as the theological core of the Incarnation.
SOURCES
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon have come down to us in their entirety in an ancient Greek version edited at the behest of the Emperor Marcian soon after the council’s close, and preserved in two principal Greek manuscripts with some fourteen subsidiary documents including several collections of letters written both immediately before and immediately after the council. The Letters and Acts of the coun- cil have likewise been preserved in three principal Latin versions, the first of which appears to have been composed during the first half of the sixth century, and the other two in connection with the difficulties over the Three Chapters and the Council of Constantinople of 553. All of these documents, letters, and acts have recently been edited in a definitive manner by Eduard Schwartz—a truly Herculean task—in his Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (ACO) Tome II, Vols. I-VI (Berlin and Leipzig, 1933-1938).
It seems that in the beginning of 450, Pope Leo ordered the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople (held in November, 448), and those of the Synod of Ephesus (August, 449), together with the documents and letters pertinent to these gatherings to be collected together, _ translated into Latin, and published along with his Tome to Flavian. These form the body of documents known as the Collectio Novariensis de re Eutychis.
114 PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Immediately after the close of the Council of Chalcedon, the Em- peror Marcian dispatched two legates—Bishop Lucian of Bizenum and the deacon Basil—who brought to Rome the Acts of the council to- gether with the Allocution of Marcian and the Letter of the Bishops to Leo.? Unfortunately, neither Leo nor his advisors could handle Greek well; hence these documents were deposited in the papal archives and remained practically unused for the next hundred years. Meantime, Leo’s own legates returned giving the Pope an oral account of the council’s proceedings. The legates’ information thus supple- mented those sections of the conciliar acts which were recorded origi- nally in Latin, such as the condemnatory sentence passed against Dioscorus by Paschasinus in the third session, the Allocution of Marcian of the sixth, the Definition of Faith, and brief sections from the second and sixth sessions together with those having to do with Maximus and Juvenal, and Domnus of Antioch—all of which, it would seem, Leo had excerpted from the Acta.’
Prompted by the agitation of the partisans of Dioscorus and the enemies of the council in both Constantinople and Palestine, as well as by his difficulties with the Pope over the ‘Privileges granted to Constantinople’, Marcian, in late 454 or early 455, had the Greek acts of the council edited and published. With the intention of demonstrating the agreement of the Emperor and the council against the Pope, the acts of the council were now rearranged in three prin- cipal sections: the first dealt with the abolition of the decrees of the Second Council of Ephesus, and the deposition of Dioscorus; the second contained the discussions regarding the faith and the canons of the council; and the third was given over to the particular cases dealt with in the remaining sessions. Thus the third action wherein the case of Dioscorus was completed was shifted into the second place; and the discussions regarding Carosus and Dorotheus, Domnus of Antioch, and Photius and Eustathius, were simply omitted.®
The reason for this three-fold division was the series of letters and constitutions that were added to the Acts. In the first place, as a sort of preface to the conciliar proceedings, a corpus of letters was prefixed that would give the impression that immediately after the unhappy doings at Ephesus in 449, not only Pope Leo but also the Emperor Valentinian, his mother Placidia and his wife Eudoxia had agitated for a new general council that would be held in Italy and would reverse the Ephesian decisions; that Theodosius had rejected the idea; but that Marcian and Pulcheria, following the lead of their imperial cousins, had taken the initiative by deciding to hold the council in the Orient. The Appeal of Flavian and Leo’s Tome were included, but the Letter of Leo to Theodosius, suggesting a council be held in Italy, was mutilated particularly in the section where Leo quoted the
SOURCES 115
canons of Nicaea-Sardica regarding the position of the See of Con- stantinople.®
The second collection of letters was inserted after the Second actio and contained Leo’s letters in reference to Eutyches, and those between himself, Anatolius, and Marcian, that immediately followed the Coun- cil of Chalcedon: they were concerned primarily with the faith.? The third series included the council’s allocution to Marcian, its Letter to Leo, and several letters of the Emperor enforcing the decrees of the council.8
Despite the interpolations and omissions, however, and the now somewhat obvious angling of the original edition of the conciliar acts, Eduard Schwartz maintains that, substantially, the acts as we now have them are authentic and complete.® This is due in part to a twist of fate, and in part to the zealous care of the Latin redactors; in particular, to the monk Rusticus, who though the nephew of Pope Vigilius, was excommunicated and exiled by the latter for his strenu- ous defense of the Three Chapters, but who, shortly before the death of Justinian [A.D. 565], managed to enter the monastery of Acoemetae on the Bosphorus outside of Constantinople. ‘There he found a com- plete Latin version of the acts and accompanying documents which he was able to collate with several Greek versions and other pertinent manuscripts, completing his edition with various informative ‘notes.'¢
The version achieved by Rusticus in Latin was the third such collection in a direct line made, it seems, from a text exactly similar to the original Greek version deposited in Rome with Leo. The first of these Latin versions was at least begun in the time of Pope Hor- misdas (514-523), and completed during the reign of Pope Vigilius (537-555); it was corrected by a redactor shortly before or after the Council of Constantinople II (553); and the final redaction by Rusticus somehow or other made its way to the court of Charlemagne whence it has come down to our times.11 Meanwhile the Greek edition of Marcian’s authorization was likewise worked over by some competent scribes in the course of the seventh century, and completed with the cases of Photius and Eustathius, and those of Carosus and Dorotheus, that had been omitted from the first.edition. ‘This recension has come down to us in two codices cited by Schwartz as M (Venetus 555) and B (Vindobonensis hist. gr. 27) and has now been used as the primary source of his Greek version.”
Strangely, the most ancient portion of the Greek text that we possess comes to us from the camp of the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon. This collection (Collectio Vaticana 1431: R) was made by Peter Mongus, Patriarch of Alexandria after the Henoticon of Zeno (published in 482) and contained, besides the ‘Definition of Faith’ of the Council and the canons, Leo’s Tome to Flavian, and a copy of
116
PETER SPEAKS THROUGH LEO
Leo’s letter (ep. 104) to the Emperor Leo written in 458.13 A final source for the canons and documents is to be found in the various collections of canons beginning with that of Dionysius Exiguus made in Rome about 500, and in what is called the Prisca canonum editio latina of the same origin and period."
These various Acts and Collections of Canons and Letters have been edited by E. Schwartz, thus:
ACO II,
ACO ABAW
AGGW BAS
DACL DThC EO JK
I, 1: Epistolarum collectiones M and H; Actio I [Greek version].
2: Actio II, Epistolarum collectio B, Actiones III-VI. 8: Actiones VIII-XVII, 18-31. |
II, 1: Collectio Novariensis de re Eutychis. 2: Collectio Vaticana.
III, 1: Epistularum ante Gesta Collectio. Actio I [Latin
version of Rusticus]. 2: Actiones II-VI. 3: Actiones VII-XVI. Allocutio ad Marcianum.
IV, 1: Collectiones Leonis Papae I Epistularum (113 plus 2 appendices).
2: Collectio Grimanica. V, 1: Codex Encyclicus (457). 2: Collectio Sangermanensis. VI, 1: Prosopographia et topographia actorum Chal- cedonensium et Encyclicorum; Indices. ABBREVIATIONS Ed. Schwartz, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, Berlin and Leipzig, 1914 ff. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich.
Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen’ Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich.
Dictionnaire d’Archéologie chrétienne et de Liturgie, Paris. Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique, Paris.
Echos d’Orient, Paris.
Ph. Jaffe—F. Kaltenbrunner, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885-1888.
NOTES 117
RHE Revue d’ histore eccelésiastique, Louvain. ZntW Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen.
Jalland T. Jalland, The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, London, 1941.
Manior H. du Manior de Juaye, Dogme et Spiritualité chez Saint Cyrille d’ Alexandrie, Paris, 1944.
Tillemont L. de Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a V'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers stécles, 16 vols., 3rd ed., Venice, 1732.
NOTES* Chapter One
*In modern times these events have been described by A. Harnack, Lehr- buch der Dogmengeschichte II (3rd ed., Tuebingen, 1910), pp. 346ff.; L. Duchesene, Early History of the Church (English transl., 1925; reprinted, New York, 1948), 3, 271-315; Hefele-Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles (Paris, 1908), II, 219ff.; B. Kidd, History of the Church to 461 A.D. (Oxford, 1922), 3, 315ff.; C. Dawson, The Making of Europe (London, 1932), pp. 128-129, 179-180.
* Quoted in C. Dawson, op. cit., pp. 110-111.
*H. du Manoir de Juaye, Dogme et spiritualité chez S. Cyrille d’Alex- andrie (Paris, 1944). See in particular, his bibliography, pp. 538-551.
*Cyril, ep. (ed. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 108-109).
°Cf. T. Jalland, The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great (London, 1941).
* J. Cassian, De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium, CSEL 17, 233ff.
"Cf. A. Willie, Bischof Julian von Kios (Kempten, 1909). Willie favors Chios in Bithynia as Julian’s bishopric because of its proximity to the Capital, in preference to the island of Cos. Jalland (pp. 235-36) accepts Willie’s contention; but it is rejected by T. Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalkedon, (Rome, 1938), p. 6, n.4.
*Cf. Jalland, pp. 273ff.
*In all, nineteen imperial officials presided at the council: seven high Magistrates headed by Anatolius, Palladius, and Tatian, and twelve Senators.
” Cf. Theopistus, Hist. de Dioscore (ed. M. Nau, Journal asiatique, X, 1, Paris, 1903); Jalland, pp. 207 ff., 232, 237-48, 286, 293-97, 373; P. Martin, Le pseudosynode connu sous le nom du brigandage d’Ephése, (Paris, 1875); Theodoret, ep. 86 (PG 83, 1280); Leo, ep. 9 (JK 409); J. Fleming, Die Syrische Akten der Ratibersynode, AGGW XV, 118ff.; F. Haare, ’Dioskur nach monophysit. Quellen’, Kirchengesch. Abh. hr. v. M. Sdralek, 6 (1908), pp. 145-233.
4 See E. Schwartz, "Der Prozess des Eutyches’, SBAW (Munich, 1929), fasc. 7, 1-93; J. Draguet, ‘La Christologie d’Eutyches’, Byzantion, 6 (1931), 441-457.
2 The Letter of the Council to Leo (Inter Leon. epp. 98, 1: ACO II, II, 355) mentions 520 bishops as taking part in the council; Leo himself speaks of about 600 (ep. 102, 2: ACO II, 4, 53); and E. Schwartz remarks that all the conciliar lists are, with the exception of those in the second session,
* These notes are confined mainly to bibliographical indications.
118 NOTES
mere repetitions of one standard list. In the voting at the council, after the metropolitans signified their vote, those of four or five suffragans were likewise listed in writing, then the rest voted by acclamation. Cf. his Bis- choflisten von Chalkedon, Nicaea, Konstantinopel; ABAW (Munich, 1937).
Chapter ‘Two
"The acts of Ephesus are edited by E. Schwartz in ACO I, 1-5 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1926-29); cf. G. Bardy, Histoire’ de l’Eglise, 4 (Fliche-Martin, Paris, 1937), 177-197; V. Grummel, ‘Le Concile d’Ephése’, EO (1931), 292-313.
*Cf. Manoir, pp. 141-143; Franses, ‘Cyrille au Concile d’Ephése’, Studia Catholica, 7 (Nijmegen, 1931), 369-398.
* Cf. ‘Eutychianisme’ DThc V, 1602f; J. Lebon, Le Monophysisme sévérien (Louvain, 1909).
*“Jalland, 205-214; R. Devreesse, ‘Aprés le Concile d’Ephése’, EO 30 (1930), 271-292.
*PG 83, 27-318: also entitled ‘Polymorphus’ (the man of many shapes). Monophysitism is pictured as a beggar who, as it were, has begged. together his opinions from many former heresies. Cf. L. Saltet, ‘Les sources de l’Eranistes de Theodoret’, RHE, 6 (1905), pp. 293-303, 513-536.
1 PG) 8S, 153,
‘Cited by Facundus of Hermiana, Pro defensione trium capitulorum, viii, 5 (PL 67, 723f.). To resolve the problem of the unity of Christ, Apollinaris of Laodicea had suppressed the intelligence and free will in the human na- ture of Christ, maintaining that the Word of God upon assuming His humanity supplied these functions in His divine Person.
* Theodoret, ep. 82 (PG 83, 1264f.); cf. Cod. Just. I, 3.
* Theodoret, ep. 110 (PG 83, 1305).
“Cf. V. Grumel, Les regestes des Actes du Patriarchat de Constantinople I, 1 (Constantinople, 1932), nn. 96 and 97; ACO II, I, 375-396.
“ ACO, ibid.; see below, Chapter 8.
” Theodoret, ep. 86 (PG 83, 1277-80); cf. P. Martin, Actes du Brigandage d’Ephése (Amiens, 1874), p. 142.
*Leo, ep. 24 (ACO II, II, 1): sollicitudinem tuam ex hac parte nobis placuisse rescribimus .... unde non ambigis auctorem catholicae fidei dominium tibi in omnibus affuturum, nos autem cum plenius quorum hoc improbitate fiat, potuerimus agnoscere, necesse est auxiliante domino providere quatenus nefandum virus dudumque damnatum radicitus possit extingui.
* Cf. Actio I, nn. 230-238 (ACO II, Il, 79ff.). For previous relations be- tween Eusebius and the archimandrite, see Nestorius, The Bazaar of Hera- clides (Eng. trans. G. Driver, L. Hodgson, Oxford, 1925) pp. 337ff; Manoir, pp. 470ff.
* Cf. Jalland, pp. 214-217. The acts of this council were read in the first session at Chalcedon (ACO II, III, 77ff.)
* Actio I, nn. 512-527 (ACO II, Il, p.. 125-126),
* Ibid., pp. 126-128. On the part played by Florentius, see J. Draguet, ’La christologie d’Eutyches’, Byzantion 6 (1931), pp. 441f£., n. 2.
* Cf, Jalland, pp. 218-222; cf. Leo, ep. 27 (ACO IL, U, p. 9): opportunita-
NOTES 119
tem repperimus, indicamus . . . quam apud vos pravo dolemus errore com- motam, et quam aliter de fide quam convenit, hic qui dudum religiosi videbatur propositi esse, sentiret, quem a traditione catholica non decuerat deviate io. 3)'s
“Cf. Martin, Actes, pp. 4, 5: Ibas later complained of this treatment at Chalcedon (ACO II, III, 455ff.).
” Cf. Jalland, pp. 224-225; Martin, Actes, pp. 1-4.
* Liberatus, Breviarium 11 (PL 68, 1001); Nestorius, Bazaar, p. 343.
* For Leo’s Tome see below, Chapter 4.
**'The acta of this council were recited at length in the first session at Chalcedon (ACO IJ, III, 121-197); a large portion of them are preserved in Syriac (ed. J. Fleming, AGGW, XV, Berlin 1917); French trnsl. by P. Martin, Le pseudosynode connu sous le non du brigandage d’Ephése (Paris, 1875); further details in Liberatus, Breviartum 12, and Nestorius, Bazaar, pp. 345-362.
* Cf. Jalland, pp. 237-240.
* AOL, IU, p. 9122-125.
* ACO II, III, 238-240. At the First Council of Ephesus, Cyril of Alexan- dria had used the same technique to trap Charisius and Nestorius (cf. ACO I, I, 4, xviii f.) Dioscorus was taking a page from his predecessor’s book.
* Cf. Martin, Actes, pp. 12-82.
* Ibid. pp. 82-129.
* Ibid., pp. 130-150.
° Cf. Jalland, pp. 243-246. For the liber appellationis of Flavian and Eusebius to Leo, see T. Mommsen, Neues Archiv XI, (1886), 362-367.
* Leo, ep. 95, 2 (ACO II, IV, 51): quidquid in illo Ephesino non judicio, sed latrocinio, potuit perpetrari. Adopted by ‘Theophanes in his Chrono- graphia (5941: PG 108, 261), the name ‘latrocinium’ has. survived in his- tory.
“Cf. Jalland, pp. 246-253, 263-268.
8 Ibid., pp. 269-272. Leo wrote three letters concerning the matter: to the Emperor, to Pulcheria, and to the archimandrites of Constantinople, (re- spectively epp. 69, 70 and 71: ACO II, IV, 30-31, 29-30 and 31-32).
* Cf. Jalland, pp. 273-274.
* Marcian and Pulcheria had used the occasion of the arrival in Con- stantinople of the four Papal Legates, sent originally to Theodosius II with a copy of Leo’s Tome, which was supported by a florilegiwm of patristic testimonies, to force Bishop Anatolius to hold a local synod (synodos endemousa) wherein the Tome was accepted by the metropolitan and his suffragans, and the way prepared for the Council of Chalcedon. Cf. ACO II, I, 1 praef., xi. On the florilegium, see L. Saltet, ‘Les sources de |’Eranis- tes de Theodoret’, RHE, 6 (1905), 290ff.
* Cf. Grumel, Les regestes, n. 116; Jalland, pp. 275-282.
Chapter Three
1Cf. L. Duchesne, Early History of the Church, UI, 430ff.; B. Kidd, History of the Church to 461, Ill, 315f. * The letters officially announcing the council, then causing it to be trans-
120 NOTES
ferred from Nicaea to Chalcedon are nn. 30-35 of the Epistolarum ante Gesta collectio (ed. ACO II, III, 1, Berlin, 1935, 19-23).
*Evagrius, Hist. eccl. 2, 3 (ed. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier, London, 1899); cf. “Chalcédoine,” DACL, IV, 91-94.
*Leo, ep. 89, dated June 24, 451 (ACO II, IV, 48); likewise in his letter to the council itself, he informed the bishops: in his fratribus ... qui ab apostolica sede directi sunt, me synodo vestra fraternitas aestimet praesidere, non abjuncta a vobis praesentia mea, qui nunc in vicariis meis adsum et iam dudum in fidei catholicae praedicatione non desum ... ep. 93 (ACO II, IV, 52.).
*'The acta of this session are edited in ACO II, I, 55-196; II, III, 27-259 (Latin version based on Rusticus).
* ACO II, III, pp. 41-42; cf. Duchesne, Early History, II, 431.
“ACO II, II, pp. 43-44; cf. Schwartz, AGGW, 16, 2, 4.
* ACO, II, III, pp. 44-45.
°* ACO, II, III, 46-49; cf. Schwartz, AGGW, 16, 4.
* ACO II, III, 49-50.
“ ACO II, III, 50-51.
* Ibid., 52-60.
* Ibid., 60-66.
“Ibid., 67. Eutyches had added: Eos autem qui dicunt erat, quando non erat, et antequam nasceretur non erat, et quia nullis ex extantibus factus est, aut ex alia subsistentia vel essentia dicentes esse aut convertibilem aut mutabilem filium dei, hos anathematizat catholica et apostolica ecclesia.
* Ibid., 67-68.
* Tbid., 68: Basilius: Rogavimus eum tunc, sicut memorat domnus Eusebius et Sozon Philippensis, ut diceret modum incarnationis et humanae as- sumptionis, si secundum assumptionem carnis scit deum verbum factum hominem, et iusserunt non investigaturum dimitti istud et non susceperunt prosecutionem nostram.
“Ibid., 70: Quod dicebam in duabus naturis cognoscendum post aduna- tionem, deitate perfecta et humanitate perfecta, namque unam habebat ex patre ante saecula, alteram vero ex matre secundum carnem accipiens idem ipse uniit sibi secundum subsistentiam et vocatus est filius dei filius hominis.
* Ibid., 70-71.
*Tbid., 71-74. The statement of Eutyches read by Reronicianus said in part: sed secundum hanc fidem et vivens et permanens in orationibus, accusationem ex insidiis Eusebii episcopi Dorylaei sustinui libellos por- rigentis adversum me rev. 0 episcopo Flaviano et diversis aliis episcopis qui tunc pro privatis causis in urbe degebant regia, haereticum me iniuriose in eis vocantis, nullam autem speciem haereseos libellis inserentis, ut subito in altercationibus quaestionum lapsum linguae, sicut assolet, ex tumultu et novitate vocum perpessus inruerem in peccatum....
* Ibid., 74-80.
* Ibid., 80-91.
2TIbid., n. 261, 91-92: mecessarium est manifestum facere... quia praestitit deum beatae ... Cyrillo ut in vita ipsius dubitari de aliquibus
NOTES 121
quae ab eo scripta sunt ... sed aliis quibusdam praeparantibus de epistulis in praesenti perlectis . .. rursus necessitatem habuit magis autem audaciam
. Se ipsum interpretari suamque intentionem ostendere et palam omnibus facere per ea quae scripsit ad beatae . . . memoriae quondam episcopos Acacium Melitenae et Valerianum Iconii et Successum Diocaesariae Isauriae ‘provinciae, quomodo oportet intellegi et nuper lectas epistulas ... Actually the phrase “One incarnate nature of the Word God made flesh” was taken from the De Incarnatione Verbt ad Jovianum of Apollinaris, but was cir- culated under the name of Athanasius. Cf. Manoir, p. 474, for further ref- erences.
* ACO II, III, 92-94. Flavian’s confession: sapimus quia dominus noster Jesus Christus filius dei unigenitus deus perfectus et homo perfectus est ex anima rationali et corpore, ante omnia quidem saecula ex patre sine initio genitus secundum deitatem, in fine autem et in novissimis temporibus idem ipse propter nos et propter nostram salutem de Maria virgine natus secundum humanitatem, consubstantialis patri secundum deitatem et consubstantialis matri secundum humanitatem. Etenim ex duabus naturis confitemur Christum esse post incarnationem, in una subsistentia et in una persona unum Christum, unum dominum, unum filium confitentes.
* Tbid., 94-96.
* Ibid., 100.
* Tbid., 100-101.
* Tbid., 102-127.
*Ibid., 128. Flavian’s condemnation: Per omnia apparet Eutyches quondam presbyter et archimandrita et ex his quae ante acta sunt, et propriis eius confessionibus Valentini et Apollinaris perversitate aegrotans et eorum blasphemias incommutabiliter sequens, qui nec hostram reverens persuasion- em atque doctrinam rectis voluit consentire dogmatibus . . . unde lacrimantes et gementes perfectam eius perditionem decrevimus. On the actual Christological holdings of Eutyches, however, see J. Draguet, “Le christologie d’Eutyches, Byzantion, 6 (1931), 452ff.
* ACO II, III, 131-169. This business was a rereading of the whole series of acta of the synod at Constantinople of November 448 from minutes pre- served by Aetius and compared with those presented by the partisans of Eutyches. Cf. E. Schwartz, ‘Der Prozess des Eutyches’ BAS, 1929, n. 7.
® ACO II, III, 170-171.
* Ibid., 171-258. |
* This is the first recorded instance of the use of the Trisagion.
wl td... 158-159,
CHAPTER FOUR
1In the Greek version of the acts of the Council, edited at the behest of Emperor Marcian in 454 or so, the order of the second and third sessions was inverted: hence the actio dealing with the final condemnation of Dioscorus was located immediately after the first session, and the discussion of faith held in the second session was put in the third place. The whole document of the council’s acta was thus divided: a) Sessions I and II deal- ing with the condemnation of Dioscorus; b) Sessions III to VI dealing with
122 NOTES
matters of doctrine and the definition of faith; and c) Sessions VII to XVII treating of ecclesiastical regulations regarding individual bishops and dio- ceses.
When the versio antiqua or Latin version was re-edited by the monk Rusticus after 552, the original, chronological order was reverted to, and this is now followed by Schwartz in his edition of the Latin version: ACO II, III. On all this, see Schwartz, ACO II, I, praef. vii; and II, III, 2, praef. vi-vii.
*ACO I, Ill, pp. 262-265. The bishop of Nicomedia was selected as reader, since Nicaea was located in his episcopal province, and it was pre- sumed he would have an authentic copy of the Creed. The English version here follows J. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York, 1950), pp. 215-216.
7 ACO II, III, 265-266. The archdeacon of Constantinople was asked to read the Constantinopolitan creed for the same reason that the Nicaean creed was requested of the bishop of Nicomedia—to assure its authenticity. This is the first appearance of this creed in official documents. See, Kelly, pp. 296ff.
* ACO II, III, 266-273. The request for these letters was made by Aetius, evidently in an attempt to counter the insistence of the Imperial Com- missioners who were demanding a new formulation of the faith.
*On the part played by this profession in the fifth session of the Council, see my article ‘The Definition of Faith at Chalcedon, Theol. Studies, 12 (Dec., 1951); also, below, p. 124, n. 5.
*Leo’s Tome (ep. 28, to Flavian) had been written and originally dis- patched on June 13, 449; on July 16, 450, before plans for the new council had been laid, Leo sent four Legates to Constantinople in the hope that they might bring about ecclesiastical peace. He entrusted to them a copy of the Tome, to which he added a selection of patristic testimonies relating to Christological doctrine (ep. 71: JK 554). On this dossier, see L. Saltet, ‘Le recueil patristique de S. Leon’, RHE, 6 (1906), 290-295. This same dossier is appended to Leo’s ep. 165 (ed. ACO II, IV, 113-131).
The Greek version of the Tome (given in Schwartz, ACO II, I, 10-25) was made under the direction of Pulcheria late in 450. See Schwartz, ibid., praef., xiv-xvi. The Latin version is given in Collect. Novarien. de re Eutychis (ACO Il, V, ii, 24-33). The English translation here given is my own. .
* Regarding the ‘infallible’ character of the Tome, see Jalland, pp. 300-302; F. Connell, ‘St. Leo and Papal Infallibility’ in Reunion, 3 (1939), pp. 131-140. Connell maintains that the majority of Catholic theologians today hold for the infallibility of the papal teaching despite the contrary view of P. Batiffol, La Siége Apostolique (Paris, 1919), p. 509.
* This letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been cited previously at this same session. The passage from Leo and the parallel from Cyril are given in the Latin acta ACO II, III, 274-275.
* Ibid.
Y Tbtd. S275.
PLaids 216s
NOTES 123
CHAPTER FIVE
*In the Gr. Version, this session is listed as Actio II (ed. ACO II, I, 199-238); in the Latin it is Actio III (ACO II, III, 276-335).
* ACO II, III, 276-285.
*Ibid., 285-299.
*Ibid., 299-345. It is to be noted that Dioscorus was condemned for disciplinary rather than doctrinal reasons—for his obstinacy in failing to answer the charges against him. The sentence as passed on him by Pas- chasinus was given to Pope Leo in its Latin version (ed. ACO II, IV, 155- 156) and quoted by the Pope in a subsequent letter to the Bishops of Gaul (Ep. 102: JK 479, dated Jan. 27, 452).
WACOM TL VEL, 244,
*Ibid., 242-243. This is lacking in the Greek version.
"Ibid., 345-346: also lacking in the Greek version.
CHAPTER SIX
* The Latin version of the acta of this session are in ACO II, III, 361-387; the Greek version lists the statements of many of the bishops along with their subscription in declaring that the Tome of Leo agreed absolutely with the Nicaean Creed. Besides, the Greek version continues the actio regard- ing Dorotheus and Carosus (ACO II, I, 458-460), and also regarding Photius and Eustathius, (bid., 460-469).
* ACO II, III, 362-373. Bishop Sozon of Philippi later served on the commission that drew up the Definition of Faith. It would be interesting to know whether it was his influence that brought the three terms, asugchutos, atreptos, adiarretos into the definition. See below, p. 124, n. 5.
* ACO, II, Ill, 373-378. Cf. Jalland, pp. 295-296.
* ACO II, III, 378-387.
* This action exists only in the Greek version (ACO II, I, 458-460).
*This action is likewise preserved only in the Greek version (ibid., 460-469.
* Anatolius maintained that there was a custom sanctioning the calling of such councils to deal with local provincial and diocesan affairs, and that since Photius had refused to obey the ordinances of the one in which his difficulty had been settled, it was proper that he should have been excom- municated (ACO II, I, 466). Cf. P. Batiffol, La Siége Ap., p. 548.
*It is probable that the part Eustathius had played in the “Robber Council’ of Ephesus influenced this decision (ACO II, I, 466-469).
CHAPTER SEVEN
*The Latin version of the acta (ACO II, III, 387-397) indicate the presence of only 58 bishops; the Greek version (ACO I, I, 317-326) agrees.
-? Jalland maintains that Bishop Anatolius shared the presidency of this session with two of the Commissioners (p. 296, n. 36); but the imperial magistrate Anatolius was present and retained his position.
*Cf. Tillemont, XV, 205ff.
124 NOTES
* ACO II, III, 389-391.
*ACO II, II, 392-393. Cf. my article, ‘The Definition of Faith at Chalcedon’, Theological Studies, 12 (December, 1951), 505-519.
* ACO II, III, 393-397. The texts of both the Nicaean and Constanti- nopolitan creeds here quoted differ in several minor particulars from the text as quoted in the second session. E. Schwartz (Zntw, 25, 1926, 38ff.) maintains that the texts here quoted were deliberately modified at the request of the Emperor Marcian so as to be brought in closer harmony with each other; and he sees in such imperial dictation a further notch for his thesis of the ‘Caesar-dominated church’. J. Lebon reacts violently against such presuppositions (RHE, 32, 1936, 809ff.) and attempts to solve the problem by showing that the wording of each creed was never absolutely uniform in the several instances in which they are quoted outside the council. Cf. also J. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, pp. 296ff.
"The council’s ‘Allocution to Marcian’ is given in Greek in ACO II, I, 469-473; in Latin, ACO II, III, 553-558, followed in each instance by a florilegium of patristic texts supporting the council’s teaching. It quoted sentences from Basil, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen (2), Athanasius, Am- philochius, Antiochus, Flavian of Antioch, John Chrysostom, Atticus of Con- stantinople, Proclus, Cyril (4), and John of Antioch.
CHAPTER EIGHT
*The Greek version (ACO II, I, p. 326-354) lists 454 bishops at this session; the Latin (ACO II, III, p. 397-439) tallies 449. For the presence of the Empress Pulcheria, see Schwartz (ACO II, I, 3, praef. xxiii) where he corrects an earlier conjecture denying her presence (Festgabe A. Juelicher, Leipzig, 1927, pp. 11-12).
* The Greek version of Marcian’s allocution is given in ACO II, I, p. 335- 336; however, the original was delivered in Latin, which was still the official language of the Empire (ACO II, III, p. 409-410, and 410-411 two editions).
*Schwartz (ACO II, III, p. 413-415) repeats the creeds of Nicaea and of Constantinople together with the definition of Faith that were now read in the sixth session, giving them in the Latin version as copied a hundred years later by Pope Vigilius in his ep. 4, 2 (PL 69, 138ff.). Paschasinus, the Papal Legate, was the first to sign: synodo praesidens statui, consensi et suscripsi. The imperial confirmation:of the Definition of Faith was published immediately and later embodied in an edict of February 7, 452. Cf. Seeck, Regesten, p. 295.
*ACO II, II, p. 177-180. pa
*Ibid., p. 530-537, where they are listed as Actio XV; the Greek version following immediately on the sixth session is in ACO II, I, p. 354-359. On the several collections of the canons, see Schwartz ACO II, H, 2, praef. xili-xx, and p. 123-201; also IV, I, p. 127f.
*ACO II, Ill, p. 442-449. Cf. Schwartz's preface to this section, as also, ABAW, XXXII, 2. On Juvenal of Jerusalem, see the biography of this somewhat curious octogenarian written by E. Honigmann in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, #5 (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), p. 210-297.
* Maximus (A.D. 451-455), who had been selected bishop of Antioch and
NOTES 125
consecrated by Anatolius of Constantinople, later complained to Pope Leo against the decision reached in this session, and received an answer from the Pope in reference to the matter (Leo ep. 119: JK 495, dated June 11, 453). See, Jalland, p. 338-340; Schwartz, ABAW, XXXII, 2, p. 24ff. (NF, 13, p. 45).
*This Actio de Domno is edited in ACO II, III, p. 444-445; cf. praef., XIX-XX.
°ACO II, Ill, p. 449-454 (listed as actio viii). This action canonically recognized the restoration of Theodoret as bishop of Cyrus. He had been deposed by the ‘Robber Synod’ of Ephesus, but had been recognized as bishop by the Emperor Marcian soon after his elevation to the throne. Theodoret was later the recipient of a letter from Pope Leo in which the Pontiff, belatedly, congratulates him upon his vindication (ep. 120: JK 496, dated June 11, 453). Cf. Jalland, p. 340-341.
* ACO II, Wl, p. 370-375. Cf. Schwartz’s long discussion of these events in ACO II, I, 3, praef. xxiv-xxvii.
* ACO II, Ill, p. 459-491.
*Facundus, pro defensione trium capit. 5, 1 (PL 69, 712), quotes the decision given by Paschasinus: Cognovimus ex sententia reverentissimorum episcoporum Ibam reverentissimum episcopum innoxium demonstratum. Lecta enim eius epistula cognovimus eum esse orthodoxum et ob hoc decernimus et honorem ei episcopatus et ecclesiam de qua iniuste et absens expulsus est, instaurari.
* ACO II, III, p. 491-501.
*Ibid., p. 501-504.
* Ibid., p. 504-510.
* Ibid., p. 510-530.
“ACO II, I, p. 442-444. This Actio is not given in the Latin codices. It was first edited by the Ballerini brothers in Leonis epp. 2, 1491 (PL 54, 1240). Leo’s ep. 93 (JK 473) is edited in the Greek version by Schwartz as ep. 17 of the collectto M (ACO II, I, p. 31-32).
CHAPTER NINE
* ACO II, I, p. 445-458; II, I, p. 537-553 (listed as actzo 16 in this Latin version). On this session, see Schwartz, SBAW, 1930, 611ff.; also II, I, 3, praef. xxii, where he lists it as happening on Oct. 30; but the Papal Legates speak of the session (actio XIV) whence they departed before the matter of the privileges of Constantinople. came up, as taking place on ‘the previous day.’ Hence this actio XVII must have taken place on Oct. 31. Jalland (p. 303-310) believes that the whole series of canons of the Council were here discussed; but he is in error. It- was only the so-called ‘twenty- eighth’ canon that was at issue. On this designation see Schwartz, ACO II, II, 2, praef. xviii; Byzantion, 34 (1934), p. 132.
? Nos. 1-7: ACO II, I, p. 445-447; II, HI, p. 537-540. Fifty-eight bishops are listed as present at the session.
* Nos. 8-9: ACO II, I, p. 447-453; I, III, p. 541-547. On the list of bishops signing, see Schwartz, SBAW, 1930, p. 622ff.
*Nos. 10-12: ACO II, I, p. 453-454; II, III, p. 547-548. The objection offered by Lucentius to the effect that in giving the second place to Con-
126 NOTES
stantinople, the bishops were ignoring the sixth canon of Nicaea, and favor- ing the regulations of Constantinople in 381, indicate that the latter canons were little known, and not recognized in the West. The edicts of Theo- dosius I publishing the decisions of Constantinople (Cod. Theod. XVI, 1, 3) were directed only to the “greater churches of the East.” In A.D. 404, Pope Innocent I stated that at Rome no other canons than those of Nicaea- Sardica were recognized (ep. 5, JK 288). Yet in the first session of Chalcedon, when the minutes of the Synod of Ephesus were read (ACO II, I, p. 77-78) where it was indicated that Flavian of Constantinople had only been accorded the fifth place at that assembly, the bishops of the East and Paschasinus himself objected that “Here [at Chalcedon] we have given Anatolius the first place.” Diogenes of Cyzicus immediately observed: “This is because you know the canons!”—referring of course to the third canon of Constantinople. The Papal Legates were obviously at a disadvantage here, knowing that Leo would be inflexible in the matter. Cf. Caspar, Geschichte des Papstums I, p. 521; also C. Turner, Camb. Med. Hist. I, p. 180, where he remarks that the earliest eastern code of canon law was compiled in about 400 and that ‘the canons of Constantinople were the first appendix to this code.” But there is so far no date for this appendix.
* Nos. 10-18: ACO II, I, p. 453-455; II, II, p. 547-549.
®Nos. 19-33: ACO II, I, p. 455-456; II, III, p. 550-551. Eusebius of Dorylaeum had, after his deposition at Ephesus in 449, sent a letter to Pope Leo, and then journeyed to Rome himself, where he lived in exile for more than a year. He seems to have been the first to have brought notice of the third canon of Constantinople (381) to Pope Leo. In a letter to Bishop Anatolius of May 22, 452 (ep. 106, 4, JK 483), Leo states emphatically that such a canon had never been formally brought to the attention of the Holy See; hence it could not now be validated by a belated notification.
™ Nos. 34-47: ACO II, I, p. 456-458; II, II, p. 551-553. The session was brought to a close with the usual formula: anégnon, anégnomen, anégno.
‘Ed. ACO I, I, p. 475-477; I, II (two versions), p. 352-354, and 355-360 (the latter with a list of bishops subscribing). Cf. Jalland, p. 310-314.
CHAPTER TEN
*Marcian, ep. (ACO UI, I, p. 251-252: cf. ibid. 3, praef., xiii. Anatolius, ep. (PL 54, 976). .
? Cf. above, Sources, p. 114, and not 3.
*Leo, ep. 104, JK 481, dated May 22, 452; also ACO II, I, p. 254-256.
*Leo, ep. 105, JK 482.
*Leo, ep. 106, JK 483.
®Leo’s insistence upon the fact that the divine character of the decisions of Nicaea continues in the application of its canons in the Church is similar to his contention that St. Peter lived on in the authority of the See of Rome. Cf. Jalland, p. 326-328.
7 Leo, ep. 107, JK 484.
® Ep. Ravenii (Inter Leonis Epp. 99: PL 54, 966); Leo’s answer (Ep. 102, JK 479, of Jan. 27, 452) informed his Gallic correspondents of the achieve- ments of the council and of the deposition of Dioscorus: ep. Eusebit (Inter
NOTES 27
Eeosepp. 97: Pls 54) 945).
* Honigmann, ‘Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem,’ Dumb. Oaks Papers, 5, p. 253-262, citing Zach. Rhet. H.E. III, 3; Leo, ep. 117, JK 493, to Julian, March 21, 453.
® Julian’s letter is known from Leo’s reply (ep. 109, JK 486, Nov. 25, 452).
“Leo, ep. 111, JK 487, March 10, 453.
mLeo, ep. 112, JK 488.
peo, ep, 113, [K 489.
“See above, Sources, p. 114, and note 3.
PAGO: TT p.:257:
Tse0, epi 1 f,: [K 487:
* ACO II, I, p. 257-258, JK 490.
* ACO II, I, p. 258-259, JK 491.
* Leo, ep. 116 and 117, JK 492 and 493.
seen, ep. 118, JK 494.
* Maximus’ letter is known from Leo’s reply, ep. 119, JK 495. Maximus evidently appended a copy of the Actio at Chalcedon involving himself and Juvenal. Cf. Schwartz, ABAW 32, 2, p. 24; N.F. 13, p. 45; also ACO II, III, 3, praef., p. xx.
leo, ep: 120, JK 496.
* Leo, epp. 123 and 124, JK 499 and 500.
‘Leo, 6p. 427, JK 503, Jan. °10,'454.
* Inter Leon. epp., 132: PL 54, 1082. Cf. Grumel, Regesten, No. 133.
* Leo, ep. 135, JK 509, March 29, 454.
* Leo, ep. 129, JK 505, March 10, 464.
* ACO II, I, p. 259-261, JK 514, Sept. 4, 454.
SOURCES
* ACO II, II, I praef.
POL AC OUI 4, 3, paret:, p.,-Xiil,
* Writing to his Legate, Julian of Chios on March 11, 453 (Ep. 60) Leo confesses: ‘““We have but a very poor idea of the synodal proceedings that took place in the city of Chalcedon on each day because of the difference of language; hence we enjoin your fraternity specially that you have the whole gathered together in one codex, and done into Latin in the best trans- lation possible (absolutissima interpretatione), so that we may no longer have doubts about any part of the proceedings .. .” Cf. ACO II, Il, 1, praef, p. v; also Leo’s ep. ad Theodoretum (ep. 71: p. 80, 35).
* ACO II, I, 1, praef., x-xii; 3 praef. xxiii.
* ACO II, I, 3, praef., p. xxii.
*ACO II, I, 1, praef., p. x-xi. On the mutilation of Leo's letter see Schwartz, ZntW, 30 (1931), p. 34; also ACO II, IV, praef., p. Xxiil.
"ACO IL, I, 2, praef., ix-xii. Among these letters were included those of Anatolius and Marcian written on Dec. 18, 451, as an official notification to Leo of the council’s accomplishments (epp. 15 and 16), and Leo’s responses of May 22, 452 (epp. 17 and 18); Marcian’s letter to Leo of Feb. 15, 453, and Leo’s letter to the council of March 21, 453; and his letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem of Sept. 4, 454. Also included was the letter written by Theo-
128 NOTES
doret to Dioscorus in 448, giving an account of his faith (Cf. Schwartz, SBAW 5, 1929, p. 60ff.).
* Also included were the constitution of Marcian after the council, rein- forced on March 13, 452; the constitution in favor of the memory of Flavian; a second constitution against Eutyches, of July 18, 452; the imperial letter to the archimandrites of Jerusalem written by Pulcheria, and to those of Alexandria by Marcian, also to those of Mt. oma and Palestine. Cf. ACO II, I, 3, praef., p. xvi-xxii.
* ACO II, I, 3, praef., xxiii-xxiv: maximam sane gestorum Chalcedonen- sium partem pro solido firmoque fundamento historiae habendam esse apud omnes prudentes peritosque constat constabitque .. .
* ACO II, III, 1 praef. xi-xii; 2 praef., v-vii; 3 praef., xii-xxiii. Cf. also ABAW 832, 2, p. 13ff.
“ Discussing the difficulties of tracing these translations to their origin, Schwartz warns: “I once thought that the primary Latin version had been made in Rome shortly after the canonical collection of Dionysius, and said so, sed in his rebus tot diversa dispersaque consideranda sunt, ut diem dite doceri memores esse debeamus neque quicquam tam anxie vitare quam pertinaciam in errore.”
* ACO II, I, 2, praef. xxviii; 1, praef. v-vil.
* ACO II, Il, 2; and II, I, 2, praef. vi. See also ABAW 32, p. 6ff.
* Tbid., vi-ix; also ZntW, 25 (1926), 73; and ACO II, IH, 1 praef.
Index
Abundantius, Bp., 103
Acacius of Ariarathia, 57, 66
Acta of Chalcedon, vi, 105, 113-116
Aetius, deac., 30, 31, 45, 54, 56, 57, 58, 68, 69, 75, 80, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111
Africa, 3, 10
Agorastus, 60
Alaric, 3
Alexander, priest, 69, 70
Alexandria, viii, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 46, 58, 59, 65, 94, 96, 102, 103, 104, 105, 111, 112; clerics of, 58, 61, 62
Ambrose, St., 78
Amphilochius of Side, 85
Ananius, bp., 64
Anastasius of Nicaea, 89
Anatolius, bp., 23, 24, 55, 56, 57, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 87, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 115, 123, 125, 126
Andrew, archd., 104, 105, 111
_ Antichrist, 51
Antioch, viii, ix, 4, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 46, 72, 73, 84, 86, 94, 102, 108, 110, 112; bishops of, 75; Council of, 68, 70, 90; School of, ix
Apollinaris, 7, 118, 121
Apollinarism, 14
Archimandrites, 10, 19, 20, 23, 66, 67, 68, 70, 107, 119
Arianism, 3
Arius, 65, 103
Asebes, 21
Armenians, 4
Asia, 95, 97; bps. of, 73, 88, 94
Asturius, 53
Athanasian creed, 3
Athanasian formula, 7, 13, 111
Athanasius, St., 78, 107, 111, 12]
Athanasius of Perrha, 90
Athanasius, priest, 59-60
Atticus of Epirus, 54, 111
Atticus of Zela, 57
Attila, 3, 18
Augustine, St., 3
Bardy, G., 118 Barsauma, 18, 19, 67-68 Basianius of Ephesus, 87-89 Basil, deac., 101, 114 Basil, priest, 24 Basiliscus, 113
Basil of Ancyra, 57, 64 Basil of Seleucia, 120 Basil of Thrace, 75 Basil the Great, 78 Batiffol, P., 122, 123
“Begotten”, 3
Beronicianius, 63, 74, 80, 81, 92, 93, 120 Bithynia, 45, 75, 89
Boniface, 8, 24, 56, 90, 93, 97, 100
Caesarea in Syria, 7
Canons, 81-83, 113, 114
Cappadocia, 108
Carosus, 66, 67, 68, 70, 114, 115, 123
Caspar, E., 126
Cassian, 8, 117
Catholic Church, 45, 52, 61
Cecropius of Sebastopolis, 44, 57, 66, 71, 74
Celestine, 6, 7, 11, 44, 75
Chaereas, 18
Chalcedon, vii, viii, ix, 56, 62, 74, 75, 81, 99, 100, 104, 106, 107, 109, 112, 113, 118, 119, 120, 125, 126; Council of, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 60, 61, 62, 63, 79, 95, 104, 108, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 126, 127
Charlemagne, 115
Charmosynus, 62
Christianity, 4
Christology, 3, 7, 8, 10, 91
Chrysaphius, 9, 10, 14, 18, 24, 59
Chrysologus, Peter, 17
Clement, St., 53
Collectio novariensis, 113, 116
Connell, F., 122
Constantine, 79, 80, 89, 99
Constantine, deac., 29-32, 65, 90, 94
Constantine of Bostra, 57, 75
Constantinople, viii, ix, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 47, 55, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 70, 81, 82, 89, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 112, 114, 115, 118; Council of, 16, 75, 77, 88, 93, 94, 97, 99; Creed of, 45, 63, 69, 76, 123, 124; Synod of, 10, 17, 24, 46, 47, 70, 71, 86, 110, 113, 121
Creed, Apostles’, 47, 48, 51
Cyril, St., vii, viii, ix, 4, 5-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 44, 45, 46, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 68, 75, 78, 83, 84, 86, 88, 91, 104, 108, 109, 111, 117, 119-128; Letter of, 46-47, 54
Cyrus of Anazarbia, 75
Damasus, Pope, 78
Daniel of Carrhae, 15, 22
Dawson, C., 117
Deaconesses, 82
Definition of Faith, vii, 63, 72, 75-77, 97, 99, 106, 109, 112, 114, 115, 122, 123, 124
devil, the, 48, 49, 96, 99
Devreesse, R., 118
129
130
Diogenes of Cyzicus, 67, 74, 126
Dionysius Exiguus, 81, 116
Dioscorus, vili, ix, 9-10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30-35, 44-53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 72, 73, 74, 80, 90, 99, 100, 104, 106, 109, 110, 114, 119
dogma, 4
Dogmatic Tome, (see: Leo, Letter of)
Domnus of Antioch, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 84, 86, 90, 101, 108, 114, 117, 119, 122, 126
Dorotheus, 66, 67, 69, 114, 115, 123
Draguet, J., 117, 118, 121
duality of natures, viii
Duchesne, L., 117, 119, 120
Easter, 110
Edessa, 14, 18, 23; clerics of, 86-87, 112
Egypt, viii, ix, 6, 9, 10, 44, 94, 104, 110, 111, 112; bishops of, 4, 28, 55, 56, 58, 65, 66
Eleusinius, 57
Emmanuel, 46
Ephesus, viii, 4, 6, 11, 13, 19, 22, 73, 88, 97; Council of, ix, 6, 7, 16, 21, 23, 44, 58, 64, 68, 75, 78, 84, 86, 98, 109, 119; Robber Synod of, viii, 9, 10, 18, 19, 23, 24, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 66, 67, 85, 86, 87, 91, 105, 108, 113, 114, 123, 125, 126
Epiphanius, 57
Eranistes, 14
Eucharist, viii
Eudoxia, 23, 24, 104, 107, 110, 114
Eulogius, 18
Eunomius of Nicomedia, 45, 65, 89-90
Euphemia, St., 81, 97; church of, 44, 56, 73
Eusebius of Ancyra, 74, 87, 94, 118
Eusebius of Doryleum, 10, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 30, 56, 57, 58, 61, 65, 74, 75, 88, 94, 96, 114, 120, 126; letter of, 56-57
Eusebius of Sebaste, 64
Eustathius of Berytus, 18, 57, 64, 70, 85, 86, 114, 115, 123
Eutyches, viii, ix, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 56, 61, 62, 63, 65, 69, 76, 80, 84, 85, 86, 91, 96, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 115, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128
Eutychianism, 66, 69, 105
Eutychians, 74, 81, 109
Euxitheus of Thessalonica, 107
Evagrius, 20
Facundus, 118, 125
Flavian, viii, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 30, 47, 52, 54, 56, 58, 61, 67, 73, 79, 86, 88, 90, 96, 102, 105, 111, 114, 120, 121, 126, 127, 128
INDEX
Fleming, J., 117, 119 Florentius of Sardes, 44, 75 Formula of Faith, 16 Formula of Union, 4, 6, 86 Francio, Bp., 60, 75 Franses, H., 118
Gangra, 10
Galatians, Ep. to, 50
Godhood, 4, 48, 50
God the Father, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 76, 78
Greek,’ 8,90, 925/93, 112. Tig. Ji4
Gregory Nazianzen, 3, 38, 43, 78
Grummel, V., 118, 119
Haare, F., 117
Harnack, A., 117
Harpocration, 59
Hefele-Leclercq, 117
Hellenism, 77
hellenistic, 4
Helpidius, 18, 20, 35, 57
Herod, 50
Henoticon, 115
Hierax of Aphraates, 65
Hilary, 18,°21 7 22,''36, 43,52
Himerius, 57
Holy Spirit, 33, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, 76, 77, 78, 101, 102
homoiousion, 3
Hughes, P., 113
Hypaepa, 22
Hypatius, 57
hypostasis, 16, 17, 45, 77
Ibas of Edessa, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 85-87
Incarnation, viii, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16, 24, 46, 47, 52, 76, 78, 90, 109, 113, 120
Illyricum, 10, 26, 28; bishops of, 10, 53, 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 72, 73, 74, 107
Imperial Commissioners, 8, 9, 26, 27, 44, 45, 54, 55, 56, 57, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 73, 75, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95
Irenaeus of Tyre, 14-15, 22, 38
Tsaias, 48
Ischyron, deac., 58-59
Isidora, 59, 60
Islam, ix
Italy, 23, 114
Jalland, T., 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 125, 126
Jerusalem, viii, ix, 4, 5, 10, 17, 72, 84, 94, 104, 108, 109, 110
Jesus Christ, viii, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 64, 68, 69, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 87, 90, 100, 113, 119, 120, 121
INDEX
John, St., 49, 50, 51, 52
John Chrysostom, St., 78, 111
John, deac., 32
John of Antioch, vii, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 35, 41, 45, 46, 78, 86
John of Germanicia, 61, 73, 85
John the Baptist, 50
Judaism, 77
Julian of Chios, 8, 18, 24, 32, 36, 74, 90, 100, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 2 ALLY. 127
Julius of Pozzuoli, 8, 20, 53
Justinian, 115
Juvenal of Jerusalem, 7, 18, 19, 24, 26, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 42, 44, 57, 64, 74, 83, 84, 95, 98, 104, 105, 110, 112, 114, 124
Kadikéy, 25 Kelly, J., 122, 124 Kidd, B., 117, 119
Laetentur coeli, 75
Latin, 79, 113
Lebon, J., 118, 124 ;
Leo, St., vii, viii, ix, 3, 5, 7-8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 31, 44, 45, 53, 56, 58, 61, 62, 64, 68, 73, 74, 79, 85, 90, 93, 95, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120-128; bishops’ letter to, 95-98; let- ter to Bishops of, 90-91, 114, 117; Tome of, vii, viii, ix, 19, 20, 23, 24, 32, 36, 37, 43, 44, 47-53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 65, 66, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 84, 99, 103, 105, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115
Leontius of Magnesia, 88
Liberatus, 119
Libya, 58, 94
Longinus, 39
Lucentius, Bp., 8, 23, 26, 27, 66, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100, 126
Lucian of Bizya, 51
Lucianus, 101, 114
Luke, St., 48, 50
Macarius, 4, 48
Macedonians, 33
McGuire, M., ix
McKenna, S., x
Magi, 50
Manes, 33
Manichees, 28, 65
Manoir, H., 117, 118, 121
Marcian, emp., vii, 8-9, 24, 60, 62, 65, 67, 79, 80, 81, 84, 90, 99, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 119, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128; allocution of, 79- 80, 114, 124, 128
131
Mark, St., 103
Martin, P., 117, 118, 119
Matthew, St., 48, 51
Maximus of Antioch, 23, 24, 26, 38, 61, 70, 74, 83-84, 90, 95, 98, 101, 108, 109, 114, 124, 127
Metanoia in Canopus, 60
Milan, 104
Mommsen, T., 119
Monks, ix
Nationalism, viii, 4, 5, 8, ll, 13, 112,
113
Nestorianism, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16,
22, 53, 73, 74, 76, 104, 105
Nestorians, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 53,
65, 69, 73, 74, 84, 109
Nestorius, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 23, 45, 54, 63, 65, 69, 73, 76, 80, 84, 85, 86, 108, 109, 111, 118; Bazaar of, 118, 119
Nicaea, 24, 28, 33, 45, 46, 64, 65, 103, 118, 120, 122; Council of, vii, 16, 21, 25, 44, 71, 75, 76, 79, 80, 86, 89, 93, 94, 101, 102, 103, 106, 111, 119; Creed of, 45, 63, 68, 69, 75, 76, 77, 78, 123, 124
Nicomedia, 87
Nonus, 59
Onesiphorus, 42 Orient, 104, 108, 114; bishops of, 24, 26, 55, 72, 73, 88, 100.
Pachomius, 4
Palestine, 83; bishops of, 28, 53, 64, 72, 104, 105, 107, 108, 112, 114
Palladius, 61
Pansophia, 59
Papal legates, 10, 19, 20, 22, 26, 56, 61, 63, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 85, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 114, 119, 125, 126
parabolani, 4, 6, 19, 21
Paschasinus, bp., 8, 24, 25, 26, 31, 36, 38, 56, 57, 58, 61, 63, 66, 84, 92, 94, 97, 100, 114, 122, 124, 125
Patriarch, 4, 10
Patricius of Tyana, 86
patristic citations, 47
Paul, St., 47, 48, 54, 69, 80
Paul of Emesa, 46
Pergamus of Antioch, 57
Peristeria, 59
Persians, 4
Peter, St., 8, 51, 52, 53, 61, 76, 77, 84, 90, 95, 102, 103, 108, 126
Peter Mongus, 115
Peter of Corinth,
Peter the Fuller, 112
Pharaoh, 6, 12, 14, 109
132
Photius of Tyre, 18, 66, 70, 71, 85, 86, 87, 114, 115, 123
Placidia, 23, 114
Pneumatists, 77
Polymorphus, 118
Pontius Pilate, 45, 69
Pontus, 93, 95, 97; bishops of, 73, 94
Precious Blood, viii
primacy, 92, 93, 94
Procius, 14, 78, 88, 111
Profession of Faith, 46, 52, 65, 72
Proterius, Bp., 104, 110, 111, 112
Protogenes, 53
Pulcheria, vii, 8-9, 19, 23, 24, 29, 62, 80, 90, 101, 104, 105, 107, 112, 114, 119, 122, 124, 128
Rabbula, 15
Ravenna, 17
Ravennius of Arles, 103
Renatus, 18, 19, 53
Rome, ix, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 293, 24, 58, 74, 92, 93, 94, 99, 101, 108, 111, 114
Rush, A., x
Rusticus, 115, 122
Sabinianus of Perrha, 90
Sacred Heart, viii
Saltet, L., 118, 119, 122
Salvation, 4
Sardes, 16
Sardica, 78
’ Schnitzler, T., 117
Schwartz, E., vii, 113-116, 117, 118, 120- 128
Scriptures, Sacred, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 54
Seeck, O., 124 .
Seleucus, bp., 16
Senator, bp., 103
Simon Stylites, 4
Sophronius of Constantia, 85
Sophronius of Egypt, 60
Soterichus, 38
Sozon of Hlyricum, 74
Stephen of Ephesus, 26, 30, 31, 32, 87- 89
synodos endemousa, 71
INDEX
Syria, 4, 14, 67, 112
Thalassius of Caesarea, 18, 26, 30, 32, 35, 36, 38, 39, 42, 57, 64, 74, 87, 108
Thebaid, 4
Theodore of Alexandria, 58
Theodore of Claudiopolis, 30, 31, 32
Theodore of Tarsus, 75
Theodoret of Cyrus, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 36, 54, 73, 84-85, 109, 117, 118, 125, 127
Theodosius, monk, 104
Theodosius I, 75, 79, 126
Theodosius II, 8, 9, 19, 23, 24, 28, 29, 41, 70, 71, 83, 88, 104, 114, 119, 126
Theophilus, bp., 5, 107, 111
Theopistus, 117
Theopompus of Cabasa, 22
Theotokos, 3, 7, 11, 46, 73, 78
Thrace, Bishops of, 73, 93, 95, 97
Three Chapters, 113, 115
Tillemont, L., 73, 117, 122
Timotheus, 60
Timothy, St., 88
Timothy, Aelurus, 112
Trisagion, 121
Twelve Anathemas, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 19, 22, 54
“Twenty-Eighth Canon”, vii, 92-95, 99, 100, 107, 110, 111
Uranius of Himeria, 15, 18, 22, 85
Valentinian III, 23, 27, 62, 107, 114
Valerian, 39
Vandals, 3, 10
Vicar of Christ, 8
Vigilius, Pope, 114, 124
Virgin Mary, 11, 33, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49, 65, 69, 76, 77, 78, 84
Willie, A., 117 Xystus, 7
Zacharias Rhetor, 127 Zeno, bp., 113, 115
| ie an | rey aie Oh ae
DATE DUE
ee in, Nene Rae Pai er. ro - er _ 4 J ay " | Booed
ee i }- - Z a es we) s ae or ea a Pe Grae Ra aan in el off A ei) s r a . 4 es Ning aia ba es Sena jaa ~ — Tae = SESS | —— Be q % Ge iy q s} ul = if i 3 oe y. a 2. i aasiit i” : CER ene oF sae) = > are a Fey) haar sae ck 7 ee « gal US enw gee Ag Falicncs ree i ies coy : | ee ne: ai, met ia i Boa j bi rite Mie Me. Tay 2 eee tes e nf
98
sv a a Me! :
I
Demco, Inc. 38-293
~ ao = Ne) Ne) ~ = fea)
the Council of
Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Librar
’
o ro) aa Lo) s ° ae = ed wn 4 oO wv Qa 4) = wo ~ F) a
6093
|
Il
1 1012 00031