ROLLA CNY fd Mi atk PM IWtibdte MAb rac We AT pt ( ea TA te ' Vela ey r ian
Usaha
cyt a tekst nevada cage W Aly obiazyTheye lhe he otic uth MY iy rath AAs WIV, h jacket,
‘ 1 The Pe ee Sh RO we Vay bdady dita hy i Whe
‘ nat
Liss Nia ht
Soa Rye ae eat W ESOL te LPariaren yaa My a ty ey ea WA hs } ip by N ae oh) Oe er YET i Mt Wh Caen Pia ieata
ee ee) ce MATa NA eae
itt vt * Hed, ™ Pa lssheydshsbahaligbeteds Ankeecke mea Tey ibsteh W idtrstes EiniLs Me ora iv hy , , ' * PecWrrty MLE tile BeAr biti titers Oly Kcr Gr Nh! } tests : + Rh Ar i PA Wai SUA esl bah Tae tata IVES EL EL UY \ \ Mad fs PAIRS * é ret Fhe ete ta) 4 " ways [ fi Pee rhe miei y bye kihaatnag lat Den OAtCee RCE CTC ROTI PASE VORC RANE et ; Vetu bien wetyts
a yeh lee « 4 ha Na asite Pan PASAT ‘6 ‘ ? yy K Aly tna i ‘ Wie tett Aayiysyucamink ha Sane Pave? i i yard bakugan NA ates i 3
AVM te Prat riers PERERA Tas
Bhd Ebay Ppa eet ur ud
Pn ile “a
yale 3 F.4d aie y ( a2 oi Spire tpt Vay ticdey \ E wn f Lp s!4 tte Maes wee
Hitt ia) : COL nin Pe DL ‘ ( " , ‘ end e i ‘ aCe a Wha Wi ded sie Estat d) , Pipe a Cae ' SUA Dears te a itd reeks ue ye EGU pr or bate
i
nts f Hay “ De ne Ree PLAT ‘i aed i EDR EALY Pua ania RUSTE Frat es 4 3 , M Peyton Ee D8 Ue bby BUH vn hte J etal aes t f i , Wii hae ' Hn bee
Sup Hi wh eit
wim Perern rony iS
a ha MOLI sf i it
thin sant fut
, te Reni i j i i ise ee i aa ny ie
beg ps Sirs
a Way Cay
hy i TAR ino Nae eiynite eth Bits
Library of The Theological Seminary
PRINCETON - NEW JERSEY
==>):
BR 222 .P4 1881 Ephesus, 449. The second synod of Ephesus
Digitized by the Internet Archive In 2008 with funding from Microsoft Corporation
https ://archive.org/details/secondsynodofephO0ephe
TO THE
ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE
OF
‘THe Hoty CaurcH THROUGHOUT THE WoORLD,’’
THIS WORK IS DEDICATED
BY
BG. 2. BP:
, ae | ca a
ay oy 7 z ’
oS NOdE eRe Waltous ty ; e uy ‘ - ;
' A ‘ . _<, 2 Magill ann teoioloius whan!) tla
: _ . CATALINA SF uO AEE v4
: -) : ia an Bes 3 } ' o>
Raind|, qa2522 Wozmsom
¢ wonal=
THE
SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS,
TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN EXTRACTS RELATING TO IT,
From Syriac MSS. preserved in the British Museum, and now first edited by
aa Rey. ve. oG. F. PERRY) Mes.
Vicar of Tottington, in the Diocese of Manchester.
EON GLAS: VERS DON.
“‘For, where two or three are gathered together in My Name, there am I in their midst.”—Matt. xviii. 20.
“The Mothers of the Catholic Faith.” Encyc. to Bishops, p. 374.
PRINTED AT THE ORIENT Press, DARTFORD, IN THE County or Kenr. 1881.
The following has just (Dec. 1879,) arrived in England from Italy.
ACTORUM CONCILII CALCEDONENSIS VERSIO INEDITA.
Preecedunt tres epistole Imperatorum juxta versionem Codicis Vaticani, 1322.
Sequitur Ordo gestorum habitorum Calcedona, &c., juxta lectionem Coleti cum variantibus.
Deinde ( ) Synodi Constantinopolitani, sub P. P. Leone.
(a) Exemptum libelli Eusebit Dorylitani (versio medita). (b) Gesta contra Eutychen Presbuterum (item).
(c) Relatio Flaviani Ep. CP. ad Papam Leonem (item). (d) Alia Epistola Flaviani Ep ad Papam Leonem (id).
(¢) Epistola Papae Leonis ad Flavium (cum nonnullis variantibus.
(f) Libellus Appellationis Eutychetis ad Papam Leonem ), adjectis SS. P.P. testimoniis ineditis nempe Juliis Athanasii, Gregori Majoris Gregorii Naz. Petri Alex. celestini Romani. Felicis Romani et Synodi Romani et Synodi Ephesinge, item contestatio ad Papylum Constantinopolitanium inedita.
(9) Acta Latrocinii Ephesini (versio inedita) (4) Libellus Apellationis Flaviani Ep. CP..ad Papam Leonem.
(4) Libellus Appellations ad Papam lLeonem Eusebii. Daryleorum
‘a aneny one) SiC) test 1 Qa: 7
ra
~ Thy ot
THE SECOND
SYNOD
OF
ihe > US,
(SECOND SESSION).
Meteo a TET.
ls recht bie - *% ss
INTRODUCTION.
To be the means of presenting to the Church of
the 19th Century an Oriental Document purporting “to be the authorised Acts of an Gicumenical Council of the 5th Century, in its original quaint costume as well as in a modern dress, by which a new page of the Church’s chequered life might be unrolled and deciphered, and in which, too, as in a picture would be represented, in its deadliest aspect, one ghastly struggle between The Truru Herself and the Dragon of Heresy, when He vomited forth upon Her Mystical Body his most poisonous venom, was the original, and not very unimportant, object of producing these two almost unique Volumes.
How far that object has been attained, and how useful the realisation of it, may be best judged perhaps by those who scrutinise their pages.
A brief sketch may not be uninteresting or unac- ceptable, though perhaps not absolutely necessary.
In the summer of 1867, whilst conning over
Viil. INTRODUCTION.
my transcript of the first part of the MS., numbered 14,530 Additional, which had been put into my hands in the British Museum, it occurred to me that that part could be finished and dedicated to the Pan- Anglican Synod, or Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion, to be assembled in the autumn at Lambeth under the auspices of the then Arch- bishop of Canterbury. A terse description of the MS., addressed to Archbishop Longley, soon brought his opinion that it must be a MS. “interesting to the Church at large,” and a permission, most kindly expressed, to dedicate Part I. to the forthcoming Conference and its President.
By the ready help of the Oxford Clarendon Press, go many copies of Part I. were finished and presented to aa many Metropolitans among the Bishops while in session, by the good Offices of the presiding Archbishop. Subsequently, a revised and corrected impression of Part I., with a type thatan Oriental scholar designated as “sumptuous,” was forwarded to all the Bishops who had attended the Conference, that to the President being accompanied by a second photograph, represent- ing a page of the MS., which indicated, by internal evidence, the Cicumenicity of the Council which the Acts recorded. All the English and Irish Prelates,
INTRODUCTION. 1X,
sometimes with a frank avowal of unacquaintance with the language in which our Lord spoke, made a polite acknowledgment of its receipt, but to the eighteen special copies which the American Bishops received at the hands of the late Bishop of Ilinois— who, after writing the Presentee’s and the Presentor’s names and addresses in each copy, kindly offered them at the Convention held next after his return to America—no answer has ever been vouchsafed, except from three, of whom the Chief Bishop was one, viz., the late learned divine and scholar, Dr. J. H. Hopkins, of Vermont.
I feel bound, therefore, in justice to myself, to give others the opportunity of judging of the only part (for, the reproduction of the MS. itself, or the Latin translation given in Mansi of its documents, or the English of one by myself, could not possibly give offence) which must have had that effect I suppose, and which accounts for so unusual a phe- nomenon, viz.,—the “Prefatory Remarks,” which are produced here verbatim, with the Dedication page, and to which the Metropolitan of Chios alludes in the translated letter of acknowledgment to me*
subjoined, with approving emphasis.
* Most Reverenp FaruHer, I owe many thanks to our common friend, most highly esteemed
X. INTRODUCTION.
by me, the Reverend George Williams, because, even from afar, he does not cease to remember my Humility ; and also from his good and kind disposition to make me known to his friends there. It is certainly to the friendly commendation of this worthy man that I am now indebted, both for the honour of your letter, and the valuable work sent together with it, the Title of which is, ‘An Ancient Syriac Document, &c.”—a work having a special bearing on the Christians of the East.
Glory and honour to all those who occupy themselves in earnest works of this character, from which the dark parts of Ecclesiastical History will derive light,—amongst which men, without dispute, your Reverence—greatly desired by me—is also to be numbered, on account of your learned address prefixed, in memory of the Synod of the Venerable Anglican Bishops at Lambeth, in 1867.
And now, while acknowledging with gratitude your love in this valuable present, I pray from my soul (both for you and for all who contend for the truth, and for the union in one fold of all who call upon the all-holy name of Christ, ‘‘ which is above every name’’) help from above, and illumination to walk without swerv- ing in the direct and saying path of the one truth that is in Christ ; which the Spirit-bearing Apostles of our Saviour, having received from Him, proclaimed ; and their successors, the Divine Fathers, following them, by holy tradition, set forth both severally and in General Councils.
Your Reverence’s (greatly desired by me) humble bedesman in Christ, and ready servant to your friendly commands,
The Metropolitan of Chios, + GREGORY.
In Chios, 8th September, 1869.
INTRODUCTION. Xl,
DEDICATION.
“To the Holy Synod of Bishops of Christ’s Holy Catholic “Church, Most Reverend and Right Reverend Fathers in God, ‘in Communion with the See of Canterbury; convoked at “the Instance of the Metropolitan and Bishops of Canada ‘“‘and of others, and holden at Lambeth Palace on 24, 25, 26, and ‘“‘ 27th days of September, in the year 1867, under the Presidency ‘‘of his Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, in the spirit ‘which animated ‘that gentle Father of his People,” ‘‘of ‘the Bishops assembled in Council”—‘‘ The Divine favour ‘‘will bring it to pass, that we with the rest, our Colleagues,
who says
‘‘may stably and firmly administer our office, and uphold the peace ‘“‘of the Catholic Church in the Unity of Concord ;” this attempt ‘“‘at an entire reproduction in fac-simile Estrangela characters, and ‘‘ at a translation of ‘AN ANCIENT SYRIAC DOCUMENT ‘(for centuries lost, and now generally unknown, to the Church), ‘purporting to be an historical relation, in its chief features, of a ‘certain Synod at Ephesus, summoned by Imperial Authority to be ‘held in August, 449, A.D., as, and distinctly and authoritatively ‘designated by itself when held to be an (ecumenical Synod of the ‘Catholic Church, but, by reason of the outrage committed by its ‘President and the violent perversion of its ends, for ever pro- ‘nounced by Saryt Leo tun Great to be the ‘“«LATROCINIUM OF EPHESUS,’
‘is, with Profound Veneration, as well as by Express Permission, “Dedicated by a Priest of the Catholic Shurch in Communion
‘‘ with the See of Canterbury.
xii. INTRODUCTION,
PREFATORY REMARKS.
“The original ancient Document, which the following pages ‘indicate an attempt to reproduce in fac-simile type and to trans- “late, forms one of those rich and magnificent Syriac treasures “which the present Archdeacon of Bedford, Dr. Tattam, brought “from the Syrian Monastery of St. Mary Deipara, in the Desert
“of Nitria or Scete, (ras tOL0% rnin asl. dua D3
(eiscn MtoN wl norns et>3201), on the Western “side of the Nile, between twenty and thirty years ago. The “most important and most ancient of all those treasures have “already been made known to the world by distinguished Oriental ‘¢ scholars, viz. :—
(1) Clementis Romani Recognitiones, by Dr. P. de Lagarde of ** Berlin.
(2) Titi Bostreni contra Manichzos libri quatuor, by Dr. P. de “Lagarde.
“(3) Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea on the Theophania or Divine “ Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with a “translation and notes, by Dr. Samuel Lee, late Professor of “‘ Hebrew at Cambridge.
(4) Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the earliest establishment “of Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, “from the year after our Lord’s Ascension to the beginning “of the fourth century, with a translation, by Dr. Cureton, “and with a Preface by Dr. William Wright of the British “ Museum.
“ (5) Spicilegium Syriacum: containing remains of Bardesan, Meliton, “Ambrose, and Mar Bar Serapion, with a translation and “notes, by Dr. Cureton.
“(6) History of the Martyrs of Palestine by Eusebius, Bishop of “ Cesarea, with a translation into English, and Notes, by Dr. *« Cureton.
(7) An Ancient Syrian Martyrology, edited and translated by Dr. “William Wright of the British Museum, in the Journal of “Sacred Literature. ‘The MS. of which it forms a part was “transcribed in the year of the Greeks 728, ie. 412 A.D.’
INTRODUCTION. Xlll.
(8) Analecta Syriaca, with Appendix, by Dr. P. de Lagarde. (9) The Fragments of John of Asia, soon to be published by Dr. J. BP. N. hand.
“ (10) The Festal Letters of St. Athanasius, by Dr. Cureton. “In this last work Dr. Cureton gives a full and very interesting “history of the way in which these ancient Syriac monuments ‘were discovered in the Syrian Convent, in the valley of the “Nitrian Lakes, and brought by Dr. Tattam in 1842 to England, “and afterwards deposited in the British Museum as the property “of the nation in 1847, where they now form one of the most “remarkable and important collections of the writings of antiquity “which have ever been transported from East to West. Dr. “Cureton mentions the share M. Pacho had in the purchasing “these Manuscripts of the Cloistered Brethren of the Nitrian “Valley. It turns out that M. Pacho himself, after having sold, “according to agreement, the whole to the trustees of the British “Museum, must have withheld part of them in some way or another, “of which part the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg “appears to be in present possession, certainly as far as the Syriac “copy of the Keclesiastical History of Eusebius, which Dr. Wright “showed me, is concerned.
“Next after these very recherché specimens of Syriac literature “above mentioned, ranks in importance and character, as I think, “our Manuscript, which describes itself as
wamars dhyiadhe<s eartAT warmiam > PRPARMAR WATAEDOs Merton utIAiD
“Tt is most probably a Syriac version, made about a century after “the events it records, of a Greek original long since lost to the “Church. It is numbered 14,530 among the Additional MSS. in “the British Museum. It is very legibly and boldly indited on “vellum in the Estrangéla character, and presents, as now bound “up, only two blank leaves, indicating as few lacune* in the “document. The generally excellent condition of the parchment
* There are in all five Lacune in the Original MS,
X1v. INTRODUCTION.
“eaves is no doubt due to the continuously dry and warm climate “of the Desert, which has preserved it for our benefit during a “period considerably exceeding one thousand years, according to “the date so fortunately undefaced in this MS., as in many of its “fellows, and placed at the end on the last page but one.
“The last page, however, presents dithculties of no ordinary “kind; but its photographic representative, given in corresponding “type at the end of our printed text, magnifying as it does the * letters and the parts of letters that are discernible, as well as the “marks of disfigurement, may induce some Syriac scholar to “venture on an endeavour to decipher the sadly marred features of “its dimly sombre visage, and so to offer some solution of those “difficulties that have hitherto baffled some few not unskilful “handlers of ancient Oriental MSS.
“The whole MS. consists of 216 pages, each page averaging “about 28 lines. Sometimes towards the middle the limes number «33 and 34. The portion of the Syriac text printed in this Part I “is the beginning of the attempt at a reproduction of the docu- “ment in its entirety, so that, page in our text nearly correspond- “ing to page in the original, and line exactly to line, word for “word, red type for red, and black type for black, we shall be “enabled in the course of time, if encouraged, to accomplish the “task of reproducing the whole document in fac-simile Estrangéla *“‘ characters as contemplated.
“The translation strikes off with the Latin rendering of one of “the documents already given in Mansi’s L’Abbe. The English ‘translation here given points to those very important matters “connected with the characteristics of this MS. ; for it relates to “what occurred after August 8, and to the case of Ibas and to * the unfolding of the unlawful acts of Dioscorus and partisans at ‘the Synod, by which its President perverted it into a Concili- * abulum and that Conciliabulum into the Latrocinium of Ephesus. “The Emperor had summoned the Synod for August 1. Its first “session, three extant fragments concerning which are given in “ Latin and Greek in L’Abbe’s ‘ Conciliorum Collectio,’ took place
INTRODUCTION. XV.
“on August 8 It is the Session on Saturday, August 20, of ‘‘ which mention is made, and that on Monday, August 22, pro- ‘“‘ ceedings of which are recorded, in these Acts alone.
‘« As the preceding remarks relative to the Syriac MSS. cannot ‘be otherwise than apposite and pertinent to the matter in hand, ‘“so the subjoined reflections will not, I think, be considered ‘‘inapposite or inopportune, which deal with the subject of ‘‘ Synods generally, although at present it appears to be not unwise ‘“ to say little of that particular one, of which much is to be said ‘‘and can be better said when all connected with it is complete.
“‘ Now it is evident to all men (sans die’ yala\ to use the ‘‘ first words of our document) reading the signs of the times, that ‘‘the grand idea of the distinctive oneness of the ‘one Body’ of ‘“‘Christ—so fully taught by the Holy Ghost, as well in the ‘‘ glorious Creeds of the Church Catholic as through the direct ‘‘and immediate inspiration of Holy Writ—is receiving and « growing into a vivid realization in this latter half of the nine- ‘teenth century, which may witness, before its close, through that “one Body’ being continually quickened and informed by the ‘“‘¢one Spirit,’ a no inappreciable approximation to the Church’s ‘oneness of character in primitive times. And there is also much ‘‘yeason to aver that the synodical system of the Church, by and ‘‘in the highest form in which her articulate voice was in the ages ‘of faith so faithfully uttered and obediently heard, and of which, ‘7 will add, our MS., coming up as it does through the long vista ‘‘of those past ages from the unchanging Hast, is so singularly ‘‘expressive, promises, by God’s mercy to us, to receive such posi- ‘tive and helpful encouragements as will afford to many, yearning ‘“‘for its joyful fulness, a warranty of hope and belief that that ‘‘ visible Oneness or Unity must be actended with an immediate ‘‘and manifest accession.
‘‘ Now the Synodical Institutions of the Church Catholic are of «‘ Divine origin. The germ from which they are all evolved and “the source to which they can be referred and traced back, as well ‘‘in their first emergent and scarcely discernible development as in
XVI. INTRODUCTION.
‘the grandest and most glorious, when the largest General Council “could exultingly appropriate Christ’s promise to itself, may be ‘found in the Divine words containing that promise of our Lord’s ‘gracious presence : ot yap eior Ovo % TpEls oUVHpEVvOL Els TO Emov “ Syoua, exel eye ev wéow avrov. The secondary meaning of these ‘“words, reality of belief in which has been abundantly and ‘‘unprecedently evidenved of late years—may it still increase !— ‘in the awakened consciousness of Churchmen to privileges and ‘« duties in connection with assemblies for Worship, needs certainly ‘(no elaborate elucidation ; whilst the primary, significative of “ order, discipline, and work, has surely been insufficiently regarded ‘‘in the realization of blessings inherent of necessity in a guaran- “teed promise to what is done, eis to ovoua, by many or by few in “authorised union and action.
“This year of grace, however, and this month of September, ‘‘bear witness to a special and unprecedented instance of actual ‘‘realization of the promise, in the Synod of Bishops, held at ‘« Lambeth, of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church in Communion with ‘the See of Canterbury : — special, whether there are regarded ‘‘eyidences of the special Presence attached, and the special office “of teaching the truth of God assigned, to such Synods ; or it be ‘looked on only as a cuvddos 4) évdyporoa, like that at Constantinople ‘‘in November a.p. 448, when the Heresiarch was formally accused ‘* of a denial of the truth of the distinction of the two natures of “Jesus Christ ;—unprecedented, as the annals of our whole Com- ‘“‘munion furnish no such instance of the ‘ Demonstrative Unity’ of ‘‘its Chief Pastors. May this apostolic return by our Right “Reverend Fathers in God to the earliest and normal rule and law ‘of the Church, by which the primary signification of Christ’s own «‘ Words is manifestly attested and realized, exercise over the future ‘of our one-third division of Christendom such a beneficial influ- ‘ence as will encourage every member of that Division gladly to ‘recognise his position in it, and to realise his ‘vocation and “ministry ’—his calling from on high (1 avw «Ajous) and his office ‘Cand function in the ‘one Body ’—as it regards that primary sig-
INTRODUCTION. XV. ‘‘nification, and such as may bear comparison with that of the great ‘Fathers of Nice over the whole history of Christendom, in the ‘‘ actual past and present, as well as in its probable future.
‘The received histories of the Catholic Church from the Day of ‘« Pentecost, after the Apostolic Synod at Jerusalem in a.p. 51, held ‘to determine points of Ritual and to enact Canons, and another ‘under the presidency of the Bishop of that city, held to receive ‘a persecuted Apostle and his company, present us with at least ‘six recognised (Ecumenical Councils or Synods—besides smaller ‘‘ones—which, viewed at a mere glance, may be perhaps epitomised “thus :—
(1) At Niczr—318 Bishops present—it
“the Faith once, and once for all, delivered’’—Arianism condemned— Synodical Epistle—20 Canons
(2) AtConsTaANTINOPLE—150Bishops, it re-afirmed the faith and completed | /
attested to “the Deposit’’and defined |
_
scenes
the Nicene Definition—condemned the Macedonian Heresy—before it Arianism fell~—7 Canons
the great exposition of the faith by S. Cyril—the Nestorian Heresy con- demned—8 Canons
At Ephesus—130 Bishops present— Dioscorus Prestdent, 0st... steeacovccees:
(4). At CHAaLcEDoN—630 een |
(3) At EpHzsus—2C0 Bishops present— |
eee tee we eee ceeee
Creed (without filioque) nowset forth as perfection, ro réAecov—Eutychian Heresy anathematized—Leo’sT'ome, } rejected at Ephesus, is accepted, and | Dioscorus deposed and sentenced | 30 Canons
eee Reece eee e eee ee see eeressens
(5) At ConsTANTINOPLE—165 Bishops— the three Chapters; miserable re- sults, but this Synod has always > been received and respected by the Church as condemning error ..... coe
(6) At ConsTaNTINOPLE—170 Bishops— Agatho’s Synodical letters — Defini- tion of there being two natural | Wills or Operations of Christ in One Person—Monothelite Error—Hon- | orius, &c., anathematized J
sere weeny
A.D. 325 Convoked by Constan- tine the Great.
431 |
449 Convoked by Theodosius the younger.
Convoked by Theodosius the Great.
Convoked by Theodosius the younger.
Convoked by Marcian, great lover of the Faith.
556 against the Church’s
wish and desire.
Convoked by Constan-
f |
L
| Convoked by Justinian f
|
} tine IV. L
XVill. INTRODUCTION.
The Quinisext Council is supplementary to the fifth and sixth, because they enacted no canons of discipline—and this made 102, confirming the doc- trine of the six General Councils, “the 85 Canons of the Apostles,” &e.— The Code of the Universal Churehiicomplete:\.2.-2..2-+-s0nseee.cne+e L
if 692 | Convoked eo Justinian
“At these Councils, all summoned by Imperial authority, the ‘Holy Gospels were exalted on a Throne put in a prominent posi- ‘‘tion, definitions and transactions were regularly recorded in the ‘- Acts, and Canons enacted. The Actio was the Session. A ‘‘Patriarch had several Notaries attendant on him, and a Bishop ‘always one or more. The primicerius was the Bishop’s registrar. ‘‘Bishops alone attested to the faith, alone determined, defined or ‘settled points of doctrine, declaring together by virtue of their ‘office, ‘Thus believes the Catholic Church,’ and separately “endorsing with ‘definiens subscripsi,’ whilst any other wrote ‘<consentiens subscripsi.? The Notaries had to write down or copy ‘““the Acts for the Bishops, who took to their provinces the defini- ‘‘tions of the Faith and the Canons enacted. There were also ‘“‘apocrisiaries, or a sort of proctors, syncelli, and promoters, ‘“‘and committees, formed for special business, defenders ‘Cand defendants, letters of citation, information demanded and ‘declared before the Holy Gospels present so conspicuously, libels, ‘or bills of indictment preferred against the accused, memorials, ‘‘netitions. gravamina, &c., besides ‘ acclamations,’ which formed a ‘characteristic feature of the working of the ancient Synods, very ‘similar, for instance, to the following :—‘ Such is the Faith of the ‘Fathers. Such is the Faith of the Apostles. Peter has spoken ‘“by Leo. So the Apostles taught. Leo hath taught piously and ‘truly. Cyriltaught so. Eternal be the memory of Cyril.’ These ‘instances of freedom include a remarkable illustration in our “document.
“Of these six (icumenical Synods, the first, in the highest sense ‘and in another, the greatest and most important undoubtedly was ‘that at Nica. Besides enacting twenty Canons, and settling for ‘‘ever the questions as to the time for the Church to keep Haster
INTRODUCTION. XIX.
“‘and the re-admission of certain schismatics into her communion, “‘the Fathers of the first Synod said on behalf of God’s truth, and ‘said for all Christians for all time, ‘Thus believes the Catholic ‘Church.’ That General Council is the foundation on which all ‘the others were built and grounded. The second knit itself on “to it. The third affirmed ‘the faith of the cccxvm. and of the ‘on.’ ‘Those holy and venerable Fathers,’ says S. Leo, ‘ who, at “Nice having condemned Arius with his sacrilegious impiety, ‘enacted laws of Ecclesiastical Canons to abide to the end of the ‘‘ world, live in their Constitutions among us and throughout the ‘‘world.’ ‘All the Fathers reverenced the Nicene Council, as an ‘oracle given from heaven.’ That Council also regulated the “holding of Synods of Bishops. Many such Synods had taken ‘place frequently before; and Bishop Beveridge proves, at great “‘pains, that many were held in the second and third centuries. ‘‘They were the normal rule of the Church; and ‘the half-yearly ‘Synod of Bishops was then, by virtue of an authority acknowledged ‘fas supreme, appointed for the whole Church.’
‘“‘During the period intervening between the first and second ‘(Ecumenical Synods, when Arianism under various phases and ‘forms vigorously and constantly assaulted, with a view to destroy, “the Faith in God the Son, but finally fell before the Faith’s “victory at the latter Council, we have afforded to us notices of no ‘Jess than eighty Synods; and though they were mostly unsatis- ‘‘factory, being attempts to undo the work of God the Holy Ghost ‘in the Church—waves dashing against the rocks of the true Faith, ‘which ‘foamed out their own shame,’ as a Regius Professor so ‘‘beautifully puts it (for I am here using his thoughts),—yet they “testify to the practice of Synods of Bishops, to the regular custom ‘that then obtained. All the then misbelievers seem to have been ‘such misbelievers through failing to perceive, as some do now (for ‘¢ Arianism under another appellative is still moribund), that ‘ there “is no middle point between the entire Oneness of the Nature of ‘‘God the Son with the Father and His being a mere creature,’ since ‘what is not God of necessity is a creature of God,
XxX. INTRODUCTION.
‘Taken together, the first four general Synods rank above all ‘‘others in importance and value to the Catholic Church. They ‘chiefly concerned themselves about ‘the whole state of our Lord ‘‘ Jesus Christ ;’ to make which ‘complete,’ Hooker (Book V.) says, ‘«« There are but four things that concur: His Deity, His manhood, ‘the conjunction of both, and the distinction of the one from the ‘other being joined in one. Four principai heresies there are ‘‘ which have in those things withstood the truth: Arians by bending ‘themselves against the Deity of Christ, Apollinarians by maiming ‘‘and misinterpreting that which belongeth to His human nature» ‘“‘Nestorians by rending Christ asunder and dividing Him into two ‘‘ persons, the followers of Eutyches by confounding in His person ‘‘those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there ‘‘ have been four most famous ancient General Councils: the Council ‘‘of Nice to define against Arians, against Apollinarians the Council ‘of Constantinople, the Council of Ephesus against Nestorians, ‘against Eutychians the Chalcedon Council. In four words, * GAnbas, TeAEwWs, adiatpeTs, aovyxi Tos, truly, perfectly, indiwisibly, ‘distinctly ; the first applied to His being God, and the second to ‘* His being Man, the third to His being of both One, and the fourth ‘to His still continuing in that one Both: we may fully, by way “of abridgment comprise whatsoever antiquity hath at large ‘ handled, either in declaration of Christian belief, cr in refutation ‘‘of the aforesaid heresies. Within the compass of which four ‘heads, I may truly affirm, that all heresies which touch but the ‘‘person of Jesus Christ, whether they have arisen in these latter ‘days, or in any age heretofore, may be with great facility brought ‘to confine themselves.’
‘* Now if there be one period in the whole history of the Church ‘‘militant here on earth, which does or will demand of the readers ‘“‘of that history thoughts and reflections such as those so pithily ‘and nervously indited in the Oxford translation of M. L’ Abbé ‘Fleury, it is that which comprises ihe period of heresy and the ‘councils so succinctly reviewed and concisely summarized by “Hooker. Our allusion is to the following: ‘Most men who have
INTRODUCTION. XX1,
‘‘considered the course which Church-history takes, have in some “‘stage of their progress felt pain, if not misgiving, at the rapidity ‘with which cne heresy seems to follow upon another. To minds ‘‘in this state we may suggest, first, that as wars occupy a wide ‘“space on the page of civil history, though often affording scarcely ‘any criterion of the aggregated happiness of a nation, so ecclesi- ‘‘astical history is often compelled to dwell on the life of a single ‘‘heretic, while thousands and tens of thousands are passing to ‘their heavenly inheritance unnoticed and unknown. Secondly, ‘‘that from the disproportionate time spent in examining heresies ‘“‘we are apt to think too slightly of the periods ef rest, those ‘« “intervals of sunshine between storm and storm”’ in which it ‘‘is ‘‘God’s will to gather in His elect little by little.” Lastly, that ‘heresy is overruled to several of the best ends—to promote ‘‘humility—to try our faith (I. Cor. ii. 19)—to rouse the careless ‘to an attentive study, and the religious to a more earnest realiza- ‘‘tion of the Christian verities, and to subserve the evolution of ‘‘those verities in a dogmatic form.’
‘“ And if there be one page of ecclesiastical history which more ‘‘than another deserves and claims attention to the strikingly ‘‘ beautiful and thoughtfu! remark tersely embodying the sentiments ‘expressed above, and placed by Dr. Burton in the forefront of his ‘‘historical work, it is that which recounts the doings, especially ‘ when viewed by the additional light furnished by this ancient ‘Syriac Document, of that Patriarch of the ancient and once ‘glorious Church of Alexandiia, who marred the splendour of the ‘Throne of SS. Athanasius and Cyril, reduced one of the grandest ‘institutions of Christ, designed for the benefit of His Church, to ‘‘<the Latrocinium of Ephesus,’ and so brought a withering curse ‘upon the whole of ‘the Evangelical See’ of S. Mark, it may be ‘for ever.
‘‘ Tt is hoped that, in this individual effort to do some houour to “and to commemorate, the Synod of Bishops of Christ’s} Holy ‘Catholic Church, holden at Lambeth in Septemder 1867, may be ‘‘ considered, as included, a humble desire as well to promote the
XXil. INTRODUCTION.
‘study of the oldest Church language and literature generally, as “to draw their attention to, if not actually to bring to bear on ‘those many fellow Churchmen of our common ‘Civitas Dei’ in “India, the Colonies, and other parts of the world, the rich literary ‘Church treasures, and the accompanying advantages within easy ‘reach, which we of the home Church possess in such great but ‘‘not selfish abundance; and last, but not least, to add a little link ‘‘in that chain of fraternal love that is uniting together in closer ‘‘ brotherhood the members of the ‘One Body’ living in the East ‘Cand in the West, in the New World and in the Old. os. G FoPEERY:
“'TOTTINGTON PARSONAGE, ‘“r~ THE Diocesm oF MANCHESTER AND PROVINCE OF YORK, September, 1867.”
Thus have I transposed, in their entirety, my “Prefatory Remarks” of Part I., by which to enable my readers to judge of them for themselves. One more paragraph at Page 19 I might adduce as unfavourable to myself perhaps, but, as the matter therein stated is purely historical, I forbear to do so. The fellow copy of that presented to Archbishop Longley was shewn among other articles of literary curiosity at the Missionary Exhibition at Manchester, undertaken a few years since by the enterprise of the senior Member for that city—viz., Hugh Birley, Esq. <A notification of Part I. is made by Dr. W. Wright in the three-volumed catalogue of the Syriac MSS. in the British Museum. Subsequently, on finding the costliness of printing the whole Codex in the “sumputous” type would be very considerable,
INTRODUCTION. XX.
I followed the example of a Syriac scholar whose work had cost Oxford University £1,000, and made application, but in vain, to the Delegacy for assist- ance, and, although the Right Honorable W. E. Gladstone, during his first Premiership, offered me a sum of money from the Treasury, I ultimately resolved to adopt a smaller type, and to prosecute my object at my leisure and independent of all pecuniary assistance. Accordingly, when I had completed the transcript of the whole of it with my own hand, I dedicated my first printed edition of the Codex to the memory of S.W.P. and of M.E.P., in
b)
the personal “tribulation” connected with which I have never yet been able to be “joyful,” and in the midst of the joy in the ‘bitterness of the heart no stranger could possibly intermeddle. At the sug- gestion of a foreign scholar, who, though of an alien communion, sympathised with me both in my labours and my sorrows, I appended several appro- priate extracts from various Syriac documents in the British Museum, and at the late Quarternian Centenary Commemoration of the University of Tabingen—QUINTUM SACULUM SUPER IORIBUS CLARIUS SURGIT (See Vol. ui. p. -305)—where thirty universities had representatives, and where such distinguished courtesy and kindness
were manifested towards me as can never be effaced
XXIV. INTRODUCTION.
from my memory. I was able to have the pleasure of presenting to the University and Royalty there my Tubingen Edition, including an English Version of the Codex, together with the first part of my Tetraglott Psalter, and the Rector Magnificus, at my request, proposed formally to those in Statu Pupellan a Prize Essay for the encouragement of Syriac Ltterature—a fact duly recorded in the beautiful Documents drawn up for the Commemora- tion. In a new Kdition of a Theological Encyclo- peedia Professor Semischt afterwards called attention to the Syriac Volumes, and especially to the extracts that more or less refer to the Codex. It will greatly add to my pleasure to offer these now completed Volumes, i. and ii., with some accompaniments, for the acceptance of Modern Victoria University, by . which opportunity to the rising generation for encouragement to study may be afforded. A Language and a Literature that are hallowed by associations affecting greatly our Blessed Lord and His Mission on Earth, and call to the whole Christian World in the unedited Paschetto for devout attention, and that appeal to this Nation especially in the unravelled MSS. of unrivalled Syriac Treasures in the British Museum.
CONTENTS OF THE BOOK,
ANALYSIS OF THE CODEX
The Great Syriac Codex, numbered 14,530 among the Additional MSS. inthe British Museum, is by
us designated A, which contains :—
i, Lerrers [mperiat,
[a] Addressed to Dioscorus and convoking the Synod (1—7).
| 8| Addressed to Dioscorus and relating to Theodoret (8—10).
[y] Addressed to the Holy Synod and relating to Ibas (10—13).
[d] Document, giving the Date of the Synod or Council, and a list of the Bishops and Presbyters present, but omitting the names of the representatives of Leo of Rome, and the names of Domnus of Antioch, and of Flavian of Constanti- nople, and of Timothy of Alexandria.
Resumption of the Council’s deliberation, on August 22nd, 449, a.p.
Preliminary discussion, relative to the absence from the Synod of the Envoys of Leo and the absence of Domnus, between the Proto-Notary and the Bishops Juvenal of Jerusalem, and Thalassius of Cesarea, and including the Report of the Deputies despatched by the Synod to visit them (21—27).
ii. THe Cause or Inas, BisHop or Epussa
[Introductory note, including historical matter from the “Chronicle of Edessa,” view of the position ecclesiastically considered chiefly from Abbe Martin’s ‘‘ Etude,” dates and facts worth remembering, and the ‘‘Crimina’’ or charges against Ibas, from Assernanni (28—37). |
XXV1.
CONTENTS.
Action taken against Ibas at Edessa.
Imperial letters to the Council urging it, since all classes witness against his Impiety, to appoint another Bishop in the stead of Ibas. [This is the Document (7) not (6) (38). Monks enter the Council, bearing Imperial Letters addressed to James and eleven other Archimandrites of Edessa, which letters are read, (39—41). At the instance of Dioscorus, the Commissioners, Photius, Eustatius, and Uranius, declare what took place before them on matters of The Faith as to Ibas, andas regards Daniel, he tendered his resignation (41—43).
[A.] Records of Transactions at Edessa in April last past before the Praeses, Cheereas, including the vociferations of the Citizens on his entry on the borders and into the Church of Zacheeus (44—54).
[B. First Formal Enquiry.] The Second Report. Document addressed to Roman Authorities by Cherceas re- specting the excited condition of the City (55—57). Copy of Records drawn up at Edessa in the Consulate of Zeno and Posthumian. Micallus brings a Petition of the Inhabitants of the City, which he and other EKcclesiastics had signed, and it is received and read (57—59). The Petition (59—66). ‘‘Every person subscribed to these Transactions and to the Presentation of the Petition’? Then the Acclamations of the whole popwation (67—73). The Count notes the instancy on the Authorities, and Micallus offers the apology (73 and 74). Micallus assures the Count that it is with the good will of all present that the Petition and the Oath are proffered (75). Fifty attest to this (75—82).
[C. Second Formal Enquiry]. The Third Report. Document, despatched to Martialius by Chereas, relative to the recurrence of ‘the commotion excited in the City by the discovery of the false faith of its Bishop (84—87). <A civie Dignitary, Theodosius, speaks of his efforts on a Sunday to repress disturbance, and, in the name of the community at large, presents a Petition for allaying it. He urges Ibas’s accusers present to say what charges are preferred against him, in what counts convicted, and appeals to those present as to whether his statements are correct (87—90). Twenty- six witnesses attest to this (91—94). Samuel, Maras, and Cyrus took part in the presentment and indictment at Berytus (95). Samuel’s account of his full Deposition made there, and of Ibas’s Heresy—‘‘I do not envy Christ’s becoming God, &c.,” (95—100). The testimony of six witnesses to this Heresy (100—103). That of sixteen others as to kindred Heresy (103—108). Theodosius urges
ill.
lv.
CONTENTS. XXVIL.
the conveyance of these Instruments to the Authorities, and asks for a copy of Ibas’s Letter to Maris be read before the Synod (108—109). The Judge replies (110). THE LETTER ITSELF (111—119). Discussion as to the copy of the Letter (120—12%3). Count Chereas prom- ises that all shall be notified to the Authorities (123). Then ensue EXCLAMATIONS from the Synod (124—125). What Eulogius repeats as known, the Synod cries out should be put into writing (126). More Exclamations of the Synod (127). The President calls for silence (128). A highly important Deposition made by Eulogius (128—183). Sen- tence of Deposition pronounced upon the Bishop of Edessa judicially and severally by twenty chief Bishops of the Synod and unanimously by the Synod itself (184—145), [A note on their judgment (145—147). ]
Deposition or Danie, tHe Bisuop or CHARRE (Haran).
[Introductory Note, containing part of the tenth ‘‘Actio”’ of the Chalcedon Synod referring to the ‘“ Urimina” with which Daniel was charged, and the relationship between Kdessa and Charrae, and their Bishops (151—164). |
Eulogius opens the case with charges made against Daniel, and requests the Commissioners to speak on the subject into which investigation had been made in their presence (155). One of them says he had forgotten the case (156). Eusta- thius states Danicl was convicted to his face in open Court, but, during a delay, sent in letters of his Resignation to his Metropolitan. In the end, the case was remitted for the settlement of the affair to this GJcumenical Synod (156— 158). Bishop Euranius speaks by an interpreter (159). Relying on the excellent name of the Commissioners, twelve Bishops or more pronounce sentence upon Daniel’s Depo- sition from the Throne of the Priesthood (159—165).
Deposition oF IRmNaUS THE Bisuop or Tyre.
[Introductory Note, shewing tiat Irenaeus was a Count of the Empire. but subsequently consecrated to the Episcopate by Archbishop Domnus and not by Theadoret (168—170). ] The Proto-Notary, after speaking of the Nestorian Doctrine which Daniel upheld, and of his having two wives, «c., urges the justice of a Synodical and Legal sentence (170— 178). The chief Bishops state that he ought to be deprived of the episcopal Digni:y which he should not have had in the first instance, and, some add, of Communion in the Pure Mysteries. The Synod asseated (173—177),.
XXVI1. CONTENTS.
V.
Vl.
Vil.
Vill.
Deposition or Aquitinus (ACILINUsS), THE BisHop
or Bysuuvs.
[Introductory Note (180—181).] Photius makes out Aqui-
linus to have so acted that Domnus gave him permission to
consecrate another in his place (182); and Dioscorus urges
the expulsion of him, as a Heretic, by his Metropolitan
(188) He is pronounced to be deprived (184—186).
Action RELATIVE TO SoPHRONIUS, THE BIsHoP OF TELLA.
[Introductory Note (188).] Certain Libels of Indictment from the Clerks of Tella (189), in a Document, descriptive of Sunday doings of Sophronius and signed by certain repre- sentativés of Confraternities, presented to the Synod (189— 198). The case is to be decided upon by the new Bishop of Edessa, as Metropolitan (198).
Deposition or ‘THEODORET, THE BISHOP oF Cyrus.
[Introductory Note, containing some prominent features in Theodoret’s character and his references to his own hard- ships; some notice of, and extracts trom, his lost and other works; and the urgency made upon him at Chalcedon to anathematise Nestorius. Much has yet to be added to his written life. Long note due chiefly to Dr. Nestle (202— 206).] The Formal Document, to the Synod, of Pelagius, affording matter about the Genera’ Synods, about himself as a Monk, about Theodorct’s and Domnus’s persecution of himself, their punishment due from the Synod, &e. (207—218). ‘Lheodoret’s other Volume, produced, against the first Synod of Ephesus, and another written against Cyril after intercommunion; the Notary reads the Volume (218—240); also fifteen extracts from the other Volume (241—250). The President gives his judgment; Notaries are sent to make known the day’s pro- ceedings to Domnus (251—-253). Ten Bishops pronounce their sentences on Theodoret, and the Synod (253—258). Reflections and Notes (258—263). [Theodoret’s original Letter from Hoffman’s text (263—271). |
THE SENTENCE oF Domnws.
The Archbishop of Antioch is made to say that he bestows great praise on the Synod and pronounces the same decision with it, and joins in the same command (272—274). Notes on “the Apostolic Canons,” from Johnson and Sparrow.
CONTENTS. XXX.
ix. THe RELEASE OF CERTAIN CLERKS.
[Annotation, referring to the Discipline of the Church (276).| The President aud the Synod loose from the Inhibition Flavian had imposed on three Deacons and a Reader of the Church (277). [The restoration of the lost leaves of the MS 14,530 might enlighten us on sundry matters of the Council (278). Theodoret refers, in his letters (quoted in the original} to John of Germanicia, to the transactions and doings of partisans, and, in his farnous one to Leo, Bishop of Rome, gives an account of the proceedings of the Synod (278—280). Theodoret’s opinion of Leo and his See, and of his Letter to Flavian, especially (280). ]
x. Action aGAInst Domnws.
Introductory Note, containing information about Patriarchs of the Church (from Bingham) and quotations from Lupas (sent by Harris Cowper), and the arrangement of the pro- cedure adopted against Domnus, &c. Martin’s view of the chronicler and of the absence of historical knowledge of Domnus (282—287). The procedure against the Bishop of Antioch is chiefly documentary; the Notary reads the formal address, to the Synod, of Cyriacus, and ‘‘ heads from the Homiletical Expositions of Domnus”’ (288—306). Anathemas of the Council. The Petitions and Complaints of Marcellus (808—314), and Heliodorus (814—318) are read, as well as the Confession of Faith of Pelagius (319— 322). The extraordinary Monk, Theodosius, is in posses- sion of papers about Domnus and Theodoret, which are read and deposited among the Archives (822—326). Letters of Correspondence between Daoscorus and Domnus in which occur two Lacuna (827—356). Anathemas and another hiatus in the MS. Bishops pronounce sentence on Domnus (859—863).
xi. Epict or THEODOSIUS CONCERNING THE SECOND Synop oF EPHESUS.
This Document of the falling Roman Empire avoucbes the authority of the Council, glances at the reasons for summon- ing it, and expresses satisfaction at the result, and it also directs the President to despatch letters to the Bishops (364—870), in which is a hiaus. Correspondence between Emperor Theodosius and Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem (370), hiatus.
XXX.
Xi:
CONTENTS.
EncyciicAL Lerrer oF J)ioscorUs To THE BisHops, (DEFICIENT).
The books of the Nestorians are to be burnt, being antago- nistic to The Faith; the Treatises of the Former Fathers are to be in use and of force. Dioscorus is to notify this to the Metropolitans appending a form and subscription. The Form is appended (878—875).
The Ascription of this Monophysite Codex or Document to the Trinity (376), in large type, and its Scribes Post Script (377—380).
The Letter of Domnus to Flavian (881—382), the Twelve
Chapters of Cyril, (883—884), and the Letter of Ibas to Maris the Persiau (285—387), in the Original Greek.
APPENDICES.
EXTRACTS
Translated from Syriac MSS of different dates, in the British Museum, relating directly or indirectly, sometimes quoting, the Second Synod, or to the Great Nestorian Controversy.
B
An Extract from: one of the Additional MSS. in the British Museum, numbered 12,156... 392
C
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS. in the British Museum, numbered 14,663. Bolelds . Teck... ic ae shy Rae 15)
D
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS. in the British Museum, numbered 12,156... 401
CONTENTS.
EK
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS. in the British Museum, numbered 14,602. Fols. 95 and 96 Lb : te
F
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS.
‘in the British Museum, numbered 14,602. Fol. 97 Sie bee 3
G
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS.
in the British Museum, numbered 17,154. Fols. 31 and 32 Ne
H
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS. in the British Museum, numbered 12,155.
Hole t Qo and 113) a. 1
I
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS.
in the British Museum, numbered 12,156
K
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS.
in the British Museum, numbered 12,156.
Hols ar bc:
L
An Extract from one of the Additional MSS.
in the British Museum, numbered 14,526. Bolegs, a 23 'b, I s.. Ee es ee
XXX1.
437
445
446
44.8
454
456
fret ‘ tthe : ’ i ‘ a ‘ i ' ; ‘ , ’ a oa ' i 4 + , ~ ‘ 26
WHICH ASSEMBLED AT ~EPHESUS
| IN THE DAYS OF THE 7
LY BISHOP DIOSCORUS.
ECOND SYNOD
i ati
ay
de
ENGLISH VERSION.
te (cz) THE AUTOCRATIC CAISARS, THEO- DOSIUS AND VALENTINIAN, VICTORS AND ILLUSTRIOUS BY VICTORIES, THE EVER-WORSHIP- Pte tek: AUGUST” TO DIOS: CORUS* :
It is evident unto all men that the Status of our Government and (the condition of) all our human affairs are strengthened and consolidated by (The True) Religion, and that, when God is propitious,
* This Imperial Document of Theodosius ii. and Valentinian iii., convoking what was intended to be and was at first the 4th C2cumenical Synod or Council of Christ’s Catholic Church, and addressed to the Successor of S. Mark in its 2nd See, was originally issued in Greek and will be found in Labbe’s “ Sacro-Sancta Concilia”’ at Tom. IV. 99-102,and in Mansi’s “Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio” at Vol. VI., 588-590. It has two Syriac Translations among the Add. MSS. in the Brit. Museum, of one of which (the chief, and numbered 14,530) my Vol. i. contains the Oxford Clarendon Press impression at the com- mencement. The other (in Add. MS, numbered 12,156) will be found under the designation ID among the Appendices of the same Vol, and
A THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
matters are readily administered and proceed accord- ing to our wish. Called,* then, to reign by Divine Providence we of necessity exercise great solicitude for the peace and quiet of our subjects in order that Our Rightful Majesty may be upheld and Our Government carried on and flourish by (The True) Religion.t
its translation in this Vol. ii. under Appendix D. The Ecclesiastical Annals of Baronius contain only a Latin Version of it at Tom. VIII. p- 10 (Luce 1741). I have given another Latin version of it from Mansi’s Labbe at p. 15, of my “Ancient Syriac Document, &c.,” presented in 1868 to the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and since deposited by the present one in the Lambeth Library.
* Or, it may perhaps be rendered, but not so well,—* Called, then, to “reign by Divine Providence and supremely desirous of promoting the ‘“peace and happiness of our subjects we shall take care that our Majesty ‘and our Government be distinguished by a true Piety.”
+ “By (The True) Religion.” The Roman Empire found support, as to the matter of Government, in the true Principles embodied in‘a false Religion. How much more would it in those of the True Religion, although at this period that Empire was on the decline and destined to fall ere long under the weight of its own vices, of which the historical fact of this Ephesine Assembly is a not inappropriate prelude, when viewed in the light of a great Council of the Church being turned into the nefarious purposes of the Chiefs of the Eutychean party, Chrysa- phius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, whom I designate the Ecclesiastical Tri- umvirate of the period. In Dr. R. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus
column 864, he distinguishes between (1) io ee » GeoréBaa, and (2) los} DNas évoéBera, religio, pietas and (3) lo} hes
y=», religiositas tua, which terms constantly occur throughout the original MS., as may be seen from my version in Vol. i, The last (3) I have uniformly translated “Your Piety or Your Reverence, as Your Religiosity or Religiousness would hardly be an admissible appellative in accosting anyone. At p. 3, l 7, in my text Jn Lod» [DNu> seems to partake of both sig- nifications (1) and (2) which idea is confirmed by the corre- sponding term in Appendix D where it is 125 DuSo jDNus ln} Zod», so that it might be translated also « by a true Piety.” In correspondence with Dr. R. P. Smith, he was good enough to
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 5
D
Now, seeing that a certain controversy™ has all on a sudden sprung up just lately touching Apostolic Doctrineandaftecting the conservancy of our Orthodox Faith, which (controversy), by drawing men off into diverse opinions, agitates and disturbs their minds and affections, it has appeared to us that it would not be well to neglect a matter of this kind, dis- graceful though it be, lest haply our disregard of it tend to the dishonour of God Himself; and for that reason we have given command that, when there have assembled together Pious and God-loving personages enjoying great reputation for Piety and
oO ” point out to me that the cognate word 125 means (1) adoratio,
veneratio, and (2) probably res adoranda, idolum as well as (3) the respect and veneration, claimed by the Roman Emperors and implied, I think, in the words Augustus, divus, divinus, &c. In Mansi’s Labbe’s “ Conciliorum Collectio” it is rendered 6pyoxeia and Religio.
The term {mag at the very beginning of this Imperial Doc-
ument and {Zomagiso in Appendix D mean dignitas, as well as ordo, status ; the Thesaurus Syriacus of Dr. P. S., at c. 1125
doa 4 n Wes A affording us an example in the expression {sao {nag > RS) ; Splendores regie dignitatis.
* « A controversy has all on a sudden sprung up just lately.” In his letter to Proclus, the Proconsul of Asia, as given by Binius (Concilia iii. p. 56) in Latin and Greek, the Emperor says :—“ Nunc et altera “ iterum contra Divinam Fidem excitata est dubitatio (a), secundam hanc “in Epheso fieri Synodum Sanximus, mali radicem omnino excidere “cupientes. . . . . Elpidium (J) verum Spectabilem Comitem “nostri Consistorii et Eulogium verum Spectabilem, ‘Tribunum et “ Notarium, ad hanc causam degimus.”
(a) In a beautiful little letter of S. Leo, addressed to this Second Ephesine Council, as given by Binius (Concilia iii. p. 14), he has explained in a few words the «fons et origo” of the great Controversy :—‘‘ T'u es, inquit, Christus Filius Dei: **hoc est, Iu, Qui es vere Filius hominis, idem vere es Filius Dei vivi: Tu, ‘‘inquam, verus in Deitate, verus in carne, et sub ea geminz proprietate na- “ture utrinque unus. Quod si Eutyches intelligenter ac vivaciter crederet “nequaquam ab hujus fidei tramite deviaret.” The controversy itself con. cerned the true nature of Jesus Christ. See Introduction.
(4) See Vol. i. page 273, and Appendix D of this Vol., ‘‘ Commonitory or Commis. sion of Elpidius.”?
6 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
for being of The Orthodox and True Faith, such an accurate enquiry be instituted that the groundless controversy be composed, and The True and Ortho- dox Faith, so precious to God, become consolidated.
Your Piety, then, taking with you ten of the Holy Metropolitan Bishops of the Province, besides ten other Venerable Bishops adorned with (the qualifications of) eloquence and an upright manner of life, and, more than other men, distinguished for the knowledge and for the teaching of The True and Inerrant Faith, will, on the Calends of August next ensuing, take care to repair without delay to Ephesus the Metropolis of Asia-—no other person, however, except those mentioned, must be allowed to trouble the Holy Synod—in order that, when all those Pious and God-loving Bishops, whom we have given command by Royal Letters to assemble together, shall have gone with promptitude to the City named above, and have institated accu- rate investigation and enquiry, the whole Error may be uprooted and made to cease, whilst the Doctrine of The Orthodox and True Faith, so dear to Christ our Saviour, shall flourish as usual, and be consoli- dated ; which (Faith) it will be the duty of all men now living to preserve unshaken and (to transmit) inviolate to times hereafter, having God propi- tious. If any one, however, be bent on contem- ning this God-loving Synod—a Synod which necessity has demanded—and demur to proceed with all his ability at the time appointed, and to the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. is
place selected, not a single excuse will be found (available) for him before God or with our Clemency. But he who excuses himself insincerely* from attend- ing this assembly of the Priesthood (though his excuse be accepted, yet) will, necessarily, feel pun- ishment (injured) in himself.
Theodoret,+ Bishop of the City of Cyrus, however, whom we have already commanded to confine himself to his own Church, we forbid to proceed to the Holy Synod, unless first it should seem fit to the whole assembled Synod for him also to go and take part in that Synod. But, if any division (of opinion) arise on his account, we determine that the Holy Synod shall meet and settle the business, as ordered, without him.
THIS ORDINANCE WAS ISSUED ON THE 30TH OF MARCH, THE THIRD BEFORE THE CALENDS OF APRIL, IN THE CITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE, AFTER THE CONSULATE OF THE ILLUSTRIOUS ZENO AND
* « Tnsincerely.” Literally translated the Syriac phrase is “ with no good conscience.”” The whole sentence’s meaning is tersely ex- pressed in Mansi’s Latin :—‘ Sacerdotalem enim conventum non nisi quis mala propria conscientia sauciatus evitat.”” The Cécumenical Synod of Nicea in 325 A.D. was designated an assembly of the Priesthood. So this. : + These Acts will be found to furnish no unimportant materials for writing the history of this great and prominent character of the 5th Century, to which Dr. Newman has already contributed much.
Theodosius the Younger and Valentinian ITI. were “the Masters of the world.” The former succeeded to the Imperial Purple in his 8th year and died in his 49th year, 450 a.pD., leaving only one daughter, who married Valentinian III. The latter, the last of the family of ‘Theo- dosius the Great, was publicly acknowledged Emperor of Rome Oct. 3rd, 423 a.D., although only in the 6th year of his age, and was murdered there in the 31st year of his reign, 454 A.D.
8 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
RECORDS OF PROCEDURE DIRECTED AGAINST IBAS, THE BISHOP OF THE CITY OF EDESSA.*
(8) The Autocratic Cmsars, THEeoposius and VALEN- TINIAN, Victors and Illustrious by Victory, the ever- Worshipful, the Augusti, to Dioscorust :
On a former occasion{ we ordered that Theodoret, the Bishop of City of Cyrus, should not go to the
ae 2 a Es a ee ee
* The above heading of the legal action or of the “ memorial of pro- “ceedings,” adopted both by this Assembly and by others, in relation to this very celebrated and greatly canvassed character—so much so as to have occupied the attention of no less than half-a-dozen Councils of the Church—would perhaps have been far more appropriately placed by the Scribe lower down in the original Acts or MS.,’since only one of the following Documents relates specially to Ibas. The Report of his, the first, cause tried by the Council occupies in these Acts the first 92 pages.
I have always rendered the word ta.m Jbas, although it is evident that orthographically it should be Hida and etymologically Lhiba.
+ This Imperial Letter assigns the Presidency of the then immedi- ately assembling Council to Dioscorus the Archbishop of Alexandria as Successor to the Great Cyril in the second Church in rank in the then Christendom, but through interested partizans at Court chiefly it was no doubt that he obtained the appointment. The term “ Alexan- “dria the Great” which runs through these Acts would apparently seem to indicate that the Greatness of the great Conqueror, its Founder, was still retained in the minds of men in Vth Century after Christ. This Letter views Theodoret, though his pastoral and literary labours for the Catholic Church had been so great and successful and his Services to the Empire not unimportant, yet because he was not perfectly Orthodox, as a dangerous Heretic and a Teacher to be repressed and silenced. His faithful adherence to his old and and cherished friend Nestorius won for him chiefly the unenviable notoriety of being a wilful participator in the great Error of that Heresiarch, whereas his recantation before the Fathers of Chalcedon of all that might have been heretical on his part would seem to modify, if not exonerate him from, the charge. The letter is to be found in Labbe (Sacro-Sancta Concilia IV., 110-112) and in Mansi (Concil. omnium amplis. collectio VI., 599-600), reprinted in my “ Ancient Syriac Document, &c.” at page 16. A Second Syriac Version may be seen in Appendix D to Vol. 1. A Latin version of it occurs in Baronius’s Annals.
t “Ona former occasion,” i.e., in the Imperial Letter (a) dated
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 9
Holy Synod until that Holy Synod had settled what it willed concerning him. For, we have discounten- anced his proceedings, seeing that he has ventured to compose, treatises* antagonistic to those which Cyril, of Blessed Memory, who was Bishop of Alexandria the Great, wrote concerning The Faith. Since, however, it is possible that some of the partizans of Nestorius will exhibit a degree of solicitude about him so as by all means to enable him to go to the Holy Synod, for that reason we have of necessity concluded on addressing these Royal Letters to your Piety ; and by them we notify to your Charity and to the entire Holy Synod that, acting in conformity with the Canons of the Holy Fathers, we have assigned the Presidency and (Chief) Authority not only over Theodoret, but also over all other Bishops admitted to that Holy Synod now assembled, to your Piety ; being assured, as we verily are, that also the God-loving Archbishop of Jerusalem, Ju- venal, and the God-loving Archbishop Thalassius, ana all who have a similar zeal and love for The
March 30, which, hereafter it will be convenient to remember, was the Wednesday of the Easter Week in 449 ap. The prohibition is renewed in the above letter (8) dated the day before the opening of this Synod.
* In Migne’s Patrologia Greca, letter 112 of Theodoret, in which he says his “sad soul sighs and laments’? as he witnesses the preparations made for the approaching Council, goes so far as to speak of “‘the venom contained in the 12 Chapters,’’ and of the Successor of Cyril as daring “to pronounce an anathema on those who refuse to accept “the 12 Chapters,” which, as they are so frequently alluded to and so remarkable and able, we have given below, for the benefit of the English reader, from the Oxford Fleury.
B
10 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Orthodox Faith, are of the same opinion with your Holiness, who are, by the grace of God, distin- guished for gravity of life and integrity of Faith.
As for those who have ventured to affirm (any thing) in addition to, or in subtraction from, what has been determined on in matters relating to The Faith (the Symbol delivered) by the Holy Fathers at Nicza and afterwards at Ephesus, we by no means allow them any liberty of speech at all that would accrue to them in Holy Synod, whilst we will (at the same time) that they submit to your judement. For this reason, too, it is that we have decreed that the assembling of the Holy Synod should now take place.
This Ordinance was issued (granted) on the 6th of the month of Ab (August) on the 8th before the Ides of August, at Constantinople.
(y) The Autocratic Caisars, Tuxopostus and V Auuy- mintaN, Victors and Illustrious by Victory, the ever-Worshipful, the Augusti, to the Hoty Synop assembled at Ephesus the Metropolis :*
Numerous Anaphorze (Reports) from people at
* This little Document, extant in no other quarter of the literary world except in our MS. named A, has, with that entire MS., for many centuries been lost to the Church, until unearthed from the Monastery of Deipara in Egypt, with the other rich Syriac treasures, by the late Dr. Tattam, the Coptic Scholar, about 30 years ago. It refers to the duty of a General Council in the case of an errant Bishop and to
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. teh
Edessa, a City in the Province of Osrhoene, with Acts drawn up there, have been despatched hither, which contain the Depositions of many Venerable Clergy and God-fearmg Archimandrites and Civic
the celebrated Commission which those (in one sense famous, but not so in another) Bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius received at the bidding of the Masters of the world, when the Bishop Ibas’s trial took place at Tyre-Berytus-Tyre. The difficulties connected with the history of that trial, which for so long a period were discussed by Tillemont and other historians, have received a complete solution by cer- tain historical facts made known to us now for the first time by A. The Add. MS. numbered 14,602 in the British Museum contains passages—see Appendix E for their translation—referring not only to Dioscorus and to his Synod, by whose authority the Bishops of Edessa and Cyrus were expelled from their Episcopi al Sees without even being cited to appear before that “Tribunal, but specially relating also to the Commissioners Photius and Eustathius appointed to adjudicate in the case of Ibas, first at Tyre, by whose Bishop a reconciliation between the contending parties was initiated, and then at Berytus, where a decision was arrived at, and then back again at .Tyre as being the Bishopric that claimed priority in point of Dignity and Rank.
As this case will afford a most evident instance of the important manner in which Extracts from MSS. in the Appendices named B, C, D, &c., bear upon the great Document A, like some * minor aiendeat Satellites (if 1 may indulge i in a. simile) ace one great Luminary, I will subjoin some ipsissima verba of MS. 14,602 f for the purpose of instituting comparison respectively between MS., 1 49530 or my Version A at pages 20 and 59, from lines 5 and 2, and 1 4,602 or E
where occur the words jnaSiS rae? ON (OTtasS Das 20 Dasd{coldo : 50,2 Locons| mafoods pa2 ‘Lady wifolsc: aN.) Opa? * capa]? Go}do : Dagaia>y
*|aucr on wena lon
. and between A at page 21 from line 10, and E, where the Bishops state — JeSe@sce 3AD a> (022omepo elas c2n70-00 qs? Jon
on fmm yas ; lobe ede S05L| (Bs cai cankols
;. clZ}> We would recommend a comparison also between the respec -
12 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Dignitaries, and, so to speak, of the whole population of the same City, who witness against Ibas, Bishop of the City of Edessa, to a great deal of Impiety and Blasphemy.
Since, then, it appertains to (the office of) your Holiness to correct such Profanity--for, that the evidence of all these persons, Clerics and Monks and Civic Magistrates and Laics, should be false, your Holiness cannot fairly admit on reading the (formal) account of these matters with the (accom- panying) affidavits—you will free that City from such Blasphemy (scandal) and appoint over it a man honoured for integrity of life, and renowned in The True Faith—one who is master of himself.* And, if anything else occur in those parts of a similar (scandalous) character, let it be sup- pressed ; for, if those who preside over Metropolitan
tive translations of these passages in this Vol. My friend, Mons. Martin, has given me, before his own work is published, a clear instance, in the subjoined paragraph, of the value of our MS. named A in re the trial at Tyre and Berytus. He says, “Il est evident aujourd’hui que la “conférence de Tyr et de Béryte avait eu lieu, quand se tint le “brigandage d’Ephése. Par conséquent la date des conférences de “ Béryte (Mansi, VIT., 211) est fausse.—II n’y a eu qu’un seul arbitrage, “lequel commencé a Tyr, s’est continué a Béryte et est revenu se ter- ‘ minera Tyr vers le 25 février 448. Voir Pagi daus Mansi, Concil. omn., “VI, 499.—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a histoire ecclesiastique “ XV., 474, et note 13° sur S. Léon, p. 897. Cfr. Héfélé: Histoire “ des Conciles, IJ.”? About Archimandrites, &c., see below.
* This little sentence has always presented a difficulty to me. Per- haps it will be best to take Martin’s fluent rendering :—“ In appointing “to preside over it (the City of Edessa) a man of irreproachable character and of unassailable faith, you will succeed in imposing silence “upon those who, in the same country, may probably have been successful “in exalting themselves against Orthodox Believers,”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. is
Cities are Orthodox, the others (Bishops Suffragan) will as a matter of necessity follow their teaching. In reference to this same cause we have enjoined already that the Adjudicators of it should be the God-fearing Photius, Bishop of the Holy Church of Tyre, the Metropolis, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus, and Uranius, Bishop of the City of Himeria, whom also we now command to proceed to your Holy Synod in order to convey, in person, all these Instructions to your Holiness.
This Ordinance was issued on the 5th before the Calends of July, which is the 27th day (of June, 449, a.p.), at Constantinople.
(5) After (the year of) the Consulate* of the Ilus- trious Zeno and Postuumiay, in the Month called by the Egyptians Mesori, on the 29th day of it, during (the continuance of) Indiction the thirdt, the Holy
* Tt will be remembered that Zeno was Consul for the East in 448 a.p., and Posthumian for the West. See Mansi’s “ Sac. Conciliorum Collectio,” Tom VI., p. 441-451 (Florentiz, 1761).
+ “Third Indiction.”” It is well known that the Third Indiction did not begin till Sept. Ist, 449 a.v. So there must be here a mistake made. Yet, from Appendix D, it will be seen that the Addl. MS. marked 12,156 has Jndiction the third, also. It, however, should be : during the second Induction. Baronius begins a Volume thus :
bb. Leonis Pap. Theodosii . 42 Annus Annus Imp. 449 10 Valentinian. 25
| Anno Periodi Grmco-Romanz, 5942
SAC. V. © 10. B.) 13. P. 27 Mart. Indict. 2. Pagius’s Note Olymp. JX 449 307 |
Coss. Fl. Asturiun et Fl, Protogener,
14 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Synod assembled at Ephesus in compliance with the command of the Christ-loving Emperors, when there sat in the Church called Mary the Pious and God-loving Bishops (following) :—*
1 Dioscorus of Alexandria,t
2 Juvenal of Jerusalem,
3 Thalassius of Czesarea of the First Cappadocia,
* The list of Bishops present at this Council, as ascertained from these Acts, differs from that in our Historians in several respects. First, the names omitted are—Domnus and Flavian, Archbishops of Antioch and Constantinople ; Quintillus of Heraclea, who represented also Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica ; Cyriacus, Bishop of Troc- made, representing Theoctistus of Pisinontia in the Second Galatia ; Theodorus of Tarsus and Romanus of Myra in Lycia; John of Nicopolis in the First Armenia ; Eutychius of Adrianopolis in Asia ; John of Messena of Achaia; Theodorus of Claudiopolis in Isauria ; Etericus of Smyrna; Flavian of Adramytha; Meliphtongua of Juli- opolis ; Onesiphorus of Iconium; Longinus of Chersonesus ; Eudoxius of Bosphorus ; Timothy of Primopolis in Pamphilia; Isaac of Ele- archa; Julian of Mostena (?). At the end the Greek adds :—
The Priest Longinus replacing Dorotheus of Neocesarea ; - Anthymius ,, —Patricius of Tyana in the Second Cappadocia ; Ss Aristonius ,, _Eunomius in Nicomedia ; gs Olympius »» Calogera of Claudiopolis in Pontus ;
Hilarius Roman Deacon and Dulcitius Roman Notary (Labbe, Sacro- sancta Concilia, t. IV., col. 115-119). The Greek omits and the Syriac adds—Maximian of Gaza; Paul of Andaha; Peter of Chro- nesos (Chersonesus ?) ; Olympius of Sozopolis ; Paulinus of ‘Theodosi- opolis ; Gennadius of Gnosse Quaioussa ; Mortorius of Gortyna in Crete ; Mara of Dyonisyada; Ananius of Quapatoulida. In all 27 omissions and 9 additions in the Syriac. Our Acts containing III names, that of Barsumas included, the number of Fathers at Ephesus 449 a.D. would then be 137 or 138. We may perhaps explain these differences by saying that the Greek list contains only the names of the Fathers who figured in the first Session, while the Syriac list contains only the names of those who assisted at the second. It is probable, in.fact, that many Bishops left, when they saw into what an ambush they had been drawn under pretence of a Council. See Martin’s Etude in * Revue des Questions Historiques.”’
+ Space forbids even the attempt of giving a shortened account of the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. re
4 Stephen of Ephesus,
5 Eusebius of Ancyra of the First Galatia,
6 Cyrus of Aphrodisias of Caria,
7 Erasistratus of Corinth in Hellas,
_8 Miletius of Larissa, who also filled the place of the Venerable Domnus, Bishop of Apamea,
9 Diogenes of Cyzicus,
10 John of Sebastia in the First Armenia,
11 Basil of Seleucia of Isauria,
12 John of Rhodes,
13 Photius of Tyre,
14 Theodore of Damascus,
15 Florentius of (Sardis in) Lydia,
16 Marinianus of Synnada,
17 Constantius of Bostra,
several Sees which the below-named Bishops occupied, but as a specimen of the history of the Patriarchates of Christendom we sub- join, as summarised by Dr. Neale, that of the Rise and Decline of the Church of Alexandria. We have traced it, he says, from the time when its Apostolic Founder laid down his life for his Lord: we have penetrated, as far as we might, the obscure annals of its earlier Patriarchs : we have seen it struggling with the persecutions of Walerian and Diocletian, and, by the blood of its martyrs, spreading the Faith into the wildest regions of Africa: we have seen it crushing the Sabellian heresy in the person of S. Dionysius, standing alone against an Arian world in that of Athanasius, overthrowing Nestorius, and wielding an Ccumenical Council in that of S. Cyril. We have seen it drawn into error by the vices and heresy of Dioscorus; thenceforward be- set by a long and fearful schism, from which neither the Mar- tyrdom of Proterius, nor the alms of S. John, nor the learn- ning of S. Eulogius, could deliver it; and, finally, overwhelmed by the victorious arms of the Impostor of Mecca. We have struggled through the dark annals of its medieval history: we have found heresy triumphant, the Church almost dropping the name of Catholic, persecution rife, apostasy frequent; scarcely one valiant action for the faith recorded ; scarcely one noble athlete for his God chron- icled. We have seen the dismal gulf yawn between the Eastern
16 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
18 Acacius of Ariarathia of the Second Armenia, who filled the place of the Venerable Con- stantius of Melitene,
19 Stephen of Mabug (Hierapolis),
20 Atticus of Nicopolis of Ancient Epirus,
21 Eustathius of Berytus,
22, Nunechius of Laodicea of the Trimitarian Phrygia,
23 Olympius of Constantia of Cyprus,
24 Candidian of Antioch in Pisidia,
25 Stephen of Anazarbus,
26 Gerontius of Seleucia of Syria,
27 Rufinus of Samosata,
28 Indamus of Irenopolis,
29 Timothy of Balanea,
30 Theodosius of Canotha,
31 Claudius of Anchismus of Ancient Epirus,
b
and Western Christendom; and we have noted the attempts made by Rome, and by Protestant Germany, to pass it. We have watched the progress of the Portuguese in Ethiopia, from their first hopes of success, through the absolute victory, to the entire fall of Rome. We have remarked the gradual rise of error in the mind of Cyril Lucar, and his fruitless, though conscientious, attempt to lead the Eastern Church into heresy. And now we behold the Church of S. Athanasius and S,. Cyril, a shadow of its former self, without a Bishop, except the Patri- arch, ‘persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed.” What remains but that we long and pray for those happier times when Alexandria and her sister Churches ‘shall shake themselves from the “ dust,” shall “loose the bands of their neck,” shall no more be “forsaken ‘and hated,” shall become ‘an eternal excellency, a joy of “many genera- “tions ;” shall be freed from the Ottoman yoke, purged from ignorance, shall unite and be united with the Western Church, shall become One Fold under One Shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom, with the Father and the Holy Ghost be all honour and glory, world without end, Amen.
42,
52
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. vd
Simeon of Amida of Mesopotamia, Seleucus of Amasia,
Peter of Gangra,
Luke of Dyrrhacium,
Antony of Lychnidus,
Mark of Eubea,
Vigilantius of Larissa,
Basil of Trajanopolis of the Province of Rhodopza,
Docimasius of Maronea of the Province of Rhodopea,
Constantine of Demetrias,
Alexander of Sebaste of Tarsus,
Sozon of Philippi,
Kusebius of Doberus in the First (Macedonia),
Maximianus of Serrai in the First Macedonia,
Luke of Berza in the First Macedonia,
John of Messena,
Uranius of Himeria in the Province of Osrhoene,
Athanasius of Opas (Opuntus) in Achaia, Leontius of Ascalon,
Marinianus of Gaza,
Photius of Lydda,
Anastasius of Arenopolis,
Paul of (Anthadacia) Antdaha, Theodosius of Amathus (Amathontius), Paul of Majuma,
Zotimus of Minois,
18
64
THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Epiphanius of Perga, Baruch of Sozuza of Palestine,
Heraclius of Azotus, John of Tiberias,
Musonius of Zoara,
Dionysius of Sycamazon (Sycomason),
Cajumas of Phaneze (Faina),
Constantius of Sebastia,
Zebennus (Zebinus) of Pella,
Olympius of Bostra,
Polychronius of Antipatris,
Pancratius of Libyas, :
Auxilaus (Bishop) of the Subjected Saracens,
Domninus of Platzeze of Hellas,
Theodosius of Mastaura,
Cyriacus of Algza,
Cyriacus of Lebedos,
Leontius of Magnesia of the Mezandra (Me- nandra),
EKutropius of Pergamos in Asia, Gennadius of Teos,
Olympius of Evasa,
Maximinus of Trallis,
Julian of Hypzepa,
Chrysanthius of Baga,
Polycarp of Gabala,
Paul of Tripolis of Lydia,
Peter of Chersonesus (Cherronesus),
Olympius of Sozopolis,
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 ob 96 OF 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 Lae 112 113
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 19
Paulinus of Theodosiopolis, Gennadius of Cajusa, Martyrius of Gortyna of Crete, Maras of Dionysias (Dinosyda), Anianus of Capitolias (Capitolida), Theopempus of Cabassa, Calosirius of Arsinoe (Arsinoetus), John of Hiphezestus (Ephestus), Heraclius of Heraclea, Gemellinus of Erythrum, Apollonius of Tanis, Gennadius of Hermopolis the Great, Cyrus of Babylon, Athanasius of Busiris,
Photinus of Teuchira,
Theophilus of Cleopatris, Pasmejus of Paralus,
Sozias of Sozusa,
Theodulus of Tisila,
Theodorus of Barca,
Rufus of Cyrene,
Zeno of Rhinocorura,
Lucius of Zyegra,
Ausonius of Sebennytus,
Isaac of Tava,
Philocalus of Zagylis (Zagulon),
Tsaiah of Hermopolis the Less,
Barzumas, Presbyter and Archimandrite.
20 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“RESUMPTION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL ON MONDAY, AUGUST THE 22nn, 449 A.D.,
AT THE
SECOND SESSION.
* The reader will have observed that, from the preceding Documents, the Chief Bishops of the whole Church were directed to meet in Cécu- menical Synod for the dispatch of business on Ist Aug., 449 4.D. The Synod’s proper work, however, does not appear to have begun till roth Aug., after Forme le *§ On Sth, and then to have continued—no doubt with intervals and with necessary arrangements for minor, as well as major, matters—until Thursday, the 18th or Friday, 19th, of Aug., on one of which days the affair of Eutyches was brought to a conclusion. THAT, then, we may correctly designate the First Session, at and by which the President and his party considered the firs¢ part, actually accomplished, of the end and object for which the Council was convoked and which first part was declared by authority to be—‘ To terminate a “question of Faith that has arisen between Flavian and Eutyches.” At this the Second Session, on the Business of which the Council now enters, the assembling on “the first day,” i.e. Saturday, Aug. 20th, being preliminary to it, we shall see ow they attained the second part of that end and object, avowed to be—'T’o eject from the Church all who “ maintain and favour the Error of Nestorius.”? In Appendix E there is laid down a principle and a rule, embodied in one of the * Canons of the Apostles” and usually adopted in all legal procedure, even when the vilest criminals are arraigned, of which principle, however, and rule what trace can be found, we ask, at this Court and Tribunal of the Church, when Bishops, some of them of no ordinary character, are summoned and tried at the bar of Justice, and on a charge so serious as that of a
Depravation of ‘THE FAITH and of Heresy.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. yall
(1) Jonny, Presbyter of Alexandria and Proto-
Notary, said :—
On the first day of the assembling of your Holy and Great Synod, those* who fill the place of the Pious and God-loving Archbishop of Rome, Leo, and the God-loving Domnus, the Bishop of the Church of Antioch, stayed away and did not come (to the Synod) ; upon which your Holiness, acting in accordance with the Canons, gave order that cer- tain of the God-fearing Bishops, with some other Clerics attendant on them, should go to them and to him, and should remind them that they ought to come to-day and assemble with your Holiness. Since, then, they are now here present, who were selected for the purpose of reminding both these parties, that is to say, those from Rome, and the God-fearing Bishop Domnus, I notify this circum- stance for your pleasure (to deal with it).
JuveNnaL, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :- Let the Holy Bishops now report the reply they received from those persons who occupy the place
* 'Thenames of the Envoys, at this Council, of S. Leo the Great have occasioned much discussion, but Quesnel’s and other conjectures now fall to the ground. We are certain of the name of Julius of Pozzolo as ascer- tained from Appendix D, where Timothy /Elurus, who was at this Council and a successor of Dioscorus, plainly distinguishes between this Julius from Julian of Cos and speaks of the former as ‘ occupying the “place, or being the representative, of the Holy Bishop of the Church “of Rome,” and he afterwards quotes the advice of “Julian Bishop of CON Gok ag S. Leo himself surely deserves to be called “the Great.” For, as a man, who cannot admire his patriotic, yea his heroic, great-
22 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of the God-loving and Holy Bishop of the Church of Rome, Leo, and from the God-loving Bishop of the Church of Antioch, Domnus.
The God-fearing Bishops, Ouympius of Evaza,” and Juuian of Hypzepa and Monranius, Deacon of the Holy Church of Aphrodisias, and Evpnrontivs, Deacon of Laodicea, said :—
In pursuance of the Orders of this Holy and (Keumenical Synod, we proceeded to the place where those (representative) persons reside who had been despatched from celebrated and Royal Rome, to wit, the God-loving Bishop Julian and the Deacon Hilarius. We did not, however, find them (there).
ness in approaching, in the way he did, the savage Huns, headed by their Leader recognized as “the Scourge of God,’ whom he caused to withdraw from Italy, as well as in dissuading Genseric to retire from the very gates of Rome. As a Doctor of the Church, what better instance can be desired of his intellectual and literary greatness than the fact that his grand Epistle (X XVIII.) written to Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople—the celebrated ‘Tome that was rejected by Dioscorus, to whom these Delegates in vain produced it before the Synod, but heartily accepted by the Fathers of Calcedon in 451 a.p. as consonant with the Symbol of the CCCXVIII. and of Constantinople, as well as with what was settled by Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus 431 a.p.—should become, like the three celebrated Epistles of S. Cyril, @&cumenical in the Church, the common property and heritage of the Faithful and binding for ever on the faith of the Church. Great was he, also, as an unsur- passed Administrator and Governor of the Church, notwithstanding his ambition to unduly exalthisownSee. (See Bright’s “18 Sermonsof Leo.”’) And lastly Great was Leo in foreseeing and, as far as possible, in coun- teracting the evils and miseries that would befall the Church, if the great Eutychian party should succeed in bringing about, and then in over ruling, a second Ephesine Council.
* Eyvaza, called also Theodosiopolis, and but very little known it seems, was an Episcopal City of Asia Minor with Ephesus for its me -
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 23
Then we had an interview with Dulcitius, the Notary, who was unwell ; and we told him that the Holy Synod was re-assembled but was retarded in (deferred) the act of adjudication in the hope that they would again come to the assembly after one
day, that is, on the following Monday. And the
tropolis. Its first Bishops, according to Richard and Giraud, were (1) Eutropius who appeared at the Council of Ephesus (431 a.p.) as an opponent of Nestorius. (2) Bassian (ordonné nalgré lui par Memnon d’Ephése) was at Calcedon 451 av. (3) N succeeded Bassian. (4) Olympius who assisted at the Latrocinium of Ephesus, where he was favourable to the cause of Eutyches, but retracted two years afterwards at Calcedon 451 a.p. (Bibliotheque Sacrée. Tom, 9, 10. Daaler Sanahe. Fehre Paris, 1822-23.)
Lucas Holstenius, in his ‘ Annotationes in Geographiam Sac. Caroli a S. Paulo” (Romz, 1666) at p. 135, says:—Evaza. Hieroclis Notit. Olympius Evazorum Episcopus Concil. Chalced. Act. 1. et Eutropius in Epheso. Eidem ordinatus fuerat Ecclesie Bassianus, ut Concil. Chal- cedon. Act. ii, Evaornvots scripsit Basilius Mag. ep. 12. quam ad Evazam pertinere existimo, ut Eva€yvers potius isthic legendum sit. Hierocles in his ‘Synecdemus’ only gives the name as one of the forty Bishoprics of Asia Minor. Martiniére adds nothing to the above except that he says Olympius was at a Council at Rome in 503 ap. Baluze in his “ Nova Collectio Conciliorum’’ mentions the See and its Bishops Bassianus and Eutropius. On Bassian he has a Note sub anno 440 in connection with the Council at Ephesus (foll. 949, 950) giving some account of Bassian’s course. The name of Evala does not occur in the list of cities given by Hierocles in his Synecdemus where it follows Ards ‘Iepdv (Jovis Fanum). Not even the name occurs in the Notitize Grace Episcopatuum, edited by G. Parthey (Ber- olini, 1866); but, curiously enough, the name which follows Acds ‘Iepdv in almost everyone of the Episcopal Notitia is Avyafa or, rather 0 Avyafwr,—Episcopus Augazorum. Augaza is not mentioned by Hierocles, but he has Algiza, which Parthey thinks may be the same: it, however, is absent from all the other lists. | Knowing the extraordi- nary transformations some of these names undergo in the hands of the Scribes, he asks—Is not Evaza as likely to be Augaza as Algiza? and on the whole thinks I have the true form. (Note from H. Cowper. )
Hypepa, Aphrodisias in Caria, and Laodicea in Asia are tolerably well-known places needing no special remarks.
D4 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Notary replied that the God-fearing Bishop was* out in the country, and the Venerable Deacon at the Church (Martyrium)t of the Glorious S. John, but he promised to send to them to say that they should go. However, we did not rest content here, after this conversation, but again in the morning of the (subsequent) Day, Sunday, we proceeded thither, and had another interview with the same Notary, who informed us it was quite impossible for them to
* Perhaps, “in the suburbs of Ephesus.”
+ Martyrium implies the hallowed spot or ground where a true Saint of God glorified Him by his sufferings and Martyrdom. On such spots the Primitive Christians frequently erected a Church. Hence the Martyrium came to be synonimous with the Church. ‘The word occurs again lower down, Martyrium or Church of Zaccheas, where the Inhab- itants of Edessa met the Roman Governor, Chereas, who was Preses of the Province of Osrhoene and Hegemon of its Capital.
After explaining the general names given to Churches such as synodi, concilia, concihabula, Bingham speaks of some which had particular appel- lations assigned them for reasons which could not extend to all. ‘* Such “as were built over the grave of any Martyr, or called by his name to “‘ preserve the memory of him, had usually the distinguishing title of mar- “ tyrium, OY confessio, Or memoria given them for that particular reason. “Thus Eusebius observes of Constantine, that he adorned his new city ‘of Constantinople with many oratories and martyries, and, as it were, “ consecrated his city to the God of the Martyrs. And from this time “in all Christian writings of the following ages, a martyry is always put “to signify such a Church. Socrates speaks of the Martyry of S. “Thomas the Apostle at Edessa, and of SS. Peter and Paul at Rome, “and of the Martyry of Euphemia at Chalcedon, where the body of “that Martyr lay buried, which was the Church where the famous “ Council of Chalcedon was held, whence, in the Acts of that Council, “it is so often styled Maprvpiov Evdyuias, the Martyry of Euphemia. « And, upon the same reason, because our Saviour Christ was the Chief “¢ Sufferer and Great Martyr of his own religion, therefore the Church “« which Constantine built at Mount Golgotha, in memory of His passion “and resurrection, is usually by Eusebius and others styled Martyrium “‘ Salvatoris, the Martyry of our Saviour.” “'The Latins, in- “ stead of martyrium, use the name memoria martyrum for such kind of
“Churches.” (Bk. VIII., Chap. I., Sect. 8.)
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 25
assemble with the Holy Synod, even if it should send ten times, in consequence of the letters, with which they were accredited from Leo, the Arch- bishop of Illustrious and Royal Rome, contaiming no other commission whatever than the order for them to proceed to the Assembly of the Holy Synod (only) until the affaur should be settled about the God-fearing Presbyter and Abbat Eutyches ;* and so, those matters, of which we have had cogni- zance, we have (now) reported before your Holiness.
Joun, Bishop of Sebastia of the First Armenia, and OnzstrHorus, Bishop of Iconium, and Nonnvs, a Deacon of Ephesus, and Puocas, a Deacon of Tyre, said :-—
As your Piety commanded, on the first day which was last Saturday, we went to the Pious and God- fearing Bishop of the City of Antioch, Domnus, and we found him prostrate on a coucht and complain- ing, when he asseverated—“It ‘is on account of ‘“aIness that I am wanting (in the Synod).” We, not- withstanding, were not wanting (in our duty) ; but we made known to him your instructions to us, sta-
* S. Leo’s representatives had sought in vain to get a hearing at the first Session of the Council, and, as Eutyches was there acquitted, not- withstanding all remonstrance, by the imperious and overbearing Dios- corus, the commission they had received at the hands of the great Champion of Orthodoxy at Rome was at an end; and so they left Ephesus, or at least withdrew officially from the Synod.
+ The word «42 s/omach, in my text is indistinct in the MS., and on taking a magnifying lens into the Library of the British Museum, when the Sun shone, I discovered it to be Loy, couch, bed.
D
26 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
ting to him that it was only right and proper for him to betake himself this very day to your Holy and Cicumenical Synod. He readily replied that he was intending to go, and that he felt (quite) inclined to assemble with your Blessedness, provided only he could have a little respite from the sickness that had seized him. Then, to-day, in the morning he sent (appealed) to us; and, regarding it as (only) right and just on our part to give a (complete) defi- nite Report to your Piety, we proceeded to the said God-fearing Bishop and found him in the same con- dition (as before), bitterly complaining, whilst he entreated that, by our means and mediation, it might be reported to your Holiness that he was, contrary to his wish, prevented from attending you (in Synod) in consequence of the (bodily) debility that. had seized him, but that as to all those measures your Holiness had taken against the parties who, infected with the horrible Impieties of Nestorian opinion, have written or were writing (in their defence), he (Domnus) ratifies your Decision and is of the same opinion as yourselves.
(2) Tuazassius, Bishop of Cesarea of the First Cap- padocia, said :— Our being* detained (so long) in this City occa-
* They had been convoked for Aug. Ist, 449 a.D. Some had arrived on that day at Ephesus. It was now Monday, Aug. 22nd, when they re-commenced business and began the trial of those Bishops named in these Acts against whom bills of indictment had heen pre- ferred.
~
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 27
sions much inconvenience to all the God-fearing and Pious Bishops, as well as injury to (their) Holy Churches; and not that only, but the Gracious and Christ-loving Emperor also wishes that there should be a rapid dispatch (of the rest of the business) of this Synod, in order that we may ascertain with exactitude what is determined on (to which we hold ourselves).
Since, then, Formality, befitting and proper to the Holy Synod, has been observed—for, the God- loving the Bishop Julian and the Venerable the Deacon Hilarius, who occupy the place of the Holy and God-loving Leo, Archbishop of Rome, have been reminded by those God-loving Bishops, who were sent (for that purpose, viz.) Olympius of Evaza, and Julian of Hypzepa, and Montanius Deacon of Aphrodisias, and Euphronius Deacon of Laodicea, and have declined assembling here with us—I give it as my opinion that there is no necessity for defer- ring the matter; but if the Holy Synod command it, let this business proceed, lest the monks, too, who are here present should receive annoyance from
(be troubled at) the delay.
Here intervenes really the first of the Lacune in the original MS. (14,530 Additional) in the British Museum, although this hiatus in the Vol. of that MS. is not indicated by the insertion of a blank vellum leaf, as are the other Lacune; and I have not noted it in my Version by any blani leaf in Vol. i., occurring at the 14th line of page 17 in the part of the Syriac Text that the Clarendon Press printed for me six or seven years ago.
—
28 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
IBAS.
This Champion in the great Controversy concerning The True Person of Jesus Christ occupies a most prominent posi- tion in its history as well as, in some respects, a perfectly unique one in the history of the Church. He must be ranged among the upholders of Nestorius and his Doctrine. He had for his predecessor in the See of the great Capital of Osrhoene the noble Rabulas or Rabbilas who, well-nigh unsurpassed by the Great Cyril, adhered to the true Doctrine as settled by the third Cicumenical Council of the Church, and who had been proclaimed “the Glory of the City of Edessa;” and for his successor Nonnus* who had occupied the Bishopric during the forced absence of himself. In Vol. I. of his * Bibliotheca Orientalis” J. 8S. Asseman tells us that the Author of “The Chronicle of Edessa” describes all three Bishops thus:
Cap. LI. In 728 (i.e., 412 a.v.), Rabulas Edessenum Episco- patum accepit. Hic, Imperatoris jussu, wdificavit Templum 8. Stephani, quod antea Domus Sabati, id est, Synagoga Judzeorum fuerat.
Cap. LIX. In 746 (ie., 435 a.p.), die 8 Aug. ex hoc saculo Rabulas Edessz Epis: cui magnus Jbas suffectus est. Hic
* In the series of Bishops of Edessa given by Asseman (in Vol. I., p. 424) from the year of the Greeks 624 to 1080 “‘ Ex Chronico Edesseno et ex Dionysio,” the names preceding the above three are yecorded thus :
I. Cono to 624; II. Saades to 634; III. Aetallahas to 657; IV. Abraham to 672; V.S. Barses Charris, Edessam translatus anno 672, obiit in exilio mense Martis anno 689; with VI. 8. Eulogius ; VII. Cyrus; VIII. Silvanus; TX. Pachidas; X. Diogenes.
Le Qulen in his “ Oriens Christianus,’’ Tom. II., c. 955, precedes this list by (1) Thaddeus, (2) Maris, (3) Bartymeus Martyr, omits the name of the 4th and makes Cono the 5th Bishop.
In Asseman, also, from the ‘‘Compendiaria rerum gestarum His- toria,” we learn that Kings began to reign at Edessa “anno cen- *“tesimo octogesimo,”’ and ex Chronico Dionysii we may read a lst from “ Orrhoés Hevie filius qui Primus Edesseni Regni institntor”’ fuit to “Abgarus Maani EF. Edessenorum Regum postremus.” The whole Chapter (IX.) in the Bibl. Orient. is prefaced with the three following particulars necessary to be remembered, viz.— (1) Chronici Edesseni Auctor Orthodox. floruisse videtur circa annum Christi 550; (2) Grecorum Epocha utitur que Christianam vulgarem annis trecentis undecem ex ejusdem mente antecedit ;
(3) Initium Chronici ab anno Grecorum 180. Finis verd in anno 851
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS.
novam zedificavit Eeclesiam qua hodie Apostolorum appellatur.
Cap. LXIV. In 759 (i.e. 448 a.v.) Ibas Epis. Edessa ex- cessit die Januarii: cui Nonnus substitutus fuit die 21 Juli, tenuit que Sedem annis duobus, et fecit Sacrarium* in Ecclesia.
Cap. LXVII. Im 769 (ie. 458 a.p.) die 28 Octobris re- quievit Ibas Edessa Epis. et in locum suum reversus Nonnus _ eedificavit Templum 8. Joannis Baptiste, et Nosocomium pau- perum invalidorum, extra Portam Bethsemes. Extruxit autem in eodem Nosocomio Templim §.S. Cosma et Damiani. Preetere2 Monasteria Turresque excitavit. Sed et pontes fecit et Vias exssquavit.
Ecclesiastical History informs us distinctly that the first and great Cicumenical Council of Ephesus held in 431 «.p., notwithstanding its having determined The Faith, was very indifferently received in parts of the East, John the Archbishop of Antioch appearing almost to be the head of the disaffected,and that, although an agreement between him and the great Cham- pion of the Orthodox Faith,at Alexandria, was tothe latter’s great joy happily effected, through the good offices of Paul of Emesa, in 433 a.D., yet two great divisions of religious thought on the great Doctrine characterized the Clerical body in too many Dioceses. This was the case with the Catholic Church at the capital which rivalled Antioch in splendour, influence, and power—the celebrated City of Edessa Mons. Martin, in his Etude referred to before, writes truly that at the period when
* On the word Sacrarium Asseman has this note respecting its use by the Author of the Chronicle of Edessa :—
«Auctor noster Graeca voce iepareov. . . . Est autem ieopareiov locus sacer ac venerandus, tabulato inclusus, Clericis tantim, viris secularibus rard, mulieribus nunquam penetrabilis, ut ex Grecorum Euchologio observat Suicerus in Thesauro.
+ Robertson (Vol. I., p. 457) says that Nestorianism, suppressed in the Roman Empire, found refuge beyond its bounds. At Edessa was a flourishing School of Clergy for the Persian Church. Its head, Ibas, was favourable to Nestorianism and translated some of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus into Syriac. Zabbulas broke up the Institution in 485 a.p., but Ibas re-established it, and it kept till the reign of Zeno, by whom it was suppressed in 485 a.p. From this Seminary Nestorianism was propagated in Persia and India, and the Doctrine continued to have a powerful influence on the Christianity of the East. From Asseman (Vol. 1., Chapter XV.) we learn that Ibas, whilst yet a Presbyter of the Church of Edessa, along with the greater part of its Clergy, bitterly opposed the efforts of Rabbulas his Bishop in
29
30 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the first Great Synod assembled at Ephesus, Rabbulas, its Bishop, a converted heathen, maintained warmly the part of S. Cyril. It was even he who first raised, against the memory of '{heodorus of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, that long controversy which terminated, at length, in the middle of the following century by the condemnation of the THREE CHAPTERS. Ardent in strife, excessive in his attacks, pre- cipitate in his measures, even the wisest of them, Rabbulas did not defend 8. Cyril without finding near his person opponents as ardent as himself, and it is perhaps to the resistance at- tempted on their part that we must attribute some of his proceedings which have sometimes been taxed with exaggera- tion. Amongst these opponents, figured in the first line the Persian school of Edessa, a school whose celebrity goes back as far as the epoch when Nisibis fell again under the rule of the Sassanid, in the middle of the preceding century (364 or 365 A.D.).
Then, in fact, most of the Christians who inhabited that city emigrated to the capital of Osrhoene, and founded there, under the protection of the Empire, a sort of University, where every one belonging to the Persian Church, most distinguished by birth and fortune, came to be taught. How did this school partake of the opinions of Nestorius? It is not for us to say just now; it constituted however a focus of opposition, whose masters and pupils Rabbulas hoped he was right in forcibly dispersing (432 a.p.). Thus at least, it seems to us, we ought to interpret the words of the writers of the epoch. Once re- turned to Persia, these masters and pupils continued to follow, with passion, a strife in which they had participated, and on the issue of which they vaguely imagined their future to de- pend. ‘Thence, no doubt, came an exchange of correspondence
condemning the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as Andrew of Samosata shows in a letter to Alexander of Hierapolis (See Assem. Vol. I., p. 198). Hence, as soon as he obtained the Bishopric of Edessa, he incurred the envy and enmity of the friends of Rab- bulas. He was therefore accused before the Emperor Theodsius and Proclus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, by Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogius, Presbyters of the Church of Edessa, of being auctor and fautor perniciosissimus of the disturbances between the Egyptians and the Orientals, of having translated the Books of Theodore into the Syriac Language, and of having disseminated them over the East.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 31
which has for the most part perished; but, one famous piece of which, however, remains to us—a piece which, since its appear- ance, has had an echo superior to that of the anathemas of S. Cyril and Nestorius, and which has perhaps caused the loss of the Persian Church. In this letter, written during the life- time of Rabbulas (about 434 or 435 1.p.), the priest Ibas gave his correspondent the history of the Nestorian controversy (428- 435 a.p.). He did not attribute the blame to S. Cyril, but he branded especially the conduct of his Bishop, whom he called a tyrant. What shows the power of the party opposed to Rabbulas is that, when once this Bishop was dead, it was pre- cisely his most marked and inveterate antagonist who suc- ceeded him in the direction of his Church. Ibas was nominated Bishop of Edessa. This happened about 435.*
Having attained to the Episcopate under such circumstances, the Bishop of Edessa could not long enjoy the repose, of which he had need, to govern his faithful in peace. Those who had supported the ideas of Rabbulas and Cyril, could not fail to get up a vigorous opposition to him, the more so as the Hast was very much divided, and war brooded in men’s hearts every- where. Did Ibas give occasion to his adversaries to attack him by the manner in which he administered his Diocese, and in particular by his management of the ecclesiastical property ? The reiterated complaints of his enemies lead us to believe it; and in the judgments. of which his life has been the object, are found the means both of charging and of defending his mem- ory.+ It was but a short time after he obtained the Episcopate, that his enemies accused him, probably at Alexandria, but
* Tbas was, in fact, already Bishop of Edessa during the life-time of John of Antioch, see Labbe, Sacro-Sancta Concilia, t. V., col. 412- 414, 500-511. Cf. Asseman’s Biblioth. Orient., t. L., p. 424. More- over, we read in our Acts that “Ibas ruined religion in the City of ‘‘ Edessa, for 13 or 14 years.”’ (See Vol. I., p. 99, 1. 8, and p. 38, 1. 6, and the corresponding passages in this Vol.) One vociferator even wishes that “the bones of John of Antioch should be disinterred” because he had ordained him (Ibid). If, in 449 a.p., Ibas had been Bishop of Edessa for 13 or 14 years, it must have been in 435 or 436 a.p. that he was consecrated.—Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l Histoire Ecclesiastique, t. XIV., p. 823; t. XV., p. 966.
+ We have only to compare the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) with the Second @cumenical Council of Constantinople (551 A.D.) to see that the ecclesiastical opinion has wavered a little before fixing upon the judgment which Ibas merited,
32 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
certainly at Constantinople. Proclus, Patriarch of this latter city, wrote about it to John of Antioch, who does not appear to have instituted any proceedings, and to Domnus, successor to John, who delivered, in a Council held at Antioch, a little after Easter (448), a first judgment in favour of Ibas; but the com- plainants did not consider themselves beaten: they effected so much by their intrigues at Court, where they were supported by a party already powerful, that they obtained the revision of this first judgment. These events passed probably about the middle of the year 448 a.p.: for, it would appear certain (the new documents compel us to believe) that the events were not con- secutive, as has been imagined until now. The signatures and the dates, which figure at the head of the Sessions 9 and 10 of the Council of Chalcedon, have led many ecclesiastical writers into error. The order of events would appear to be thus.
Having arrived at Constantinople, the enemies of Ibas, the Clerks of Osrhoene, who had stranded near Domnus of Anti- och, obtained, by their protectors, new judges—judges even in part hostile to the accused. The Court of Constantinople bad not yet entered resolutely upon the path which was to lead fatally to the BRIGANDAGE OF EPHESUS. It was wea- ried with the troubles of Asia, it wished to put an end to them, but it would not employ avy means. .It was necessary that new contradictions and new miscalculations should come to in- crease, with the credit of the heterodox factions, the anger of the feeble Emperor Theodosius II. At the moment, of which we now speak, he was displeased only with those who were treated as Nestorians. Onthe 26th October, 448 a.p., he charged the tribune aud notary Damascius to have examined by Photius of Tyre, Eustathius of Berytus, and Uranius of Himeria, the cause of [bas of Hdessa, Daniel of Charrae, and John of Theo- dosianople, against whom complaints had been submitted to the Imperial Government. The accusers of Ibas set out again in company with Damascius and the deacon Eulogius, whom the Patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian, sent to follow the proceedings, and probably also to keep him informed of all that was done. Matters were in this position when the Coun- cil of Constantinople (8th Nov., 448), having condemned Eutyches, changed the good designs which the Emperor
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 3
seemed to entertain. Hutyches, being condemned, had recourse . to the eunuch Chrysaphius, and this latter, meditating the destruction of Flavian, took it into his head to get rid also of all those who supported him or could support him. Whilst he organized the plan of campaign with Dioscorus and Eutyches; the Oriental Bishops, led into error as to the dispositions of the Government by the ccndemnation of the Heresiarch, sent delegates to Constantinople to protest aguinst all the calum- nies, of which they were the object, on the part of certain interdicted Priests or of certain turbulent Monks of Osrhoene, Domnus and Theodoret took the initiative, and we have then the letters which the Bishop of Cyrus addressed to the most influential personages of the Court. Whilst this was going on, the judges named by Theodosius met first at Tyre, then transferred their sittings to Berytus, on account of the tumult made by the monks who accused Ibas, and returned at last to conclude the difference at Tyre by a friendly arrangement (25th Feb., 449). It has been supposed till now, generally at least, that the compromise of Tyre took place in February, 448, whilst the Synod of Berytus assembled on the 1st September in the same year; but that opinion cannot be maintained.
First, our Acts never distinguish these two assemblages; then the date of the Acts of Tyre and of Berytus places them in 449. Now, certainly, in that year there was no assembly at Berytus (Sept. 1st), whilst the Synod of Ephesus was already finished at that time. In short, the date of the 25th of February alone explains to us clearly the succession of events, and alone agrees exactly with what we read in a supplication of the Clergy of Edessa to the judges of Ibas. It is said that, the festival of Easter being near at hand, the judges of Tyre were entreated to send back the Bishop to Edessa that he might assist in the paschal ceremonies. It is evident that this language is com- prehensible enough on the hypothesis that the Synods of Berytus and Tyre are placed in February, 449, whilst the festival of Easter fell in that year on the 27th of March; but this language would have no right to be used in the month of September of the preceding year, about seven months before paschal solemnities.
We may, lastly, set off, against the common opinion, a last aD)
3
34
THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
reason which has its weight: that is, the date of the Ordination of Photius Bishop of Tyre, which took place on the 9th of September, 448, seven months after the deposition of Irenzeus (17th Feb., 448). Domnus of Antioch gives us this detail in a letter to Flavian, preserved amongst the Syriac Acts. Now, it is indubitable that Photius was already Bishop of Tyre when he was charged to judge Ibas; he could not then execute the order of the Emperor in February, 448 a.p., since he was not Bishop at that time. It is to be seen, that everything compels us to place the grave events which were passing in the Hast, in the course of the year 449 a.p., from the month of February to the month of September.
DATES AND FACTS WORTHY OF BEING REMEMBERED. It was alittle before Easter, April 11th, in the year 448 a.p., that
the Archbishop of the Province, Domnus, was beset with com-
plaints and accusations against the Suffragan-Bishop of the
City of Edessa, Ibas.
It was in February, 448 a.p., that the Chiefs of the great Eutychian party obtained, through their unboun- ded influence with the Emperor and the Court, an Imperial Edict directed against the Bishop of the Metro- politan City of Tyre, Irenzeus; and Archbishop Domnus pronounced a first judgment in the case of Ibas which did not satisfy the monks of Osrhoene, not long after Haster.
Whilst several monks, headed by one Theodosius who exercised great influeuce at Edessa, were excited at Alexandria to calumniate the Archbishop Domnus and the Bishop of Cyrus, Theodoret, the principal accusers of Ibas proceeded to intrigue at Constantinople.
In the year 448 a.p.
During May—June the Imperial Order for Theodoret to confine himself within his own Diocese was issued.
On Sept. 9th the Consecration of Photius to the Bishopric of Tyre took place.
End of September the celebrated Letter of the Archbishop Domnus to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was written.
On October 26th the Imperial Decree was issued ordering the revision of the proceedings in the case of the Bishop of Edessa,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 35
During November 8th—22nd, at the Council held at Constantinople with Flavian as President the arraignment of the Archi- mandrite Hutyches by his friend Eusebius, Bishop of Dor- yleum, and his condemnation were effected.
In the year 449 a.p. During February 1—25th, the Synod of Tyre-Berytus-Tyre was held uuder the direction of the Imperial Commissioners, Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius.
On March 30th, after the vexation and recrudescence of fury of the Hutychian party, the summoning of the Second Eph- esine Council was brought about.
On April 8—13—27th the revision of the formal condemnation of Eutychesat the Constantinoplitan Synod was accomplished.
On April the 12th (Tuesday), the 14th (Thursday), and the 18th (Monday) the inquiry on the Judgment given at Tyre-Berytus was gone through at Edessa before Praeses Chairzeas, as or- dered by the Roman Government.
End of April, the despatch of the Reports, drawn up after the
Enquiry at Edessa, by Chaireas, took place.
On May 13th and June 13th letters of convocation to the Second
Ephesine Synod of the Oriental Monks were issued. And On August 8—23rd The First and Second Sessions of the Synod
were held under the Presidency of Dioscorus, the Archbishop
of Alexandria. CRIMES LAID TO THE CHARGE OF IBAS, AS GIVEN BY ASSEMAN IN HIS ‘ BIBLICTHECA ORIENTALIS.”
Crimina. Samuel, Cyrus, Mara, and Eulogius in libello, quem Photio Tyri et Eustathio Beryti Episcopis contra Ibam obtulerunt, duo-de-viginti Criminum capita eidem objiciunt.
1. Quod ex mille quingentis solidis, quos ad captivorum redemptionem civitas Edessena contulerat, quingentos ille sibi vindicasset.
2. Quod calicem gemmatum eidem Ecclesia ante annos un- decim a quodam pio viro oblatum, non reposuisset in Ecclesia.
3. Quod de Ordinationibus acciperet.
4. Quod Abrahamium, maleficum homine:n, Batenorum Epis- copum Ordinasset.
5. Quod Balleum seu Valentium adulterum Presbyterum
36
THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
creasset, eosque, qui ordinationes contraxere, puniendos judici tradidisset.
6. Quod Danielem, suum ex fratre nepotem, juvenem adhuc eumque luxuriosissimum, Charrensem J[piscopum fecisset. Heilenopolis, seu Paganorum civitatis Episcopum vertit Latinus Interpres: Charras enim seu Haran Syriappellare solent Pagan- orum urbem, quod ab ea idolorum cultus initium duxerit.
7. Quod omnes Ecclesiaticos redditus fratri suo, vel con- sobrinis conferret.
8. Quod heereditates et munera et quecunque Kccelsiz offe- rebantur, in eorumdem usum converteret.
9, Quod ea, quee in expensas detentorum in carcere eroganda fuerant, in domos suorum erogasset cognatorum.
10. Quod modicum et vitiosum vinum ad Sacrificium Altaris daret, ita ut vix Populo communicanti sufficeret; ipse vero multum et optimum vinum haberet.
11. Quod Nestorianus esset, et S. Cyrillum hereticum ap- pellasset.
12. Quod Daniel Episcopos quosdam suz# maximé intem- perantize faventes Clericos ordinaret.
13. Quod Pirozum Presbyterum vyolentem relinquere sua propria Ecclesiis nullos redditus habentibus, prohibnisset, di- cens, cautionem ejus se habere trium millium et ducentorum solidorum.
14. Quod Danielem Epis., testantem et relinquentem omnem facultatem suam Challoz amice suze ejusque nepotibus, min- ime redarguiscet.
15. Quod Challoa, Danielis Epis. amica, que prius nibil habebat, multis rebus Ecclesiasticis abutens, que apud ipsam erant, ducentos et trecentos solidos feeneraretur: ut ex hoc manifestum fieret, unde esset harum rerum collectio.
16. Quod Abrahamius Diaconus, primitus pauper et nihil feré habens, multas et innumeras res habuerit, que revera Edessenz erant Ecclesix. Volentem autem eas eidem Heclesize ac pauperibus in testamento relinquere, hortatus est Daniel Epis., ut sub scripto testamento suam in ipsum transmitteret hereditatem, jurans ei, eam post ejus mortem se pauperibus erogaturum: Postquam autem hanc Daniel adeptus est, Chal- low amicee sux dedisset.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOoSCORUSs.
17. Quod a Paganis Haranitis in sacrificiorum impietatem lapsis accipiens Dan. Epis. sportulam, remitteret crimen, nego- tians et hinc sibimet lucrum.
18. Quod é@ predio Lafargaritha Hcclesiz Edessenz silvas cedentes portassent ad predia Challoz amice Daniel Hpis., et que voluerunt, eedificassent. Porrd Dan. iste Charrarum Episcopus, una cum [ba avunculo suo, depositus fuit in Latrocinio Ephesino, eique Joannes substitutus, qui Concilio Chalcedonensi subscripsit. Idem Daniel in causa Ibz sub Domno subscriptus legitur in Concilio Antiocheno, licet in Grzeco pro Charris malé Berza ponatur.
Another grave charge, given in Mansiand Baronius,and abun- dantly witnessed to, as we shall see, in these Acts is this—that Ibas publicly gave utterance to this Blasphemy, viz., Non invideo Christo facto Deo: in quantum enim ipse factus est, et ego Jfactus sum,
The above “ Crimina” are stated more fully, and sometimes differently, in Labbe (1670) Tom. IV., p. 648, compared with the same in the Bibliotheca Orientalis. The 1st charge, ¢.g., is put thus. Civitate conferente ad redemptionem captivorum usque ad mille et quingentos solidos, et positis apud custodem sacro- rum* ministericrum usque ad six millia solidorum, et paulo amplius, preter redditus, quos scripsit ipsius frater, habens in vasis argenti sacri usque ad libras ducentas, ea ven- didit prot mille solidis solum (sicut nos cognoscimus, non direxit) in semet-ipsum reliqua conferens.
Differently expressed is the 13th Charge. ‘“ Pirozo Pres- “bytero bene testante et sua propria disponente, et res “quas habuit, relinquente ecclesiis redditus nullos habenti- “bus, accensus noster Epis. Ibas cautionem ejus se habere “dixit mille ducentorum solidorum: et significavit ei, “volens ejus infringere voluntatem, et eum per tristitiam
“ perimere.”
* Vasorum.
+ Et nonnisi mille solidos, ut cognovimus, misit, reliquos ad seipsum abstulit.
38 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
ii,
| ACTION TAKEN AGAINST IBAS THE | BISHOP OF EDESSA. :
(1) [Jouy, Presbyter and Prime Notary, reads]
The Autocratic Ceesars, THropositus and VALENTINIAN, Victors and Illustrious by Victories, the ever- Worshipful, the Augusti, to the Holy Synod at Ephesus.
Many Anaphoree (Reports) from people at Edessa, a City of the Province of Osrhoene,with the (Docu- mentary) Acts, etc., as written above.*
(2) Joun, Presbyter and Prime Notary, said :—
Monks from the City of Edessa are standing out- side and state that they are bearers of Royal Letters. What, therefore, does your Holiness enjoin respect- ing them ?
Kusgsivs, the Bishop of Ancyra in the First Galatia, said :—
Let the God fearing Bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius recount what seemed good to them to be done in the cause of Ibas and what was the de- cision they came to; and, since the God-fearing
* This is the beginning of that Imperial Document (5 above), addressed to the Council in relation to the celebrated Bishop Ibas, which should be read, and ought no doubt to have been inserted, in this place.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 39
Presbyter and Proto-Notary made mention of Royal Letters, let those God-fearing Monks enter the Holy Synod in order that the Letters of the Gra- cious Emperors, with which they are accredited, may be notified to the Holy Synod.
And, when those Monks had entered,
(2) Joun, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read (the following) :*
The Autocratic Czesars, THroposius and V ALENTINIAN, Victors, the ever-Worshipful, the Augusti, to J AMES :—
It has not been concealed from Your Clemency in how great a contest God-fearing Presbyters and Archimandrites have been engaged in contending for The True Faith in the land of the East against certain Bishops of that land who, infected with the Impious tenets of Nestorius, have rendered them-
* This Circular Letter, addressed to one of the principal Archi- mandrites or Abbats of Edessa, was written at the time when the Consul of the West—Asterius—had not become known yet in the East, as we see from the place of date of the Letter. (Zeno and Posthumian were the Consuls of the year 448 a.p.; and Protogenes and Asterius (Astu- _ rius), according to Clinton’s Fasti, those of the year 449 a.p.) It is similar to the Royal Rescript to Barzumas in May, 449 4.D., given in Labbe, Tom. IV., p. 106 (Paris 1671), and reprinted at p. 22 of my “Ancient Syriac Document, &c.’? The Monks, judging from a similarity of names of those mentioned in Mansi were possibly, if not probably, the very same who wrote to the Synod of Berytus in favour of Ibas. We see now, what was unknown before, the reason why so many Monks were present at Ephesus. ‘They came to it deeply interested in the great case of the Bishop of Edessa, as witnesses or partizans. The first Session, wherein Flavian was condemned and Eutyches acquitted, being completed, the Monks now pressed on the
Council,
40 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
selves retrograde (infamous), while the God-loving Archimandrites have been sustained by the Faithful Laity. Since, then, we will that in every way the Ortho- _ dox Faith should shine forth, it has for this reason seemed to us just and right that your Piety, dis- tinguished for purity of life and integrity of faith, should repair to Ephesus, a City of Asia, on the Calends of August and take a seat in the Holy Synod which is appointed to meet there, and, in concert with the rest of the Holy Fathers, the Bishops, accomplish that which is well-pleasing to
God.
This Ordinance was issued on the 13th of Hazi- ran, on the day of the Ides of June, at Con- stantinople, during the Consulate of’ the Illustrious Protogeyes and of him who is (yet) to be notified.
JOHN, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, said :— Copy of the Gracious Letters addressed—
To Abraham, Presbyter and Archimandrite. To Elias, Presbyter and Archimandrite.
To Pacidas, Presbyter and Archimandrite. To Isaac, Presbyter and Archimandrite.
To Eulogius, Presbyter and Archimandrite. To Habib, Deacon and Archimandrite-
To Abraham, Deacon and Archimandrite, To Ephraim, Presbyter and Archimandrite.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 41
To Polyehronius, Archimandrite. To Benjamin, Archimandrite. To Andrew, Archimandrite.*
Dioscorvs, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
These distinguished, God-loving, Archimandrites are here present at what is being done, in pursuance of the command of the Gracious Emperor.
Now, let the Ged-fearing Bishops, Photius,and Eu- stathius, and Uranius, declare, in compliance with the direction of the God-loving Bishop Eusebius, what
* Archimandrites, usually of the Order of Presbyters both for the performance of Divine Offices and the exercise of Discipline among those over whom they were superiors, were the Patres or heads of Mo- nasteries in Eastern Christendom, corresponding to Abbats or Abbots in Western and possessing great absolute power. In order that the members, who were often very numerous, of these confe- derate communities might the better perform their several and res- pective duties, Bingham says that “the monasteries were commonly * divided into several parts, and proper officers appointed over them. “‘ Rvery ten monks were subject to one who was called the decanus, or “dean, from his presiding over ten: and every hundred had another “ officer, called centenarius, from presiding over a hundred. Above there “ were the pares, or the fathers of the monasteries, as S. Jerom and S. “ Austin generally term them ; which in other writers are called bbates, “‘ abbots, from the Greek ’AS8ds, a father: and hegumeni, presidents ; “and archimandrites, from mandra, a sheepfold; they being as it were “the keepers or rulers of these sacred folds in the Church.” ‘The “ Abbots or Fathers were also of great repute in the Church. “For many times they were called to Councils, and allowed to sit and “vote there in the quality of Presbyters. As Benedict in the Council “of Rome under Boniface II., anno 531; which I relate on the au- “ thority of Dr. Cave who has it from Antonius Scipio in his Eulogium “ Abbatum Cassinensium. The like privilege we find allowed in the “ Council of Constantinople under Flavian, anno 448, where 23 Archi- “‘ mandrites subscribe with 30 Bishops to the condemnation of Eutyches, “¢ as appears from the fragments of the Council related in the Council of « Chalcedon.” (Bk. VII., Chap. I1I.; Sect. 11 and 13.) Had he known of these Acts, Bingham might have instanced this Council of 449 A.D. at Ephesus.
F
49 THs? SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
transactions took place in their (official) presence relative to Ibas.
(3) The God-loving Bishops, Puotius of Tyre, and Evstaruius of Berytus, and Uranius of Himeria, said :—
In reference to Ibas, matters concerning The Faith were mooted in our presence; and because witnesses for this case were requisite, and a long space of time would have intervened, we commanded that those who belonged to the clerical body (kAnpos) of the City of Edessa, should affirm on Oath upon the Gospels, whatever they were cognizant of in reference to the accusation advanced against him (Ibas) touching The Faith. Now, on this mat- ter a great commotion was made, and a considerable amount of talk took place, at Edessa, which circum- stancealso was notified to our Gracious and Humanita- rian Emperor: and it is because we have thus been ap- prised of the Victorious Emperorhaving notification of this matter and of his having received the Affidavits of all those whose names are notified in the Records,*
* These Records were the Documentary Acts drawn up at Edessa. Like many other words in our MS., this one LiiscaSc20om, which so
frequently occurs in it, is only the Greek word tarourypatra Syrianized, and, with them, shows clearly enough that this MS. or these Acts of the Second Synod of Ephesus were originally written in Greek. In a note on p. 178 of Dr. Cureton’s “ Ancient Syriac Documents” he says that “‘Valesius, in his notes to Eusebius, Hist. £cc/., B. I., c. g. n. b. writes, «¢ Acts were Books wherein the Scribes that belonged to the several “places of Judicature recorded the sentences pronounced by the Judges. “© See Calvin’s Lex. Jurid., the word Acta.’ And again, on B. VILI., “c. XI., r. d., ‘For the Greeks use ‘2arouvypara in the same sense as “the Latins use their word Acta. Those which wrote these, the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 43
as your Holiness has just now heard, that we request these same Records to be read.
As regards Daniel, Bishop of Harran (Charree), he was charged with an (immoral) course of life ; and, as we perceived that he would be evidently convicted, we wanted to effect his Deposition, so that we might not be put to shame (so as to avoid scandal). He, however, perceiving what was expedient for himself to do, chose to tender Letters of Resignation. To your Holiness, therefore, it appertains to exercise your authority and to decree what seems fit to you. We, however, signify to your Holiness that, after the trial we conducted, we have not consented (i.e., we refuse) to hold communication with the same
Ibas.* (4) Cyrus, Bishop of Aphrodisias, said :—
If your Piety command it, let the affair of Ibas be first investigated and brought to a conclusion : then, if it choose, let your Holy Synod give orders that the Records of the Action, taken in reference to him, be read.
““Yrouvyuaroypadpo, the Latins call 4b actis.’ Bishop Pearson “writes thus: ‘Ut enim actus Senatus ect acta diurna Populi Romani “ conficiebantur ; sic et in Provinciis Romanis idem a Presidibus et Cae- “sarum Procuratoribus factum est; qui ad Imperatores saepissime de rebus alicujus momenti Epistolas scripserunt, ut passim observare est in “historiis Romanis. Lect. in Act. Apost., p. 50,’ &c.”
* It is quite evident from this that the conferences at Tyre and Bery- tus on the affair of Ibas had taken place before the Second Synod of Ephesus. Consequently the date given in Mansi VII., 211, is wrong, as M. Martin has shown. There was only one procedure of Arbitra- tion, commencing at T'yre, continuing at Berytus, and ending at Tyre 25th Feb., 448 a.r,
44 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
[A]
~ ARRIVAL AT THE METROPOLIS OF -THE JUDGE* ‘CHARGED WITH INSTRUCTIONS | FROM THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT RELATIVE | TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INHABI- TANTS AND THE BISHOP OF EDESSA. |
—_—
(1) Jony, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read thet Acclamations of the citizens (of Edessa) :— After the Consulate of the [lustrious Flavians, Zeno and Posthumian, on the day before the Ides of April (12th April, 449 a.p.) during (the continu- ance of) Indiction the Second, there assembled all the inhabitants of the City of Edessa, the Metropo-
* This person, Cherzas or Chaireas, although apparently unknown to the writers of this Epoch, is disclosed by the great MS. named A to our historical view to be the Civil Governor and Judge, under the Roman Power, of the vast Province, Osrhoene, and by E inthe Appendices of Vols. i. (p. 310, 1. 16) and ii. is further discovered to be the Hegemon of its great Capital He had been ordered by the Imperial Court, probably through the intrigue of the heads of the Eutychian party who resolved on using this Council as a means of effecting their secret designs, to repair to Edessa for the pur- pose of examining the serious differences between the Bishop and Clergy of that city. ‘The accusers of Ibas, who hastened to meet him and to conduct him to the Martyrium, situated perhaps on the |[Scousd, /imes,
march, or boundary of their town district, greeted him with Acclama- tions and Clamours raised against Ibas, that recur during the entire proceedings. The Acclamations, recorded with repeating and ar- ranged minuteness, enable us both to get a correct insight into the way in which those proceedings were directed to shape their course, giving us an idea what kind of justice Ibas will receive, and into the way, also, in which the Administration of an Oriental province of the Roman Empire was managed in the fifth Century, before the close of which human society belonging to it fell, on the decay of those principles that alone weld it together compactly and render it stable and secure.
+ Acclamations, both in the course of the business of a Synod and of the worship in the Church or elsewhere given, were one distinct and recognized mode of the people’s expressing their approbation, or praise, or
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. | 45
lis, together with the Venerable Archimandrites and Monks and women and men of the same City, who proceeded to meet the Great and Glorious Chaireas, Count of the First Rank and Judge (Prases) of Osrhoene; and when he came and stood at the boundary and (then) entered into the Church* (Martyrium) of the Holy Zachzeus, they vociferated all these acclamations :—“ (There is only) One God. “Victory to the Romans—the Lord be merciful “towards us. May our Sovereigns be ever vic- “torious. May the Victory of Theodosius increase ! “May the Victory of Theodosius the August be “perpetual! The Victory of Valentinian the “ August increase—the Victory of our Sovereigns “multiply! The Victory of the God-fearmg in- “crease !—to the Orthodox many years. One God! “‘(Give) Theodosius Victory. One God! (Give)
“to Valentinian Victory. To the Eparchs many
assent, and give us Occidents a close insight into Oriental customs and manners by disclosing to us what influence public assemblies exercised. They are all included by the Greeks in the word kpéros. “ The first “use of this custom,” says Bingham (Bk. XI1V., chap. IV., sect. 27 “‘ was only in the Theatres. From thence it came into the Senate, and, “in process of time, into the Acts of the Councils, and the ordinary “assemblies of the Church.” We have abundant instances of Synodi- cal acclamations, as well as distinct allusions to similar expressions of praise and delight with great Preachers in Church, in these Acts.
* «The Church (Martyrium) of the Holy Zachaus.” Under the word Martyrium, which Du Cange defines as A°des sacra, Deo sub Martyrum invocatione dicata, he quotes Isidorus lib. 15, cap. 9 :— “ Martyrium, locus Martyrum, Greca derivatione, eo quod in Memoriam “ Martyris sit constructus, vel quod sepulcra sanctorum ibi sint Martyrum. “ Walafridus Strabo lib. de Reb. Eccl. cap. 6: Martyria vocabantur “ Ecclesiz, que in honore aliquoram Martyrum fiebant: quorum sepul- “cris et Ecclesiis honor congruus exhibendus in Canonibus decernitur,” (Glossarium mediz et infime latinitatis, Tom. IV., p. 307.)
46 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“years—to Protogenes many years. To the Illas- “trious ones (the Consuls) many years. A statue of “gold for the Eparchs! May* the Augusti be “preserved. May the Court be preserved. “To “ Domnus many years. To the Christ-loving many “years. To the Consul many years. To the Or- “thodox many years. One is the God who guards you. “To Zeno many years. To the General many “years. An Icon of gold for the General. You “are the Glory of the General. You are the “ Angel of Peace. You are the trusted confidant “of the Victors. May the Roman power be pre- “served. May the Augusti be preserved. A “Statue for the General. Icons of gold for the “Victor. To Anatolius many years—to the Patri- “cian many years—thou art the Father of the “ August—thou art the trusted confidant of our “Sovereigns. In all, Anatolius (is) one (with us). “The Trinity (is) with the Patrician. To Theodosius “many years—to the Count many years—all the “City offers its gratitude to Theodosius-—all the * Or “ Prosperity to the Augusti” (or Roman Czsars )—“ prosperit perity gusti’? ( prosperity
“to the Roman Court.”” The Sovereigns alluded to were, of course, Theodosius II. and Valentinian II1. Protogenes was the Consul for the East in 449 a.p.; Zeno, Master of Divine Offices, was the Gen- eral of the Army; Anatolius, the Patrician, was a friend of Theodoret ; and probably Theodosius (to be mentioned hereafter) the important per-
y : ee ee
sonage at Edessa; and Domnus the Archbishop of the Province, in which Edessa was situated. Ibas, a name so often shouted, was by the Edessenes repudiated as holding Doctrines identified with the tenets of the Archheretic Nestorius. So constant and manifest are references to the circumstances and ‘crimina” connected with Bishop Ibas made in these
Acclamations of the people that, in order to understand most of them, the Reader need only be directed to the Introductory Note under Ibas, p. 25.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 47
“ City praises the Count. To Cherzeas many years. “To the Count many years. To the Christians many “ vears—-thouarrivestandall rejoice-—-the Augustihave “justly honoured thee—thou art worthy of the Au- “ousti. May the Palace (the Court) be preserved. “ Another Bishop for the Metropolis—no man accepts “ Tbas—-nooneaccepts a N estorian—perish the (whole) “race of the Nestorians. Let what belongs to the “Church be restored to the Church. Drive Ibas “from the Church—the Church ought not to suffer “violence. There is (but) One* God—-Christ the “Wietor. Our. lord! be merciful tous! All of “us are of one mind—nobody, in one word, accepts “ Tbas—in short, no man wants a Nestorian Bishop. «“ August Theodosius! have pity on Thy own City. “Nobody wants a second Nestorius. Nobody “wants a man who wars against Christ. No man “wants the enemy of Christ. No man wants the “hater of Christ. No man receives the destroyer “of Orthodoxy. No man receives a Judas for a “Bishop. An Orthodox Bishop for the Metropolis “let him (Ibas), who is departing, (at once) take “his departure. Wel beg of thee imme-
* “One” would be emphasized by the voice of the vociferator, by im- plication, refuting the Nestorian dissolver of the unity of the Person of Christ.
{| Or “Make these wishes known, (Count!) we beg, to our Mas- “ ters (Imperial) and to the General (Commandant )—To the fire with the “artizans of Ibas—to the fire with the Votarics of Nestorius. “We want Pirouz for Steward.’’ Pirouz—a regular Persian word— appears to have been a Priest of the Church of Edessa and a Aoyoerys, CE:onomus, Steward, officer of the accounts in the Church there. Pirouz’s name occurs in the Acts of the Synod of Berytus (Mans, Conciliorum omnium amplissima collectio, t. VII., col. 226, No. 13.)
48 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“diately manifest it. Let our Emperors know these “things. Let the General be informed of them— “let his race (partizans) be forthwith burnt — “let the race of Nestorians forthwith be burnt. ‘“Pirouz be Logothet to the Church. Pirouz be “Steward to the Church. Whoever for Christ’s “sake would die, they are (really) living.”
Likewise, on the day after the Ides,* which is the 14th of Ijar, during Indiction the Second, there came to the Council Chamber (Cabinet) of the Lord, the Noble and IJ]lustrious Flavius Chereas, Count of the First Dignity and Governor of Osrhoene, Venerable Clericsand God-loving Archimandrites and Monks and Vowedt Persons, who made Depositions notified in writing. There came, too, workmen and inhabitants from the Metropolis of Edessa who requested to enter the Council Chamber: and, hav- ing entered, they uttered these acclamations :—
“Our Lord be merciful towards us. May our “Sovereigns be ever victorious—the triumph of “Theodosius increase—our Sovereigns many years
* On April 14th, a.v. 449, then, took place the first sitting of the Judge. Let the Reader note particularly, as he proceeds, the order of events and the arrangements made in the Administration of Justice.
+ There is a little difficulty here in the Original Syriac concern- ing, nor is it easy to find an exact English rendering of, the expression [S$cao 15 every time it so frequently occurs. In his Thesaurus
4 pa ee ray a < 4 Dr. R. P. Smith gives monachi, and |xc.5 Pe Silius federis, qui fedus . * . . Qo y . . . iniit, presertim coenobita, monachus and {sc = monialis, virgo sacra.
Also “redditur {Qs +212 devoti, voto obstricti.”” “ Vowed persons” will be the equivalent term, perhaps, comprehending the entire class.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 49
“the Orthodox many years—the victory of Valen- “tinian increase—our Sovereigns many years — “ (Thou, the) One God! (give) to Theodosius victory ‘There is One God—-to Valentinian victory—-(O Thou) ‘“One God! (give) to the Romans victory. To the “ Kparchs many years—to Protogenes many years. “Toons of gold for the Eparchs---to Nomius* many “vears—to the Orthodox many. One is God who “protects thee. To Zeno the General many years “to Chrysaphiust many years—Urbicius{t many “vears—to Anatolius the Patrician many years. “ May Anatolius be preserved to the Roman Em- “pire. To Senator|| many years. To Count Theo-
* T believe this person was not the Count, as my Syriac text would seem to indicate, but gmaSca 3 Nomius, sometimes written Nomus, as further on, who was Consul in the year 445 a.p., Master of divine Offices in 439 and 443 A.D., a Patrician in 446 a.p., and a Partizan of Eutyches, as well as present at the General Council of Chalcedon in 451 a.p. (Mansi, Concil. omn. ampl. et nova Collectio, Vol. VI., c., 1023 B). It was to Nomus, when Ex-Consul, that Theodoret wrote that famous letter in which, in a brief compendium, he writes a short history of his whole life, and describes what (numerous) results had been accomplished during his Episcopate, as Baronius informs us in ‘Tom. VII., p. 618 of his Ecclesiastical Annals.
+ This Chrysaphius was the wretched, intriguing, Eunuch who, so powerful at the Imperial Court, and so deadly an enemy to Archbishop Flavian, turned the Synod into an instrument for his own sinister ends and for effecting the objects of the great Eutychian party. Though once in such high power and influence, and now so greatly applauded, yet in the end he was exiled and put to death. Tillemont writes of him in his Memoires. XV, and in his Histoires des Empereurs. VI.
t Urbicius was Prefect of the Pretorium in 449 4.D.
| Senator was a great benefactor to Edessa, its Chronicle in Bibl. Orient. I. speaking of him thux—LX. Anno Grecorum 749 (Christi 438) sub prestantissimo Iba obtulit Senator ingentem mensam argenteam librarum septies centum et viginti, que in yeteri Edessx Ecclesia reposita fuit,
G
50 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“dosius many. To Cherzeas many—may he be “preserved to the Augusti. Ibas for bishop no “man accepts—The Simonian no man accepts—The “enemy of Christ no man wants—a man who is the “envier of Christ no man wants—no man wants a “ depraver of Orthodoxy. The confidant of Nestorius “into exile—the man who has confessed in writing the “doctrine of Nestorius nobody accepts—his fellow “ Counsellor nobody—the spoliator of the Temple (of “‘God) to exile—-the companion of Nestorius to exile-— “the man who agrees with Nestorius ought to dwell in “ exile-—Ibas has desolated the Church—- [bas alonehas “robbed the Church—his relatives detain the goods “of the Church—what belongs to the Church should “be restored to it-—what belongs to the poor should “return to the poor—no man receives the corruptor “of Orthodoxy—none receives the enemy of The “ Faith—none receives the Iscariot—a rope (the gib- “ bet) for the Iscariot. Holy Rabbulas !* be instant “together with us—Ibas has depraved thy Faith— “‘ Tbas has depraved the Holy Faith of The Synod— “Tbas has corrupted The Faith of Ephesus—Ibas
* Rabbilas was the immediate predecessor of, and much opposed by, Ibas. He still lived in the memory and hearts of the people whom they had known as the faithful adherent of S. Cyril and upholder of the Faith as established by the first Ephesine Synod. He holds nearly as prominent a position in the Nestorian Controversy as that great Champion _ of The Truth himself. His Sermon preached to the people in the great Church at Constantinople is given by Overbeck in his ‘ Selecta Opera” (pp. 239-244), who also notes the fact that the translation into Syriac by Rabbulas of Cyril’s treatise “ De Natura Humana Domini nostri” still exists in the British Museum (Addl, MSS, No. 14557, foll.
94-123).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 51
“has corrupted the True Faith of Cyril. Gracious “ Sovereigns! reject him. Orthodox Sovereigns! re- “ject him—do you preserve your own metropolis—do (preserve) your faithful servant1—another Bishop “for the Metropolis. To Dioscorus, the Arch- “bishop, many years. | An Orthodox Bishop for the ‘“ Metropolis. May Alexandria be preserved a city “of the Orthodox. Dagalaiphas* Bishop for the “ Metropolis—Holy Rabbulas! be instant with us. “Tbas melted down the Service of (Plate be- “longing to) the Church—Ibas has carried off pos- “sessions that are the common property of all— “August Theodosius! be merciful to thy City— “the relation of Ibas has detained the goods "ot tae Church. Our Lord! be merciful to- “wards us. Unbeliever’l and misbeliever! go
q Or, “Do you deliver your Believing Handmaid” (that is, Edessa), is a rendering that brings out the force of ,a> Asc]. See Cureton’s An- cient Syriac Documents relative to the earliest establishment of Chris- tianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries from the year after our Lord’s Ascension to the beginning of the fourth century. Blessed and Believing were the two Epithets specially applied to the City of Edessa. In Dr. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus, he says, at column 612, “ Saepe etiam
urbes vocantur jAs;a%, sic Haran ab ethnicis vocabatur ])\5 was, B H Chr. 176; |A>pmso |Dugo [302 NZ urbs benedicta Tel Tura, ib. 258; presertim sic vocabatur a Christianis urbs Edessa, propter Abgarum, B. O. i. 323 acio] [laScansco |\a;a&, ib. ii. 45; Ita ut ubi ponatur absolute pro Edessa, e.g., (AapascS aos, Doc. Syr. 23. gut
* Daglaiphas or Dagalaifa (Laas) is one of the three men whose
names (Vol. I., p. 40, 1. 6) the people cried out to be Bishop in the place of Ibas, with Flavian and Eliades. It is a strange word. | Or, perhaps, “The unbeliever shall havea difficulty in remaining with us.”
52 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“your way to Nestorius, your fellow. An Orthodox “Bishop for the Church—the enemy of The True “Faith none receives—the lover of Jews none re- “ceives—the enemy of God none receives—take “Tbas away and rid the world (of him)—the hater “of Christ to the dogs—the race of the polluters to “the Stadium—they have in their possession the “goods of (the Church of) God—let our Sovereigns “be acquainted with this—let the Eparchs be in- “formed of this-—-let* the Master (of the Forces) “learn this—let the Senate learn it. Another “Bishop for the Metropolis—Ibas has ruined “ Osrhoene—Ibas has plundered many Churches : “the goods of the Church he now sells. Notify, we “beg, these things directly. In short, no man re- “ ceives Ibas. Let Eusebius, his brother, be “ delivered over to the Council (for trial). No man “receives a liar for a Bishop—the (partisan) race of “Thas to the Stadium—let the race of Ibas be burnt “alive—let him, who is about to depart, take his “departure forthwith. By the life of our Sove- “reions (Count!) notify (this) immediately -—let “ Kulogius,t the Presbyter, depart soon—letthe hater “depart forthwith. In Sarug Ibas left nothing.
* Or, “The Master of divine Offices.” The Chancellor of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople was in 449 a.p. Flavius Areovindas Martialius. (Mansi VI., 832.) Under the head of ‘ Magister Officiorum,” Du Cange (Tom IV., c. 324) defines the Office thus—Dignitas magna in Palatio Imperatorum qui preerat Palatinis et Principis Ministris, scholis in Palatio militantibus, fabriciis et limitaneis ducibus.
{+ This Eulogius was probably a friend and partisan of Ibas. Sarug (Batne) was a city in Mesopotamia, of which the Illustrious Jacob or James was Bishop, to whom as a Father the Illustrious Jacob of Edessa
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 513)
“ He isa curse* (warning) to the Authorities. (There “is) One God, Christ, the Victor. Our Lord ! be mer- “erful to us. Another Bishop for the Metropolis— “no man receives Ibas. Oh! the impudence of “that Courtezan. August Theodosius! come to the “rescue of thy City—no man accepts an unbeliever “for a Bishop. In short, no man receives a “Nestorian as Bishop. Great Zeno, remove him— “take away him who brought violence upon the “City. Tothe Eparchs many years—to the General “many years. A. city of Christians will not “brook violence. The possessions (of the Church) “are ever such—Daniel and Challoat have con- “sumed them (in pleasure). The City is ruined “because of Ibas. ‘There is no Verity (proclaimed), “Count! and no man to expound (the Faith). As “for Ibas, no man accepts him. ‘There is none to “expound and Ibas is the cause of it—because “an Orthodox man has not come, there is none to “expound. The writings of Nestorius have been “found with Ibas. Who is the mendacious Bishop ? “Who is the Bishop that sends in false Reports ? “The commands of our Sovereigns [bas has eluded. “Let Ibas receive the sentence of Nestorius—let{
once or twice appeals. See Wright’s Catalogue. * The word Jar 50D is mapayyeAia precepium, mandatum (2)
Ambitus, petitio, magistratus cum prehensatione. Ph. denunciatio, con- dictio, interdictio. (Hederick.)
+ Daniel was the Bishop of Harran and nephew of Ibas, and Chal- loa was the woman with whom he was accused of having criminal intercourse. See the “ Crimina” on page 35.
q Or, better, * Let the confidence of the Orthodox be restored.”
54 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“the Orthodox have liberty of speech. Ibas perse- “cuted the Holy Saints. Ibas received Nestorians- “Take away him who is an oppressor of the Church. “ Another Bishop for the Metropolis—an Orthodox “ Bishop for the Metropolis—all the people desire “this—all the people cry out for this. For four- “teen* years has Ibas been teaching error. This is “a City of Christians—Edessa is a City of Chris- “ tians, which is also blessedt of God. There is one “Tbas and there is but one Simon (Magus). Mu- “sarais{ the magician has prevailed. Ibas has pre- “vailed—do you (Simon and Musarais) take your “fellow. Holy Rabbulas! intercede with us. An “orthodox Bishop for the Metropolis—no man “receives Ibas—let his name be erased out of the “ Diptychs. Holy Rabbulas! send Ibas into exile “let Ibas go to the Mines. We are en- “treating, we are not by any means commanding “(viz., you, our Superiors). All these things we do “for Christ's sake.”
* «For (full) thirteen years Ibas has been teaching us error.” See Vol. I., p. 38, 1. 16. He had been ruining Religion for 13 or 14 years. So that Ibas must have been Bishop since 435 a.p.
+ The meaning of this is brought out in the Petition (below) pre- sented by Micallus, and perhaps an allusion is made here to the Corre- spondence between the Saviour and the Toparch, Abgarus, of Edessa, Toparch being a generic term applied to designate the Kings of that City, as Pharaoh, Cesar, &c., to those of Egypt, Rome, &c. Dr. Cureton believed in the genuineness of that Correspondence. See p. 51.
t Possibly [#;@eSc was written by the Scribe in the MS. for the word [agScam, the Samaritan (magician), but it may be correctly Anglicised into (Mous’r’ia) Musarais.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. a)
[B | [THE FIRST FORMAL ENQUIRY] THE SECOND REPORT.*
1 To the Noble and Glorious Flavians, Futris Romanus Protrocenses, (Consul) for the second time and Consul Ordinary, and Atsinus and Sarmmon, Eparchs, the Flavian Cuermas (sends) Greeting.t
How the City of Edessa was affected toward its Bishop, the Venerable Ibas, and how much people were (perpetually) exclaiming and declaring him to be a follower of Nestorius and that they would (not continue to) accept him (as Bishop) in their City, and how much commotion and what seditions it (the city) suffered in consequence4[—not ~with- out danger did I consider that these circum- stances could be concealed from your High Potencies ; and this I havet already made known to your Ex-
* Literally—*“ Another, the Second of the Anaphore.”’
+ This superscription seems to have somehow undergone alteration and presents difficulties, the solution of which we would defer to a future handling, remarking at present only that Hoffman considers the names of Fulris (Florus or Florentius), Romanus, Protogenes, indicate three dif- ferent persons, and that Martin believes that, as regards Salomon, we have no information left us whatever in any Libraries. Albinus and Sali- mon are evidently referred to as the Great and Glorious Eparchs, as well as Flavius Areobindas Martialius as the Glorious and High Master (of Divine Offices), further on in the Petition (or Instruction) presented by Micallus and issuing from the Inhabitants, as well as signed by the Clergy, of the City of Edessa.
{| Or, perhaps, but not so well—* I had consequently to put up with.”
{ What follows goes upon the supposition that Cheraas had already
56 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
alted Throne, Noble and, in every way, Glorious Lords ; being then persuaded, as I am now also, that it would not have been without danger (to the public tranquillity), had we failed to apprize your Highnesses of these same occurrences.
But under what circumstances, and on whose ac- count these commotions and seditions took place— these I pass over in silence. What, however, trans- pired after the letters of our Humbleness to your Noble and Exalted Throne, I, with brevity, now narrate.
The whole Body* of the Clerks of the Holy Catholic Church at Edessa, the Metropolis, accom- panied by the Heads and Principals, who undertake the Government of the Monks, and the Wise-men, assembled together and approached my Humbleness ; and they prayed me about a Petition, including certain Resolutions, which proceeded from them and from others entrusted with authority, but inferior to them in rank, as well as from Artificers,t inasmuch as some even whose life is spent in daily labour put their seals to this (Petition) of theirs, as their sig- natures testify. Others, too, lower than Artificers adopted this Petition. They prayed our Humble- ness would receive it of them and convey it to the knowledge of your Gloriousness—for, I shrank{ from
written, The Scribe has here for 2-S30] written plainly another word which, however, I have not altered in my Text.
* See p. 59, note b
+ The lines 26 and 27 in oes are exegetical of jasc},
t “TI tried (ie.) to avoid making you hear them,”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 57
forcing unpleasant subjects upon the attention of your Gloriousness ; but, because they had overpow- ered (constrained) me by an Oath from which I could not be released, I consider it would have been presumptuous (in me) to have spurned the Prayer of the whole City together and have violated the formidable Oath, especially as they invoked (there- in) the name of our Victorious Sovereigns.
For this reason I have taken in hand (drawn up) these Documents which give information of the mat- ter, having also appended to them their Petition with the Record of the Acts occasioning it, so that your Orders may be executed, Noble and, in every way, Glorious Lords.
May you ever continue in health and prosperity be accorded to you by God! We pray you may live many years, Noble and, in every way, Glorious Lords.
(b) Copy of the Acts which were drawn up at Edessa, in the year following the Consulate of the Flavians, Zeno and Posthumian, in the presence of Asterius and Patroinus* and of Micallus and other Presbyters; and of Sab- batius and Sabbas and other Deacons ; and -of Callistratus and Euporus and other Sub-Dea- cons, of the Holy Church of Edessa ; and of Elias, Jamblicus and other Monks; of others
—
* The name of Patroinus occurs in the Acts of the Council at Chal- cedon, as given in next page, and that of Sabbatius at p. 669 of Actio X. Also those of Edessene Clergy.
H
58 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
besides (viz.), certain Apparitors* (of the Court) and Attendants on its Officers, &c. The Venerable Micauuus,‘{1 Presbyter of the Holy
Church of the City of Edessa, says :
We bring a petition which proceeds from the in- habitants of this City and is subscribed by us{ Kcclesiastics ; and we pray your Illustrious High- ness,t with a view to quelling the commotions that have overtaken the City and the Holy Church, by reason of this affair (of Ibas), to order it to be re- ceived and read, and to be deposited among the Records (Acts), then to forward it to the Noble and Glorious Lords, the Eparchs, and to the High
* Ta&eora were Appariteres and wadariva, Ministri or Attendants on the High Officials of the Court, or were, rather, under-Officials (1) of the Civil Governor of the Province and (2) for raising the State Taxes in the Province and for the Crown Demesne.
{ Or, perhaps, Micalas.
4 Literally: ‘in which there is the subscription of us (gSaas)
“ecclesiastical persons.”” Micallus speaks on behalf of the Clergy as well as for himself. Subjoined are a few specimens of subscriptions, made in Greek and Latin at the General Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A.D., extracted from the 4th (p. 661) of the splendid Folio Volumes of Labbe (1671). MikaddAos rpeoRirepos meToinuat THY OWWacKaALay TavTyY Gua éTEpaLs. [ Opposite to this is the same in Latin. ] Tlarpwivos moecBvtepos memroinua, Kc. [Opposite to this is the same in Latin. ] Eidpacios trodiaxovos meroinua THy didacKkaNiay TavTyv ama ETépats. Kat y vroypady Lupiaxy. Euphrasius, subdiaconus, similiter. Et subscriptio Syra. Adelphius, Lector feci hanc petitionem cum sociis. Leontius, Presbyter feci hanc instructionem cum sociis. Bassus, Presbyter, similiter. + The scribe writes |Z], asit is in my Text, but no doubt it should be |Aulo, éumpemys, “We pray your Eminence to despatch it to......006
“that they may take cognizance of its contents.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 59
and Glorious Count, Master of divine Offices, and to the Great and Glorious General Zeno* Ex-Consul (for them to take cognizance) of its contents.
Fuavius Tuomas Junianus Cuer#as, High and Glorious Count of the First Rank and Judge (Governor), replied :—
Let the Petition be received which is proffered by the Venerable and God-loving persons, and let it be read.
And he (the Proto-Notary) read (as follows) :—
(3) To Your EMINENCE, from Illustrioust Mu- nicipal Dignitaries and the Clerks{ and Archi-
* The cadiacaiaa] is only the Greek amo tratwy Syrianized— vir Consularis—one who has served the Office of Consul, and |so.26] is Officia. Tillemont (IV., 212, 287) gives the origin and develop- ment of these High Offices.
+ For 1202} wasp a LiSo the Greek has rpomacovyo: and the Latin
Triumphatores. Here the second word standsalone. [loAcrevéyevor or Decuriones or, rather, Curiales were those who administered the public affairs of the City, as a kind of Alderman,—were members of the Municipal bodies of the Roman towns, called Curie. "The predominence of the mu- nicipal form and spirit, which the Roman Empire bequeathed to Modern Europe, characterized the commencement and the integrity, the decline and the fall of that Empire, whilst there was not the same necessity for that form in its Eastern Domains where human society was constructed on a different basis from that in the West. Still we observe it here.
+ The Clerks or Clerici (caa;es0), from KAN POS (wo pa0 OF WO pS p) and Canonici, from xavév the Register or Roll of any particular Church, were terms of its functionaries, at first exclusively applied to the Higher or Superior Orders of Clergy, viz., Bishops, Presbyters or Priests, and Deacons ; but, says Bingham (Bk. I., Chap. V., Sect. 7), in the 3rd Century when many inferior Orders were appointed, as subservient to the Dea- con’s Office, such as Sub-Deacons, Acolythists, Readers, &c., with (I may venture perhaps to add) {Scuo car5 Vowed Persons, so often and prominently alluded to in our Acts, then those had the common name of Clerici, too, He instances S. Cyprian, Ep. 24, al. 22 ed, Ox., how he
60 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Archimandrites and Monks and Artizans, and
from the whole City of Edessa together (is salu- tation offered).
From of old, even from the beginning, by the grace of God, Illustrious in The Faith has been this our City*; first, indeed (made so), through the Blessedness with which He blessed it, Who is Creator of Heaven and Earth, when He willed in
calls the Ordination of a Sub-Deacon and a Reader Ordinationes Clerice. Also Cyprian’s contemporary, Lucian the Martyr, speaks the same of Exorcists and Readers. ‘The Council of Nice itself (Can. 3) gives the appellation xAxnpos to others besides Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons : and the 3rd Council of Carthage made the Canon—Clericorum nomen “etiam lectores, et Psalmist, et ostiarii retineant.”’ Con. Antioch, c. I, speaks of the Roll, in which the names of all the Ecclesiastics be- longing to a Church were written, as “dqt0s Kavor,” the sacred roll ; and the Apostolical Canons, c. 13, 14, &c., KaTaAoyos teparikos, the catalogue of the Clergy. And in Con. Nic., Can. 16 and 17 and in Con. Antioch, Can. 2 and 6 the term of év r@ Kavom is put to denote the Clergy of the Church. So the terms Clerici or Canonici would include all those whose names were in the Church’s Books to receive mainten- ance, such as Monks, Virgins, Widows, &c., as well as the Capiate who interred the dead, and Lecticarii for carrying biers at funerals, and the Decani—of very different rank from the Decani of the Palace—who saw to the proper interment of the dead, the Defensores who righted the wronged, the poor, &c., and Logothete (Aoyoterys), Economi, stewards, who looked after the revenues, and, as Chancellors of Finance, had to pay the Ecclesiastics out of those Revenues (Du Cange, Glos. Grec. 823.)
Bingham takes special care to distinguish between the Higher and Lower Orders of the Clerici, the former being called (epwuevor holy and sacred, and the latter insacrati, unconsecrated, the one ordained at the Altar, with solemn rite of imposition of hands, the other, commonly without it, being ayecporovytos tmnpeota. ‘The chief difference, how- ever, was in the exercise of their office and function. The one were ordained to minister before God, as Priests to celebrate the Sacraments, expound his word publicly, &c., whilst the other attended only upon such Priests and performed lower offices in connection with the Church and the spiritual requirements of the Faithful.
* For information about Edessa’s reception of “the Word of the
“ Kingdom,” see Cureton’s “ Ancient Syriac Documents” at pp. 140, 142, &c,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 61
His Own Mercy and determined for our Redemption and for the (Eternal) Life of us, the sons of men, to become INCARNATE; and next, because it (the City) was deemed worthy of being the Depository* of the Relicst of the Apostle Thomas, who was the
* In the original MS. the word is {ASosm (or |ZoSc.0.) What is particularly germane to the subject, opened up here, may be gathered from Asseman, Vol. 1., whose ipsissima verba are these:—-De Edesseno S. Thome Apostoli Templo hac leguntur in Chronico Edesseno. . . . Anno Greco 705 (4.D. 394), die 22 Aug. advexerunt Arcam S. Thome Apostoli in Templum magnum eidem dicatam diebus S. Cyri Epis. . . . Anno Grac. 753 (ie., A.D. 442) Anatolius militiz Praefectus fecit argenteam arcam in honorem ossium 8. Thome Apostoli. Also in Asseman Vol. I., Caput IX., under XXVIL., we find to this—*“In 750 (i.e., 439 A.D.) Mense Aug. die 22, “advexerunt Arcam Mar Thomee Apostoli in Templum magnum eidem “dicatam diebus Mar Cyri Episcopi”—at foot of the page is appended this note: ‘Thome: Apostoli. Sacrum ejus corpus Edessam translatum fuisse, testatur etiam Rufinus Lib. 2, Cap. 5, cui Hieronymus, aliique Martyrologi suffragantur: “Indeque Indiarum Nestoriani, qui “Sancti hujus Apostoli Corpus usque ad saeculum elapsum sese conser- “‘vasse effutiere, valide confutantur,”’ ut bene notat Pagius ad annum 327. Ejus vero Templi mentionem, preeter auctorem Vite 8. Ephraemi, pag. 49, faciunt etiam Socrates Lib. 4, Cap. 18 et Sozomenus Lib. 6, Cap. 18.’
+ “Relics.”’ This term would seem to some to need apology or explana- tion. The Church of England, teaching us to hold to what may be gathered out of the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Undivided Church, attracts us to, and does not withdraw our view from, “the cus- “toms of the Churches.” One of those customs was a chastened ven- eration and honour for Martyrs and their remains. Now, at what Doctor’s feet of the Primitive Church could we English Churchmen more worthily sit as humble and teachable disciples than John Chrysos- tom’s? Schooled under the teaching of the most distinguished Rhetorician of the age, as so many Fathers and Apologists were in Law or Rhetoric—recommended by a discerning and powerful politician of the Imperial Court to the Patriarchal See whose occupant would come in close contact with it (the Eunuchs Eutropius and Chrysaphius acted the very opposite parts in reference to Chrysostom and Flavian)—unparalleled in efforts as an Administrator and a Teacher of The Truth to the people— unbiassed and critically just in his great Commentaries of Holy Writ— he seems to stand prominently forward as a Doctor and Father of the Early Church, in whom we might repose implicit trust. The Golden-
62 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
first to confess* our Redeemer to be the Lord GOD.
Now, it has been customary hitherto for us to love and honour our own Orthodox Bishops and to vene- rate them as the Coadjutors (of God)‘; and this has been our practice up to the present time. And, as regards Bishop Ibas, although his rep- utation had become sadly sullied by reason of his (mal-)administration of the property (the treasure) belonging to the Holy Church, as well as on other accounts, yet even then we still contin- ued in this way to pay him honour, until, grievous charges being urged against him, he was arraigned on matters, relating to the Orthodox Faith.4
mouthed (as he will probably be designated for all time) Teacher’s sentence on the Relics of Ignatius the Martyr should disarm in thoughtful minds all prejudice against their mention. It will be remembered that, after the lion’s devouring jaws had been satiated in the presence of 87,000 spec- tators at Rome, what remained (some of the larger bones) was forwarded as a precious treasure to the people of Antioch. So Chrysostom says— “Short was the time for which God took him from you, and with greater “ grace hath He restored him to you again. And as they who borrow ‘money return that which they have borrowed with usury, so God ta- “king from you this precious treasure for a little while that He may dis- “play it at Rome, returned it to you with the greater glory. Ye sent “him forth a Bishop, ye received him back a Martyr: ye sent him forth “with prayers, ye welcomed him home with crowns; and not ye only, “but all the cities in the intervening lands.’? The date of this Martyer- dom, according to Baronius or rather his Critic Pagius, is 116 a.p. The abuse of Relics, of which all know there was abundance in after ages and, must we not add, is in our own time, ought to be distingulshed from their devout use in the Primitive Church.
* See S. John’s Gospel, chap. xx., 21.
| Or, “as our great Benefactors.”
q Or, “It was only when his Orthodoxy was questioned and when “‘we had verified the justness and the truthfulness of the charges pre- “ferred against him by means of his own Letters addressed to Persians, “which he found it impossible to disown—it was only then and on that “account that we refused to receive him (as Bishop); anxious (as we were) to preserve (inviolate) The Faith which we have held from the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 63
And (then) when we established the just character of this accusation by those letters which were written by him to Persia and which he was unable to deny, we on that account no longer consent to accept him (as Bishop), being ourselves anxious to preserve (inviolate) The Faith which we have held from the beginning, and seeing that of no slight moment is the harm occasioned by his Letters already, even in Persia.
Now it is a fact, ascertainable from these circum- stances, that he is a Heretic. Henceforth it was only right and just for him, in consequence, spon- taneously to have abdicated the Bishopric, instead of attempting, by coercion, to thrust himself upon our City in order to teach us a Faith other than, and in excessof, THE TRUTH. We, therefore, pray your Highness to write to him not to presume to (re-)enter our City, ere commands (to that effect) have been despatched from our Gracious Sovereigns. We make further request that you would notify these same circumstances to the Noble and Glorious Eparchs, and to the Glorious and High Master (of the divine Offices), so that, when officially informed (of what has passed), the Serene and Christ-loving Sovereigns may give order that a Record of those proceedings which took place at Berytus may be conveyed to, and be read before, your Clemency ; by
“beginning, and great (as we knew) the prejudice (injury) to be among “‘ Persians, occasioned by what Ibas had written. From all which cir- ‘“ cumstances it becomes an ascertained fact that he is a Heretic.”
64 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
which you will be apprized how wretchedly unor- thodox are the opinions of Bishop Ibas,4
We, likewise, pray your Highness to send up and notify to the Great and Powerful General, and Ex- Consul, Zeno, not to be anticipated (circumvented) by Ibas, since he is quite disposed to avail himself of the Roman troops in order by force to enter our City.
Weare, however, of opinion that, instructed by your Illumination, that high Authority will not be prevailed upon by Ibas, and that his Highness will not be induced to lend the help of the Roman forces against the Orthodox, who honour and observe The Faith of our Sovereigns, the Gracious Emperors. His Gloriousness, on the contrary, is anxious to establish and defend, and in everything to put into execution the Commands proceeding from our Gra- cious Sovereigns. For, already, it has reached the ears (the hearing) of all of us, the Orthodox, that the new* Eaict (Law) has been put into ure by their
{| Perhaps this might be translated —“ In how wretched, and in how “‘ unorthodox, a manner Bishop Ibas has been conducting his Pastorate.”’
* «The new Edict.”” Mansi gives it thus: Statuimus ut Ireneeus qui hac de causa (Nestorianism) nostram indignationem olim incurrit, et postea, nescio quomodo, post secundas nuptias, sicut accepimus, contra Apostolicos canones, ‘l'yriorum urbis Episcopatus creatus est, a sancta quidem 'T'yriorum ecclesia expellatur, privatus autem in patrio tantum solo degat, habitu et nomine sacerdotis prorsus exutus. See page 238, Vol. I., containing my Syriac Text.
We also have in Labbe, Tom. V., p. 419 (1671), “ Edictum pro- “positum a preefectis . . . adversus Porphyrium et Nestorium et «‘Trenaeum: Piissimus Imperator noster cum probe noverit orthodoxam “ yeligionem esse gua Leges et respublica ipsa consistunt suo edicto omne ‘‘ semen impietatis abstulit,” &c. Likewise at p. 418, we have ‘“ Exemplum sacree legis. . . . Theodosii.
adversus Nestorianos, et adversus Irenzeum 'Tyriorum Episco-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 65
Clemency—that one which removed from the Priest- hood Irenzeus,* formerly Bishop of Tyre. These matters, too, we pray may be notified to the God. loving Archbishop (of the Province). Further, be- cause at the trial that took place at Berytus, when his Homilies were produced, he refused to avow them to be his, and when he withdrew therefrom the wit- nesses competent to testify to that fact, be- cause he had been travelling in company with his prosecutors,t we beg of those who are here present and are well aware from his various Homilies, how he preached in contravention of the Orthodox Faith, each one to come forward separately and depose in writing what he heard from Ibas, when delivering those Homilies, that is contrariant to The Faith. For, we have been constrained, through having perceived so much Impiety (false faith) in Bishop
“pum: Regiam Nostram Majestatem decere arbitramur ut, &c. an
* «That (Law) which removed Irenzeus from the Priesthood.” In the MS. the Scribe writes Arius by mistake for, Irenzeus. In Ba- ronius, Tom. VII. (Luce 1741). Pagius (448 a.c.) Il. Anno 1. ad xix.—Theodosi:s Imperator vetuit libros Porphyrii et contra Cy- rilli scripta editos, decrevitque etiam, ut quicunque nefariam Nestorii doc- trinam quovis motu sectarentur, ex Ecclesiis expellantur. Ac denique statuit, ut Ireneeus qui Nestorio faverat, et contra canones ‘T'yriorum Episcopus Ordinatus fuerat, Sacerdotio penitus exueretur. Legitur Edictum illud Tom. III., Concil. pag. 1216. We may add that this Law against the Nestorians was published April 18th, 448 a.v., and is called “new” in contradistinction with the Law against them enacted in the year 435 A.D.
+ Ibas, i.e., having travelled with his accusers, took a new line of defence, adopted in consequence of what he had learnt on the way, and threw overboard (as it were), and did not call, his witnesses, but challenged the opposite party to prove that the Homilies were his. If, however, the word os refers to.the witnesses, then he did not cite them to ap-
pear “on the pretext that they had travelled in company with his I
66 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Ibas, to manifest some zeal for our Faith, and to eu- logize (render homage to) the Gracious Lords of the Earth, and to pray of you to make known all these circumstances to the Noble and Distin- guished Authorities above mentioned, seeing that we honour Rank in every quarter and are especially soli- citous in every possible way for the Orthodox Faith. Lastly, we pray your Highness, adjuring you most so- lemnly, in the name of Almighty God and of His Christ and of the Holy Spirit, and by the Victory of the Gracious Masters of the World, the Gracious Flavians, Theodosius and Valentinian, the Ever-August, to receive this Petition from us and to take and notify it to the Princely Authorities aforesaid.
(Here follow) the subscriptions of the whole City. I, Flavius Theodosius, was present at these Transac- tions.
Then subscribed the whole body of the Clerks,*and the Archimandrites,* and the Monks, and the Vowed Brethren,* and the (Civic) Dignitaries, and the Muni- cipal Authorities, and the Roman Officials, and the Collegest of the Armenians and of the Persians and
“accusers.” ‘This latter view I prefer on further consideration.
* About these several classes of persons see previous notes, as being consonant with some of which we may here refer to the expression—“ the “Priest and Clerks’”—which more than once occurs in the Prayer Book of the Church of England.
+ Investigation into Asseman’s Bibliotheca Orientalis, the “ Acta Sanctorum,”’ &c., would doubtless furnish us with material, interesting and abundant enough for a Dissertation on these Christian Schools or Col- leges, constituting an University for the Christian youth of Persia, Ar- menia, and Syria, the fact of whose existence at the populous City of Edessa with the number of members of the Church there that we meet with in these Acts, speaks volumes for the progress The True Religion,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 67
of the Syrians, and (then) the Artizans and all the City. Every person, with his own hand, sub- scribed and assented to these Transactions and to the Presentation of the Petition. And there was a clamour for three or four days when the whole popu- lation of the City shouted (thus) — together with the whole body of Clerics, including the Presbyters and the Deacons, and the Sub-Deacons and the Readers, and the Holy Monks, and all the Deaconesses, and the Vowed Sisters, and the Soldiers, and the women and children, with the rest of the entire City— “ Our Lord be merciful to us !—(there 1s) One God, “ Christ the Victor !—our Sovereigns be ever vic- “torious —- the victory’ of Theodosius increase. “Victory of Valentinian increase—the victory of “the Christ-loving increase—this City belongs to “the Augusti—this City belongs to Christians— ‘‘Hdessa is a City of the Orthodox. To the Ep- “archs long life (or many years)—to Nomius* many “ years—-to the Patriciant many years--to Zeno many
q Or, “increased be victory to Theodosius,” and so also similar ac- clamations.
* «'T’o Nomius many years or a long life.” At p. 37, lines 18, 19, 20, the word is clearly in the MS. |55]Z and at p. 25, |. 2, itis >5]2. As inp. 39, |. 10, it should be {552 or wn3[(Z. At p. 37,1. 23 M@aScaay may perhaps have been meant for MaScao comes, as at p. 24, iro; but if not, then no doubt it should be Nomius. It is Nomius at p. 37 undoubtedly. (Nomius would seem to have been a partizan of Eu- tyches mentioned as present at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 a.p.) At p. 25, 1. 9, itis waScaa», the second letter of which word in the MS. looks like x but it is not that letter, I think, and at p. 37 I found it to be maSoaa» on further scrutiny.
+ The great teacher of the greater Vossius (G. J.) writes thus :
68 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“vears—to the General many years—to Urbicius “the Preefect (of the Preetorlum) many years— “Chrysaphius many years—Anatolius many years. “May the palace (Court) of the Orthodox (Empe- “rors) be (preserved). Our Sovereigns be ever “victorious. Ibas, the Nestorian, no man receives “what was for the service of the Church he* ap- “propriated for himself) and on the Holy Day
——Patricius est nomen viri constituti in certa dignitate et preefectura, cujus origo est a Constantino Magno. Patricii sedebant supra praefectum preetorii, et in ecclesia episcopis preeponebantur. Patriarchis pares habe- bantur quippe proximi ab imperatoribus. Ut imperator émotyuovapyys dicebatur et ecclesize preerat rebusque ecclesiasticis, velut supremum caput: ita patricius aliquis ejus locum tenebat, et tarexkAnoiwy hac de re appellabatur. Ita Occidentales patricios Romanorum dixerunt, quos nunc reges appellare mos est. ‘T'amen patriciis non semper in Oriente sua dignitas constitit; quippe cum aliquando ante eos fuerit Magister officiorum. Vide Gloss. Greeco-L. Meursii. ‘Turneb. lib. 15, 16, “ Patricius pater imperatoris vocabatur, raryp Bucidéws. Olim “igitur Patricii ex eo appellabantur, quod patrem cierent, postea quos “‘imperator patres ciebat, quod quidem et Francie reges imitati sunt, “ quosdamque satrapas patricios vocant, quos antiquitatis ignari Pares 6¢ appellarunt.’’ (Matthiee Martini Lexicon Philologicum, Tomus Secundus, p. 191.)
* At p. 38, 1. 6, it is waz and at p. 27, |. 2, it is pao,
q Or, “Ibas melted down the Service (of Plate, the Vessels) be- “longing to the Church,” &c. These, and the like expressions, all refer to the same series of ‘“Crimina,” given in Labbe’s Concilia, Chal. Act 1o*, Libellus Samuelis, &c., and in Asseman’s Bibl. Orient (as quoted above in pp. 35-37) “ He plundered the Holy Church” is another acclamation understood at the time no doubt to refer to what is contained in the Crimina. See the 2nd of the Crimina on p. 35 above.
We quote in full the Charge as stated by Mansi. X. Quia dum me- moria fieret sanctorum Martyrum, non est datum vinum(a) ad sacrificium altaris ad sanctificationem et populi distributionem, nisi admodum(é) exig- uum et vitiosum, ac lutosum, et quasi eo tempore vindemiatum: ut ex hoc cogerentur, qui deputati fuerant ministrare, de tabernis omnino viti- Osi comparare sex sextarios, qui nec suffecerent: ita ut his qui sanctum corpus distribuebant, innueret ut ingrederentur, qui sanguis non inveniretur ;
(a) Ut offerretur sancto altari, et sanctifiearetur, et populo distribueretur, (6) Ownino paululum et hoc infectum,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 69
“nobody communicated (with him). Let our Sov- “ereions know this—let the Orthodox Emperors “know this—take away one man and (liberate) save “our City—he has sold the Holy Thomas*—he has “plundered the Holy Church—he gave the pos- “sessions of the poor to his relatives.t All the “people know this. Let Ibas be despatched to the «“ Stadium—lIbas, the Nestorian, into exile—the “whole City prays for this. Let the bones of John “(of Antioch) who ordained him be taken up—for ‘13 years he has been deceiving us—Ibas into exile “this City belongs to the Augusti—Ibas has pre- “ vailed—Simon has prevailed—Musarias the Ma- “oician has prevailed. Ibas has prevailed—do you “ (Magicians) take your fellow. This man oppressed “the poor. This man pillaged (made a spoil of) the ‘Church—he secretedt (or appropriated to himself) ‘“‘the Holy Vessels —he made use of the [Joly Ves- “sels for his own purposes—Christ-loving Kings ! “eject him—man-loving Kings! let him go into “exile—all the people desire this. Philanthiopic “ Kings! show clemency to our City—this City is
illis bibentibus, et tunc ac semper habentibus(a) diversum et mirabile vinum. Et hec acta sunt conscio et admonito eo, qui potestatem ministeriorum habebat : cui et dictum est, ut et ipse admoneret episcopum cum fiducia. 2 . . Et cum nihil fecisset, illo tempore coacti sumus nos et ipsum reverendissi- mum episcopum suum admonere. Et cum didicisset, permotus non est, sed contempsit, ita ut multi nostré civitatis hinc scandalizarentur. * «The Holy Thomas.” Probably the Relics of which Asseman a ie i fos speaks, as we have seen, and especially in the words—De tisdem Thome Apostoli reliquiis in eodem Chronico (Edesseno) anno Christi 442, &c. + This is a constant charge urged against Ibas. See the Crimina.
(a) Excellens.
70 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“one of believers. The writings of Cyril, the Or- “thodox, he (Ibas) depraved—he depraved the “Catholic Doctrine of the Holy Rabbulas —he “has depraved the Orthodox Doctrine of the “CCCXVIII.* Take away (this) one man and “deliver the City—this is a City of Christians. “The victory of Theodosius increase—the victory “of Valentinian increase—the victory of the Ortho- “ dox increase—let the race of Christians increase— “Clement Sovereigns! be clement towards us— “ Tbas into exile—Ibas to the mines—Ibas, the Nes- “torian, into exile. Holy Thomas! be instant to- “vether with us—by thee, letus be remembered, Holy “‘Rabbulas,—by thee, Holy Cyril, let us be remem- “bered. They,t it was, who established Orthodoxy. ‘‘Tbas and Nestorius depraved it—they have de- “raved (the Faith of) the Synod of Ephesus—the “writings of Nestorius have been found with Ibas “the writings of Theodore{ have been found with “Tbas. This man has violated your Edict, (O Empe- “rors). Allthe City knows that—-all the people suppli- “cate this (viz.)—wipe this man out of the Diptychs.{
* The CCCXVIII—ro tév tptaxocior dexact ov ot 0A01—mean the 318 Fathers of the Great Council of Nicza in 325 a.p.
q Or, “to Theodosius numerous or increasing victories.”
+ At the General Council of Ephesus 431 a.pv. when The True Faith was re-afirmed and re-established, and Nestorius and others like him deposed.
+ Ibas was a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia as well as of Diodore of Tarsus, and translated their books. ‘The Edict of the Emperor forbade the Faithful even the possession of the writings of Heretics.
§ The Diptychs were the Holy Books, from which the Deacon read out the names of Bishops, Martyrs, &c., called so from being folded to- gether. To erase the names either of men or of Councils out of these
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 7a
“ Another Bishop for the Metropolis—we will not “receive this man—nobody wants a Magician—no- “body wants a (common) driver*—nobody receives “a driver (for a Bishop). He took for his own “clothing the sacred vestmentst (preserved) in (the “Church of) 8. Barlaha.t Abraham§ of Kirkis “(Circesium) ordained him (Priest). Holy Eliades be “ Bishop for (our) City—Flavian be Bishop for the
Diptychs was the same thing as to declare that they were He- retical, says Bingham, Book XV. The above Theodore’s name was struck out after his death, about whom see more further on. The largest number of names ever inserted at once in the Church’s Diptychs were the 16,000 of that innumerable host of Martyrs who, in the great persecution of Christians by Sapor the Persian King who may be ranked with Pharaoh or Antiochus Epiphanes in hostility to the Church, laid down their lives for Christ’s sake. Asseman writes—Imperatoris Justin- iani Dei amantis cura providentiaque factum est ut Sanctz quatuor Synodi Ecclesiz Dipt chis adscriberantur: Niczna, viz., Constantinopolitana,
Ephesina prima et Chalcedonensis (Vol. I., Chron. Edes. LX XX VIII.). * The word Loan yvioxos, auriga probably represents any unfit,
unqualified, person. ‘This very word is used of Ibas in Appendix E. Hoffman seems to make jockey of it.
+ The word e322] may be one or more of the 64610 linteamenta, coverings, or palls of fine Linen connected with the Sacrament of the Altar. Bingham (Bk. VIII., c. VI., s. 21) mentions another man Proculus, as having done what is here attributed to Ibas.
¢ The Church of Barlaha (lasi;=, Son of God) at Edessa is re- corded, see Asseman (Vol. I., B. O, p. 416), in the Chronicle of Edessa, thus:—Ex hoc sxculo migravit Mar Andreas Episcopus, et conditus est in ede S. Barlahe propé ossa Mar Nonni et Mar Asclepi ; eique euros eee Edessam ingressus est die 28 Augusti Anni 844.
aoa wad» OER we lnXis wap Das Se.mizlo
alts} aes loaie : aaa] waiSco
§ The Bishop Abraham is mentioned more than once in the Acts of Chalcedon Council, 451 a.r. Here is the [Vth Charge as given by Labbe :—Abraamus quondam diaconus nostri cleri fuit. Hic, Joanne quodam malifico deprehenso, cujus amicus est et conscius coram reve- rendis. Ep. nostro et omni clero convocato ad Audientiam Abra-
72 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“ City—Dagalaiphas be Bishop for the City. Grant “one of these three for the City — these are “ Orthodox men. The whole City desiderates this. “Tbhas to the mines—Ibas into exile—no man re- “ceives such an one as he for Bishop. An Orthodox “ Bishop for the Metropolis. Those who judge “in favour of Ibas into exile. Basil, the Arch- “deacon, into exile — Abraham, the hospitaller,* “(inspector of hospitals) into exile—Isaac and “Cajumas, (the one belonging to) the Decani and “(the other to) the sub-Decani,t depravers, into “exile — Notarius, and Hypatius, and Theodo- “sius, Sub-Decani, into exile. Maronius,t the
ami diaconi, monstratum(a) est eodem confitente conscium esse, ut pxnam sustinuerit excommunicationis, et omnibus odio fuerit, et omnium insectationi patuerit multo tempore. Post haec (neximus quomodo per- suasus ) satisfactione ab eo nullatenus proveniente, tentavit eum Batanorum civitatis ordinare Episcopum et prohibitus ab eo, qui tunc Archidiaconus erat, indignatus est. Et hunc quidem, qui morti erat obnoxius, apud semetipsum decrevit esse Episcopum. Illum vero qui turbam(J) incitav- erat Civitatis, et dixit justum non esse hoc fieri, removit de proprio loco, et excommunicavit, et expulit ab ecclesia. Et quia de Episcopo ei non processit, compulsus est eum facere xenodochum, Et retinet chartam magicarum incantationum reverendiss. Epis. noster, qui debuit ad judicem provinciae(c) hunc, qui ita execrabilis est, offerre secundum consuetudi- nem(d) legum.
* Dr. R. Payne Smith, in his Thesaurus Syriacus, p. 185 defines the Syriac word thus— is cujus fidei commissum est quicquid ad eegrotos in hospitio.”’
+ These Decani and Sub-Decani were inferior officers of the Church who took care of corpses (Oxford Fleury, Vol. I., p. 279), or Sacris- tans. ‘The word is {mao» in the Original Document.
+ Maronius, Deacon, is mentioned in the Petition for Ibas (Chal. Act. X). Here is his subscription at that Council :—Mapévys dia- Kovos TeTopae THY OWacKaAlay TavTHY Gua érepois In Latin it is—
(«) Convictus est ipso confitente conscius esse, adeo ut.
(J) Sermonem qui in civitate jactabatur, indicaverat, ac dixerat justum.
(c) Crimen deferre secundum. (d) Consequentiam.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. a
“Deacon, into exile—the writings of Nestorius were “found in this man’s possession—those (writings “which) Bishop Ibas (well) knew. Abbas, “Presbyter, the Nestorian, into exile—this man is “an abettor of the evil. Babbai, and Barzumas, “and Balasch,* Persians, into exile—these men have “been the cause of miseries. Let our Sovereigns “be informed of that. Holy Rabbulas! expel Ibas “Holy Rabbulas ! intercede together with us. Our “Sovereigns be ever victorious. Our Lord ! “ever have pity on us.”
The Count said :—
It would be a rash act and one fraught with danger for us persistently to trouble the Glorious and Most Noble Authorities about these same affairs; for, you yourselves must be well aware it was (only)
Maronius Diaconus similiter (i.e. feci hanc suggestionem) simul cum ceteris.
* Balasch, if the same as Ballius, is mentioned in the Vth of the Crimina (p. 35). He and Barzumas and Babbai seem to have held im- portant positions in the Persian College at Edessa, and to have propagated Nestorianism in Persia. These and the after-named persons num- bering 51, and consisting of 10 Presbyters, 20 Deacons, and g Sub-Deacons, and 12 Monks, forming an important though a small part of the Catholic Church at Edessa, and the partizans of Ibas who are not enumerated, and many of his enemies who are passed over in silence, and the Schools or Colleges constituting the University of Edessa for the education of Persian, Syrian, and Armenian youth are evidence of the growth of The Truth and, in their degree, of the strong hold The Faith had gained over men’s minds in the extensive region of Osrhoene and its neighbourhood and afford us an insight into the victories the Church had obtained over some of the strong holds of Heathendom up to the middle of the 5th Century, from Apostolic days when S. Thaddeus, the Brother of the Apostle Thomas, first proclaimed That Truth to King Agbarus and established that Church among his people of Edessa.
K
74 TH SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
yesterday* that I assented to your request (Pe- tion) and drew up the Anaphore (Reports, two of them) — the one indeed for the High and Exalted Throne and the other for the Glori- ous Master (of divine Offices). IJ have not, therefore, failed to make known to the Great and Power- ful Authorities your wishes.‘l How is it, then, that, as though you had forgotten what was done yester- day, to-day you come again, and you _ re- quest] a (re-)presentation of them (to the Authorities) ?
Micauuus, Presbyter, replied :—
Beseeming and proper is that (pronounced) will of the Tribunal, and we eulogize in every respect Your Highness. Still, seeing that but a few days have elapsed—for the Anaphoree (Reports) were despatched (only) yesterday —we have (to-day) now brought this Petition which has been read, praying and adjuring you, by the dread Oath to the Almighty God and His Christ and His Holy Spirit, and by the victory of our Gracious Lords, the Flavians, Theodosius and Valentinian, the ever-August, to notify this our Petition to the Most Noble Authorities as the (only) means of putting an end to the agitation that has overtaken the City and the Holy Church and what-
* Yesterday would be April, the 10th. The Count was evidently fearful of importuning his Superiors too much.
{| Or, those circumstances (in the Reports) proceeding from you. 4 Or, “To present to me nearly the same Report.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 75
ever comes upon us every day on account of this same affair (about Ibas).
The Count continued :—
As regards the Oath (Adjuration) you now prof: fer, is it with the goodwill of the entire body of the Venerable Persons who are now here present, that you have proftered it ?
Micauuvs, Presbyter, rejoined :—
It is assuredly with the goodwill of all the Ven- erable Presbyters and Deacons and of all the Clerics and of the Monks, that I have presented this Peti- tion (Instruction), as well as the Oath which I proffered ; and I beg that, while now standing, they will say that it was for this purpose that we ap- proached this Tribunal.
The Count said :—
Let each person say what he chooses as to that which the Eloquent and Venerable Presbyter has mentioned.
8 (a) Asrsrivs, Presbyter, said :-— 2
It is with my consent that the Venerable Micallus, Presbyter, presented this Petition ; and the selfsame Oath (as he did) I proffer to your Highness.
(b) Patroinus, Presbyter, said :— The same Oath I also proffer to your Highness ;
76 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
and the Petition the Venerable Micallus, Presbyter, presented with my goodwill.
(c) EKunoaivs, Presbyter, said :—
With my goodwill the Venerable Micallus pre- sented the Petition, and I proffer the same Oath.
(d) Ursicinus, Presbyter, said :—
With my goodwill the Venerable Micallus has presented the Instruction, and the Oath to your Highness ; and I also proffer the self same.
(e) Zoura, Presbyter, said :—
I present this Oath to your Highness ; that Oath and Petition the Venerable Micallus, Presbyter, presented with my goodwill also.
(f) Jamns, Presbyter, said :—
Tt was with my goodwill that the Venerable Mi- callus, Presbyter, presented the Petition and the Oath ; and the same Oath I, likewise, proffer to your Highness.
(g) Evuuocius, Presbyter, said :— With the common goodwill the Venerable Mical- lus presented the Petition and the Oath.
(1) Samugt, Presbyter, said : --
And I present the Oath to your Highness; for the Venerable Micallus, also with my good pre- sented the Petition and the Oath.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. ra
(2} Bassus, Presbyter, said :—
With our goodwill the Venerable Micallus pre- sented the Petition and the Oath; and the same Oath I myself, also, proffer to your Highness.
9 (a) Sappatius, Deacon, said :-—
With our goodwill the Venerable Micallus pre- sented the Petition and the Oath; I also proffer myself the same Oath to your Potency.
(b) Maras, Deacon,. said :-—
With our goodwill the Venerable Micallus pre- sented to your Highness the Petition and the Oath ; and I myself proffer the Oath, also.
(c) Joun, Deacon, said :—
With the goodwill of us all was the Petition and the Oath presented to your Highness by the Vene- rable Micallus ; and the same Oath I present also.
(ad) Saspas, Deacon, said :-—
T likewise present the same Oath to your High- ness. The Petition and the Oath with our goodwill the Venerable Micallus presented.
(e) Parrictus, Deacon, said :—
With our common goodwill the Petition and the Oath were presented to your Highness by the Vene- rable Micallus ; and I present myself the same Oath.
78 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(f) Cyrus, Deacon, said :—
With my goodwill the Venerable Micallus pre- sented the Oath; I also myself present the Oath.
(7) ApranaM, Deacon, said :—
And I present the Oath to your Highness; and with our common goodwill likewise the Venerable Micallus presented the Petition and the Oath.
(h) Hypaturus, Deacon, said :—
With our common goodwill the Venerable Mical- lus presented the Petition and the Oath, and I my- self present the Oath, also.
(7) Evsesrus, Deacon, said :—
With our goodwill the Petition and the Oath were presented by the Venerable Micallus; and I also present the Oath.
(7) Pau, Deacon, said :—
With the goodwill of us all the Venerable Mical- lus presented the Petition and the Oath, and I also present the Oath myself.
(i) Romanus, Deacon, said :—
Of the goodwill of us all the Document and the Oath were presented by the Venerable Micallus ; and the Oath I also myself present to your Highness.
(J) Cyrus, Deacon, said :-- And I present myself the Oath to your Highness ;
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 79
both the Document and the Oath with the goodwill of us all presented the Venerable Micallus.
(m) Maronius, Deacon, said :-—
With the common goodwill the Venerable Mical- lus presented the Document ; both the Oath and the Document I also myself present.
(n) Tuomas, Deacon, said :-— And I proffer the Oath to your Highness ; for the Petition and the Oath Micallus also presented.
(0) Luctay, Deacon, said :— This Oath I proffer to your Highness; for with
our goodwill the Document and the Oath the Vene- rable Micallus presented likewise.
(p) Aprauam, Deacon, said :—
With our goodwill the Petition and the Oath pre_ sented the Venerable Micallus; and I also proffer the Oath to your Powerfulness.
(g) Pau, Deacon said :—
It is with our goodwill that the Petition and the Oath were presented by the Venerable Micallus, and the Oath I also proffer to your Highness.
(r) Maras, Deacon, said :—
It is with our common goodwill that the Ven- erable Micallus presented the Petition and the Oath to your Highness.
80 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(s) EKururopantus, Deacon, said :—
And I proffer the Oath to your Highness; with our goodwill the Oath was also proffered to your Highness by the Venerable Micallus.
(t) Sassas, Deacon, said :— I also proffer the Oath io your Powerfulness ; for, what Micallus said, he said with our goodwill.
10 (a) Catutstratus, Sub-Deacon (said) :— I, likewise, present the Petition to your pecs as well as the Oath.
(b) Evrorus, Sub Deacon :--- I present to your Highness the Petition and the Oath.
(c) AntHoyy, Sub Deacon :— The Petition and the Oath I present to your Highness.
(7) Maras, Sub-Deacon :--- I, too, give the same instructions and present the -same Oath.
(ec) Exntas, Sub-Deacon :— The Petition and the Oath I present to your Highness.
(f) Maras, Sub-Deacon :— The Petition and the Oath 1 present to your
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 81
Highness. (g) Evszsrus, Sub-Deacon :—
I do the same; and, whilst I offer the same Peti- tion, I present the Oath.
(h) Tuomas, Sub-Deacon :—
I, too, present the Petition and the Oath. (2) Pactpas, Sub-Deacon :-—
I, likewise, present the Petition.
11 (a) Eutas, Monk :—
Jt was with our goodwill (in our name) that the Venerable Micallus presented the Petition and the Oath to your Highness ; and that Petition and Oath we ourselves, likewise, now present.
(>) Jambuicus, Monk :-—
We, too, (now) ourselves present the same Petition to your Highness ; and the Oath and the Petition were with our goodwill presented by the Venerable Micallus.
(c) Hanis, Monk :—
It was with my goodwill that the Oath and Peti- tion were presented by the Venerable Micallus, and I (now), also, myself proffer the Oath.
(d) Drantus, Monk :—
I, likewise, proffer the same Oath to your Highness,
whilst I (at the same time hereby) certify that it was L
82 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
with our goodwill that the Venerable Micallus pre- sented the Petition and Oath.
(ec) Asranam, Monk :—
With our goodwill it was that the Venerable Mi- callus presented the Petition and Oath; and I my- self (now) proffer the Oath.
(7) Evrorus, Monk :— This Petition I, likewise, tender to your High- ness, and the Oath.
(g) Simzon, Monk :-— The same I say, too, profferring the Oath referred to.
(h) Etas, Monk : — This Petition I, likewise, myself present, as well as the Oath, to your Highness.
4
(z) Asterius, Monk :—
The same from me also, whilst (at the same time)
I proffer the formidable Oath.
(j) Asrauam, Monk :— I, too, present myself the Document to your
Hichness, as well as the Oath. oO 2
(k) Anprew, Monk :— The same I likewise pray, proffering (at the same time) the formidable Oath.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS, 83
12 Fuavros Tuomas Junants Cuermas, Count of the First Rank, said :—
Although I felt indisposed to yield to your* Petitions (Instances),—(Petitions) written and un- written — I am compelled to it by the formid- able Oath, which has been proffered by you, in which invocation is made to the Consubstantial (co-essential) Trinity and to the Mystery of Re- demption and to the Victory of the Masters of the World. 1 will, therefore, now proceed and no- tify to the Crowned and Glorious Auditory (of the Emperors) your behests.
* «Tnstances.” As aterm of Law no doubt the Syriac expression may be so rendered, but ordinarily urgency, entreaty, prayer. The words
pon Say Low of course refer to the Petitions, written and unwritten,
the latter of which may be designated Instructions. In p. 49 of my Syriac ‘Text, ] should be added to the end of the Ist line, though it is
omitted in the MS., and erased from that of the 5th, while it is cor- rectly retained at the end of the 24th, in the word signifying Notification. Of the two terms Consubstantial or Co-essential the latter is decidedly to be preferred.
We may make a short pause here both to invite the Reader to remem- ber that it is in the assembled Council that these various Documents are read and to note here the several points in this great trial going on at this tribunal of the Church. It was a business, not like that which took place at the Synod assembled at Berytus, Tyre, and Antioch, in conse- quence of complaints emanating from private individuals. ‘The complaints here preferred have been dealt with by the Civil Governor of a Roman Pro- vince through the influence and at the solicitation, probably, of the great Eutychian party and by order of the Roman Government. The com- plainants, Ecclesiastical and Lay, had formulated their Libels or Acts of Accusation and presented them to that Governor (Cheraas) at Edessa, who had forwarded these Documentary Acts, &c., preceding them by his Formal Report. And now, in the Council assembled in August, 449 4.D., these Documents are read, and discussed, and dealt with in the way we now read of in this, hitherto unknown, because undiscovered, Syriac Manu- script numbered 14,530 among the Additional Manuscripts in the British Museum, which MS. we designate A in Vol. I,
84 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
[C] [SECOND FORMAL ENQUIRY.]
THE THIRD REPORT. (1) To The Great and Glorious Fuavius Martia- Lius,” Count and Master of divine Offices, Fuiavius Cureraas (offers) Salutation.
{The Power of our Emperors, Illustrious by Vic- tory and Invincible, your Piety and the zeal of our humble person have prevented the Metropolis of Edessa from forfeiting (falling from) the rank of City: but a bad Demon (evil Genius) has caused there a (horrible) conflagration, as our humble self
* Flavius Areobindas Martialis (or Martialius). In the text it is Martilalius. In Mansi he is designated—magnificentissimus comes et Magister (magistratus) sacrorum Officiorum. As Chancellor of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople-he had the superintendence of all the Offices of the Imperial Household and, by that very position, possessed an immense influence at Court. Under this Mayorpos tov Oetwy oppixidy were the Mayiorpiavor—some of them address the Council soon—who ranked as the Officers and Agents of Martialius in the Ro- man Provinces. See Du Cange’s “Glossarium medi et infime Latinitatis,” 1V., p. 179. We have now arrived at the 3rd part of the whole Report, which part begins with the letter addressed by the Roman Governor of Osrhoene to the Chancellor of the Empire, in which the former brings afresh the troubles at Edessa, recommencing and threatening the public peace, to the cogni- zance of the Military Commandant, because he believes the latter alone competent to terminate the popular agitation. This letter precedes this 3rd Report in the same way, in which Chereeas’s letter to Romanus Protogenes and the Eparchs, its receivers, precedes the 2nd Report in which are recorded the formal Libels or Acts of arraignment, against Bishop Ibas, adopted by the Clerks and Inhabitants of Edessa.
{| This whole passage may be rendered, perhaps, more literally thus : —The Imperial Authority of our Sovereigns, Illustrious by Victory and Invincible, the fear of you, and the solicitude of our Humbleness, have
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUE. 85
apprized you of before, by the Notification which was despatched to your Highness. (All happened), then, as I informed you; but now, in order to extinguish the new flames there is noth- ing less required than the authority of your (all)- powerful name ; for, everyone in the City proclaims loudly that this trouble will only end, when you yourself, on being informed of it, put a stop to what is going on. I felt reluctant, by writing, to annoy your Highness, but it has appeared to me that the
prevented the Metropolis of Edessa hitherto from forfeiting its rank among the number of Cities. For, an evil Demon excited in it a (ter- rific) conflagration, as I also at first made known to your Highness in a Notification* despatched from my Humbleness. Indeed, at that time and now, too, it was, as I said, nothing else whatever that could avail to extinguish it, save only your great and (all)-powerful name ; for, every- body of all classes of society perpetually exclaims that there is no means of appeasing the excitement stirred up, except that you, having been in- formed of it, should yourself give the matter its determination. And, although I was unwilling to write and trouble your Highness, yet it seemed to me that this was the sole healing and remedy for the calamities that have overtaken this City (viz.), that the occurrences should be brought to your knowledge. Accordingly, I have described with exac- titude in what manner and from what causes these seditious movements took place, and I have despatched a Report which will afford you in- formation of what you ought to be acquainted with. When the City, having for a moment recovered its order, was enjoying quiet and acting as usual, after some very few days had elapsed, again did the evil Demon set itself about (re-)kindling the extinguished conflagration: and it will devastate everything, unless you are found competent to (re-)extinguish the flame by those injunctions (naturally ) expected from you and by (the help of) those most qualified. The mischief resulting from these clam- ours will not be restrained, unless, again, on your being apprized of them, you will apply the remedy to them.
Now, all those (present) occurrences, as well as the past which I have already notified to your Exalted Throne, arise from the hatred and great enmity entertained towards the Venerable Bishop Ibas whose Episcopate
* This Notification does not accompany the other Documents in these Acts, i.e. in MS. designated by A.
86 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
only means of healing and remedying the evils which have overtaken this City, was to bring the occurrences under your notice. I have, there- fore, stated carefully how, and by whom, all this tumult has been excited, and I have sent you a Report which will enlighten you (instruct you tho- roughly). After having for a moment regained its habitual tranquillity, the City was, some days afterwards, (brought anew into uproar) by a bad Demon, who has done his best to revive the extin- guished fire ; and now this conflagration will destroy everything, if you do not succeed in extinguishing a second time the flames, by the orders which we (naturally) expect from you and by the co-operation of those most competent (to give it). The evil re- sulting from all this clamour will not be extirpated (removed), before you, on being apprized of it, administer a remedy. How has all this, and all that which I have already brought under the notice of your exalted Throne, been brought about ? It is through the hatred and great enmity, by which Ibas is prosecuted: no one will have him as Bishop
and Pastoral charge they repudiate, even though all the inhabitants of the City should have to enter the fire (for doing so) ;_ since there is no evil thing they decline to say or do, on only his name being mentioned. But no more of this; for, I consider it would not be without peril for me to (afflict) trouble your ever-wise ear with anything superfluous, (especially ) as the Report (Instruction) made at the time and appended below, will enable you to become thoroughly acquainted with all that has transpired in this matter, Noble and, in every way, Glorious Lords!
That my Illustrious and Glorious Lords (so) beneficial to the com- munity, may ever enjoy good health is my frequent prayer to God, Noble and Glorious Lords !
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Si
and Pastor: the inhabitants of the City (of Edessa) would prefer going through the fire (rather than re- ceive him againassuch). There is nothing so bad but they say it and do it, at the mere mentioning of his name. But enough of this, since it would not be without danger, if I wearied your ever-wise ear with anything superfluous. Moreover, from the annexed Reports you will be able to obtain an accurate know- ledge of all that has transpired, Noble, and, in all respects, Glorious Lord !
May you always continue in good health, Masters and Benefactors of Society. I wish you many years
of life, Noble and Glorious Lords.
(2) Copy of Records of procedure adopted at the City of Edessa (against Ibas) in the presence of the Civic Dignities, among whom is the Count Theodosius, and (in the presence of) the Clergy, named above, of the Church of the same Edessa, and of the Monks, &c.
The same Count Turoposits said :—
TIn order to put a stop to the recurrence of all com- motion in the Metropolis, I have been obliged to have recourse to this Instruction (Petition). For, after
{ Or, it may be translated thus—In order to stop the recurrence of all commotion in the Metropolis, I have been compelled to have recourse to this (Instruction) Petition. For, after all the City had assembled in the Holy Church* yesterday which is the Holy Day of the Week (Sunday),
* This Church would, no doubt, be the great one at Edessa, of which much mention is made in Asseman’s Bibliotheca Orientalis. Yesterduy - would be April 17th, 449 A.D.
Ro
88 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
all the City had assembled in the Church yesterday which is the Holy Day (Sunday) of the Week, and when everybody hadasked forthe (formal) charges pre- ferred against Ibas, who was the Bishop, to be made publicly known ; the Service having terminated, your Highness was obliged to proceed to the Holy Church, in order to extinguish any spark of disturbance. I was, also, obliged to go there myself in order, by all
and when all had asked for the (formal) charges, preferred against Ibas who had been Bishop, to be made publicly known, the Service having ceased, your Highness was obliged to proceed to the Holy Church in order to stifle all commotion. I was likewise obliged to go, to the end that, by every means, peace might accrue to the City. All those per- sons, however, who were assembled together could, with difficulty, be in- duced to preserve silence, when your Highness promised that I should go the very next day to enquire into the matter. And I, too, promised them in conjunction with your Highness the same, with the view of our allaying the agitation. Nevertheless, things are still in the City in a state of confusion; and your Highness will perceive that we can not be al- lowed to enjoy quiet and repose in our homes. In sight of this spectacle I am myself more especially regardful of what had_been previously en- joined by him who js in every way the Great and Powerful General of the East and the Ex-Consul who, solicitous for the peace of the City, gave (peremptory) order for the whole disturbance to cease. For this reason I am obliged, in consequence of the commotions that have taken place, to offer this Instruction (Petition) to your Supreme Highness, in order to render it possible for you, as I believe it will, to allay the com- motions that have been going on; and I have proceeded to draw up this Document with the common consent of the entire community of Clerks, and Abbats, and Vowed Persons, as well as of the Civic Magistrates and other Proprietors who now stand here, whereby I entreat your Highness to repress the turbulence of the people, and to give order that the com- motions that have been going on must terminate. For, these occurrences have arisen in consequence of the categorical charge preferred against Bishop Ibas at the City of Berytus, whereby the people learnt that he is inimical to the Orthodox Faith and has given utterance to a great deal of Blasphemy.
I pray, therefore, your Highness, in order to the termination of these evils (unfortunate occurrences) to compel those his (Ibas’s) accusers now standing here to state what the deeds are that he has committed, and what are the charges preferred against him, and under what counts he was
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 89
possible means, to restore peace in the City: it was not, without difficulty, that we succeeded in silencing the assembly ; your Highness (knows it, for you) had to promise to investigate the matter the next morning. I myself, also, made the same promise, as your Highness, for the purpose of putting an end to the tumult, (and still) the City is all astir yet. Your Highness is perfectly aware that it is impos- sible for us to enjoy quiet (peace) in our own homes, whilst having this scene before our very eyes; and remembering the Orders, given before by the Ex- Consul, the High and Powerful General of the East, (and) desirous of putting a stop to this agitation in the City—(seeing it, | say myself)—-I have considered it my bounden duty to present to your Highness this Petition which seems to me to be calculated to appease all. I submit it to you in the name of the community, (that is) of all the Clerics, the Abbats, and the Vowed Persons, as well as of the Magistrates and
convicted.* For, since I have been requested by the High Dignitaries and by the Noblemen Curial, as well as by Venerable Clergy and Abbats and by the Artizans here present (and I am myself equally anxious with hem to repress the state of confusiont which breaks out (bursts forth) daily about The Faith and threatens to become universal), I have there- fore presented the Petition, and I request all those persons (mentioned above) to say if the case is, as I state it.
* The word 322| seems to be classed under the znd meaning of
y ; ’ subegit, if not prosecutus est, or Naser deprehendit (in JOye, eee Smith’s Thesaur. Syr.).
+ In my text p. 54, |. 3 is exactly given a fac-simile of, as the Scribe has written, the word with the stroke for correction. Inline 4 {> SSDS which generally signifies rovypoverr, or dolose egit, and can hardly mean con= sentiens as one would at first suppose, is fem. part. agreeing with | yo Sass)
M
7 72
80 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of the rest of Proprietors,—in short, in the name of all the inhabitants of Edessa—heve present.
Thereby I pray your Highness to repress the violence of the people and to put an end to the tu- mult which the Accusation made against Bishop Ibas, in the City of Berytus, has occasioned, through which the people have learnt that he is no longer Orthodox, that he has uttered a host of Blasphemies, (and) that he has committed many acts subversive of the Laws and adverse to the Christian Faith.
For the termination, therefore, of these disas- trous occurrences, I beseech your Highness to com- pel Ibas’s accusers here present to tell us what has occurred, what charges have been made against the Bishop, and on what counts he has been con- , victed. So, requested by the High Dignitaries, the — Noble Magistrates, the God-fearing Clergy and Ar- chimandrites, and the Artizans here present, and, eager for the repressing of this commotion about The Faith which breaks out (afresh) every day and threatens to become universal, I now present to you this Petition and request those present to say, if things are such (as I have stated).
(3) Fiavius Tuomas Juuianus Cueraas, the Count, sald :—
Now that you have heard what the High and Glorious Count Theodosius has said—those who are standing here—(I mean) the Noble and Iilustrious personages, as likewise the Venerable and God-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. a
loving Presbyters, and the Dignitaries (Curial) of this Metropolis, and the Venerable Monks—let them make known, if they wish, their opinion by means of their depositions.
(a) Count Evuoarus replied :-—
It is with the (particular) desire of all of us the Notables of the City, and the Clerics, and the Monks, as well as of the inhabitants of this City, as he has stated, that his Highness, the Glorious Count Theodosius, has presented this Petition.
(>) Faustinus, a Magistrian, said :-—
I also admit the same (viz.), that it is by my de- sire, and that of the whole City, that his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, has presented the Petition. |
(c) Turonorg, a Maoistrian, said :—
It is by my consent, and by that of all those who are now present, that the Petition has been presented
by his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius.
(d) The Venerable Micallus, the Presbyter, said :—
We all of us requested his Excellency, the Glo- rious Count Theodosius, to supplicate this of your Highness, and we regard it as a gracious act (on his part) that he consented to our request.
(e) Ruopontus, and Zoaras, and Isaac, and Asts- Rius, and Patroinus, and the other Venerable
92 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS Presbyters, said :—
We all requested of his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, to present, on our behoof, this Petition to your Highness.
(f) Apranam, and Marryrivs, and Luctants, and SABBATIUS, and the rest of the Venerable Deacons, said :—
We, all of us, too, prayed his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, to present, on our be- hoof, this Petition to your Highness.
(g) Jonn, and Cattistratus, and Maras, and Tuomas, and Eunoaivus, and the rest of the Sub- Deacons, said :—
By all of us was his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, supplicated to present this Peti- tion to your Highness.
(h) JamBuicus, and Entas, and Dias, and ABranam, and Epararm, and other Venerable Monks, said :—
By us, likewise, his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, was requested to present this Petition to your Clemency.
(c) ConsTanTINE, and Jouy, and Sererivs, and the rest of the Vowed Persons, said :—
On his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodo- sius, being supplicated by us, he presented the Petition to your Highness,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 93
(j) Constantius said :—
I, likewise, attest that it is with the good pleasure of the entire City that his Excellency, Count Theo- dosius, presented the Petition to your Highness.
(k) Bras said :— We prayed his Excellency, the Glorious Count, to present this Petition on our behalf.
(1) Garnas said :-—
I, too, along with my compeers and the whole City, prayed his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, to present the Petition to your Highness. (m) ASCLEPIUs said :—
Having been requested by all the City together and by its Principals, the Glorious Count Theodosius presented the Petition to your Clemency.
(n) ANDREW said :—
On being requested by us and everybody, his Ex- cellency, Count Theodosius, presented in place of us this Petition to your Potency.
(0) Evsesius said :—
Exactly as my compeers have stated it, so the case is. For, being entreated by everybody to do it, his Excellency, the Count Theodosius, presented the Petition to your Highness.
(p) Prince (Chief) AuRELIAN said :—
I, likewise, make the same affirmation,
94 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(g) Anaarus, Law-Advocate,* said :—
His Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, received our expressed desire (for this purpose) ; and his Highness, acting in a manner worthy of himself, presented the Petition to your Highness.
(r) DemosTHENEs said. ;—
The case is just as the Noble Civilians have in- formed (you). For, it was at the prayer of all to- gether that his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, presented the Petition to your Highness,
(s) Patuap(rus) said :—
What has (just) been said by my compeers is the truth ; for, it is in compliance with the prayer made to his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodosius, that he consented to present this Petition, in con- formity with the Laws, to your Highness.
(4) The Junas said :-—
An obligation, as it appears to me, manifestly attaches to your Highness, (viz.) that you, by your Deposition, should also make known the names of those Venerable Presbyters who (personally) parti- cipated in the presentment and indictment.
* « Taw-Advocate”—oxodraotixos. In his Thesaurus Syriacus Dr. Payne Smith quotes J. Bar-Bahlulis Lexicon Syro-Arab., under louima Soro} as giving two meanings, (1) judex, (2) qui sapientie studet, &c., adding, mya» |a8003; Lad Soa, amasi|2 So pas , aSamisoSsS [azo yemsoSo [tue 2 ip a dignitas fuit in imperio Romanorum, cujus munus fuit sententiam et penas statuere in malefactores.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 95
The Count Tuxoposius replied :—
They are the Venerable Presbyters, Samuel, Maras, and Cyrus.
The JupGE said :—
Now that the Venerable Clergy have (just).heard what has been said by his Excellency, the Glorious Count Theodusius, (let them state), according to their own pleasure, what they wish.
(5) The Venerable Samuuzt, Presbyter, said :—
Far superior to our Deposition, and far more worthy of credit, would be testimony of the person who has adjudicated in the matter in pursuance of the commands of the Gracious and Christ-loving Em- perors. Now, that person is the God-fearing Uranius. He is not, however, present here at this moment. But, perhaps, on account of this very cause he has been obliged to repair to the Emperors and inform them of the negotiations. Besides, there is likewise absent one of us—the Venerable Eulogius ; so that about this same business there have come, then, hither three persons (complainants), of whom I am one. Now, this much I state in a Deposition (viz.) that, after enduring all sorts of hardships everywhere and _ suffermg from intrigues con- nected with the Bishop Ibas, and on account of his chicane and his habit of everywhere scattering gold abroad for the condemnation of The Truth,* it was
* (ie., in order to get a verdict contrary to the Orthodox Faith).
96 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
with difficulty that we obtained what we desired, on our approaching the Clement Emperor, (with the view) that Judges should be granted us, whose names are the God-fearing Bishop Photius of Tyre, and Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus, and the Holy Uranius, Bishop of Himeria, whom I have just now mentioned ; and, while the matter was conducted be- fore them by Documents, they decided certain points, as it seemed good to them, minutes of which relating to the business were laid up (preserved) with them : which (minutes) we have frequently asked leave to publish, and I do not know for what reason they have refused us leave to have them published. But — if we are required now, also, here to plead the cause again before your Excellency, pointing out the origin of the trouble which has thrown confusion into the affairs of the City which suffered (so), and as to which everybody shares in sadness, (then) what we have to say is this—this is no light matter of which we were complainants, as all the Clergy are well aware, and who, I think, would likewise testify to the correct- ness of our statement. Acting in submission to what the Canons prescribe, we proceeded to the City of Antioch the Great and approached the Arch- bishop of that City, the Venerable Domnus, presenting to him certain precise counts (of complaint). When he had acquired accurate knowledge of them and perceived that everyone of them (the counts) would bring capital punishment on the offender, he sent us away at his pleasure (about our business).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 97
Subsequently, as we could not get the better of his negligence, we were obliged to proceed to the Royal City and prefer our complaint to the Synod of the West —-I should say, to the Venerable Archbishop Flavian and, simi- larly, to our Gracious Emperor Theodosius,— bringing not ouly the same charges as we had pre- ferred at Antioch and presented in authentic Docu- ments, but also in the interest of The Faith (one of Heresy against Ibas). But as regards these heads (of accusation), if your Excellency command it, see- ing that we are not able at the present moment to recount all of them before you, (yet) we do proceed to lay before you the order of them, (in which they are arranged in the Depositions).
He (Ibas) was, then, arraigned on a charge of Heresy, in the manner following.
In giving our account of the matter we affirm that in the Hall of the Episcopal Residence, at the time when the Heortastica (gifts on Feast Days) were - distributed—tor, it was the custom every vear, when he presented the Heortastica to the Venerable Clergy, for him to deliver a Homily, and then to distribute his gifts—he (Ibas) said, in the presence of many persons: “I do not envy Christ becoming God : for, “in so far as He has become (God) I have become “so: for, He is of the same nature as myself.”*
astical Annals :—‘ Non invideo Christo facto Deo: in quantum factus “est, et ipse factus sum;” Vel; “ Si voluero, et ipse ut ille fieri.”
N
98 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Many of the Clergy know, if they fear God, that T immediately testified against him ; and, from that time up to the present, | have never received any- thing from the Church, nor have I had any commu- nication with him, because I was cognizant of his
Blasphemy.
Similarly (they know), too, that I attempted to rise and make a stir, at the very moment, but those, seated by me, would not allow me ; for, they said that there would be a row (scandal). But, after I had descended (from the Triclinium), they questioned me (about it), when I replied to them by calling to their remembrance the fact that he had said so (and so). This he (Ibas) denied in the presence of the Commissioners (Judges) granted (by the Emperor). He even anathematized himself in these terms :— “Tf I said so, I should have anathematized myself “and deposed myself from the Episcopate.”
Although, then, he well knew this,* vet, aiming at justifying himself in this matter with the object of turning aside this accusation,* (in order that he might bring discredit on these men as witnesses), he main- tained that they were under censure,t and therefore could not be received as Witnesses according to the Laws.
Whereupon we made reply—“ If you excommuni- “cated them for any other reason, you have spoken
* (i.e., what my accusation was, and that he had actually uttered those words. ) + Under his ban, i.e., they might not come to the Holy Communion.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 99
“sensibly : but, if it is only done in order that they “might not be (qualified to) bear witness, just as you “have excommunicated me because I was your accuser “—(f your object is) that they may not (formally) “accuse you, (in that case) they ought to be received “as Witnesses. But, if it is for any other cause—and “an offence was charged against them previously to “this affair (of your excommunicating them)— (then) “they ought not to be admitted as Witnesses. “ (Only) say which.”
He was unable to assign any other reason than this sole averment. He accused (limiting himself to abusing) the Witnesses, by asserting that “they were “with you at Constantinople :” and the Judges, whether as being favourable to him (Ibas) or not, I cannot say, would not consent so far as to receive these as Witnesses alone, but refused, affirming that it was befitting and proper for others also to appear. It happened, however, by the will of God, that there came the Venerable EKulogius, Presbyter, son of the good Hypatius, of worthy memory, on that evening with the Pious Presbyter James. Seizing these per- sons, also, the very next day, we hurried them off to go to appear and give evidence (before the Judges). But these, too, the Judges refused to admit, stating (every time) that it was befitting and proper for others to be summoned. ‘To this we have replied at length, as it is yet contained in the Documentary Acts, in which is my own averment, that we are treated wrongfully (in violation of Law), the Laws not
100 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
objecting to admit five. Accept, then, either the first ones, or these (the second), or all of us together ; but, as that did not please them (the Judges), the matter remained thus in abeyance, as far as that head was concerned. Now, seeing that it is (only) in accordance with justice that those, who did not there make their Depositions, should at least now declare them here in writing, I again request of your Excellency (to demand) of those, also, who were found with us at Berytus, and all those who are cog- nizant of this count (in the indictment) to state what they know of the matter.
6 The Jupcx said:-—
Whatever was said at Berytus by the God-fearing Samuel, the Presbyter, the (Documentary) Acts admit as evidence; but, what these other Venerable Presbyters also have to inform us of, let them declare if they will.
(a) The Venerable Maras, Presbyter, said:— That is the case; the chief count was discussed; and we request those, who have knowledge of it, to
speak.
(b) The Venerable Cyrus, Presbyter, said:—- Yes: it is so. Let those, who have information on
this head, state, with a view to enhance the value of the Acts, what they know.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 101
(c) The JupgE said:—
There is no bar to any of those who presented themselves at the City of Berytus, or Tyre, when the investigation (of the matter) took place there, (freely) stating whatever they know, if they will.
(d) The Venerable Evnocrus, Presbyter, said:— In my presence, together with (that of) my fellow- clergy, in the Bishop’s House, Ibas said—*‘‘I do not “envy Christ's becoming God; for, I am become so ‘“‘no less than He, since He is of the same nature as “myself.” And I was prepared, on going to Bery- tus, if I were summoned, to testify to the same fact.
(ce) The Venerable Maras, Deacon, said:—
When I was with my venerable compeers, the Clergy, in the Episcopal Residence, Bishop Ibas said, in the course of a Homily, “I do not envy “Christ's becoming God: for, I am become so no “less than He, since He is of the same nature as “my own.” And I bear witness before God and be- fore men (to this fact). And when I was at Berytus, if I had been summoned, I was prepared to give the very same evidence. Moreover, I heard him, when delivering his Homily, (say), “That God the Word, “in His foreknowledge, knew that Christ would ‘justify Himself by His works, and therefore dwelt nel,”
102 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS (f) Davin, a Venerable Deacon, said: —
In my presence, whilst Bishop Ibas was delivering his Homily, he said, “I do not envy Christ’s becom- “ing God; for, I am become so no less than’ He, “since He is of the same nature as myself.” And if I had been summoned at Berytus, when I was there, to testify to that fact, I should not have de- clined.
(g) Samust, Venerable Presbyter, said:—
Some of those who were at Berytus are now far off; for instance, Sabas and James. There are, however, others among the Venerable Clergy, who equally with them (Sabas and James) have know- ledge of this fact; and I request of them to depose in writing and on Oath whatever they know.
7 The Jupce said:—
Let this be done by all who are cognizant of the circumstances having reference to this business, if agreeable.
(a) Samuzt, Venerable Presbyter, said:—
I request, first of all, that the Venerable Leon- t(ius), Presbyter, would say, if I did not there and then, when we were sitting near each other, invoke him as Witness and, in the Episcopal House, adjust myself for immediately rising, but was not permitted by him (to do so); and if, after we came down (from the Bishop’s House) when I was questioned, I did
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 103 not tell him all that I have just said. (6) Lront(ivs), Venerable Presbyter, replied:—
What the Venerable Samuel, Presbyter, has (just) said, he has said with (perfect) truth. I was pres- ent when those words, which are deposed to by my compeers, were spoke by Ibas, (viz.)—“I do not “envy Christ’s becoming God, for I am become so “no less than He, because He is of the same nature “as myself.”
(c) The Venerable Bassus said:—
I was present with my colleagues the Venerable Clergy, and heard Ibas say—‘“ I do not envy Christ’s “becoming God; for, 1 am become the same, as He “became; since He is of the same nature as my
29%
“ own.
(d) Evuocivs, Deacon, said:—
I was present and heard [bas say——“ I do not envy “ Christ's becoming God: for, ] am become the same as He became, since He is of my own nature.”
(c) Ursacinus, Presbyter, said:—
I heard Ibas say, in the course of a Homily, in the Church, that John the Evangelist has said:— “In the beginning was the Word,”t but Matthew, the Evangelist, has said:—“ The Book of the Gene-
* Literally, questionless it might be with more correctness rendered, “because He is held in honour and I am held in honour,”
+ Chap. i, 1.
104 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“ration of Jesus Christ, the Son of Abraham, the “Son of David:”* and, commenting (on these two passages), Lbas asked—“ Is not the former one thing “and the latter quite another ?” Again, on an Easter Dayt, he (Ibas) was giving his Ex- position on the Bema.{ when he affirmed—“It is “to-day Christ became immortal.” ~ And, at an- other time, in discoursing with Theodotus, a Senator of very high Rank, on the subject of Hell (Gehen- na), he (Ibas) affirmed that—“that was written “ (only) as a threat to terrify.” And I am certain of it and heard it from him (himself).
(f) The Venerable Sasas, Deacon, said:—
I, likewise, heard Ibas say on the day of the Re- surrection: “This day Christ became immortal.”
(7) Barzumas, a Venerable Presbyter, said:—
I heard Ibas say on Easter Day—“This day
‘“‘ Christ became immortal.” He, likewise, made
* Chap. i, 1, He is said to be “the Son of David, the Son of «“ Abraham.”
+ These conferences took place at Edessa, on the 17th and 18th of April, 448 a.r.
t The Bema (Byua from avaBaive, as also is ambo) was here pro- bably the Ambo, or reading desk, whence he delivered his Targum or Exposition. The word, says Bingham, is of various significations, at different times, meaning the Altar—the seats or thrones of the Bishop and Presbyters—the whole space where those thrones and the Altar stood (Bk. VIII., Chap. VI.), whence also the Clergy were termed of rov Byuatos and raéis tov Byyaros, “the order of the Bema or the « Sanctuary.”
@ Or, “that the word Gehenna (Hell) was only a simple trope or “ figure of speech for threatening.”’
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 105
this observation:—“ We must discreetly make a dis- “tinction between God and Man, and make a sepa- “vation between Him Who was assumed by Grace “and Him Who assumed Him by Grace.”
(h) Lucian, Deacon, said :—
1 heard [bas say that “the word Gehenna (Hell) “occupies only the place of a threat (a Metaphor).” For, I am certain that he has in his possession the blasphemous writings—blot out the name of Ne- storius (for ever).4
(7) Arsentus, Presbyter, said:—-
I heard Ibas, when giving his Homily to the people in the Church, (say) —‘the Jews could not “boast ; for, they only crucified a mere man.”
(7) Azranam, Deacon, said:— And I heard Ibas say that ‘‘the Jews could not
“boast, since they did not crucify God, but a man, “simply a man.”
(k) Joun, a Vowed Person, said:—
I heard Ibas, when expounding in Church, say:—- “Tt was one Person who died, and another who was “in Heaven, and that was one Person who was with- “out beginning, and that was another who is subject “to a beginning ; and He was one Person Who is of
q Or, “For I knew that he was in possession of the Impious and “ publicly-proclaimed books of Nestorius,”’ alluding to his name being erased from the Diptychs. See note p. 70. O
106 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“the Father, and He was another Who is of the “Virgin.” And he added—“ If God were dead,
‘who is there to raise Him to life 2”
(/) The Venerable Maras, Presbyter, said to Con- stantine:— By the God whom you worship, and by the Holy Trinity, what did you hear (Ibas), in his Homily, say?
(m) Constantine replied:—
By reason of the necessity that is laid on me, in consequence of the Adjuration (Oath) with which the Venerable Samuel appealed to me, I will state that of which I am fully persuaded. The Lord God of truth knows it: and all those persons, who were present and heard (him), can also bear me witness that frequently have I heard him (lbas), when dis- coursing, say:—-“‘ As the disgrace of the purple, as “soon as it is disgraced, passes over to the King, so “the sufferimg passes over to God.” Often I left him and went out, and I can have the evidence of several from the City to (prove) this fact.
(x) THEODORUs said:—
Whilst Ibas was discoursing in his own JJall on Doctrine and was handling the subject of the Resur- rection of our Lord Christ, he said that His Body was not the same before, as after, the Resurrection; and when I urged as an objection against 1t—“ How, ‘then, could Holy Thomas, the Apostle, when
ed
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 107
“seized by doubt, have drawn nigh to (touch) His “(Christ’s) side, according to His command, and ‘have seen the places, in which the nails were fixed: ‘and have heard from our Lord, ‘be believing and “not unbelieving ?”* Ibas to this replied that that took place (only) in phantasy. Astonished, there- fore, at such a statement, I went to several Monks, one by one, to tell them what Bishop Ibas had said. They replied:—“ Let the man, who says so, be ana- “thema.”
(0) Seraivs, one under a Vow, said:—
Always has Ibas been in the habit of making a division between the Divinity and the Humanity (of Christ): and often I have, on the Bema, made com- plaint in reality about it.
(p) James, a Monk, said:—
I heard Ibas say:—‘‘'The Jews had no reason to “boast, as if they elevated (on the cross) One Who “was God ; they crucified a (mere) man.”
(g) Sercivus, a Vowed Person, said:—
On the Thursday, in the Great Week, at night, Ibas said:—‘“ The Jews could not boast that they “crucified God: they did not crucify GOD.”
(vr) ABRAHAM said:—
T, too, heard Ibas say, “‘The Jews had no cause
* John, xx, 27, “ Be not faithless, but believing,”
108 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“to boast of having crucified God; for, they cruci- ‘fied (only) a man.”
(s) Jony, a Vowed Person, said:—
[ heard Ibas, as he was going out of the Baptis- tery, in the evening (at vespers), declare:—-“ To-day “Christ became immortal.”
(t) Constantine, a Vowed Person, said:—
I, too, heard [bas, on returning from the Baptis- tery, at vespers, say:—‘ This day is Christ become “immortal;” and, on another day, as he was giving a Homily, he said:—‘“ That is one Person Who is of “the Father, and that is another Person Who is of “the Virgin. What the purple is to the King, that “the Body is to Christ.”
Oo 5
(uw) The Venerable Samvurn said:—
T heard Ibas say:—‘ As a Kine is treated with “insult through his purple, so did God The Word “receive ignominy through His Body.”
(v) The Count Turoposius said:—
The matters deposed to, against Ibas, who was
Bishop of this Metropolis, your Excellency has (now)
taken cognizance of from these several Depositions (just now) individually made. It is in order to your
4 “Just as the Purple is that which has insult shown it, when insult “is offered to a King ; so also (the attributing) suffering to God is of- “fering insult to Him.” Or, “ When they despise the Purple, it is the ‘King on whom the contempt falls, so the Passion is fallen on to God.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 109
giving peace to this so-distracted City that I intreat your Highness—and I conjure you by the Holy Tri- nity and by the Clemency and Victory of the Mas- ters of the world and by our own Master Theodosius, whom may the Son of God bless, to rejoice us!{1—to convey these Instruments to his Excellency, the Master of divine Offices, so that, through the means of his Excellency, the Vic- torious and divine Crown may be informed of them, and to the Glorious and Illustrious Eparchs, and to the Powerful General of the two Armies, the Ex-con- sul. Will your Highness also instruct, by your Letters, the Holy Archbishops of Constantinople the Opulent, and of Alexandria (the Great), as well as the Venerable Domnus, the Archbishop of Antioch, and the Holy Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenal, and Eustathius and Photius, the Holy Bishops of Tyre and Berytus, who have had to be Judges in this affair ? I desire, too, that a copy of the Syriac Letter spoken of, as that which Ibas wrote to Maris the Persian, may be read in the presence of the Venerable Clergy and all those in attendance here, and that it be deposited (afterwards) among the Documen- tary Acts. For, this is what I assented to do at the instance of the Venerable Clerics and Monks and of all the citizens, as their Depositions make evident.
(h) &§ The Juner said:—
The Declarations (Anaphoree, Report) made at the
{ Or it may be rendered “in whom the Son of God, to grant us “ joy, may be pleased.”
110 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Court (Tribunal), so far as they have already gone, we have given information of to the Princely and Ex- alted Powers. That is in accord with the Instruction now delivered to the Tribunal, as well as with the formidable Oath, made in reference to the afore-men- tioned subject.
We are, also, going now to write, as is obligatory upon us, to those God-loving Bishops just now alluded to by the Glorious Theodosius.
Now let the Letter,* which the Illustrious man made mention of, be received and read.
* That is, the Copy of the Syriac Letter which Ibas wrote to Bishop Maris, or Mares, the Persian. This very celebrated Epistle, which formed for a lengthened period the subject matter of a great Controversy in the Church that only terminated, in the following century, with the Condemnation of the Three out of the Fifteen xeg@adAaa or Chapters, about Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of the City of Cyrus, and Ibas, will be found in Latin and Greek in parallel Columns 241 and 242 of the 7th Volume of Mansi’s “ Conciliorum omnium amplissima Collectio,” accompanied by the valuable Notes of Baluze, the first of which informs us that “ Tres “‘istius fragmenti editiones habemus, istam nimirum, aliam inter acta “ Concilii Quinti, tertiam in libro sexto Facundi.”
Details, also, both interesting and abundant, in relation to this Letter, may be met with in the history of the Controversy about the Three Chapters, as given by Fleury and other ecclesiastical historians, as well as much information about Ibas himself found in connection with the Vth (Ecumenical Council. Taken in its entirety the Epistle may be justly regarded as being capable of interpretation of a double and opposite character, the Orthodox party seeing in it an exposition of their doctrinal views and the Heterodox a confir- mation of theirs. This Council or Brigandage of Ephesus we shall soon see condemned it and its Author, although Ibas had been acquit- ted at the Synodical Assembly held at T'yre-Berytus-Tyre in the spring of the same year in which that Council took place, whilst some Bishops of the Great Cécumenical Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A.D. pro- nounced Ibas and his Epistle to be Orthodox,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. TT]
(@) TRANSLATION* OF THE LETTER WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY THE VENE RABLE IBAS TO MARIS, THE PERSIAN. —Soon after the beginning (IBas says) :-—
But we have taken pains to make known, in a brief manner, to that clear discernment of yours which recognizes great things through small ones, the events that have so lately taken place here. Besides, we know that, when we write to your Piety, what interests us is brought to the knowledge of those who dwell in your country, through your inde- fatigable efforts.
Now, those Scriptures which have been granted (to us) by God have not suffered the least alteration.
* The following is, of course, an English Version of the aforesaid Document. The actual letter which Ibas wrote to Maris was in Syriac. That was again, doubtless, translated into Greek and so formed part of the Original Acts, now lost, of this Ephesine Synod. That Greek one, with the rest of those Acts, was again rendered into Syriac by our Scribe, of whom see his own note at the end of A in Vol. I, and its translation at the end of A in this Vol.
In the Original MS. in the British Museum, copied in our A in Vol. I, the word Cyril is always written by the Scribe in ver- million, or some sort of red inditing, out of honour to the great name. As regards the Original Letter, Asseman, in Biblioth. Orient. III, pp. 203 and 204, writes :—* Scripsit famosam Epistolam ad Marin Per- ‘sam quum adhuc Orientales cum Egyptiis contenderent.” Again, he says, in B. O. I, p. 350:—‘ Ab Iba accepit Mares(a) quidam ex “urbe Hardiscir: atque exinde ccepit Persarum regio Nestorianismo “infici per Ibe epistolas, et per versiones() Orationum et Commen- “tariorum magistrorum ejusdem.”
(a) Mares. Celeberrima est Ibe ad Marin Persam Epistola. . . . Cujus hic urbis in Perside Epis. fuerit nunc primtim ex Beth-Arsamensi cognoscimus.
(b) Expositiones. Theodori Mopsuesteni Libros ¢ Greco in Syriacum sermonem transtulisse lbam, eosque per omnem Orientem disseminas<e, conqueruntur ejusdem Accusateres in Concil. Berytensi ac Tyrio, Act 9 et 10. Concil. Chalcedon. Alhios Di- odori, Nestorii, ceterorumque ejusdem farinz hereticorum Libros in Edessena Persa. rum Schola Syriacé conversos fuisse, testatnr Auctor Catalogi Patriarcharum Chaldw- orum ad calcem Epistele Simeonis nostri.
Ane THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
So, I make beginning of my account by those Words in which you are fully conversant, (those of Scriptare).
A controversy has arisen, since your Piety: was here, between those two men—Nestorius and Cyril —who have written against each other blasphemous statements, occasioning scandal to those who hear them. For, Nestorius stated, in his discourses, as also your Piety well knows, that “the Blessed Mary “is not the Mother of God.” Accordingly, many have considered him as belonging to the Heresy of Paul of Samosata, who affirmed that Christ was a mere man. Cyril, however, while aiming to refute the affirmations of Nestorius, has been found to fall into the Dogma of Appollinarius, seeing that he himself has written in a similar way, (affirming) that “ God, the Word, became Man,” so that there could (in that case) be no distinction between The “Temple and Him Who dwells in it.” For, he has written Twelve Chapters,* as also, I think, your
* Tue Twerve Arricres, Cuarrers, oR ANATHEMAS DRAWN UP By S. Cyrir, THE ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA :—
1. If any man confess not that Emmanuel is truly God, and conse- quently the Holy Virgin, Mother of God (since by her, according to the flesh, was conceived the Word of God Who became flesh) ; let him be anathema.
u. If any man confess not that the Word which proceeds from God the Father is united to the flesh hypostatically, and that with His flesh He makes but One only Christ, Who is both God and Man ; let him be anathema.
1. If any one, after confessing the reason, divide the hypostases of the only Christ, joining them indeed together, but only by a connection of dignity, authority, or power, and not by a real union ; let him be anathema.
iv. If any attribute to two persons, or to two hypostases, the things which the Apostles and the Evangelists relate, as spoken concerning Christ by the Saints or by Himself, and apply some to a man conceived of sepa-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 113
Piety knows, in which (he says) “there is One Na- “ture constituting the Divinity and the Humanity “of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and that “we ought ‘not, (so he says), to distinguish between expressions “ which our Lord made in reference to Himself and “those which the Evangelists (made) in reference to “iim.” But, how impious such statements are, your Piety will, even before we can declare it, have been quite persuaded. For, how can this—“ Jn the
rately, as external to the Divine Word (as avOparw rapa Tov éx Ocov ASyov idiKGs voovmérw), and others (such as he deems worthy of God) solely to the Word proceeding from the Father; let him be ana- thema.
vy. If any dare to say that Christ isa Man Who bears God within him (Geopépov avOpwrov) instead of saying that He is God indeed, as only Son, and Son by nature,—inasmuch as the Word was made flesh, and partook of flesh and blood, even as we ; let him be anathema.
vi. 1f any dare to say that the Word proceeding from God the Fa- ther is the God or Lord of Jesus Christ, instead of confessing that the same is entirely both God and Man,—since, according to the Scriptures, the Word was made flesh ;—let him be anathema.
vu. lf any man say that Jesus as man was possessed by (évypyyo- Oa) God the Word, and clothed with the glory of the Only Son, as if He were not identical with Him; let him be anathema.
vin. If any dare to say that the Man assumed (avaAypOévra) by the Word ought, along with the Word, to be glorified and adored and called God, as if the one existed within the other (for this is the notion suggested by the perpetual repetition of the phrase a/ong with ), instead of honouring Emmanuel with one entire adoration, and rendering to Him one entire glorification,—forasmuch as the Word was made flesh ;—let him be anathema.
1x. If any say that our Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, as having received from Him a power of acting against unclean spirits and working miracles upon men, which was foreign to Himself, instead of saying that the Spirit by which He worked them belonged to Him essentially (cdcov avrov) ; let him be anathema.
x. Holy Scripture says (Heb., ii, 1) that Jesus Christ was made the High Priest and Apostle of our Faith, and that He offered Himself for us to God the Father as a sweet-smelling sacrifice (Eph., v, 2) ; if any man, therefore, say that since the time when our High Priest and Apostle was made flesh and man like us, He is not the Word of God
Pp
124 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“beginning was The Word’*—be taken to refer to The Temple which was born of Mary? or, this— “Thou hast made Him a little lower than the An- ““gels’t—be spoken of the Divinity of the Only Begotten? It is thus that the Church expresses her- self, as your Piety, also, has from the beginning, taught, and has allowed yourself to be confirmed by the definition of the Blessed Fathers in Her Divine teaching:—Two Natures,—One Power,—One Person, —the Same Who is the Only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
In consequence of this controversy, the Victorious and Gracious Emperors gave order to the Arch- bishops to (proceed to, and) assemble (in Synod) at, the City of Ephesus, and that, before them all, the controversy of Nestorius and Cyril, should be adju- dicated upon. Before, however, all the Bishops, who were summoned to assemble, could reach Ephe- sus, Cyril arrived first; and, having previously
but a man born of a woman, as if this man were a different person from the Word; or if any say that Christ offered the sacrifice for Himself, instead of saying that it was solely for our sakes, (for He Who knew no sin (2 Cor., v, 21) stood in no need of any sacrifice); let him be ana- thema.
x1. If any man confess not that the flesh of the Lord gives life, and belongs essentially (i5/av) to the Word Himself Who proceeds from the Father, and attribute it to another who is only joined to Him in respect of dignity, or by virtue of a divine indwelling, instead of saying that it gives life because it belongs essentially to the Word, Who has the power of quickening (Cwoyovety) all things ; let him be anathema.
xu. If any man confess not that the Word of God suffered according to the flesh, was crucified according to the flesh, and was the first-born among the dead,—forasmuch as He is Life, and giveth life, as God ;— let him be anathema.
* §. John’s Gospel, c. 1, v. I. + Psalms, viii, 5.
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 115
gained the ear of them all, he pre-occupied them with poison that is wont to blind the minds of (even) the wise. But he took occasion, from the hatred (enter- tained) by him towards Nestorius, to do so: and, be- fore the God-loving Archhishop John could arrive at the Synod, they deposed Nestorius from the Episcopate, without a trial and without an investi- gation. But, after two days from this Deposition, we arrived at Ephesus; and, as soon as we learnt that, in the act of Deposition,* which was decreed by them, they adopted, and confirmed, and assented to, the Twelve Chapters written by Cyril, just as if they were consonant with, while they are in reality adverse to, The True Faith, all the Bishops of the East deposed Cyril, and decreed Excommunication against those other Bishops who assented to the Chapters.t After this breach of (Canonical) order, each returned to his own City. Nestorius, however, by reason of the hatred entertained to- wards him by his own City and its Magnates, was unable to return thither; and the Synod of the East, remained, excommunicating the Bish- ops who communicated with Cyril. Conse- quently, there was much bitterness among both parties, and Bishops were in contention with Bishops, and people with people; and that which is written, in fact, received its fulfilment:—‘“ A man’s enemies
* That is, in the body of the sentence pronounced upon Nestorius at the General Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D.
+ Enigmatic allusion is made to some other Synod held in the Patri- archate of Antioch.
116 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Af ww
“will be those of his own household.”* Hence, too, arose many detracting remarks against us, among the unbelievers and the heretics; for, none ventured either to go from City to City, or from one country to another; but each pursued his neighbour as his enemy. Many persons, likewise, who had not God before their eyes, assuming, as a pretext, zeal on be- half of the Churches, eagerly took the opportunity to manifest by act that hatred they secretly enter- tained in their hearts. Such was, for instance, the TYRANT? of our Metropolis, a person not un- known to you, who, under pretext of the Faith, not only wreaked his revenge on the living, but on those likewise who had departed to the Lord, amongst whom is the Blessed Theodore,{ that preacher of the
* S. Matthew’s Gospel, Chap. x., v. 36.
+ On these words, or rather the Latin ones (ex quibus unus existit nostre ‘l'yrannus civitatis), Baluze distinctly asserts: ‘Id est, Rabbulas * Episcopus Edessenus.”
{ This is the great Scholar of Diodorus of Tarsus, the bosom friend of the affectionate Chrysostom, and the learned but mistaken Divine, who was the real Father of Nestorianism. A clever and thoughtful Disser- tation about him and modern thought—in which, however, I cannot hold with all the writer advances—appears in No. 1 of Vol. I of the Church Quarterly Review. Asseman says of him:— Theodorus patria Antiochenus, dignitate Mopsuestie in Cilicia Episcopus, apud Syros, maximé Nestorianos per excellentiam jaca2S, hoc est, Commen- tator sev Interpres dictus, quia multis in sacram Scripturam commentariis inclaruit, gui licet ab eco homine profecti (inquit Renaudotius Tom. 2, Liturg. Orient., pag. 622) cujus fides corrupta erat opinionibus illis, quas Nestorius publicavit, ipsis Orthodoxis non contemnendi visi sunt adeo ut Catenis graecis multa illorum fragmenta occurrant. Auditores habuit Nestorium et Theodoretum, qui Lib. v. Hist. Eccl., cap. vi, hoc Ma- gistrum suum Theodorum encomio exornat, fotius Ecclesia doctor, et qut adversus omnes hareticorum catervas strenue decertavit : in plurimos ta= men ipse errores delapsus, maximé Pelagianorum et Nestorianorum, quo-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Li?
Truth, that Doctor of the Church, who, not in his life-time only, stopped* the mouth of Heretics with The True Faith, but (has done so), also after his death, by leaving to the Sons of the Church spiritual armoury in his writings. (Now) he, who ex- ceeds everybody in audacity, has openly in the Church dared to anathematize him (Theodore) who, out of zeal for God, not only led back his own City from Error to The Truth, but who has also instructed by his teaching Churches that are afar off: and, as
rum pater recté appellatur: eamque ob causam, in Quinta Synodo, post mortem damnatus est. In Chronico Edesseno notatur Epocha temporis, quo Scripturam exponere aggressus est: uno Grecorum (inquit Tom. 1 Biblioth. Orient., pag. 400) septingentesimo Mopsuestie Episcopus sacram Scripturam commentari cepit. 1s erat nonus ‘Theodori Episcopatus annus, ut loc. cit. ostendi: obiit autem Theodorus anno Christi, 429, quum triginta sex annis Mopsuestenam Ecclesiam rexisset, ut Theodoretus notat. Ejus libros € Greca in Syriacam linguam olim convertos, testatur Liberatus in Breviario cap. x. | [ham Edessenum Episcopum eam versionem pro- curasse conqueruntur ejusdam accusatores Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, et Eu- logius Presbyteri Edesseni in Concil. Berytensi ac Tyrio Act. 9 et 10, Concil. Chalced. ut Tom. 1 Biblioth. Orient., pag. 200 notavi. . . - . . Abrulbarcatus in lib. de divin. Offic. cap. vii, heec Theodori Commentarize recenset. ‘Theodorus, inquit, Commentator Syrorumque (puta Nestorianorum) doctor, habet expositionem quarundam epistolarum Pauli et Actuum Apostolicorum : magnamque obtinet apud gregales suos doctrine famam, etc. (B.O., Tom. 3, P. I, p. 30, cap. xix.) Ebed- Yeshua gives a list of his whole works (see Asseman Biblioth. Orient., Tom. 3, P. I, p. 30). Lagarde has published some fragments in his Analecta Syriaca, Leipzig, 1858, and Sachau more fragments, with a Latin translation, Lipsie, 1869, from the MSS. brought from the Monastery of S. Mary, Deipara, besides a Dissertation “on the Remains “of the Syriac Translations of Classical Greek Literature, exclusive of «‘ Aristotelian, among the Nitrian MSS. in the Brit. Museum,” Diodorus Tarsensis composuit libros numero sexaginta,.quos Ariani com- busserunt—Magister Nestorii, cujus heresi in libris suis nimium favere de- prehensus est: quam ob causam a Nestorianis quidem summis laudibus tanquam ipsorum doctor et pater unacum ‘Theodoro Mopsuesteno et Nestorio Episcopo effertur. (B. O., Tom. 3, P. I, cap. xviii, p. 28.) * The Syriac word means fo strike in the mouth, to silence, to beat down,
148 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
regards his writings, there was everywhere a great search for them, not on account of their being alien and adverse to The True Faith, (for, certainly, whilst he (Theodore) was living, he constantly eulogized him, and used to read his writings), but because of the enmity he had secretly entertained towards him on his having reprehended him in Synod openly. While all this mischief was going on between them, and each one “ walking in his own way,”* as it is written, our adorable God, Who, in His mercy, is at all times solicitous for His Holy Churches, stirred up the heart of our faithful Emperor to send a great and distin- guished man of his own Palace, in order to oblige the Holy and God-loving Bishop of the East,+ Mar John, to be reconciled to Cyril, whom he had deposed from the Episcopate. Then, after having received the let- ters of the Emperor, he (John) despatched the revered and God-loving Paul, Bishop of Emesa, with letters to Alexandria, sending by him, at the same time, (a Confession of) the True Faith, and commanding him to communicate with Cyril, if Cyril should assent to This Faith and anathematize those who affirm that the Divinity suffered, as well as those who aftirm that there is (Only) One Nature of the Divinity and of the Humanity. But the Lord, Who is ever concerned for His Holy Church which was redeemed (purchased) by His Blood,{ had willed the subduing the heart of the Egyptian,|| so that he
~~ Acts, xiv, 16. + Or “The Lord John” of Antioch. + Acts, xx, 28. || That is, Cyril of Alexandria.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 119
might be able, without trouble or objection, to assent to and receive The Faith and anathematize all those whose belief is at variance with That Faith.
So, after they (John and Cyril) had communicated together, the controversy disappeared and _ peace arose upon the Church, and now the schism has ceased in it and peace reigns as heretofore.
Now, what the God-fearing Archbishop (John) wrote, and the reply which he received from Cyril— these letters 1 have attached to this one, which I dispatch to your Piety, so that, when you have read them, you can make known to all those our Breth- ren whom you consider lovers of peace, that the controversy is composed and the middle wall of en- mity broken through, and those who so inordinately exalted themselves against the quick and dead, have become abashed, apologizing for their folly and teaching the very opposite to their former Doctrine. For, no man ventures (now) to affirm that there is One Nature (only) of the Divinity and the Human- ity (of Christ), but men (openly) avow The Temple and Him Who dwells in it to be the One (Only) Son Jesus Christ.
Now this Letter I have written to your Piety out of the great affection I have for you, being well assured that your Holiness, by night and by day, occupies yourself in the Doctrine of God (Divine Learning), in order that you may be of service to the
community.
120 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS (7) The June said:—
This writing, which has just been read, is, as also you have learnt, a copy of the Letter; for, this the Deposition of the Glorious Count makes evident. How, then, can it be received as authentic and de- posited among the (Documentary) Acts, in order to its being notified to the God-loving Bishops already named?
(1) SamuEL, Presbyter, said:—
‘This letter appears in the Accusation we have preferred against Ibas, and the accused himself recog- nized it as his own. The Acts of Berytus are wit- ness of it. Those Acts were drawn up in the presence of the Judges who were given to us by the grace and order of the Emperor. Amongst these Judges was the Pious Bishop Uranius who has asserted, and does still assert, that [bas has acknow- ledged himself the Author (of this Letter). There are other persons here who were present at Berytus when it was read—they know that it was (written) by Ibas; I beg them, therefore, to make their Depositions.
@ Or it may be rendered thus:—There is distinct proof as regards Ibas, who was accused by us, that this is a copy of the Letter, and he (1bas) acknowledged it to be his own : and this is on the credibility of the (Documentary) Acts, which there, at the City of Berytus, were drawn up in the presence of those persons, who, by the grant and order of the Emperor, were assigned to us as Judges, one of whom was the Venerable Bishop Uranius, who bore then, and still now bears, witness that it (the Letter) was acknowledged by him (Ibas) to be his own. ‘There are, too, here (present) other persons ascertained at that time to be there (at Berytus), who are assured of the same fact (viz.), that it was shown and read as his own; and I request of them to make their depositions,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 121 (k) The Juveu said:—
If, at the investigation (into the affair) instituted at the City of Berytus, in the presence of the God- loving Bishops who were granted as Judges by the divine Commands, the copy was shown of the Let- ter, which has just now been read, in the presence of these same Pious Bishops, and was acknowledged by the Venerable Ibas to be authentic, as coming from himself, (then), according to the instruction of the Venerable Samuel, let those parties who are ac- quainted (with this fact) certify us of it.
(2) Maras, a Deacon, said:—
I was there (at Berytus) when [bas owned, in my presence, that the letter was his, by saying—“ I ac- knowledge it to be so;” and I have believed this to be the case up to the present day; and, if the Em- peror were to decree and order me to be cut in pieces, I should still believe it to be so.
(b) Evxocius, Presbyter, said:— At the City of Berytus I heard the Venerable Bishop Uranius affirm that Ibas owned it (the letter)
to be his, and that of this his letter that is a copy which has been (just now) named; and so I believe.
(c) Davin, Deacon, said: —
I also heard the Holy Bishop Uranius, at the City of Berytus, say that Ibas acknowledged the
same letter to be his, and avow that he believed Q
432 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
so. He said, too:—“‘If I were killed and if the “Emperor commanded me to die,’—I should still believe it was so, and not otherwise.
(¢) Asverius, Presbyter, said:—
I heard Ibas make this avowal—“ From the “authentic letter of mine is that copy (taken),” which was produced and read before the Judges at Berytus.
(ec) EKusxsivs, Deacon, said:— I heard Ibas say—‘‘ They exhibited a copy of my
“letter; and, immediately on their beginning to read “it, I acknowledged it to be mine.”
(f) Evxocius, Priest, said:— I was not, indeed, inside (the Judgment Hall), but outside, when I heard Ibas say—‘“ The copy of the
“letter which has been read is certainly that of “mine”
(g) Baivus,* Priest, said:—
Ibas wrote a letter here, (in which he said)— “‘(My) enemies and accusers produced this letter I “wrote several years ago to Maris, the Persian; then “they began reading it, and, immediately on their “beginning to read it, I acknowledged it to be the “copy of a letter that had been written by me.” And all the clergy know this.
* It may possibly be Banius or Bianzus. The word is very indistinct in the original MS. The word put thus, Baiv[u_]s, is best, perhaps.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 138
(kh) Evsesivs, Deacon, said :—
Maronius, the Deacon, read to us the letter of Ibas, which asserts: ‘‘ My enemies and accusers have “ presented a copy of the Letter which was written by “me to Maris, the Persian :” as Ibas himself admit- ted also at Berytus that the Letter was his.*
(¢) Fuavivs Tuomas: Junian Cueraas, Count of the First Rank and Judge, said :—
These circumstances that refer to the copy of the Letter have been sufficiently elucidated in their Depositions, by the Venerable Clergy, made this day according to the Instruction (Petition) which the Glorious Count Theodosius has, on behalf of the
whole community, presented and exhibited.
All this will be notified to the Illustrious, Noble, and Exalted Authorities.
I will, likewise, write what is obligatory on my part to those persons whom the God-fearing Bishops mentioned ; for, we could not possibly contemn such formidable Adjuration, as we have just now heard.
* Ces diverses dépositions relatives a la lettre d’Ibas et a fon authen- ticité sont extrémement importantes pour nous, non pas que cette lettre fut douteuse,—les Actes du iv et du v. Concile Gecuménique suffisent a démontrer son authenticité,—mais parcequélles nous permittent d’afhirmer un fait qu’on avait simplement soupgonné jusqu’ 4 ce jour. La partie des Actes de Beryte et de Tyr, qui fut relue au Concile de Calcédoine dans les sessions ix. et x., est évidemment tronquée daus les editions qui nous en restent. II suffit de lire Mansi (Conciliorum Omnium, etc., VI. 242 B, et 230) pour voir qu’il y a une lacune. Maintenant la lacune devient certaine, car les Actes de Béryte que nous avons ne contiennent aucun des aveux quel’on préte ici a Ibas, (Martin. )
124 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
NOW, AFTER THESE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN READ AT EPHESUS, THE HOLY SYNOD SAID :—
“ These things pollute our ears—to Cymil be eter-
“nal remembrance, because of the Archbishop Dios-
‘“corus—Cyril is immortal. May Alexandria (ever)
“abide the City of the Orthodox.”
The Houy Syyop said :—*
“These proceedings are well accomplished. He ‘“(Dioscorus) is the crown of the whole Synod.” The Hoty Syvop said :—*
“ These things pollute our ears—they are fit (only) ‘for Heathens! Spare our ears—these things “ought not to be spoken. Spare our ears—spare “ our souls (pity us)—spare (peace to) the Orthodox. “Let Ibas be burnt in the middle of the City~-let “Tbas be burnt in the middle of the City of Anti- “ och—let Ibas be burnt for the correction of others. “These things not even have Demons spoken—these “things not even Pharisees have said-—these things “not even the Jews have given expression to. , “Such language befits the Heathen—this is lan- “guage worthy of Satan—thus (speak) those who “do not believe in God. The Devils (proclaimed) “owned Christ to be God—-Ibas has not: Devils “are much more modest (pious) than Ibas: the “Devils owned Christ to be the Son of God—Satan ‘is more modest than Ibas. The Tempter is more
* The same repeated superscriptions, as Hoffman remarks, indicate that the Acts were interrupted with these words in several places.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. reo
“modest than Ibas—Ibas is the disgrace of the “whole world. Let Ibas be burnt together with “those who are of his opinions---let [bas be burnt “with those who support him. Whoever does not “hate Ibas is a Demon—whoever loves Ibas re- “sembles Satan—whoever does not hate Ibas is not “ Orthodox—whoever loves Ibas is a Nestorian— “whoever would not condemn [bas to the fire is not “Orthodox. Satan cares for the blasphemy of Ibas. “We pray you, O Emperors! put to death Ibas. “We pray you, O Emperors! let Ibas be burnt “‘alone—let this be done for an example to Heretics. “Let Ibas be burnt in Antioch. Rid us of one man “and deliver the (whole) world—make one to burn, “and deliver many. Nestorius and Ibas should be “burnt together—let Nestorius and lbas be burnt “in the middle of Antioch. Exile is of no use— “exile damages the City. Nestorius and Ibas “should be burned together. Exile is nothing to “them. Nestorius has gained by exile—exile for “them is nothing. Nestorius and Ibas ought to be “burnt together! Satan and his Son to the fire “both together. Patriarch! help the Orthodox— “do thou cast out all these. Let none remain of
“the whole Company of Pharaohs.”
(n) Ditoscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Do you not perceive what this Demon (really)
said? He said—“I do not envy Christ becoming
126 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS “God; for, how could God be what he was not ?’4
The Tlory Synop said :—
“To the Patriarchs! many years !—Dioscorus and “Cyril have confirmed The Faith of the Fathers,— “the Patriarchs many years!—the Orthodox many “-vears !”
Droscorvs, Bishop of Alexandria said :—
“That you do not shout of yourselves alone. But “itis the Holy Ghost Who exclaims in you.. It is “the Christ that Ibas persecutes.”
The Hoty Syvop said :— “ All the world knows thy Faith— Dioscorus is a “personage unique in the world.”
And, when Eutoatus, Presbyter of Edessa, entered and repeated something well known, which had taken place at Antioch, the Hoty Synop cried out “We request that that may be stated in writing—
“that relates to The Faith—let it be stated in wni-
“tingo—it is directed against Christ—it ought to be
“put in writing.”
(1) Droscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Is it your pleasure that that which has been spoken should be put in writing or not ?
{ Or, “(But) how could he become God, (except) by becoming “what he was not ?” {| Or, “ Long live the Patriarchs,”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 134
The Hony Synop said :—
“ We all request this—that it should be stated in “writing. We ask this-—that what he (Eulogius) “stated, he should state in writing. It concerns the “Faith. It should be stated in writing. It ought “to be put down in writing. It ought to be made “known to the Emperor. It ought to be made “known to the Gracious Emperor. It ought to be “made known to the Orthodox Emperor. The Faith “is in peril—it should be stated in writing. We, “the Orthodox, desire that it may be stated in wri- “ ting. The Christ is insulted—let it be stated “in writing. Away with the Heretic—turn out the “ Heretic—eject those who are the adversaries of “Christ. You have received the full authority—(so) “turn out the Heretic.”*
(3) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Give silence to the Synod ; for, it is written that “the words of the wise should be listened to in si-
* After the reading to the Assembly of the Depositions, collected by Cherzas, according to the formal instructions given him, and containing nothing but the old Charges of Heresy, bad habits, &c., which had been set aside in the trial at Tyre-Berytus, had been heard by it in silence, that assembly, conscious as many of them, and privy as not many less, must have been to the designs and objects of the Eutychian party, on the one hand applauded Dioscorus as “the Crown of the Synod,” as “ the Defender of the Faith,” as “a person unique in the world,” whilst on the other, we see, they gave utterance to such maledictions, duly (i.e., by Monophysite hands) preserved in these Acts, as the multitude belonging to the City of Edessa did not venture to give vent to. If this be a correct view, “ O ‘Tempora! O Mores!’ might Mons. Martin, in his thought- ful Etude, well exclaim.
128 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“lence.”* Do not make a disturbance. Give not occasion to the Heretics (to accuse us)—I know it is your God-loving affection ; for, rest assured that that impels Bishops, and Clergy, and Laity to speak on behalf The Faith, but still order must rule here.
Euxoaivs, Presbyter of Edessa, said :——
After the occurrence of much mischief and sad troubles in the Church of Edessa, occasioned by the Venerable Bishop Ibas, in consequence of matters relating to The Faith and to other transactions in the Church—as plundering of the Sanctuary and the rest—we, all of us who lived in that City, became profoundly distressed, not knowing to whom to resort (for redress) about the matter; but, after having deliberated on what it was obligatory upon us to do, we proceeded and addressed ourselves to the Holy Archbishop Domnus and submitted to him specified counts (or heads of indictment). We were, however, advised, by certain inhabitants of the City of Antioch, well known for their correct faith, not to raise any subject having relation to The Faith before him who occupied the Throne of Antioch. For, they said, in particular, you would, if you did so, lose altogether the expenses (or resti- tution relating to them) you will incur in sustain- ing the Charge of the plundering the Sanctuary and the rest. Now, when we thought over this, and felt assured that those heads referring to the (complaint of)
* Eccles., chap. ix, part of verse 17, “The words of wise men are “heard in quiet.” Eng. Version.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 129
of Sacrilege would suffice for the riddance of our City of Ibas, we concluded on urging no complaint relating to The Faith.
Subsequently, on the occasion of a Gracious and Orthodox Edict (caxpa) being published in the City of Antioch the Great, on the Sunday we went into the (worshipping) Assembly, feeling desirous, according +0 custom, of joining it which was held.in the Church, where we found a vast number of people, among whom were mixed certain Readers belonging to the Clerks of Antioch and some of those who are termed Lecticari.
The Holy Archbishop Domnus was presiding, and, seated near him, was the Venerable Bishop Theodoret. And we heard there such shoutings as these—‘“ Cast “out the Edict: nobody believes in (by) a Decree.” Taking cognizance of this, again we did not venture to speak of, or discourse upon, any matter touching The Faith, but we mooted only the five Counts (of Indictment), one of which was that of the pillaging the Sanctuary (Sacrilege).
Now, although we convicted Ibas before the God- fearmg Archbishop Domnus of having melted down the Vessels of the Sanctuary amounting to 200lbs. ef silver, and although he had proclaimed, in the Church of the Metropolis of Edessa, that, who- ever felt disposed, might contribute to the Redemp- tion (of the Captives) and, by taking part in the matter, would be doing a good work; although we proved that he had withdrawn, also, from this capital
R
130 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
sum a Loan of nearly 500lbs., and that he had, too, received from the Treasurer two Chests and one Bag which amounted, according to what the Treasurer himself had stated, to 6,000 Denars—all which sums he (Ibas) declared he had sent away and (therewith) redeemed the Captives, whilst we proved that he sent only 1,000 (golden) Darici, which he owned to be the case, whereby he was found to have perjured himself (lied on Oath)—yet, when we urged that (for these criminal acts) he ought to receive punishment, we discovered that nobody replied a word to us on the matter, but, (on the contrary, we found) that in everything the Archbishop Domnus supported him, affirming that it was in his administrative power to act as he did.
And when we appealed to the Holy Canons, and for two days asked for them to be read, and prayed for a judgment in pursuance of what those Canons prescribe, we were not deemed worthy of a reply. So we there and then made a Statement to this effect.
May it please your Reverence : —
Whereas the Holy Vessels have been melted down, and (whereas) 1,500 Denars have been col- lected as the income for (or as offerings made by) Widows and Orphans and women, and in sums almost
4 Another translation of this piece is here subjoined— This is the Statement (request) we made at Antioch. Please (to consider) : That the sacred Vases have been melted down, that fifteen hundred Dinars have been collected by means of direct taxation ; about a hundred and fifty Loumé received from the hands of Widows, of Orphans, and
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 131
(every time) amounting to 50 and 100 Lumin, and have been, too, received fromthe Treasurer, whilstthere were sent, for the Redemption of the Captives only 1,000 Denars, those Captives to be redeemed being Monks and Nuns, who, the Monks, have been obliged to minister to Idols and to worship them with the barbarous Arabs, and the Nuns forced to become harlots and to stand in the squares (Halls) (for all that is the custom among the Bar- barians),—-whereas Ibas has received the payment (for their redemption), and deposited it at his Brother Eusebius’s house—Do you judge what you consider right upon this question.
Now, when this Statement had been made by me, and we were not deemed worthy of any reply, except that two of us were deposed in their absence, who, becoming alarmed on seeing the dexterity in this busi- ness and the expenses brought to bear against us, repaired to the Gracious Emperor, but those (other) two of us, who remained to sustain the trial as complainants in those five heads, were excommu- nicated.
Women ; that six thousand Dinars have been taken from the Treasurer 5 that they have only sent for the ransom of the Captives one thousand Dinars, although the Captives were Monks and Nuns ; and that, besides, these Monks found themselves constrained to serve the Idols adored by the Barbarian Arabs, while the Nuns were obliged to become Courtezans and to stand in the public place: these are, indeed, the customs of the barbarians ; that Ibas received all these sums and that his Brother Euse- bius has kept them.
(Considering all that) Please to judge according to what you know.
Les THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
We have been released from this excommunication by your prayers, since the matter touching The Faith has been seen into by the Holy Bishops —LEustathius, Photius, and Uranius.
After having gone thence (from Antioch) we turned to the Synod at Constantinople, to which we submitted the very same complaints against Ibas. We addressed ourselves, also, to the Gracious Em- peror who, regardful of our distress, asked us—“ For “what reason did you not deal with this head touch- “ing The Faith before omnus, the Archbishop of “ Antioch ?”
After having remained silent, and refusing to go from one thing to another, (for, we set our face to- wards Ibas), we were obliged, in the presence of the whole Court in the Apostolic Church of the Holy John, to declare that “we have our suspicions of “him.” He, therefore, asked—“ Whence is this pre- “text of suspicion?” And we were obliged to teil him—for, how was it possible to dissimulate before so great a Lord of the world, who upholds Ortho- doxy—that “ Whilst in Church was seated Arch- “bishop Domnus, andafter the Edict of your Clemency “aoainst Nestorius, and against Irenzeus, who was “ Bishop of the City of Tyre, had been published (there), we entered the Church and heard certain “men shouting out—‘ Throw out the Edict : ‘nobody “believes in (by) a Decree’-—without our observing ‘anybody to remonstrate with them, so that such ne- “ oligence (silence) only encouraged them the more.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 133
For this reason the Emperor, touched by our misfortune, despatched us to those already spoken of, (viz.,) the Holy Bishops, Photius and Eustathius and Uranius: and it was before them that those transactions were negotiated, the (record of) which has been read before your Holy Synod.
* In an historical point of view, this Deposition of Eulogius is highly important and valuable, and, including the particulars referred to therein, deserves a separate Dissertation, which however would be too long to insert in these notes. Not to mention words already explained, it may
suffice to remark upon the following ones. The word 152} on p05; ]. 22, means the necessary charges or expenses, forming the debitum, and
Tpdtacs {so}m in p-86, 1.20 would be si/ver libre, but not | sdbass |{So.sScus,
and the 1354 et <ama in p. 86, |. 27, or Two Chests and One Bag, would indicate a money bag with a specified amount or weight of gold.
The [pre Denars on p. 87, |. 2 and 1g and 26, are the same as are referred to in Mat., c. xx, ve g and 10. There is the nummus, aureus et argenteus; and Dr. P. R. Smith, in Thes. Syr. after quoting Bernst., says, he adds, “denarius aureus pondus habet sesquidirhemi s. sesqui- “ drachme, pretiumque circa ducati, et valet xxv denarios argenteos s. susas, “ Ar. dirhemus. On the {202452 and the 1SS0N, we may note that about the Daricus,thename of a Persian coin and mentioned in Esdr., ii, 69, vill, 27, Neh., vii, 70, 71, 72, Dr. P. R. Smith quotes Bernst.—“ Ap. “ Theophanem vopicpuara yiAca, sed rouio ua, i.e. Solidus=12 milliaren- ** sibus ;”” and, concerning the latter word Lumin (equivalent to Pholles), Matthew Martin in Tom. Primus, p. 462, describing their different kinds, says— Et, ut ait Hesychius illustris Philosophus, Phollis pondus “est, alio nomine dicta balantium : trahit autem donos ducentos quinqua- “¢ ginta, hoc est, libras cccxii et uncias vi, singuli vero doni libram unam, ‘‘uncias xl, comprehendebant. . . . Et est alius Phollis, a duabus “‘auri libris incipiens, et usque ad octo procedens.” And Solidus he defines thus :—‘ So/idus, numus quidem aureus et argenteus. Solidus ** Romanorum aureus sextule pondus equabat, et pendebat Attica grana “06. . . . Sic Isid., Lib. xvi, cap. xxiv. Solidus nuncupatur, quia “nihil ili deesse videtur. Solidum enim antiqui integrum dicebant et “totum. Solidus apud Latinos alio nomine sextula dicitur, quod de iis “ sex uncia compleatur. Hunc vulgus aureum solidum vocat, cujus tertiam “ partem ideo dixerunt tremissem, eo quod solidum faciat ter missus.” (Lexicon Philologicum precipue Etymologicum Tom. Secund., p. 657. Amstellodami, M,DCCI.) Castell makes Nummi and Lumin convert- ible terms, it seems. See Mansi’s nova et amplis. Collectio, V1I, 221 and 222, 1°, &c.; J.S. Asseman’s Biblioth. Orient. I, 350; &c., &c.
134 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
THE SENTENCES OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED BY THE BISHOPS OF THE SYNOD UPON THE BISHOP OF EDESSA HERE FOLLOW.
(1) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Ibas, who has estranged (deprived) himself from the Honours of the Episcopate by those so great Impieties on which he ventured and by those unmea- sured statements contrariant to (The Truth of the Nature of) our Redeemer he advanced, as if he were competent of himself to unravel The Mystery of the Gospel, has brought upon himself from on High, con- demnation in this world and in that which is to come, by showing himseif undeserving of the Mercy of God. We ourselves, likewise, conforming entirely to a de- sire to act in the fear of God, have decreed that he be deprived of the Honours of the Episcopate and of Communion with the Laity. For, it is not right for him, who denies the Mysteries of Christ and tramples under foot His Word, to communicate in, or be deemed worthy of (receiving), the Blessed Mystery. And this, too, I consider obligatory, (viz.,) that, to- gether with the canonical sentence of Deposition which he has received, he should be compelled to restore all the Church’s gold (he has taken) where- with to prevent his acquiring increase to his Impiety.
(2) Juvenat, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
Ibas has been shown, by what has been read, to
q Or, “ words unlawful against our Redeemer.” q Or, “solve the Mystery of the Incarnation.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 135
have been guilty of an immense dealof Impiety against our Lord Jesus Christ ; and, therefore, also, the Lord (Jesus) Christ removes him from His Priesthood and decrees him deprived of all Priestly Rank, as well as of Communion with the Laity.
We, then, for our part, desirous of proceeding in accordance with the Will of our Redeemer Jesus Christ, excommunicate him, and do decree that he be deprived, of all the Honour of the Priesthood, and, together with this, of Communion with the Laity. Moreover, the Church’s treasure he must restore in order that the Holy Church may sustain no damage, and that he who is so Impious might not enjoy treasure offered to God.
(3) Tuatasstus, Bishop of Czsarea in the First
Cappadocia, said :
Those who have blasphemed the Son of God are unworthy of the Blessings promised by Him ; for, they alienate themselves from Mercy, through their Blasphemies against Him. In consequence, there- fore, of Ibas having inflated himself against the opinion and feelings of the community of men, and of having dared to move the tongue of Blasphemy against our Redeemer Jesus Christ, as we know from what has been just read, he has deprived himself of the Priesthood, and of the Dignity of the Episco- pate, and of Communion with the Laity.
(4) Sternen, Bishop of Ephesus, said :—
Surpassing all is the Blasphemy which has been
136 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
audaciously uttered against God and our Redeemer Jesus Christ by Ibas, who is altogether Impi- ous. Let him, therefore, be excluded from the Epis- copate, and from Communion in the Pure Mysteries, and from all Ecclesiastical Rank, by the Sentence also of my Humbleness, seeing that there is not even a single excuse (for him), either now or in the world to come, for having thus dared (to use so) loose (de- praved) a tongue. Moreover, let the goods of the Church be demanded (and obtained) of ‘him ; for, it is not right and just that he, who has been proved to be so thoroughly Impious, should be allowed to enjoy what has been consecrated to God.1
(5) Evsesivs, Bishop of Ancyra of Galatia, said :—
Ibas, who was the originator of foul and damning Blasphemies worthy of Satan, will receive indeed in Hell (Gehenna) the judgment due to his audacity, but, before the death of his body, the Christ, whom he has blasphemed, declares him not only estranged from the Priesthood, but likewise from the name of Christian. Those things, likewise, that of right
| This speech of this man may be thus freely rendered :—The Blasphemies of the great Infidel against God and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, surpass all (that can be imagined). Let him be excluded from the Episcopate, from participation in the Divine Mysteries, and from any ecclesiastical Office, by the sentence of our Humbleness; for, he has no excuse to give, either now or in the world to come, for having dared to employ language so depraved. Let the property of the Church, also, be resumed ; for, he who has been convicted of such Impieties ought not to enjoy things consecrated to God.
At this Synod the treatment this man received at the hands of Dioscorus is by himself described at the C&cumenical Council held in 451 A.D., at Chalcedon, as given by Mansi.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. | 137
belong to the Holy Church, ought to be demanded of Ibas. It is only fitting and proper that the enemy of (the True) Religion should not be allowed to revel in treasure belonging to the Poor.
(6) Eusraruius, Bishop of Berytus, said :—
Ibas has given proof that he agreed with, if he did not precede, Nestorius, and has become a teacher of that Impious Heresy. For, he had the audacity to surpass him (Nestorius) in Impiety. It is due to him, therefore, according as it seems just also to your Blessedness, that he should be deposed from the Dignity of the High Priesthood, seeing that he has, by the use of his tongue, rendered him- self alien to it, (unworthy of it). He ought, also, to be inhibited Communion in the Pure Mysteries, because he has rejected the help of the Grace of God. According to your decision, too, all the treasure of the Church ought to be demanded of him.
(7) Cyrus, Bishop of Aphrodisias of Caria, said :—
A Deposition, on principles of Justice and in accordance with the Canons, has been conclusively arrived at by this great and C&cumenical Synod respecting Ibas who whetted his foul tongue against Orthodoxy. Seeing he has scandalized many and caused them to err by his evil and polluted Doctrine, which appertains to Satan, he ought likewise to be inhibited intercourse with the Laity, by means of
those parties, who should also make him restore S
138 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the treasure of the Church to the Holy Church.
(8) Diogenzs, Bishop of Cyzicus, said :—
From the Documents, which have just now been read to this Great and Holy Synod, having reference to Ibas, we ascertain this fact—that he has held opinions, and written what is, alien to the Decisions of the Fathers. or this reason I, also, for my part fol- lowing the example of the Holy Fathers, do adjudge him to be alien to (removed from) the Dignity of the Episcopate and to Communion in the Pure Mysteries. Moreover, (I decree) that he restore the treasure of the Church to the Holy Church, which he has tyran- nically extorted.
(9) Joun, Bishop of (Sebastia in) the First Ar- menia, said :—
Those, who utter calumnious sentences against Heaven, deserve to have to descend to the Abyss below (Sheol). For, when a man exalts himself by Blas. phemy, (obtruding) himself where he ought not, he ends in a fall.{ Ibas, then, who, while yet in the grade of the Priesthood, was sadly infected with Blasphemy, and who has, during the Realization of the High Priesthood, carried it to such an extent as not only to fill with Impiety the Church with vhich he was entrusted, but has, also, like a (flame of) fire, devoured with his tongue, inimical to God, even the land of the Persians, must be re-
q Or, “to such a pitch is a man borne on in what is unbefitting that “the pollution of Blasphemy sticks to him.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 139
moved from the Priesthood and from the communion of Christians. For, it is not just and right that he, whose blasphemies are manifest from those Docu- ments which have been read, as well as from his own words, should fill again with his Heresy, like a disease, the flocks entrusted to his charge. So, also, must sentence be pronounced against him for the pil- laging the Sanctuary: for, it is not becoming and proper that those things, which have once been reli- giously devoted (to God), should become means for subserving Impiety, and, contrary to (all) justice, be applied in pursuance of the will of the defrauder.
(10) Bastt, Bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, said :—
The words of the impious Ibas are foreign, and antagonistic, to (those of) the Church, and are much more (in harmony) with the vain religion of the Pagans, with whom Mythologies have made Gods out of men.4 As for ourselves, we worship not a temporal God, but we worship the Only Begotten (Son*) Jesus Christ —(the God*) Whom, because of His Mercy, we worship (as) the Only* Begotten Son, Co-essential+ (Consubstantial) with the Father, God The Word,* our Lord Jesus Christ—(the God) Who,
by reason of His Mercy towards us, willed to become”
{ Or, “for certain makers of parables (Myths) have, by a sort of “ perversity, formed God out of man.”
“oT Secdohn, v, 20%.John, 1, I.
+ The term “of One Essence,’ or Co-essential, is preferable to, as being more correct or less inadequate than, the term “ of One Substance”’ or Consubstantial. So, also, in the Nicene Creed. See John, x, 30.
* John, i, 143 John, iti, 16, 18.
140 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
MAN (INCARNATE). Ibas, therefore, has no need of being condemned by our tongue (sentence) ; for, he has cut off himself from the members of the Church, by means of all this his Blas- phemy. We do entirely depose him by what justly proceeds from our mouth, and we stone him with stones, and expel him from all Function of the Priesthood and from Communion with the Laity. Further, we consider it befitting and proper that, in con- sequence of his robbery of the Church of her treasure and his wanting to rob our Lord Jesus Christ of (His) Glory, that he should not be allowed to rejoice in (the possession of) those goods as to which he audaciously pillaged the Sanctuary (committed sac- rilege), but that he should restore to the Church the Church’s treasure.
(11) Jouy, Bishop of Rhodes, said :-—
By the Documents which have just now been read, Ibas is shown to be alienated from (unworthy of) the Priesthood. I, for my part, therefore, pronounce that he be void of the Honour of the Episcopate and of Communion in The Mysteries, whilst (at the same time) he is bound to restore the Church’s treasure, in order to his having no fruit of his Impiety.
(12) Puotius, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
For a long time since has the Falsity of the depraved Faith of Ibas, who was Bishop of Edessa, been objectionable to (reprobated by) . myself; but especially from what has now been
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 141
read before your Blessedness, is he proved guilty, and unworthy of (to be alienated from) the Kcclesias- tical Throne; for, those who hold the Satanic opinions and (so) become involved in the Heresy of Nestorius, are destitute of all excuse, being antagonistic to Him Who is the Redeemer. I, therefore, also for my part, assent to what has been decided on by your Piety, pronouncing him to be removed (alien- ated) from all the Honour of the Priesthood and from Communion with the Laity. But, espe- cially, ought he (to have preserved and) to render a return of the Church’s treasure, according to your holy Decision.
(13) Firorentivs, Bishop of (Sardis in) Lydia, said :—
As regards Ibas who, abundant in criminal acts and rich in Impiety, in conscience is poor towards God, whilst, in robbery of the Jloly Vessels and in the perfection of infamy, he is a true Iscariot, he ought to be dismissed from the Dignity of the Priesthood. He, in whose mouth Impiety (has acted), asa bad servant, because of his cursed hate of God, should be cut off from the body of the entire Priesthood, forasmuch as he dared to rend the Church of God with the Impiety of his tongue. He must, likewise, render an account of the treasure of the Church which he has robbed, because it appertains to the nature of the law that any man who, under the appearance of goodness, takes an oblation and is induced therewith to work evil, should render up
142 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the accounts of the Church without (any) damage. (14) Marinranus, Bishop of Synnada, said :—~
Ibas who, from what has been read, is proved to be full of Impiety, must, by the Grace of God, be _ separated from the Honour of the Priesthood and must cease from Communicating in the Holy Mys- teries, receiving (at the same time) also punishment for pillaging the Sanctuary, and returning the trea- sure of the Church which was wrongfully pillaged.
(15) Constantine, Bishop of Bosra (Bostra), said :—
The Blasphemy and Impiety of him, who has hitherto been Bishop of the City of Edessa, being evi- dent, from all that has been read, and your Holy and Great Synod having pronounced a correct sentence of punishment on him, depriving him of all the Func- tion of the Priesthood and of the Dignity of the Episcopate, I likewise give my assent to what has been correctly determined on by your Holiness; and I pronounce him alien from (unworthy of) all the Function of the Priesthood, and the Dignity of the Episcopate, and the Communion of the Holy Mys- teries. As regards the treasure, also, I for my part decide in reference to him the same as your Holiness also has determined.
(16) Accacrus, the Bishop of Ararat, who supplied also the place of the Venerable Bishop Consran- TINE of Militine (Melitene), said :—
Against himself, Ibas should subscribe himself
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 143
rejected from the Priesthood and from Communion in the Holy Mysteries, who, contrary to (all) Piety, so whetted his polluted tongue against our Lord Christ. Together with the punishment, then, which has come upon him, let there be demanded of him, also, the treasure belonging to the poor, inasmuch as it ought to be given back to them for whom it was (origin-
ally) designed.
(17) Atticus, Bishop of Nicopolis of Ancient
Epirus, said :—
By reason of those his Blasphemies with which he was filled against our Lord, the Redeemer, Jesus Christ, it was proper that Ibas should receive the sentence of the punishment he deserved. Fur- thermore, adhering to the righteous Judgment of our Holy Fathers, we also, because he as- persed our Lord, the Redeemer Christ, with them decree that he be excluded from all the Function of the Priesthood and from Communion with the Laity, whilst (at the same time) he be required to restore the nioney of the poor, whom he robbed, in accor- dance with your Canonical Judgment.
(18) Newecuivs, Bishop of Laodicea (in Phrygia)
Trimitaria, said :—
Human intelligence is incapable of discovering a punishment adequate to the Impiety of Ibas. Be- cause, however, it is obligatory on an Cicumenical Synod to make the least matter, as well as many and
144 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
great ones, the subject of attention, —for, not through the means of the magnitude of a severe punishment is a power useful—I, likewise, for my part, decree him deserving the Deprivation of the Dignity of the Priesthood and of Holy Communion. He must, also, restore all that property of the Church to It, so that his Blasphemy may not be lucrative to him, and replace the Holy Vessels (he) impiously (took).
(19) Canprp1ay, Bishop of Antioch in Pisidia, said :-—
Tbas, who lent his tongue to his Father, the Ca- lumniator, in violation of (all) Justice, is deservedly regarded by the Lord of all, Jesus Christ, as an enemy. -And, he is now also cut off from the Priest- hood and from Communion, by your Great and Holy Synod. I, for my part, share with you in the sen- tence of his condemnation, as well as in all those matters that have been determined on by your Synod in reference to him.4
(20) SzLEucus, Bishop of Amasia, said :—
Ibas, who, by means of his Blasphemies and his Impiety, has condemned himself, I, also, ad- judge to be removed from the Dignity of Episcopate and from Communion with Christians, whilst (at the
same time) what he ventured to pillage from the Sanctuary should be demanded of him.
(21) Lxontivs, Bishop of Ascalon, said :—
Whocan have pity foran Incantator (Juggler) whom
4] Or, rather, in what your Synod has decreed against him.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 145
the Serpent bites? and what Christian could have pity for Ibas who, whilst carrying a spiritual Serpent in his soul, not.only hurries himself into the depths of Hell (Sheol), but desires also to lead other souls into error by Impiety? I, therefore, remove him from the Office of the Priesthood and from Communion with the Laity. Also, he ought to restore to the poor of the Church the treasure he despoiled them of.
(22) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Because (sufficient) time does not remain for all your Reverences to pronounce one by one his sepa- rate judgment, let there be given assent, by the (united) voices of the whole company, if you please, to what has been decreed.
(23) The Hoty Sywnop said :—
“The (same) things all of us say—this is the “decision of us all—all of us reject him who con- “tends (disputes) with God—as with one mouth all “of us condemn him.”
* ‘Thus ends the trial, by his cue of Bishop Ibas at this tri- bunal of the Church. ney strip him of all the Honour, and the Dig- nity, and the Function belonging to the Office of a Bishop in the Church ; they inhibit him from Communion in the Pure Mysteries, or Holy Eucharist: and they condemn him to what was more humiliating than “lay communion.” = Now, [ay Communion, says Bingham, “in a layman was no punishment, but a privilege, and one of the greatest privileges that belonged to him asa Christian: for it was entitling him to all the benefits and advantages of Christian Communion. But in a clergyman it was one of the greatest of punishments, reducing him from the highest dignity and station in the Church to the level and standard of every ordinary Christian, . aq gps Tehits supposes a power in the Church not only of conferring Clerical Orders at first to men, and pro- moting them from laymen to be Bishops, or Presbyters, or Deacons, but
T
146 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
also a power of re-calling their offices, and divesting them of all power and authority belonging to them, by degrading clergymen upon just rea= sons, and reducing them to the state and quality of laymen again.’
This punishment was more severe than that called peregrina communio, or “the communion of strangers” and defined in the 33rd of “ the Canons “of the Apostles’ thus: ‘ Let no strange Bishop, or Priest, or Dea- “con be received without letters commendatory: and when they are “brought, let them be examined carefully : and if they are messengers of “* Piety, let them be received: but if not, after furnishing them with what “is necessary for their wants, do not receive them into fellowship: for “‘ many are surreptitious.’’ For, whereas the Order of the Church ad- mitted those who had been reduced to ¢ the Communion of strangers” to become capable of being restored to their office, according to the Canons of the Church, provided their prescribed penance was of a ‘private, and not of a public, nature, the punishment of “lay communion”’ totally and perpetually degraded them from their Orders, excluding them ordinarily from their Office and compelling them ever after to abide in the state of Layman. Letters commendatory are based on 2 Cor., iii, 4.
Ibas, also, was accused of Sacrilege and of diverting what belonged to the Church to his private use. The Order of the Ancient Church was severely directed against this ; for, the 73rd of “ the Canons of the Apostles” says :-—“ Let no one convert to his own use any consecrated “vessel of gold, or silver, or linen: for it is against the law ; and, if any “one be detected, let him be punished with excommunication.” Be- sides the Holy Vessels, even in respect of the ’oovor, /inen, Ibas lay un- der an imputation (see the Acclamations). Nor does the same Bishop appear to be clear of that serious crime which the Primitive Christians made so many severe laws to abolish and correct, viz., that of “ murdering the poor,” as it was called. The 2nd Council of Vaison, as quoted by Bingham, made this Canon :—‘ They who detain the oblations, and re- “fuse to give them to the Church, are to be cast out of the Church ; “for such a provocation of God is a denying of the Faith; both the “ faithful who are gone out of the body, are defrauded of the plenitude “of their vows, and the poor also of the comfort of their food and ne- “cessary subsistence. Such are to be esteemed murderers of the poor, “ and infidels, with respect to the judgment of God.”? (Bingham, Bk. 17.)
Clergymen, when guilty of this and cognate crimes, were visited with such punishment as “communio peregrina.”’_ ‘ Bishops, who were intrusted with the goods and revenues of the Church, were not allowed to alienate any part of them, except it were in great necessity, to relieve the poor, or redeem captives; in which case, St. Ambrose himself and many disposed of the plate of the Altar, and the vessels and utensils belonging to the Church, thinking it better that the inanimate temples of God should want their ornaments, than that the living temples should perish for want of relief.” This, continues Bingham, “ was not sacrilege in the eye of the law, either ecclesiastical or civil, but an act of mercy allowed by both ; for the laws against sacrilege, next to the honour of God, have
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 147
-always a view to the necessities of the poor.” But Ibas was charged with
misappropriating the very revenues of the Church expressly devoted to the Redemption of the Captives. (See Crimina on p. 35.) So he was condemned accordingly. He was excluded from external communion with the visible Church in all offices. His Excommunication—ago- ptoos—was complete. In S. Paul’s words Ibas “ was delivered over to “Satan” (1 Cor., v., 5).
In Schenkl’s “ Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici,’ the 11th Edition, Tom. 2, p. 604, after dilating upon the three “ Poene Ecclesiastice,” he subjoins this note :—Huic pcenz affine, imo quoad rem ab ea haud diver- sum quidam arbitrantur illud animadversionis genus, quo Clerici ad com- munionem laicam(a) quondam detrusi sunt: a qua communio peregrina(d), suspensionis species quedam, distinguenda est.(¢) A friend, who sends me the quotations at the foot of the page, informs me that Maurus Schenkl, born in 1749 a.p. and of the Benedictine Order, brought out the first Edition of this work in 1790 a.p., that the gth and 1oth were prepared by Joseph Scheill and the 11th “a quodam juris “ecclesiastici Professore Publico,’’ but that it is not one of the best Handbooks of Ecclesiastical Law in Germany, though much used in Bavaria.
It will be easily perceived by the Reader that this Sentence of Ex- communication upon Bishop Ibas was effected—such was the flagrant perversion of Justice—without the accused having the opportunity of answering for himself at the Tribunal, or even having a summons to ap- pear at it. It was the result of the intrigues and powerful influence of the great Eutychian party, headed by the Ecclesiastical Triumvirate named at first.
At the end of the roth Session of the great Council of Chalcedon in 451 a.D., Bishop Ibas was pronounced, as well as the letter to Maris, to be “ Orthodox,”’ was declared “ free from suspicion” by having subscribed Leo’s Tome, and was reinstated in the Honour and Dignity of the Epis- copate, and in “ the Church from which he was so unjustly rejected.”
END OF THE CAUSE OF IBAS.
(a) C. 7, 8, dist. 50. Rwmpler Ueber die Laien Communion der ilteren Kirche und ‘uber die Reduction der Cleriker zu derselben, Salzburg, 1807.
(0) C. 21, dist. 50. Born de Communione peregrina, Lips., 1742.
(c) Cf. Devoti Instit., can., L. I, tit. 8, sect. 4, § 19, not. 2.
A! 7
see Tea: iiss ; vy ,
Bee ue RLS.
iy
DANIEL.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 151
DANIEL.
Daniel, the Bishop of Harran (Charran), or Charre,* was” nephew, on the Sister’s side, to the Bishcp Ibas of Hdes.a. The former City was near to, and a little to the South of, the latter and is now in ruins. It is remarkable only from a reli- gious point of view as being, in former times, the place where Terah the Father of Abraham died, and whence that Patriarch departed to enter upon the land of promise, whilst Hdessa’s history in the latter days makes it ever memorable as being the City which the great persecutor, Julian, passed by in his conquering career, because it was hopelessly and wholly given up to the Christian Faith. |
Asseman, in his dissertation on Harran, in his “ Bibliotheca Orientalis,” Tom. 2, does not allude to its Bishop, Daniel, still that Bishop’s name, as well as that of Ireneus, Bishop of Tyre, and others, is distinctly mentioned by him, at Sect. 63 of the ‘Chronicle of Edessa,” in words cited in the introductory note under Sophronius, and translated there.
Also in Asseman, B. O. I, 200-201, there is a long note, quoted on pp. 35-37 above, supplying observable details rela- ting to Daniel, in Charges 5,+ 12, 14-18, which are given thus:—
6. Quod Danielem, suum ex fratre nepotem,{ juvenem adhuc cumque luxuriosissimum, Charrensem Episcopum fecisset, vc.
THE “ Crimina” in Mansi-Labbe (Sacror Cone. nova et ampliss. Collectio. Florent. T. vii, 1762) are given in Greek and Latin, and follow after the presentation of of kata rod "IBa AvBEAXoe (Libellus Samuelis et aliorum presbyterorum Edessze, ad Photium et ad reliquos episcopos, contra Ibam).
The division into “xviii” crimina is not marked in the Greek, but only in the Latin Text.
“* In Mansi, VII, Daniel is called “Carrhenorum civitatis ‘Epis- “copus” with the note referring to the Codices thus—“ Paris. Car- *yinorum, Divion. Cyrinorum.”
t The figure 5 ought to be 6 on page 35.
ges Suum ex fratre nepotem” is an incorrect translation into Latin of the Greek word adeAdidovs in Mansi; for, we find in Stephanus Thesaurus: sub voce adeAdidovs, Nepos e fratre vel sorore: aut Sororis filius, inquit T. Poll. [8, 22] Exp. a Suider aveWios ; and sub voce aveWtos, Amitinus, Patruelis, Fratris vel
Sororis Filius, Dicitur interdum o mpos matpos aves et 0 Tos MNT POS aveyios. The Syriac proves that in this case adeA-
gideds ig = 0 mpos pyrpos aveyrtos.
15
2 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
The whole is part of Actio Decima Chalcedonensis Concilii. (The following is the Greek and Latin of the 6, 12, 14—18.) Col. 224. "Ore exetpordvnce Aavijdov*® tov avirov adeAqidovv éri- oxoroy Ths EAAjvav rodews’ @ rote COet Tvedpa _* TUMEvasive marépa Ane a} = f ex veterl versione in dyvov yevérOa, ob ndivato Ta epya Katabécat ¢. Boh. NG - a a > Sal, > , > Ro ae kal vroretoat, viv yoov eis erlyywowy adnOeias ehOeiv’ avtov drakrov a A ct , ‘ , 2Qr \ aE! BAVC z , évra, kal aoeAyeoTaTor, Kai vewTepov. ovde yap NElw@aeV, OvOE EvEXETS mote Aabeiy. adda dV ddov oxeddy TH Tperépa TOAEL TapaBadAwv dia XadAGav tiva vrravOpor, extomifev tavtny, kat (col. 225) mepuvo- Orv Troy ek TOToV Kal els TpUPyy EavToY peta TaUTNS EkdLOoUs. Col. 223. VI. Quia ordinavit Danielem ‘ z . ¢ 2 Suum fratruelem, 2filium sui* fratris episcopum *Paganorum * Hellenopolis.
4 Qui erat ex pagan-
4civitatis; cui oporteret sanctum Spiritum orum civitate, dum op- ortebat patrem sanc-
adesse, cujus possent opera adducere et per- tum fiericujus possent suadere, ut vel nune ad cognitionem veritatis pL ietade en se) accederent ; iste illic ordinavit inquietum, et
juvenem existentem, et luxuriosissimum. Neque enim statuit aut passus est aliquando latere, sed pene semper in nostram adveniebat civitatem propter Challoam (col. 226) quamdam maritatam, circumducens eam per loca diversa, et in deliciis cum ea deditus.
Col. 225. [XII.] “Ore 6 emioxoros Aamidés Twas Tov padiota THS daedyelas avToU ExELpoTdynae KANpLKOUs.
Col. 226. XII. Quia episcopus Daniel quosdam suze maxime intemperantiz clericos ordinavit.
Col. 228. [XIV.] Aamndou d€ rod emickémov Siabepévov Kat kataheiavros dmep €axe mAovoLA Tpdypata, Kat KTHWaTA ek TOY EKKANTLAOTIK@Y Tols eyydvois THS avTOD Pidyns, Kal a’TH Xaddoa, ore Hyavaktnoev ovre evekddecer.
Col. 227. XIV. Daniele autem episcopo testante, et relinquente quam habuit locupletem facultatem et praedia ex ecclesiasticis rebus nepotibus suze amice et ipsi Challoz, neque indignatus est, neque increpavit eum.
Col. 228. [XV.] "Ore XadXoa 7 hiln Aamrov rod émicKédrov, TO mpoTepov pndev €xovoa, arokexpnuevn Tois exkAnoLacrtkois Tots map avr; ddot moAXois mpdypace, voptopdarov Saveicer amd Staxociay kat Tplaxkooiwy’ as SnAov evredOey yeverOa, ridev 7) cvvaywyn TOV Tpayparov.
Col. 227. XV. Quia Challoa, amica Danielis episcopi, que prius
* This isa mistake of the Historian. See p. 151 and note f.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 153
nihil habuit, multis rebus ecclesiasticis abutens, que apud ipsam sunt, ducentos et trecentos solidos feneratur: ut ex Loc manifestum fiat. unde fit harum rerum collectio.
Col. 228. [XVI.] ‘ABpaduids ris Hv Sidkovos. 5 én abris }. io. ovTos * dm avrins érvyyxave THS Hperepas exkAnoias “TOMS Siahdpws mpayparevodpevos, Sv mpdrepov mevyns, kal pdev, oxeddv °° ~ wy a c la > , ‘ \ > , , eimely, ExwV, THS NueTEpas ekkAnoias moANA, Kal ayvOnta mpaypara »” of Ve SNe > a G , > , G , €oxev’ & Twa Kata adnOevay HY THs nueTepas exkAnoias. dwromeibet
co) a c 3 , > TILE , A x > rodrov Aavidos 6 émickoros, eis avtov maparéepyyrat Toy KAnpoY KaT > {2 , c , > ~ io ay > ‘A , ‘A A eyypapous Siabnkas, 6udcas avTa@, Tois mr@xois av’ta diddvat pera THY éxeivou droBiwaw' todTo yap Kai ai SiaOjKat mepiexovor. TovT@Y ev
a , CoS > 4 c > ”~ \ a > kabeEer yevopevos Aavmdos, od povoy, as expyyv, Kal @pooev, ov Sudknoev, GAA 7H Sovdovon TH dvedyeia adtod Xaddwg TH ‘yuvatki dédaxev adrd.
Col. 227. XVI. Abraamius fuit quidam « gx ipsa vel in ipsa
. 21 6 : : nostra ecclesia erat & diaconus. Hic ®apantita 7 erat nostre ecclesia, giversis modis nego-
diversis negotiabatur temporibus: primitus "9)3tUr. sn cod. pauper et nihil fere habens, ex nostra ecclesia res cue hyieres multas et innumeras res habuit, que ® pro 8 Revera. veritate erant nostre ecclesiz. Suadet huic Daniel episcopus, ut sub scripto testamento in eum suam transmitteret hereditatem jurans ei, hee se post eius mortem pauperibus erogare. Hoc enim et testamento continetur. Et postquam hee Daniel est adeptus, non solum (sicut oportebat, et sicut juraverat) non disposuit, sed luxuriz sue %servivit: Challoz enim mulieri 9° Mancipio Challow Ae mulieri dedit.
Col. 228. [XVII.] "Ore rapa rév éumumrévreav “ENAjvev ayapry- pare Ovoias AapBdvev Aanijros éemickomos ondptrovAa, adinat Tod eykAnpatos, mpaypareudpevos EauvTe Kavredbev Kepoos.
Col. 227, XVII. Quia a paganis incidentibus in pecca- *° Lapsis. tum sacrificiorum, accipiens Daniel episcopus sportulam remittit crimen, negotians et hine sibimet lucrum.
Col. 228. [XVII.] “Ore ris exkAnoias "Edeoons tot krnparos Aadapyapibas tdas tepdvres, dméveyxay eis TO KTHpata XadA@as Tis irns Aavinrov rod emickdmov, Kal exricay & nBovdnOnoav.
Col. 227. XVIII. Quia et ecclesia Edessene e predio Lafar- garitha silvas caedentes portaverunt " ad predia Challoe = Bibi. amice Danielis episcopi, et xdificaverunt que voluerunt.
We will here subjoin the following also :— Col. 241. Part of the Letter of Ibas to Maris is read before the
154 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Council.
Col. 249. After this Ibas asked that also a letter of the Edessan Clergy (instructio et deprecatio, etc.) might be read, ut cognoscatis aia et ab his quee mihi illata sunt, alienus existo et ‘‘ violentiam sum perpessus.” This being granted by the Judges, Beronicianus, the Secretary of the Consistory, reads the declaration of the Edessenian Clergy, that Ibas never spoke the word (said by Maras to have been spoken by him), od @Oova 76 Xptot@ yevouerm Oed" ep dow yap avros eyéveTo, Kayo eyevouny, or, mein Kdy@, ef Bovopa., yivopat kar’ avTov.
This declaration is subscribed by about sixty Presbyters, Deacons, Subdeacons and Lectors; Fecidas, Ursicinus, Eulogius, Libanius, ‘ Rhodon, etc., and most of them, it is stated, subscribed in Greek and in Syriae: kai 7 broypapy Svpuakn.
Ibas was, doubtless, considered responsible to a certain ex- tent for the irregularities of his nephew Daniel, not merely as uncle, butas the latter occupied a Suffragan Seesubordinatetothat of his own, Ndessa being the chief and Metropolitan City of the Eparchy of Osrhoene. The “Ordo episcoporum” of Leo the Wise and Photius, calls Edessa the Metropolis, and gives kapat as one of the fifteen subordinate dioceses; and Dr. J. M. Neale, in his History of the Holy Eastern Church, in the “ Notitia of the Ancient and Modern Sees of the Dioccese of Antioch,” makes Charras rank fourth after Edessa, Metropolis, under Osrhoene. Chap. vii, p. 136.
‘
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 155
TT.
THE DEPOSITION OF DANIEL, THE BISHOP OF HARRAN (CHARR2).
Evtoaius, Presbyter of Edessa, said :—
When we presented to the Holy Archbishop Domnus Libels (bills of indictment) against Ibas, who has been excommunicated, we preferred charges also against his nephew,* Daniel, Bishop of Harran, of Adultery, of Sacrilege,{[ and of other crimes. The Clerks, too, of the same City of Harran, joined us in (this) his Incrimination (Impeachment). But, for the sake of not worrying Ibas, the Archbishop Domnus refused to investigate these charges against Daniel, but ordered that his Uncle (by his Sister) Ibas, should hear his case (as Judge). Subse- quently, however, we troubled the Gracious Emperor (with the case), who despatched us to the Holy Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius, (be- fore whom) to statet our complaints about him (Daniel) ; and we did state them. I request, there- fore, of those Bishops to speak upon those same matters into which (judicial) investigation was made in their presence.
* ‘In 1. 6 the term apg his Nephew, the Son of his Sister. In]. 12 [Xam is “is Uncle by the Mother’s side ;” }>» “is Uncle by
“the Father’s side.”? Eusebius was the Brother of Ibas, named in A twice.
q Or, “ pillaging the Sanctuary.”
+ In Mansi (Concil. amplis. Collectio, VII, p. 209, &c.), we read of the Commission (commonitorium) being given—‘ Damascio specta- ‘bili Tribuno et Notario prztorianorum,” of the Synod being held “in “Colonia Christi amica Beryti,” of “ presentibus Tha, Joanne, Dan-
156 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(2) Juvenat, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
Let the Holy Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius declare what they are cognizant of in the affair about Daniel.
(a) Puorius, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
TSince that time, I have forgotten, whilst the God-fearing Bishop Eustathius has had exact know- ledge of, what was discussed. I, therefore, request of your Piety to ask kim to afford distinct informa- tion on the subject.
(6) Droscorus, Bishop of the City of Alexandria the Great (Capital), said :—
Let the God-fearing Bishop Eustathius, supplying* the forgetfulness of the God-fearing Photius, and affording an explanation of his view (of the case) and his (formal) Statement, tell us what he knows of the affair relating to Dantel.
(c) Kustaturus, Bishop of Berytus, said :—
After the matter relating to his Orthodoxy had
“iele,”’ &c. Our Acts do not give us the decision come to on the matter, however, on that occasion.
{ Thus, perhaps: “ Because from the time (that has elapsed), I have “ forgotten the matters under discussion; but the God-fearing Eusta- “ thius knows them exactly. -” In this short speech we have a happy instance of the difference between, Mao, sciens, and, Measo, ro- gans. 'The distinction, with a difference of meaning, in the word De- position, which so often occurs in this English Version, has not been pointed out, it being thought unnecessary.
* “Supplying the forgetfulness,” and “explaining his view.” comasc is act. parte, governing Dws3Z, and the Greek of it was no doubt
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 157
been mooted with respect to Jbas, the Venerable Clergy of the City of Harran preferred7 a complaint against Daniel, their Bishop, on the ground of the disgracefulness of his morals. We made full en- quiry, therefore, into that matter. For, he was accused (in open court) to his face, and so clearly convicted that he himself explicitly (by his own word) confessed it, although he tried by (using) much sophistry to explain the matter away. When, then, we were deliberating upon his Deposition, but in consequence of the sanctity (or nearness) of the (Lent) Fast, delayed doing this, because, living in
Epunvetwr, whilst {_SScSo seems to be Pael part. of Xs, actively gov- erning wasog and agrees with, maalgimo}. The particle p> intro- duces here, as constantly in Syriac, what were simply participles in Greek. The expression waadog LAScSo is harsh, as usually {Aso is inserted in the sense of supplying ¢4e place of something, but no other sense seems possible here.
{| Or, “began an agitation against Daniel.” In p. 103, lL. 14 NASA Rog is 1s narratio in its original sense. In |. 17, the word }Zo pole is feditas, and ]32099 morum :— “wickedness of his morals.” It seems mere chance that WY is also in Syriac {joae, as also that
fess is sugar. In l. 20 mXded jan has its equivalent ro ovros. 4 - In]. 21 ]ya9 is fut. Aph. Castell has Ksc] id. q, Heb. WT gra-
tias egit, laudavit, confessus est. Confitendi notionem ibi habet, verbo frequentissimam, cum «> construitur, e.g., Matth., x, 32, to which add Matth., vii, 23, and Apoc., ili, 5. See p. 368 on the word (Ips).
Here we have an instance of Castell’s correctness. From this verb, too,
MOY, ~ hesays,istissa8c Das templum Confessorum, very similar to which is }>%:2 Lup which occurs more than once, in another form, in our MS. (A). In lL 21, Jon Se@aaal\So, in the Greek, was no doubt cateoo- gitero. In Judith, chap. v, ver. 11, “ dealt subtilly with them.” It is constantly used for codiGouae in a dad sense. The difficult word |Zaas1> is, perhaps, equivalent to the Greek ceurérys, gravily, respect ability. V
158 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
heathen cities, we were unwilling to scandalize them (by the fact) that a Priest had fallen into such crimes, he, on the pretext of our procrastination, drew up in writing the Resignation®* of his Bishopric and presented it to his Metropolitan, as we have learnt from the letters of that Metropolitan him- self, Ibas. And, after the discussion of the whole case had been gone into, it eventuated in its being remitted to your Holy and QC&cumenical Synod. For your judgment, then, which is final (in appeal),
* In p. 104, 1. 1, the verb |aZ is to delay, to put off, and b>) oLorerlwsc the putting off time, delay. Also, \]Xal is to decline, refuse, withdraw from, and so to resign, and
{Zc aS LuwSc resignation, in p. 104, 1.2. The word is certainly, Ma Sado zfedo, as elsewhere frequently.. Malim, Maflardo2o glade
pntporoAirys, but, as he identifies it with Ibas, the meaning is certain. In p. 104, 1. 7, and second word, the » must be taken otiose, I think,
especially as ESS NE is feminine. “(4nd when these matters were
“ discussed, it resulted in their being sent to this Holy and Ccumenical « Synod,” but, if not, we would render it thus: “Whilst all this was “ passing, the papers relative to this Holy and CEcumenical Synod were “ despatched to us.” Since — Is TeAetwoas and PROSE cig TéAoS, in faSc.. may distinctly be implied the fact that the Coun- cil was the final Court of Appeal, as in short it would have been, had it not so perverted Justice that common justice required it to be superseded by another (Ecumenical Synod and Court, which took place at Chalcedon in 451 a.D., although S. Leo the Great wanted it to be in Italy. Still, the word may mean réAecoe or teAetov= pevor, the perfect, because they were consummate Christians, who had a right to partake of the Holy Eucharist, to réAecor, that sacred Mystery that unites to Christ and gives us the most consum- mate perfection we are capable of in this world, as says Bingham. Per- haps the whole passage may best be rendered thus :—“ They accused him ‘to his face, and pressed him so hard, that he confessed himself almost ‘ beaten in argument, although he had conducted his defence with clever- “ ness. We contemplated at once deposing him, but we deferred it on account of (the nearness of) the Sacred Lent Fast; because, being
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 159 has the settlement of this affair been reserved.
(a) Urantus, Bishop of Himeria, said :— —(Liban{ius],* Deacon of Samosata, being inter- preter for him)—I say the same as the God-fearing Bishop Eustathius has deposed. For, he (Daniel) was accused of disgraceful immorality, and was convicted in our presence.
3 (a) Juvenat, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
Relying with confidence on the excellent name (fame) of the Holy Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius, I (decree) determine the very same as they do about him (Daniel), who as Judges heard the case.t
(b) Puotius, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
Daniel, having been charged with these vices by the Venerable and God-loving Clergy of the Church of Charre, and having been convicted to
‘in Pagan Cities, we wished to avoid scandalizing the heathens by show- “ing them that a Bishop could misconduct himself to that extent. Then “he (Daniel), availing himself of the delay, framed in writing the Re- “ sionation of his Bishopric, and presented it to his Metropolitan, as we “learn from the letters of the latter, bas. While all this was going on, “the Documents, relating to this Holy C®cumenical Synod, were sent “tous. It is thus left to you, who are perfect, to terminate this affair.” * If the Greek were épuyvetovtos A:Barov, then, before the verdicts or sentences were given, Libanius read explanations, or a full report of the proceedings, of the trial of Daniel, then {.a};-Scl, “I say. <¢ for, he has been accused,’’ &c.; but there seems no evidence of the latter doing so, and Libanius must be considered as merely the interpreter of Uranius’s Syriac into Greek, though the word, mma2], meaning re- dargutus est, might seem to give countenance to the idea suggested above.
ae alaso.gso is governed by easdaals0, and not by Qe dnSO el,
160 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
his face,* it appears to me that he ought to be re- moved from the Throne of the Priesthood. For, it is impossible that such a man should (be allowed to)
stand before the Holy Altar,
(c) Urantus, Bishop of Himeria in the Eparchy of
Osrhoene :—
(Libanius, Deacon of Samosata, being interpre- ter)—said, that it was iniquitous, as well as contrary to (all) propriety and rectitude, that the Priesthood should be disgraced by a man who, to his face, has been (convicted) proved guilty of shameful immoral- ity of conduct (dissolute habits), and therefore I vote (decree) that Daniel be removed from the Priest- hood.
Also, since a considerable amount of gold, belong- ing to the two Churches of Edessa and Harran, is in his (Daniel’s) possession, I think it only right and just that he should restore that gold—restore to each of those Churches severally (that which belongs to it).
(d) Evsrarurus, Bishop of Berytus, said :—
It is a subject worthy of tears,t for a Priest to be accused of dissolute habits, far more than that of his
then it should be, “as they who heard (as Judges) the proceedings re- “ specting him.”
* That is, “in the open Court.” The term “the Throne of the Priesthood” is an instance of the right to the Priests of the Church of having a Throne, though a second one, as well as the first Order of its Ministry. See Bingham, Book II, chap. xix, who explains the mean- ing of the terms 0 ék rot devrépov Opdvov, and “ corona presbyterii,” and TO Tw TpeTBuTépwy cvvéedpLov.
+ In p. 105, 1. 14, it should be [SSSpS, worthy of fears, a subject
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 161
Deposition—(for a Priest) for one, the (special) property of whose Office it is, by his Purity of body and his Orthodoxy of Faith, to draw down the Holy Ghost, through the Consecration of the Pure Oblations, with which he has been entrusted for the benefit of mankind. Daniel, therefore, by reason of his having been convicted to his face of such crimes, should be removed from the Priesthood by a sentence (judicial) of your Holiness. For, the Holy Ghost left him because of his evil life, even before the tongue of the High Priests (or the Bishops pronounced his sen- tence), since the Holy Ghost flies from fraud and never dwells in a body that loves sin.
(e) Dioscorts, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
To the verdict given by the God-fearing Bishops, Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius respecting Daniel, I, likewise, for my part, give assent.
(f) Tuatassius, Bishop of Cesarea in the First
Cappadocia, said :—
The man, who has occupied the Priesthood and, by worldly impurity, gets so contaminated as to bring contumely on the (Pure) Mysteries, affords proof against himself that he is unworthy of the Episco- pate. For that reason let Daniel, having proved himself to be such, as also the Depositions of the God-fearing Photius, Kustathius, and Uranius make
deserving grief. The verb ola, in active voice, governs |aaO¢ as its subject, indicated by the S,
162 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
evident, be degraded from the Dignity of the Priesthood.
(g) StepHeN, Bishop of Ephesus, said :—
What those persons who were ear-witnesses of the case about Ibas have adjudged, that I, also, in con- junction with them, pronounce to be my decision.
(h) Evsesrus, Bishop of Ancyra, said :—
Assuredly the Venerable God-loving Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius, who have pronounced sentence on Daniel, are pious* men, To that sentence of condemnation pronounced by them, I, also, for my part, give assent. Let Daniel, then, be removed from the Priesthood : for, it is not seemly that he should serve the Holy Altar, who is addicted to disgraceful habits.
(c) Cyrus, Bishop of Aphrodisias, said :—
Seeing that Daniel, after having been charged with odious practices and tried before the God- fearing Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Ura- nius and convicted, has been sentenced to Deposition by those same Pious Bishops, as they have shown as well by Document as now they have also by their speeches, I am, too, entirely of the same opinion with your Holiness respecting him.
* In p. 106, 1]. 18, |aitas is the predicate, and ;m>2] in |. 24 may be translated disgraced, or made contemptible by dissolute habits, immoralities,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 163
(j) Diocenss, Bishop of Cyzicus, said :— Accepting* the truth of those who have tried
Daniel, I do, likewise, for my part, assent to the
Condemnation pronounced on him by you.
(k) Jouy, Bishop of Sebastia in the First Armenia, said :— I,on my part, assenting to what has been deposed to by the God-fearing Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius respecting the Condemnation of Daniel,
do also vote that this man be deprived of (re- moved from) the Priesthood.
(1) Bast, Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, said :—
If, according to the Sentence of the God-loving Bishops Photius, and Eustathius, and Uranius, Daniel, Bishop of Charrz, “took the members of “ Christ and made them members of an Harlot,”t he has whetted against himself “the sword{ of the “Spirit :” and it is right and just that he should be ° driven away, the Shepherd from his Flock, because he is the scab of the sheep.
(m) Fuorextius, Bishop (of Sardis) in Lydda (Lydia), said :— To all, which those Pious Bishops have done who have already adjudicated upon the affair of Daniel, in everything it is right and just for us to assent,
the truth of, must be the sense. iaes t Cor, vi, 15: _ Ephesians, chap. vi, verse 17.
164 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
since verily he has already brought ignominy upon himself by his turning aside into that wicked folly.* Let Daniel, therefore, be stripped of the Honour of the Priesthood, forasmuch as he avowed himself, in the presence of the Judges, to have been destitute of (all) gravity of conduct.
(n) Marintanvs, Bishop of Synnada, said :—
I, also, assent to the Deposition of Daniel, since once already have the Pious Bishops Photius, and Kustathius, and Uranius justly condemned him.
(0) Arricus, Bishop of Nicopolis in Ancient Epirus, said :—
‘IIn accordance with the sentence of the Judges, let punishment, prescribed by the Canons and the (Definitions) Decisions of the Holy Fathers, be exe- cuted upon Daniel who has been condemned by them, inasmuch as he has made himself liable to such a sentence.
2 Un. yor WrOs, a (Zeass| Lede is properly a begging off; hence a declining, turning away— Sc Jrom a thing— > into a thing. Perhaps it might be correct to translate—“ by his own abdication (brought about) “by the atrocity of his offence,” but not so naturally. Dro Wek Smith informed me some years since, that he knew of one example 123 4
although he would have preferred Ee lone.
q Or, better :—“ Let the punishment, prescribed by the Canons, over- “take Daniel in conformity with the sentence of the Judges, which they ““ have inflicted upon him, because he has fallen under the blow of the “prosecution of the Law and the Definitions of the Holy Fathers ;” or, ‘let punishment, according to the Canons and the Definitions of the “ Holy Fathers, be pronounced upon Daniel, who has been condemned “by them, since he has fallen under—i.e., has made himself liable to— “such a sentence.” The {ScoumZ ae belongs to the |aQ20 Ne most probably.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 165
(p) Nunecutvs, Bishop of Laodicea Trimitaria, said:—
If the Judges themselves have accused Daniel, what (more) can we do in the matter (but agree with them)? I, for my part. pronounced it to be right that he should be removed from the Priesthood.
(q) Luxe,* Bishop of Dyrrhacium, said :-—
In accordance with the Depositions of the God- loving Bishops Photius, Hustathius, and Uranius respecting Daniel, I, for my part, likewise assent to the Deposition (pronounced) upon the aforesaid Daniel.
The Hoty and Gicumenicau Synop said :-—
“ We, all of us, say the same.”
[END OF THE CAUSE OF DANIEL.]
FOr Loos, Luke, see 2 Tim., iv, 11. In l. 24 ySc]Z]2 om is the above-mentioned (Daniel).
WwW
y om — Fs ‘ fs " » : ‘ 1 F ne * ve «° ry. ~~ , pt bah arngizney't Ie hi 7” Lf hy 7 *
ry Ae
et
hy ae ‘ \ORL Sik bry
\ .
- vs
IREN AUS.
‘
168 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
IRENAUS.
——__
Trenzeus was at first a Count of the Empire. In an unofficial capacity he attended the Great Gicumenical Synod of Ephesus in 431 a.D., accompanying Nestorius as a friend thither, with ten Bishops of the Church; whilst Count Candidian, Captain of the Imperial Guards, went expressly in an official one, ser- ving the interests of the Emperor Theodosius II. Irenzus sympathized with the Easterns and John, Bishop of Antioch, and naturally upheld the cause of the friends of Nestorius, against whom, however, the Emperor after some hesitation declared himself, and banished Irenzeus from Court. Now His- torians say—it is an error—that Theodoret, ‘‘ out of deference to ‘the Bishops of Phoenicia” and “because he knew his zeal, “his magnanimity, his love for the poor, and other virtues,” consecrated him Bishop of Tyre. But in 448 a.p. a Law was made expelling from their Churches all Nestorians, if Bishops or Clerks, &c., mentioning Irenzus by name, and ordering him nct to leave his country, but to remain there in quiet, without either the name or the dress of a Bishop. In this retreat Irenzeus wrote a history of the Nestorian contro- versy under the title, ‘ Trageedia, seu commentarii de rebus in Synodo Ephesia ac in Oriente gestis.” The Greek Text of this work is lost; but there remain extensive fragments of an old Latin version, published by Charles* Lupus under the very inexact Title of “ Variorum Patrum Epistole ad Concilium Ephesium pertinentes,” Louvain, 1682. (From Nouvelle Bio- graphie Generale, Tom. 25, Didot fréres, Paris, 1858.) Baluze, in his “ Nova Collectio Conciliorum,” says the edition of Lupus is very incorrect, and proceeds to give us another, which he would have made more accurate, if the Monks who owned one of the two MSS. had allowed him to use it (fol. 668-940). He says it was written after the time of Justinian, was called *Synodicon,” and against the books which Lrenaeus, the up- holder of Nestorius, called ‘ Tragzedia,” i.e., perhaps, “ Pre- “phetia instantis Constitutionis,’ as Anastasius says of a similar work in Hist. Eccles., p. 51, after Theophanes,” &. This “ Synodicon adversus Trageediam Irenzi,” comprises 225
* Sic for Christian. Another edition more complete has come out.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 169
chapters, including numerous documents and extracts of im- portance to the student of Nestorian controversies. Among these are sundry letters from Theodoret of Cyrus, John of Antioch, &., and some things by Irenzus himself. This Synodicon, with the editorial prefaces, notes, &., occupies 275 columns of the folio of Baluze. From the same volume the following deserve special notice in reference to Irenaus and his character: A letter from the Ephesian Council (431 a.p ) to the emperors says: “ Nos autem detenti rescribere vestra potentize “latitudinem horum que passi sumus a magnificentissimo * Comite Irenzeo, breviter non potuimus intimare, qui omnem “sanctam Synodum conturbavit, et terrorem imposuit sanctis- “‘simis episcopis per quosdam extraneasque concursiones, ut “etiam plurimi nostrorum circa ipsam periculum paterentur “ vitam” (fol. 496). This is in Mansi also.
The “ Synodicon” has a letter by Nestorius, in which the latter says to John of Antioch— Ha enim que ad nos nuper “‘scripsistis, et ad magnificentissimum Christi amatorem “ Trenzum filium nostrum,” &c. (fol. 688). The epistle, alluded to, really contains only a message to Nestorius, or, rather, the notice of one, forwarded, it would seem, through I[renzeus (fol. 445). An epistle from Memnon of Hphesus to the Constanti- nople Clergy, confirms what the Council reports as to the violent measures of Irenzeus (fol. 524). Irengzus was banished with Photius to Petra, the decree for which appears in the Syuodicon, and some indication of the mode of executing it (foll. 884, 885). The culprits were to be deprived of all their dignities and possessions, and exiled to Petra, ‘‘ut paupertate “‘perpetua eb locorum solitudiue crucientur.” The directions for carrying out the decree are very curious :—Que sintque de Trenzo et Photio sunt sancita a divino et iminortali vertices prefulgens divinarum litteraruim tenor ostendit, Magnificentia igitur tua his que sunt decreta diviiitus absque mora obediens, ad loca que jussi sunt duci cum competenti solatio praparet veredos duos cum duobus parippis Oresti et Stephano, qui singuluritec directi sunt ad peragenda que divinitus decreta suut, queeque nosiris praceptionibus continentur, coadjuvanti- bus evs ex Sytia tam regionum judicibus quam provinciarum _ quarunque ordinibus, insuper et defensoribus et reliquo solatio vel auxilio, et decurionibus vel curialibus.
170 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Baluze, N. C., fol. 1516, has this:—Irenzous comes, apertus Nestorii ac Theodoreti amicus, ab isto ordinatus episcopus. Bigamus autem dicitur, quia post secundas nuptias factus fuerat episcopus Tyriorum, contra canones, ut docet Theodosii constitutio adversus eum lata, que extat in tomo tertio concili- orum, pag. 1216. (From notes on the “Concilium Quintum,” sub an. 553.) Much of the above from H. Cowper.
Now, it is a most important and remarkable feature charac- terizing our great MS., designated A, that it not only enables us to add an entirely new page to our long-received Histories, but it obliges us to make corrections of what have been regarded as historical facts recorded in their old pages. Here is acase in point. Fleury and others say that Theodoret consecrated Irengzeus to the Bishopric of Tyre, but when we come to handle the cause of Theodoret, in this MS., we shall find tbat there is strong evidence, amounting to moral certainty, that the then Archbishop of Antioch, Domnus, consecrated and in- stituted Count Trenzus to the Bishopric of the Metropolitical City of Tyre. So we shall discover, also, from the same quarter, are to be attributed to this same Archbishop Domnus, and not to Theodoret of Cyrus, or to Flavian, the Archbishop of Con- stantinople, those memorable words, respecting the Apostle Peter, that have for centuries resounded in Western Christen- dom, viz., 0s Kat Tov paxapiod Mapxov didaoKkadros ’nv, Kal Tov Xopov Tav ardcToAWY TPaTOS Kal Kopipatos.
In addition to the above we may here quote Baronius, Tom. 7 (Luce, 1741), Pagius 448 a.p., ii, A num. ii ad xix Theo- dosius Imp. vetuit libros Porphyrii et contra Cyrilli scripta editos, decrevitque etiam, ut quicumque nefariam Nestorii doctrinam quovis modo sectarentur ex Ucclesiis expellerentur. Ac denique statuit, ut Ireneus qui Nestorio faverat, et contra Canones Tyriorum Episcopus ordinatus fuerat, Sacerdotio penitus execretur. Legitur edictum illud Tem. 3, Concil., pag. 1216, ubi hanc habet subnotationem . . Ivreneus, qui pefato Edicto deponitur suc- cessorem habuil Photium . . et quia Imperatoris jussu, non synodali sententia dejectus est Irenzeus, id circo anno sequenti se- cunda Synodus Ephesina eum canonice deposuit. Ordinatus fuerat a Theodoreto Cyrensi Episcopo, sed contra ejus Episcopatum tria vitia ab adversariis objecta: quod hereticus Nestorianus esset, quod Bigamus, quod ab alien Provincie Episcopo consecratus. Hjus sanctitatem, humanitatem, pecunie contemptum, eleemosi- nas, aliasque virtutes, Theodoret predicat, etiam in Epistola
XXXV. . . . . Verum in Concilio Ephesino et post ejus cele- brationem semper Nestorianis fayit, ut ex dictis liquet.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. VAL
EVs
THE DEPOSITION OF IRENAIUS, THE BISHOP OF TYRE.
(1) Joun, Presbyter of Alexandria and Proto-No- tary, said :—
We lodge an information with your Blessed and (Ecumenical Synod against Irenzeus that he isindeeda firm maintainer* of the impious Doctrine of Nestorius and a well-known aider and abettor of his, so far even as (to merit) to receive the punishment of exile. Therefore it is that he has had to sojourn, and does now sojourn, at any place which suited the pleasure of our Victorious and Christ-loving Emperors (to assign to him). Further, when he became Bishop of Tyre—how, 1 know not—it appeared still more evident at Tyret that he is a follower of the false Doctrine of Nestorius. For, true is the Divine Scripture that declared—“ If the Indian can change “his skin and the leopard his spots, then will you
* The word {Do} a, is, doubtless, in the Greek édpa:wua, which word is used by S. Paul in 1 Tim., iti, 15, where he calls the Church “the Pillar and Ground of The Truth,”-—jirmamentum, basis—foundation (of a wall), pedestal (of a column). It is a compound of {Ze}, the
stat. emph. of Ba: as TW is from a rad. TW =U, and, in accordance
with the peculiar genius of the Syriac, may be rendered a firm maintainer or supporter. Nestorius was the basement, and lreneus the pedestal, of Nestorianism, to use a pardonable metaphor.
aun! pe Log, I 12, leaz> should, probably, have been written 50,5 in the original MS., as the former is never, and the latter always, else - where used for Tyre. It seems an impossible word. At line 16, too, (AS, feminine plural, seems preferable to |Amg (fem. sing.) in MS. and corresponds with lec.
172 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“be able to do good by having learnt (to do) evil.”* Moreover, the aforesaid is a man who had two wives and, in his other conduct, wasimpure. Fr, in this way it is well to express oneself before so (Reve- rend) an Assembly as this, as well as before other simi- lar ones. But, being such a character (without going
into particulars)—clad, moreover, in Lamb’s cloth- ing, he proved himself a tyrannous Wolft to the people of Tyre —and, to omit} the intervening circum- stances, inasmuch as he had received Consecration uncanonically, he was deposed in a just and righ- teous manner.|| Thus it was that the God-loving Photius was consecrated to the Bishopric of Tyre,
who also, at the present time, continues with your
* The quotation is from Jeremiah, xii, 23, where, in Dr. Lee’s Syr.
O. T., the passage stands thus: faopacn Roy We 1S> yalo {Sohal esjo ""attSss “|;Sajo ““craase DSaa2 . [DaeD cohada2 Sisco : asfAsas ¢ ola] aaaaso
q “The man of whom we were making mention was married twice” (which is contrary to the canons), “ and in the rest of his mode of life ‘is impure: for, so it is right to speak before this assembly and such « (an assembly).” He means, it is right to generalize, and not go into the particulars of the immorality of the individual man.
+ S. Matth., vil, 15.
i In». 109, lu 23, soamael, eSSo is literally: “And, that I “may omit the medias res, inasmuch as he had received Consecration (the lea yas is the Imposition of the hand in Consecration) uncanoni- “cally, he went out (i.e., he was expelled) in a just and righteous way : “and thus Photius received the (imposition of the) hand for the “ Bishopric of Tyre.” At 2 Tim., i, 6, we have this imposition of hands of the Apostle in the words dua THs embécews Tov XELpGv pov, and with the accompaniment of the Presbyters’ hands at 1 Tim., iv, 14, in the words pera émbécews Tar Yelpov TOU TpEeaBuTEpiov.
|| See introductory note.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 173
Holiness. This, therefore, is what we urge* (viz.) ; that, in accordance with justice and propriety, a Synodical and Legal Sentence should be pronounced upon him (Irenzeus), lest the bitter root bring the plantt+ to prove injurious, and many, by its means, be contaminated.
2 (a) Dioscorvus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :— This Holy and God-loving Synod has heard from the Deposition{ of the God-fearing Presbyter and Prime Notary, John, what is in conformity to propriety and Law and in accordance with Ecclesi- astical Canons. Let then that, too, be added|| (to what has already been done), which is the duty of this Holy Synod with respect to the Deposition of Irenzeus—a man who is a Bigamist and a Blas- phemer, and who has omitted no kind§ of Impiety
* At p. 110, 1. 5, the word ean should be qe, No doubt the Scribe made a mistake. The word {Dacxo is equivalent to apémov implying fitness, propriety rather than duty.
+ The predicate in this sentence is ] So 1-0 and laa in 3rd
per. sing. fut. of las, or, perhaps, Aphel. “Lest the plant prove to “be a bitter root and noxious, and many, by its means, are defiled.” Or, Ne amara radix sarculos progeminet nocivos, quibus multi comtami- nentur: “lest the bitter root bring the plant to prove injurious,” &c. The word {4gas, commonly occurring in the Psalms and elsewhere, means
grass. t The words, Mam Ngo, karabeots, Deposition or statement, and,
Mansho, Deposition or removal, occur within a few lines and in this
one short speech, || Atl. 14 of text, Oram M2 Sse is an expression that im- plies the formal sentence of the Synod, which he required to be added to the Expulsion, by the Emperor, of Irenzus for his Nestorianism. _ § This, of course, means that Ireneus had committed all possible Xx
174 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
against Christ—the man whom I first (of you all) adjunge removed from all the Honour of the Priest- hood and Communion with the Laity.
3 (b) Juvenar, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
We, likewise, join in the Sentence of the Holy and God-loving Archbishop Dioscorus of the Church of Alexandria the Capital.*
(c) Tuaxasstus, Bishop of Czesarea, said :-—
It is sufficient for Irenzeus’s expulsion from the Episcopate that he is infected with the Doctrine of Nestorius. But, because there is added the fact that he was found to be a Bigamist, also, which is a viola- tion of the Canons, I think it right that he should be deprived of the Priesthood and of Communion with Christians.
(d) Sreruzy, Bishop of Ephesus, said :—
From the very first I have been opposed to Iren- cous being a Bishop, because, in a manner contrary to all (ecclesiastical) Law and Order, he had been clothed in the habiliments of the Priesthood. Seeing, then, it is fitting and proper, as the Venerable Pres- byter and Proto-Notary John has required, that he (Irenzeus) should be deposed by a common Sentence of this Assembly, let Irenzeus, aforementioned, be
kinds of Impiety against Christ, (the word ]}} means species, kind) of which the speaker gives a short recapitulation.
* Alexandria the Capital is, perhaps, the more correct way of ren dering this oft-repeated expression than Alexandria the Great.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 175
condemned by our Humbleness also, and be not allowed to hold any Communion with the Laity.
(ec) Eusesrus, Bishop of Ancyra, said :—-
Let Irenzeus, who took two wives and has been accused of holding the tenet of Nestorius, be de- prived of the Honour of the Priesthood.
(f) Frorentivs, Bishop (of Sardis) in Lydia, said :—
What has been affirmed by the God-loving Pres- byter and Prime-Notary John makes manifest that Irenzeus’s sentiments belong to the Impiety of Ne- storius. Irenzeus ought, therefore, to be ejected from the Honour of the Priesthood, because, as it were, by him the sublimity of the Mystery of Chris- tians has been lowered in subservience’ to the Ne- storian opinions.
(7) Mariianvus, Bishop of Synnada, said :-—
Let Irenzus, who, in a two-fold capacity, has attained communion* (fellowship) and has been proved to be an adherent of the Doctrine of Nesto- rius, be deprived of the Episcopal Dignity.
(h) Evstatutus, Bishop of Betrytus, said :— It is through the wickedness of the rebellious
ee ree OL Tc ile ae de ee
Or, “by means of Nestorian opinion.” The sublimest mystery of Christians is the Doctrine of The Incarnation.
* This may be taken, perhaps, in a two-fold sense, or translated, “elevated or advanced to the (position of receiving the) two-fold com- “ munion of bread and wine,” as my friend Martin would have it.
q Or, “'The wickedness of the rebellious Demon occasioned to the race of the sons of men that they be deemed worthy of the Advent of
176 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Demon that mankind have been judged worthy of the Advent (of the Son) of God. That Demon in- tended to harm us, and it is entirely contrary to his intention that he has made us to be thought worthy of the Mercy of God. (In the same way) do evil and impious men furnish, at the present time, the Holy Churches of God with the means of finding shelter from Calumny ; indeed, when these men have once become completely eradicated, the trees of God bear (abundant) fruit. Trenzeus, therefore, be- ing one of the Defenders of the Impious Doctrine of Nestorius, has been justly sentenced to the punish- ment of Deposition by your Blessedness, and should also be deprived of Communion in the Pure Mys- teries, as having been indeed the cause of all kinds of misfortunes next after Nestorius.
(z) Sozonius, Bishop of Philippi, said :—
1, certainly, from the first have never been desirous that Ireneus should become a Bishop, for fear the wolf should get to live among the lambs ; and, with great forbearance! of spirit, did I continue harshly to conduct myseif towards those who were assenting parties to it. For, his work of Impiety is well known,
God. For, when he willed to work evil to us, it was contrary to his will that he caused us men to be deemed worthy of the mercy of God: and now the will of man has brought calamity and impieties upon the Holy Churches of God that they may be proved to be blameless. For, at a time when these evils should have been extirpated from their very roots, at this same time the trees of God should yield fruit.”
q Perhaps it may be better rendered thus—* And I used to complain of the great forbearance of those who allowed themselves to be persua- ded into it.”
IN THE DAYS’ OF DIOSCORUS. VE7
as well as the trouble he gave himself on behalf of his fellow-thinker, Nestorius, so that, in consequence of such Impiety as his, either he should not have become (Bishop) in the first instance, or he ought to have remained such, as most explicitly do the Canons of the Fathers determine. Therefore, let him who loves Nestorius be with Nestorius.
(j) The Hoty Sywop said :—
“These things we say—from the impious all of “us turn our faces—from Heretics we all turn our “faces. Great is the choice of the Emperors. “ What was done by Ireneus, in his capacity of “ Bishop, must be repudiated—every act of Irenzus “the Heretic must be repudiated. Just is the Sen- “tence of the Synod. Just is the Sentence of the “Gracious Emperors. What has been done by the “wicked must be repudiated. Who, then, will put “up his hand for a Bigamist and a Blasphemer ?”
[END OF THE CAUSE OF IRENZEUS.]
Ea dia aed ‘ “capil Poa sal uy ma wad * ie eee a? NR man Nr ei Diane Migs Ts dieiis vA Beil Hee ms ond polis eel OT asia. naar ial edt Wn Shs ae
ti Milena pe tA Ag ite a
wha ; Piht et. Fitolt nl «4 ey 4 7 |
AQUILINUS.
180 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
AQUILINUS.
Aquilinus, or Acilinus, was consecrated to the Suffragan Bishopric of Byblus by the Metropolitan Bishop of Tyre, Trenzeus.
He is called Celenius of Bibulus, as Irenasus is called Renius and Sophronius Sphirion, in Addl. MS. in Brit. Museum, num- bered 14,643,* in connection with the Second Synod of Ephe- sus. He was one of the degraded Bishops, and his See appears to have been occupied by Marinianus. There were fifteen Bishops whom the Schismatics from the first and Gicumenical Synod of Ephesus, in 431 a.p., reckoned as having lost their Sees, because they refused their assent to the peace and recon- ciliation} between S. Cyril of Alexandria and the Archbishop John of Antioch, as the happy result of the negotiations com- menced by Bishop Paul of Emesa who was the representative of that Archbishop, in conjunction with Aristolaus representing the Emperor and the Court at Constantinople. Although Aqni- linus was ejected from his Bishopric, yet he was afterwards restored to it on his communicating with John of Antioch, notwithstanding his refusal 10 give his assent and approval to the Deposition of the great Heretic Nestorius.
He is called, by Fleury, Aquilinus of Barbalissa (Barbalissus).
The “ Synodicon,” before alluded to and written against the “Tyageedia” of Irenzeus of Tyre, refers once and again to Acili-
* See Cowper’s Syriac Miscellanies, p. 90.
+ It was on the happy occasion of this peace and reconciliation being accomplished that 8. Cyril penned one of his three grand Epistles which have become an Ccumenical heritage of Chris- tians and “binding on the whole Church,” the first paragraph of which is thus translated by P. E. Pusey, M.A.:—‘ Let the heavens ‘rejoice and the earth be glad, for, the mid-wall of partition is un- «done, and that which vexed been stopped and the canse of all our «dissension been taken away, Christ the Saviour of us all dispen- “sing peace to his Churches, the most pious and devoted Kings “calling us thereto, whose most excellent emulations of ancestral “piety, guard the right Faith both sure and unshaken in their “own souls, and take very special pains for the Holy Churches, “that they may have glory renowned for ever and render their «kingdoms most famous: to whom the Lord of Hosts Himself “imparts good things with wealthy Hands and gives to overcome “their adversaries, grants them the victory. For He would not lie «Who says, I live, saith the Lord, for them that honour Me I will “honour.” This letter is referred to above, in Ibas’s Letter to Maris, at p. 118, and also in the cause of Theodoret further on,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 181
nus, who in one place is called “ Acilinus Barbalissi Euphra- “ tesize.”
Baluze thinks he is the same as Aquilinus of Byblus, who is mentioned by Evagrius, Book I, 10.
In Dr. Neale’s Hist. of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. I, chap. vii, Notitia of the Ancient and Modern Sees of the Dio- coese of Antioch; under Pheenicia Prima, Berytus is put 3rd, and Byblus 4th, after Tyre, Metropolis, with this note on the former place—“ Theodosius junior made this a Metropolis, as- “ <jgning to 1b Byblus, Botris, Tripolis, Orthosias, Arce, Anta- “radus, Agathias, i, 51. But this arrangement was shortly “ afscerwards disallowed in a Couucil at Constantinople.” Inthe same chapter, at page 134, Barbalissus is put the 10th after Hierapolis, Metropolis: under Euphratensis.
It will, probably, be found impossible to upkold the view which identifies Barballissus with Byblus, as both sites are known and far asunder. ‘“ Rufinus episcopus civitatis Bybli,” also, appears in the Chalcedon lists. There was a wonderful amount of making and unmaking Bishops in those days, and transactions were too numerous. The Roman Emperors made themselves ordinarily, to all intents and purposes, except in _ matters relating to The Faith, practical heads of the Church in the Hastern Empire, and they were not unfrequently too demented or prejudiced to rule the Church with discretion and judgment.
182 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Ni:
THE DEPOSITION OF AQUILINUS,* BISHOP OF THE CITY OF BYBLUS.
(1) Pxorrus, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
As regards Aquilinus, Ireneus, who has been deposed (expelled), made him Bishop of Byblus. While this man was more impious and a greater heretic than Nestorius, and much more passionate (violent) than Irenus, full of contempt for the Altar, and the Church, and the Communion of Priests, he (yet) carried his crime so far as to prefer to them the friendship of his companion in Heresy. Though often summoned to appear before me and the Pious Archbishop Domnus, he absconded (hid himself), so that the Pious Archbishop Domnus gave me licence, by a written document, to consecrate an- other Bishop in his place. Butit has happened that this Consecration has been deferred only in conse- quence of our having been convoked to this Great,
Holy, and Gicumenical Synod.
2 (a) Dioscorvs, Bishop of Alexandria, said :-—
Aquilinus, formerly Bishop of Byblus, has, as has been declared by the God-fearing Photius his Me- tropolitan, deprived? himself of the Honour of the Priesthood, by refusing to observe the established order of things, and by having chosen to attach him- self to his fellow-Heretic Ireneus.
* Aquilinus or Acilinus,
{ Literally, “estranged himself or been estranged from,”
as in the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 183
Let him, then, share in the lot of one, of whom it is said—‘ (As) he delighted not in blessing, so let “it be far from him.”*
Let him, therefore, have what he has desired, i.e., let him be removed from the Episcopate.
Be it also known that, if anyone of the other Bishops under the Jurisdiction of Phcenicia,—I mean of those who are Suffragans to the God-loving Bishop Pho- tius,—should be found to be a Heretic and should be infected with the false Doctrine of Nestorius, such an one shall be expelled by his Metropolitan and the Synod acting along with him. For, it is the Metropolitan’s office to be alive to the dangers which threaten him, and to watch over (superintend) the execution of the commands, issued by this Holy and (icumenical Synod. Now, we request him (Pho- tius) to declare, with his own voice, that he will do this, and that he will notify each particular case indi- vidually to the Exalted Thrones.t+
(b) Puortivus, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
TI will use all diligence so as not to permit that any Bishop or Cleric, infected with the (impieties) of Nestorius, remain in the districts of Phcenicia; and especially (do I expect) that the Holy Synod of my Province will second me in this, to the Glory of
many other instances in which the word occurs in this MS.
* Psalm, cix, verse 17. In Prayer Book Version it is, at 16th verse, —‘“he loved not blessing, therefore shall it be far from him.”
+ That is to say, to the Emperor Theodosius and his Government. The Provincial Synod, being a “perfect council ” because of the presence and action of the Metropolitan President, could accomplish this.
184 "THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Christ, and to the credit of this Blessed, GAcumenical, Synod.
(c) Juvenan, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
The blessed Apostle has said—“ If an unbeliever “depart, let him depart.”|| Because, then, when he was summoned two or three times, according as the God-fearing Bishop Photius has informed us, Aqui- | linus refused to go to his own Church, he has de- posed (ejected) himself from the Honour of the Priesthood. For, also, in another place, the same Apostle has said—‘“ A Heretic, after the first and “second admonition, reject, knowing that he who is “such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of “ himself.”§
(d) StePHEN, Bishop of Ephesus, said :—
This Aquilinus, formerly Bishop of the City of Byblus, has brought the punishment of Deposition upon himself, because he forsook that Holy Church entrusted to him, and preferred to It the friendship of the Impious Ireneus, who ordained him Bishop. He, therefore, should, likewise, according to my
|| 1 Cor., vii, 15. S. Paul’s words are—Ei de 0 amotos ywpilera, xwpilécbw* where he is arguing the question of a Christian man or woman married to a heathen, and the desertion of one from the other. Juvenal argues that, although a Christian may not put away or desert his wife when an unbeliever, yet, if she desert her husband, the guilt of de- sertion sets him free. So Aquilinus, having deserted Christ’s Spouse the Holy Church (at Byblus), to which he had been wedded in spiritual bonds, releases her and frees her to contract another bond.
§ Titus, ii, 10, II, Alper ixoy ci Opurrov pera miay Kat devtépav vovdeotay maparov* eldas ore ebéoTpamTat 0 TOLOVTOS, Kai auapTaver OY QUTOKaTAKpLT OS.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 185
judgment, be put under the same sentence of con- demnation as [reneus.
(ec) Tuaxasstus, Bishop of Cesarea, said :—
Aquilinus, who is infected with the same impiety as Irenus, since he forsook the Holy Church of the Orthodox and attached himself to the aforesaid Ireneus, as we have learnt from the speech of the God-loving Photius, has degraded himself from the Dignity of the Episcopate.
(f) Evssstus, the Bishop of Ancyra, said :—
Aquilinus should be removed from the Episco- pate: for, it is my opinion that, when* he fled from (abandoned) the Priesthood, he deprived himself of (its) Function and Honour.
(7) Joun, Bishop of (Sebastia in) Armenia Prima, said :—
He, who has withdrawn himself from the Com- munion of Christ, especially from being disposed to Impious Doctrine, deserves to be removed from the Honour of his Grade, particularly since he has brought such a punishment upon himself. It is for this reason that Aquilinus, also, who has put his Church into a widowed state (by deserting it), should be removed from the Church which he has purified, though unintentionally, by (really) withdrawing
* If the word be meant for |Zaa, plural of ]Aas, it will be conservi, socit ; compeers, colleagues, then the rendering will be “before “ being prosecuted by his colleagues.’’ But this hardly seems feasible,
186 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
himself from it. Inasmuch as he clothed himself with blasphemies, it is only just and right that he should be deprived of his Priestly Office, another taking his place, who will be able to govern the people, entrusted to him, on the principles of the Orthodox Faith, and in all Virtues acceptable to God. (h) Puotius, Bishop of Tyre, said :-—
Inasmuch as Aquilinus has separated himself from the Function of the Priesthood, it is with justice, also, that he be deposed by this Blessed and Cicu- menical Synod, I, also, for this reason, give my assent to the Holy Synod in the sentence passed on him, and I, too, adjudge him deprived of the Honour of the Episcopate.
(c) Evstatuivs, Bishop of Berytus, said :—
“Every living creature loves that which is like “itself,”* says the Divine Scripture. Because, therefore, Aquilinus, who was formerly the Bishop of Byblus, has adhered to the blasphemous Doctrine of Irenzeus, it is only just and right for him to be inflicted with a punishment of the same character (as that which Ireneus received).
The Hoty Synop said :— “We all of us say the same—we all depose « Aquilinus.”
[END OF THE CAUSE OF AQUILINUS.]
* Ecclesiasticus, chap. xili, verse 15,
SOPHRONIUS.
188 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
SOPHRONIUS.
Sophronius, undoubtedly, the Bishop of Constantia, or Con- stantina, is mentioned as Bishop of Tella or Thella, as well, in the following words, by the Author of “The Chronicle of Edessa,” recorded by Asseman, in Tom. 1, p. 202, as by these Acts of the Second Ephesine Synod in the next few pages.
jal Jan. [Dagal wmogam mama) eso2 MarsZlo Madsodomfiiines jocam.] row S pas JouamnSo : 30s? mofrajpatio : ferongla}y fascopdo 2 Geen ‘S}ar,S0 5 gandai0]22 —aermofio : amiol,
, 3002 wogasoro/DNo : fiZ» umas0,amSo
““Ttem altera Synodus Ephesi coacta fuit (aon anno 445, sed 449) in qua Dioscorus anathemate percutit magnum Flavianum “ Episcopum Constantinopoleos, Diomnum Antiochiz, Ireneum “Tyri, Ibam Edessa, Eusebium Dorylzi, Danielem Haran, So- “ phronium Telz (seu Constantine), et Theodoretum Cyri.”
In Le Quien’s “ Oriens Christianus,” Tom. 3, c. 967, under ‘“ Heclesia Constantia,’ reference is thus made to Tella:— “Constantina . . nominabitur Tela recentioribus et indi- “yenis, quia in colle posita erat.”
The name cf Sophronius of Canstantine appears in the Chal- cedonian lists thus :—‘‘ Sophronius, Episcopus civitatis Con- “stantine, subscripsi Lwpporos Kovotartivos.” _(Binius, Vol. Il, p. 278.) | He was made by the Fathers of the Council of Chaleedon, as we find from the 8th Session—a session chiefly devoted to the cause of Theodoret—to anathematize, along with two other Bishops, the Arch-Heretic Nestorius.
Eusebius, in his life of Constantine (Book II, chap. xlv), speaks of two Laws being promulgated, of which one was in- tended to restrain the idolatrous abominations prevalent, and the other related to the erection of Oratories and Churches on a grander scale. The first provided that no one should erect images, or practice Divination and other false and foolish arts, &c. The allegations, directed against Sophronius, refer to the last-named practices.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 189
Ag &
DOCUMENTS DRAWN UP AGAINST SOPHRONIUS, BISHOP OF THE CITY OF TELLA (CONSTANTINA).
Joun, Presbyter and Prime Notary, said :—
Simeon, TPresbyter, and Cyrus and ustathius, Deacons of Tella, present Libels (of Indictment) to your Holiness, which I hold in my hand and will read, if your Great and Blessed Synod will com-
mand it.
Juvenat, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :— Let them be read and be deposited along with
the Documentary Transactions.
And he (John) read :—
To the Holy, God-loving, and CGécumenical Synod which, by the Grace of God, is assembled at Ephesus the Metropolis, from Simeon, Presby- ter, and Cyrus and Eustathius, Deacons, and the rest of the Clergy of the City of Tella.
We, having learnt from the Holy Fathers to ac-
cept those who honour God and to reject those who blaspheme Him, pray that the Libel (of indictment), which we bear, may be accepted, and that the same may be read before your Holy and C!cumenical Synod.
Whereas, then, Sophronius, Bishop of our City
of Tella, who is nephew’ of Ibas, Bishop of
Edessa, has put aside the fair name of Priest, be-
{| Or, “son of the paternal uncle.” See note at page 152. Z
190 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
loved of God; and whereas4 it is befitting and pro- per for him to continue by night and by day in prayer, with the view to obtain pardon not only for his own personal sins but also for those of the lay people—none of these things has he thought of doing; but, on the contrary, he has been parti- cipating in (been partner with) ‘the table of Devils,”* (Demons’ Tables) : (he has taken part) in the numerical computations (of Astrology), and in the motion of the Stars and in (their) variation, and
{ Or, “and he ought to have persevered night and day in prayer.”
q Or it may, perhaps, be translated as follows :—<“‘ Sophronius, we “ say, instead of this, has done quite the reverse, as (for instance, serve ) “at the table of Devils, devoted himself to forbidden Calculations (cy- “ phering), to Astrology, to the errors of Sorcery and Pagan Divina- “ tions. He has not been satisfied (with being infected) with the “false Doctrine of Nestorius which he has learnt from his relative Ibas , “ he has thrown himself, moreover, into all these horrible things.”
* S. Paul, in 1 Cor., x, seems to have been in the minds of the com- plainants against Bishop Sophronius (for the words are the same as his) and the allegation against him to have been that he violated what is implied in y. 20, from which verse we conclude, with Bishop Wordsworth, that “‘ Worship offered to any but the One True God is accounted by God “to be offered to Devils who do exist, although it be offered by man to “ idols (e.g., Jupiter, Venus, Bacchus, &c.) which do not exist.”
We quote Mat. Martinhere:—Dzmon, duiuor. Platoin Cratylo, damones dictos ait, or: Ppdvipa kat Danuoves, quia sapientes ac Scientes. Serv. in 3, fEn. “ Corybantes, demones sunt, ministri deum. Daemones, quasi dan- “ wores, gui totum sciunt :” nempe quum daiuer est tos, alioqui demones multa sciunt. Sed more gentililoquitur Servius. Macrob. Saturn, Lib. i, cap. 23, “ Dii sunt demones, i.e., scientes futuri, ut Possidonius scribit “in libris, quibus titulus est, wept npdwy Kut daiporwr, quia ex eterca “ substantia partita atque divisa qualitas illis est. . «2? Sciunt (darw scio) autem multa, partem ex prima creatione, partim experientia et di- vina revelatione. Multi autem spiritus sepe falluntur et fallunt. at eemulantur divinitatem, dum furantur divinationem, ut ait Tertul. in Apo- loget. Gentili sensu dacuwr aut daporor alias est Deus et Numen, alias spititus Deo inferior, . . . . In N. 'T. Greeco semel est dacuures Matth., viii, 30. Alioqui da jora sunt impuri spiritus. Vulgata Latina Versio tamen pro hac voce alicubi vertit demones, Matth., ix, 24, et x, 8, et xii, 24, 27, 28, Jacob, ii, 9. Passim alioqui tum in canonicis
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 191
st.
in Divination,* and in the vaticinative Art of the Pagans. Not being satisfied with the miserable Doctrine of Nestorius which he learnt from his relative Ibas, he has in addition thrown himself into all these miserable occupations. We, therefore, pray of your Piety to deign to listen to the few words we wish to say, in all humility, relative to the con- duct of Sophronius.
Once upon a time as he was travelling, he hap- pened to lose a considerable amount of gold; and when his suspicion rested on certain persons and he had made them take an oath upon the Evangelists (in the matter),—not satisfied with this—he, fur- ther, testing them by the ordealt of bread and cheese like the heathen, compelled them to eat. And, when
tum in apocryphis literis est dacudior, semper de malo spiritu. LXX. Interpretes etiam illud habent pro 5:53 Psalm xcvi, 5 pro 9 Esa., Ixv, 10, quod aliter exponitur tiv: sicut etiam Gen. xxx, 10, item pio yw Esa., xiii, 21 (ubi Aquil. tocyor) et pro yy Esa., XxXxiv, 14 et pro yw Deut., xxxu, 17, Psalm cvi, 35. Etiam Ps, xci, 6, pro “\\yy?- bydy9 quidem est idolum, nihil, sive ex 5x9 non, nihilum ; sicut idolum est res ficta, aut enim nihil est, aut saltem hoc non est.
See at page 43 of Cureton’s “ Ancient Syriac Documents,” where Shabil (a High Priest the son of High Priests) calls himself ‘an “obscure dead man, for whose death there is no hope of resurrection ; “< for I have been slain by paganism and am become a dead corpse of the “evil one,”’ which is an English translation of the Syriac words—
. boas mbass SS aoa . [Zoarad mon bl alo
* Mat. Martin says— Mantia, puyreéa, divinatio, a pavrevopat vaticinor. Isidorus, Lib. viii, ix. Varro dicit, divinationis quatuor esse genera, terram, aquam, aerem, et ignem. Hinc geomantiam, hydro- mantiam, aeromantiam, pyromantiam dictam constat.” Under Mantia, p. 280, Tom. prim., Lexicon Philologicum, m,pcc1.
+ Tyromantia, per caseum, cujus meminit Hesychius, nisi legendum pyromantia. (Fabricius, cap. xii, p. 142, Bibliographica Antiquaria. ) To the kinds of Divination given by Fabricius and Martinius, we must add phialo-mantia, as discovered. and discerned by the Syriac term in our MS,
192 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
he still did not find (the money), he prepared himself (and used) a divining Cup, affirming that “the money
* « Divining cup.” Such cups are first mentioned in Gen., xliv (the Cyatho or xvAccko warteca was adopted by many nations of antiquity) where, says Rev. J. M. Rodwell, in Transactions of the Biblical Ar- chzological Soc., Vol. II, Part 1, WIT, cognate with wT, means /0
utter a low, whispering, hissing sound, hence to practice enchantment by muttering magical formule, hence to augur and divine. It is thus twice used in Gen., xlv and Gen., xxx, 27, which should be rendered “ I have “consulted divination and the Lord hath helped me for thy sake.” He continues, “ It was by a cup, or v2), that Joseph was in the habit of
“ divining: and it is remarkable that the Septuagint Translators should « have rendered the Hebrew yray. or cup, by Kovdv, which Athanzus “ (Deip., i, 55) explains by motypiy aciatixoy and Hesychius by ToT ypL01 Faniavotien , &c.” After the remarks on Mr. Rodwell’s Patera Paper—a circular Terra-Cotta vase discovered at Hillah near Babylon, well represented in the opposite page with the characters— comes a note by S. M. Drach, the first part of which I here subjoin. The C’biah yy (not Q)5), for Joseph’s divination (yrq3) cup, he says, is sup- posed, by Hebrew authorities, to have been (comp. YQ) and dome- shaped hills) of longish shape, which, by striking, indicated the birth- rank of Joseph’s. brothers (Gen., xliii, 33), but he does not give his authority for saying this, and calls it, a curious proof of the Rabbinical “antiquity of spirit-rapping”! It may be interesting to him and all Spiritualists and Physicists to be assured that, after “a prolonged and im- “¢ partial enquiry” made by a Commission appointed by the Physical Society of 5S. Petersburg to examine the Phenomena of Spiritualism, it appeared at the conclusion that ‘ those so-called spiritual manifestations ‘proceed from unconscious movements, or from a conscious imposture, “and the spiritual doctrine is a superstition.” (Brit. Medical Journal, Apmil, 1876.)
Mr. H. F. Talbot, Vol. II, Part 1 of the same Transactions, says that Sakru is Magician, "Mp Magus Prestigator and sakri AMD or AMND magid, illusio, prestigie. | We may observe here he understands that the celebrated Egyptian Scholar de Rougé has lately ascertained that the much-disputed Title Pharaoh signifies “the great House,” Phe-raah, having found it so written in hieroglyphic character. The Chaldee and Syriac NHWyD isjuramentum from Ys jurare, which is the Assyrian Mamita (Matth., v, 33) or has a close analogy to it.
The learned Fabricius, Cap. xii, de divinationibus, Vatibus, miraculis, Magia, &c., in his “ Bibliographica Antiquaria,”’ at p. 419, says: “ Ex “ poculis divinatio vide Suidam in KorraSifeu(a) et supra Cyathomantia,”
(a) KozzaBigew. Mat. Martin, on this word, at p. 269 of Vol. I, writes thus: ‘‘ Suid. *‘Cottabus latex, id est, wrea phiala, quam inter ceenandum ponebant vini plenam :
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 193
“is to be found with such and such a person, whose “name is so and so, and who is clothed in such and “such a way.” And many times the Demons, wishing to confirm him in the imposture, pointed out the thief, not because they wanted to convict him (the thief), but because they were eager to plunge (overwhelm) the Bishop in ruin.
On another occasion, too, he was guilty of this same thing, and had recourse to the Divining-cup (or phlial-Divination), as we learnt from Simeon, who used to act as Server to him at the Bishop’s House : for, he once took this man’s son and introduced him quite alone into his bed-chamber, with one Abraham, Deacon, a relative of his, together; and, having placed a table in the middle, they put under the table Incense, destined for the Demons, but, upon the table, a phial (dish) in which were oil and water; and he placed the lad, in a state of nudity, at the side of the table; and the whole was covered with clean
and at p. 413: “Cyathomantia. Vide Mandeum, cap. xv. Apologie “ pro Magis Gensii(4) victimas humanas, Tomo I, p. 353. Supplemen- “‘ torum Tomum ab(c) Observationes selectas Hallenses Observationes IV, “Mich. Christiani Tierof diss. de sacris vinculis. Jen 1657, et inter- “ pretes ad Gen. xliv, 5, qui locus tamen nihil aliud significat, quam ex “poculo illo ablato Josephum augurari de malo peregre adventantium “ animo.”’
Or, it may be rendered thus:—‘* On what man will my gold be “found? What is his name? What is his dress? The Demons, un- “‘ doubtedly wishing to lead him astray (into error), pointed out the thief, “not that they had a desire of punishing him, but because they sought to “lead the Bishop into perdition (aimed at overwhelming him in ruin).”
*‘deinde in parva pocula conjicientes de alto projiciebant (éppcmrovv) ut strepitum ** ederent, qui cottabus vocabatur.”
(4) Jae Gensium de victimis humanis Tomo 1, cap. xx, sq. Gensium is one of the many Authors Fabricius refers to in his work ‘‘ Bibliographica Antiquaria.”
(c) Sic, but od must surely be meant.
194 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
linen (white sheet). Then, the Deacon began inton- ing words which the Bishop had formulated for him from his wicked divining-art. Then they questioned the lad, saying to him—‘“ What do you see in the “ Phial ? and he said, “I see flames (sparks) of fire “ ooing upwards out of it ;” and again, after a little while, he questioned him, saying—“ What do you “see yet?” and he said, “I see a man sitting on a “throne of gold, and clad in purple, and a crown “upon his head.” They then dug near (behind) the door and made there a deep hole (well), which they filled with oil and water, and they made the lad stand there, and said to him—*“ What do you see in “the hole (well) ? and he said, “I see Habib” (for, he was on a journey to Constantinople) ; “and I see “him,” the lad continued to say, “seated on a black “ mare-mule that is blind-folded; and behind him two “men on foot.” Further still, they brought an egg, and, when they had opened it, they threw away what was the white of the egg, and left the yolk of it; and they said to the lad—‘“ What do you per- “ceive in the shell of the egg?” and he said, “I “perceive Habib proceeding on the road, on horse- “back, and he has put a collar round his neck, and “before him are going two men.” And on the day after, the Bishop’s son arrived from Constanti- nople, just as his father had divined. This the lad confessed on oath upon the Evange- lists, along with his Father and Mother, in the presence of witnesses, who affirmed that the circum-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 195
stance took place exactly as it was visioned to the lad. Moreover, the lad went on to say—“ For eight “months, I used to be walking, (when) seven men, “dressed in white, constantly went in front of me.’ And in the lapse of these eight months the lad was out of his mind, having been driven mad (lost his reason); and it was with difficulty that, after having brought him into holy places and anointed him with consecrated oil, they succeeded in curing his insanity.
Now, as regards these Astrological Writings of his (Sophronius), to what purpose is it to speak of them ? There are those, too, who wrote them ; the very scribes, who copied them, are at Tella ; there is Maras, the Sub-Deacon, and there are Adesia and Stratonica, Deaconesses of the Church; there is Peter, the Chief Physician of the City; lastly, there is Uranius,1 Deacon of the same, who con-
q This may be translated thus :—“ And there is, last, the Deacon of “the same City, Uranius, who owned that he had read them, when he “went up to the Bishop’s House to get him to subscribe his hand to “ some alms-deed (receipt), when he saw the good Bishop moving the ‘brazen sphere, belonging to his evil Divination, and experimentalizing “ with it. When he came down (from the Bishop’s House), he made “known to his comrades all he had seen. And, as though all these “ miserable affairs were not enough for him, Habib, his Son, brought “thither Hesychius, a Jew, and bid him step up to the Bishop’s House, “and ate with him Jewish food in his Father’s absence; and in the ‘Week of the Pentecost, which is the time when we ourselves fast, he “was feasting with the Jew at the Bishop’s House; and, for about ten “hours, this man continued feasting with the Jew, up to the time when “he took him (the Jew) into the Church of the Apostles, whilst the “¢ Service was proceeding. When, in consequence, the City had become “excited into a commotion, with the Clergy, it expelled the Jew as well «‘ Habib; but they, on being expelled, fled to the Pratorium of General “ Florus; and, on this impious and heathen Florus becoming irritated, he “and his rushed upon the City and murdered in it many persons, men and “boys, and wounded more than one hundred people ; whilst those who,
196 HH SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
fessed to have read them when he went to the Epis- copal Palace for the purpose of getting a ticket of Alms signed, and there saw the good (Reverend) Bishop carrying and inspecting the brass-sphere des- tined for his criminal incantations (divination) ; and, on coming out, he told his colleagues all he had seen. Not satisfied with giving himself over to these wicked practices, his son Habib introduced a Jew, (named) Housick, into the Bishop’s House and ate with him, after the fashion of the Jews, in the ab- sence of his Father. During the week of Lent, when we fast,{ he feasted with this Jew, and kept him at table till ten o’clock; and even carried his audacity (so far as) to bring him into the Sanctuary of the Apostles, at the time that Service was being
held. The City and the Clergy, shocked by this
“in the confusion, had fled to the Holy Altar, there, and with the arrows “remaining unextracted from their persons, had their blood shed, some “of them befcre the Altar. And in this condition a multitude of them “died clasping the Altar.”
§ The laws against corresponding and conversing too familiarly with Jews and Gentile sae forbade the Clergy, says Bingham (Bk. VI, chap. iv), to eat with the Jews under pain of suspension. And the Apostolical Canons prohibited them not only fasting or feasting with the Jews, but receiving even any of those portions or presents, which they were used to send to one another upon the Festivals.
In p. 123, |. 17 of the Text, the word may be rendered fittacium, or pyctacium quod videtur, ait M. Martinius (1) esse tabella pice illita ad scribendum, (2) est tabella quavis alia similis usus, &c.
Castell says of the Syriac word for pu/meniarium :— Secundum ‘“‘Syros sunt Escnlentorum delicie.’’ Mat. « Pulmentum “ vocatur a pulte. Sive enim sola puls sive quid aliud ejus permixtione “¢ sumatur, pulmentum proprie dicitur. Gen. xxvii, 4.” (Vol. IL, p. 569.) Again, at p. 570, he defines Puls thus :— Cibus ex farina vel & Jacte in olla coctus, liquidus ; ; etsi alius crassior, quam alius: non tamen *‘duratus in ponem, et heec quidem simplex } ate cul interdum et alia “¢ junguntur, ut caseus, ova, &c.”
iN THE DAYS OF DIOscoRUs. 197
conduct, chased both the Jew and Habib, who sought refuge in the Preetorium of the Commandant (Duke) Florus. The impious and pagan Florus rushed up- on the City, where (his people) laid violent hands on a great number of men and children—certainly more than a hundred. In despair, these took refuge near the Tabernacle ; but, then, the arrows reached their bodies, their blood was shed before the Altar, and many died in the act of embracing It.
We have, then, prayed this of your Holy Synod— to avenge us of this pestilent and murderous man, since all the Lay-people, and the company of the Monks have taken oath, declaring, “ We will not for “the future receive this man any more, or hold com- “munication with him, or have any intercourse with “him at all ;” because they have seen that any con- nection (relation) with him is dangerous.
Already the Masters of the world have taken cognizance (of our complaints), and have ordered that they be reserved, until your Holy Synod has effected the Deposition of Ibas and Sophronius.
This is what we learnt when the City, the Clerks and Monks included, was assembled to commence proceedings (to draw up Documentary Acts) in the presence of the Defender (Procurator) of the City. From the persons belonging to the household (of Sophronius) we have our information. Others have heard it besides us.
Those Documentary Acts are in the custody of
the Procurator of the same City. AA
198 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
We, therefore, fall at the feet of your Holy Synod, entreating you to have compassion on us, and on our City, and on all the region that is scandalized by Sophronius, and to rid our Church of him, which, being filled with the arms and the blood of those who were slain in the very middle of the Sanctuary, has been closed for two months.
I, Cyrus, Deacon, present (this Libel) in conjunc-
tion with those of my Confraternity.
I, Eustathius, Deacon, present (this) with those
of my Confraternity.
Tuauassivs, Bishop of Czesarea, said :—
It is in accordance with justice and in conformity with the Laws Ecclesiastical that the enquiry should be reserved for him who is going to be appointed Bishop of the City of Edessa, so that he, with the whole Synod of his Province, will, when it is agree- able to them, accomplish that which is pleasing to the Lord God and is befitting His Glorious Name.
The Hony Synop said :—
“This is a correct sentence—this we all approve “ of—.this we all determine.”
JuveNnaL, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
I, also, for my part, adjudge it just and right that, when there shall be an Orthodox Bishop at Edessa, he, together with the Orthodox Bishops of the Province, should take cognizance of the cause of
_ IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 199
Sophronius; and whoever shall find Nestorians in the Province shall eject them, and (so) purify the Church.
[END OF THE CAUSE OF SOPHRONIUS.]
Th skeet s)
hel a) Fs
=| aoe
ran ;*
THEODORET.
BB
202 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
THEODORET.
—<——<——
This magnificent character of the 5th Century of our Era comes next to be arraigned at this lawfully-constituted Tribunal of the Church—lawfully constituted less from an ecclesias- tical, than from a civil and imperial, point of view. But whether at its bar Justice is to have her due in the matter of ordinary procedure, and in the cause of one of the most self- sacrificing of the Sons of Men, or whether a mere travestie of her fair name, with the beam of her scales unset and eyes un- blinded, is to be perpetrated will soon become apparent.
Theodoret, named @codwpyros because, after several years of barrenness of his mother, he was “given of God” in answer to the “effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous’ Anchorite, was a Native of Antioch, and was‘born of noble and wealthy Parents, who dedicated him to God from childhood, and left him a large inheritance which he literally gave away, leaving himself nothing. In Theodoret’s Letter to Nomus, Ex-consul, as given by Baronius (Tom. 7, p. 618), “ qua ipse (says Baronius) totam vitam suam et res ab se in Episcopatu gestas brevi com. pendio narrat,’”’ Theodoret says of himself: “Illud quidem “adjiciam (quando quidem calumniatores hc dicere me co- “ ount) quod ante conceptionem genitores me-offerre Deo pol- “liciti sunt et ab incunabulis.”
At Antioch he was ordained a Reader of the Church when very young. At the Monastery of Apamea he made the acquaintance of Nestorius and of John of Antioch. When about 35 years of age, he was, contrary to his wish, consecrated Bishop of Cyrus, situate in Syria Huphratensis, and said to have been built by the Jews, in honour of Cyrus, at their return from the Captivity. Although an inconsiderable city in itself (indeed, Pelagius, the Presbyter, calls it a town, small borough), the Diocosse embraced “800 Parishes among its dependencies.” It was this Diocoese, suffragan to the Metropolitical City of Antioch, which, though it “on his accession had been one “ mass of Heresy, became altogether free from that evil leaven,” by reason of his indomitable labours on behalf of The True Faith. It had reason, too, to thank him for many great public works his indefatigable zeal for the temporal, as well as spi- ritual, good of his people enabled him to accomplish.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 203
Notwithstanding, such was the opposition he met with, and such the calumnies heaped upon him, and the trials he had to go through, greatly from his being reputed to be a Nestorian through his apparent complicity with the great fautors and abettors, if not originators, of that form of Error, that in the Letter, quoted above, he complains that, although he had lived 20 years without accusing any man and without being accused by any man, &c., yet kis endurances were very great indeed— “et spe (he declares) ad inferorum etiam portas mortis “ perveni.”
Of this noble Champion of the Church my friend, a Chap- lain of the noted Church of Sainte Geneviéve, well says :—
His eventful life, his apostolic labours crowned with the greatest success, his ardent contentions inspired by an honest opinion and by an upright conscience, his numerous writings, and, above all, the persecutions of which he was the object have made him one of the most remarkable personages of those - troubled and unhappy times. His reputation and his authority were immense in the Hast: he had fought Cyril with vivacity for many years, but he had not hesitated to submit as soon as he recognized The Truth ; he was regarded as an oracle by his Colleagues in the Hpiscopate, and he himself teaches us that his discourses at Antioch were frequently applauded by the faithful. Hyveryone was pleased to hear him speak.
Theodoret had, nevertheless, many enemies, because he had long supported the party of Nestorius and written violent dia- tribes against S. Cyril. He also continued to be suspected by all those who held for Eutyches and Monophytism; his letter of congratulation to Dioscorus had been ill-received; the Em- peror had withdrawn from hin: his good graces, and, in spite of the powerful protectors whom the Bishop of Cyrus reckoned at Court, Theodosius had given him repeated blows. First, he had condemned him not to pass out of his Diocese (Juae—July, 448 a.p.); afterwards, he had forbidden him to come to the Council, unless he was sent for; and, as if a first prohibition was not enough, a second Edict was issued on the eve of the opening of the Synod (30th March, 6th August). Theodoret, in one word, was a victim to the strokes of the conductors of the Cabal of Ephesus. Thus, they did not fail to deal with him, and in going through the Acts of this famous Council we
9
a
O04 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
easily recognize that he was the most redoubtable adversary, of the whole assembly.
It is, nevertheless, a strange thing and one of the finest tri- butes rendered to the memory of this great man, that he is the only one of the Bishops condemned or deposed on whose me- mory hovers no disquieting doubt. In spite of the hatred they bore him, and the pleasure they would have had in dishonour- ing him, they did not atte:apt to raise against him one accusa- tion which could properly be defamatory. They had made Ibas a thief and a debauché, Daniel of Harran a Libertine and an unchaste man, Irenzus an impious person and a bigamist, Sopbronius a Magician and a sorcerer: they dared not make Theodoret anything but a Heretic and a Nestorian. And for that, moreover, they were obliged not to rely on his more recent writings, on his solemn and reiterated declarations, quite or- thodox and approved as such by S. Flavian, John of Antioch, and Domnus, they must rummage in his former pamphlets, in his treatises against 8. Cyril or on the Incarnation. (Martin’s Etude.) Before the Council in Session the Assessor is made to quote extracts from one or two of Theodoret’s works that are now lost. One of these works so used is designated An APOLOGY ON BEHALF OF DioporE or Tarsus AND THEODORE or Morsvestra, Warriors or THE (TRUE) Reticion. The same seems, also, to quote directly from his, no doubt, splendid Commentary on the Psalter, now quite lost to the Church, or indirectly from some kindred writer on the Psalms, perhaps Theodore of Mopsuestia, his teacher.* From these extracts we gather that the first work, tke Apo- logy, resembled, in its mode of treatment of the subject matter, that of his “ Eranistes or Polymorphus,” in which he upholds the great Truth of the Co- Existence of the Two Natures (of the Divinity and of the Humanity) in the One Person of Christ without confusion or commix- ture, and combats the different forms of error against It,
* Cave, in his “ Historia literaria,” p. 247, says Theodore had as his hearers Nestorius and Theodoret. “Av7p inquit Sozomenus (1, 8, G. Vil) kai roy tepwr BiBAwy, Kal THe aAne TwaLdeiac, PyTépwY TE kai prtocdpwy ik avos eTLOTHMwV. Theodoret, Soz. (1, 5, ¢. xl) rdone piv® écxdyoiag duaskadoc, Kara raons Padayyoe alperixnce apiorevoac.
® See Dioscorus’s Letter below and Appendix to this Vol.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 205
by a catechetical and categorical form of reasoning, similar to which, also, is the treatment adopted in his Great “ Com- mentary on the Bible,” in its early part.
The Synod did not spend too much time in judging him, and the Bishops soon pronounced their formal Sentence. He had been specially marked out by the Emperor, who, on the eve of the assembling of this Cicumenical Council, and notwith- standing the strongly-marked censure of him in the formal Document (a) convoking it, added another (8, p. 8), with special reference to Theodoret, as we have seen. The Huty- chian party had no difficulty in accomplishing their end, in silencing and rendering him, to all appearance, useless to the world and the Church. There is no doubt he had a leaning to his old friend Nestorius as well as to Diodorus and Theo- dorus, the real originators of Nestorianism, but he can hardly, with any great amount of justice, be branded as a Heretic, inas- much as the wickedness of Heretics as such consists in the wilfulness with which they cling to the Heresy as such.
At the Great Council of Chalcedon, summoned by the Emperor Marcian in 451 a.p., in the 8th Session, the Bishops were particularly urgent for Theodoret to anathematize the Heresiarch, interrupting him in his address to the Council with the exclamations—“ Say plainly, Anathema to Nestorius “and his Doctrines, anathema to Nestorius and his followers,” when Theodoret replied, ** Of a truth, I say nothing but what “T think is pleasing to God. Be assured, first of all, that I “feel no anxiety to be restored to my city, or recover my dig- “nity; no! that is not what has brought me hither; but “having been aspersed, I am come to convince you that I am “orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius, Hutyches, and
We may here observe that two MSS. in London and one in Paris ascribe the Headings of the Psalms to Theodore, which Headings, be it observed, actually take the place of a brief Commentary, as manifestly in Ceriani’s magnificent Ambrosian Edition of the Pes- chito, and of something more, when the Canons, that is, the lite- rary matter that comes after each first verse, are taken into consideration. Theodoret speaks of someone who dared to do away with the Greek and Hebrew Headings on the Psaltery and to make new ones of his own accord, trusting some Jewish teachers whom he followed. So these headings are the more inte- resting since there can be little doubt that Theodoret speaks of his teacher Theodore.
206 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“all who affirm that there are two Sons.” Again the Bishops interrupt him, and again he said, “ Anathema to Nestorius, to “all who refuse to call the Virgin Mary ‘ Mother of God,’ &c.” The issue was that the Magistrates said—* In accordance with “the decision of the Council, Theodoret shall again be put in “possession of his Church at Cyrus.” (Oxford Fleury, p. 378).
Notwithstanding all that has been written about him by Dr. F. H. Newman and others, I may, without much presumption, fearlessly assert that the complete History, with information derived from Syriac sources, of the Life and Labours, per- sonal and literary, of the great Bishop of Cyrus, whom the Latrocinium of Ephesus unintentionally honoured in condem- ning him, and that, also, of his Master, whom some in the real and Orthodox Cicumenical Council, just quoted, openly and without objection, described as ‘‘ the Blessed Theodore of Mop- “suestia, the Hero of The Truth and Doctor of the Church,” have yet to be accomplished by some learned Scholar and Son, or, it may be, literarily accomplished Daughter, of our Zion.
Fritsche, in his “ Dissertatio de Theod. Mops. vita et scriptis,” has remarked that “ Theodoretus, qui saepius Theodorum, nomine ejus non addito,impugnat, etiam ad Theodorum respexit,” quoting the following passages in Theodoret’s rpofewpra of his epuyma ets Tous WaApous (p- 605, 606, of Migne. Patrol LXxx. 862, 863) emeLon Oe Kat Tas eTYpahas Tar WaApwv Wevdets TLVES ameKaAETaY, avaykatov yYeouat Kat wept TovTwy Bpayea dueEeAOev, euor Joker ToAuNpoy eae Tas avexaley eucbepouevas emt IIToAcmacov...... avarpemety emiypapas. If Esdras wrote the inscriptions on his copy, and if the LXX mpog de tars aAAars Oevaus ypadars Kat Tas emypapas npunvevkaciy*® TaAunpoy oruae Kat Acay Opaov, \revder TAUTAS Mpocayopevery Kat Tovs oLKeLous AoyLOMoUS THS Tov TrEv- Maros evepyetas coPpwTepous vroAau Paver.
There is much valuable and highly interesting information, rela-
tive to Theodoret and the Psalter, treasured up in MSS. not yet brought to light by any Editor.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 207
VII.
THE DEPOSITION OF THEODORET, THE BISHOP OF CYRUS.
Pruaaius, Presbyter of Antioch, said :—
T have a Libel (Bill of Indictment) against Theo- doret and Domnus, and I request that it may be received and read.
JuveNaL, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :-—
Let the Libel of Pelagius, Presbyter of Antioch, be received and read.
And he (John, the Prime Notary,) read :—
To the Holy and God-loving Cicumenical Synod assembled at Ephesus, the Metropolis, from Pelagius the Presbyter :—
It is as the Source of all good, so to speak, to the human race that the Gop of that race, The Trur
{ Hoffman gives, as a translation of this rather difficult exordium, the following, anglicized :—“ ‘The Gop of Mankind and True Saviour “ Jesus Christ, Who is The Only True Gop and The Only Eternal “‘ Life, has, (so to speak), as a Fountain Head of all other good things “for mankind, caused this your Godly, Blessed, and Gcumenical Synod “to assemble, partly aforetime in Nicaea—for, I believe, I behold that “and its successors in this one—partly twice here already. This is the “third Gecumenical Synod assembled at the end of ages; and this is, I “believe, the last of all Synods through The Hoty Guost, since The “ Hoty Guost, The All-Prrrecror Huimsetr, has in a special manner “¢ assembled it, that it may be the last, so that here it may be fulfilled : «¢ On the mouth (evidence) of two or three witnesses every word shall “‘¢stand,’ and so that he who does not acquiesce in the Dogmas con- “ firmed by The Hoty Guost through you shall be esteemed a Heathen, “a Publican, and, in short, an anathematized man; and whilst every sin “and blasphemy is forgiven to men, this shall not be forgiven, either in
208 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Saviour Jesus Curist, Wuo Aone is The Truz* Gop and Axons Erernatt Lirz, caused that your Divine and Blessed Gicumenical Synod to assemble, which took place in Niczea.
I believe I perceive that Synod, and the one subsequent, united (in accord) at this moment.
Gop has already assembled you here twice; but, this third G&cumenical Synod, placed at the termi- nation of ages, will be, I opine, the last of all the Councils convoked by The Hoty Guosvr.
That is the reason why The Hoty Guost, Who is The Perfector of all, has assembled it with special care, because it is the last; wishing to fulfil here again (what is written, viz.) “by the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” { |
Whoever, then, will not yield himseif to what The Hoty Srrrir shall decide, by your means
“this world, or in the world to come ; because he has blasphemed against “The Hoty Guost. For; if, according to the Laws and the Holy “ Scriptures, two or three men in number are to be believed, who, then, “‘ would dare to contend in this against the three—the Trinity of wit- “ nessing Synods, that is, indeed, against The Trinrry Itsetr, Wuicu “through you is Irser a witness,—without being justly condemned by “you? Whilst I, also, for my part, with justice, as well as everybody “‘ else, desire this, I have recourse to this Petition, and I expect to re- “ ceive help, in what I have suffered, from you who are devoted by Gop “to the general good.” It may, likewise, be rendered, I think, as if the Synod were the origin of all Blessings to men, or of very many Blessings, if the word {Dud pal be taken as signifying many, very many.
* John, xvii, 3,—or, “in His One-liness is Very GOD” is a very literal, hut very exact, rendering.
+ John, vi, 33.
+ Deut., xvii, 6; Mat., xvi, 16; &c. Or, “upon the evidence of “two or three witnesses shall every truth be established.” “ Every truth” is the rendering of an ancient concordance in my possession, which I think is an exact and true one.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 209
and mediation, let him be regarded “as an heathen “man and a publican;’* let him, in fact, “be “excommunicated.” And, whilst every sin and (all) blasphemy will (can) be forgiven unto men, this will not be forgiven unto them, either in this world or in the world to come, because it is Blasphemy against Tue Hony Guost.t
For, if two in number, or three persons,{ bearing witness (to a certain matter) are to be believed, according to the Law|] and the Divine Scripture{— when three Synods (bear witness) pronounce, by the the help of The Triniry, that is to say, when The Triuity Irsenr (bears witness) pronounces, through their (the Synods’) mediation, who would venture to dispute your (Synodical) Judgments by alleging that they are not with justice determined ?4
Convinced myseif, as everybody must be, that this is true and excellent, I have come with this Petition to you; and I hope to be deemed deserving of your support, in my sufferings, seeing that you are appointed of Gop for the purpose of enhancing everybody’s weal.
I am of Syrian origin, and of the City of Anti- och, situate in the East. From my childhood I have loved solitude and to be secluded from the bustle of
* Matthew, xviii, 17. + Matthew, xii, 31 and 32.
t Matthew, xviii, 16. | Deut., xvii, 6; and xix, 15.
§ 2 Corinthians, xiii, 1, &c.
{| Or, perhaps, very literally —* Who (being arraigned) will dare to ‘(contend with) contest those matters you determine, (saying) that they “are not justly condemned ?”’
cc
210 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
business, to pass my life like the Monks, and to feed{ on the Profane Sciences. I have acquired human wisdom enough, seeing men in the world believe in being wise, not to be astonished at their discoveries. I aimed, too, at the acquisition of the knowledge of those Doctrines that are sublime and (exceptionally) perfect—I mean, the Doctrines only of the Holy Scriptures.
Whilst still a youth, not yet hirsute, I enter the Monastery. I found my happiness in entire quietude, poor and sinful being as I am, but I was allowed continually to search into the all-Holy and Divine Books, whereby to attain to that wisdom, which is hidden in Divine and ineffable Mysteries and comparable with which, since tasting it, I have found nothing, nor (comparable with which) anything in the world do I know worthy of ‘love. Wholly devoted to this work, I kept reflecting how I could be useful to myself and, through my instrumentality, to others, whilst by night and by day I used (continually) to be making a Collection of Doctrines, precious to The Truth ; brewing, all the while, in meditation over them,
The word laazo is ecto. ood in external reading doubtless means that he studied the works of Plato, &c. See below. Literally, “The (mental) diet of the Monks and (other) food in reading, external to it, I have been-fond of from my youth up; and I have acquired a small fund of human wisdom as great as that of those whom men of the world deemed wise. I was aware that I should not admire their inventions(a) and I, therefore, made advance that I might specially obtain knowledge of the most sublime and perfect Doctrines—I mean those of the Holy Scriptures.”
(a) That is, the inventions, discoveries, of the worldly wise.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 211
without so* much despairing, in the least, of my insufficiency, as strenethened by love towards Gop. He, however, who is ever wont to envy what is good and excellent (viz, Satan) permitted it not (to continue).
Everyone has heard speak of Theodoret, and everyone knows him as an Adversary of Gov. He and Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, are pronounced Impious Persons, at the City of Alexandria the Capital, by every mouth of the Christ-loving people, and that at a City greater than all others under the Sun, and which, in Religion more than in greatness, is superior to those others. Now this man, who is really a hater of Gop, supercilious and proud, although he had (only) attaimed to (the post of) Bishopt over a small city, that is, a town—-this man Theodoret (I say) has brought upon himself a just resentment (indignation); for, he has tired the Emperor’s ears with the cries of all the people and the complaints (brought in on his account)—this man and Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch aforesaid,
* In the Syriac Text, at p. 129, Il. 26 and 27, [No fam is tocol tos and |;mm came is fo despair. In p. 130, 1. 1, the word eSasaalido, or saad, answers to corroboratus, and |. 3, Feo Pn) to pertulit, and 1. 6, IZo,8c is from | 53; to quarrel, on which see Cas-
tell’s Lexicon, p. 562.
+ In p. 130 of Syriac Text, at 1. 17, c07-4 0.0 is castra Romana, or, rather, Castrum. Mat. Martin says, p. 198, Castrum onomast. vertit épupa. Magn. Etym. caorpor, oyvpwyu, id est, munimentum. Perot. Castrum significat locum, muris munitum: et castello majus est, minus oppido. Castrum a casa deducitur, quod sit conjunctio quedam casarum. In 1, 18, the word {Scouo is Bishop.
212 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
who favours the troubles the other originates, out of a culpable love for the mischievous and impious Doctrine of Nestorius, occupied themselves with war against my peaceful self: and, having filled me with the dread of terrible dangers (impending), they obliged me to a compulsory silence. They made and composed Declarations of Faith, whereby they tormented (annoyed) certain persons of my acquain- tance.1_ They even had the audacity to draw up (a Formulary of Faith) a Creed, according to their own fancy, without the slightest regard for the Synod* preceding this your Holy one, the which, however, has clearly forbidden anyone to presume to write, expound, or compose any Formulat of Faith other than that of the Holy and Blessed Fathers. And they added that I must not discourse on the subject of The Faith openly in the presence of anybody, and that I must not venture in secret to teach (It to) those who are desirous of learning. Theo- doret said (to me, in so many words), without
{| Or— For, they made and dressed up those documents on Oath, in “‘ which they brought charges against some of those persons who were in “ acquaintance with me.”
* The Synod (431 a.p. of Ephesus), 2422, commanded that no man should be permitted either to write, expound, or compose eos beyond the Faith of the Fathers. See Canon vii of this G&cumenical Council.
+ In p. 131, 1. 14, the word e2M0} looks back to QaegS0] in 1. 7, and SAsc], or oS], in I. 1§, which is first person sing., to jo we in |. 3, and is exegetical of this last word. Also, judging from what follows in the text, the second word in |. 16, if the scribe had written with vowels, the full and correct reading would be eee b first pers.
fut. Aph. of capSo,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. ei les
writing it, among the Bishops who were present,—- “ Expound the treatises of Plato and Aristotle, and “ of the Physicians, but by no means approach (touch) “the Scriptures.” And, in accordance with this, they said something of this sort to me— We “ straitly command you not to speak in the Name of
246
“ Jesus. And when they could not inerimi- nate me by any queries of theirs in any accusation —(they did) what nobody ever ventured upon, even in Pagantimes—they concerted (conspired) together to force me to sign (their) document with my own hand, and they constrained me, besides, to confess that | had done so without any compulsion.
They managed? all this with tolerable adroitness —anyone would have said so—so that nobody ever could be able to blame them much.—| How so? it may be asked. |—Did they fear, on this point, any of those who were able to recognize the Error which Nestorius had thrown into the bosom of the Church, and were competent to refute the Impieties he had spread? I donot know ; yet[{I do know one thing}: (viz., this,) that I am conscious of a ready and pow- erful will to do (what is right and good).4
* Acts of Apostles, Chap. iv, 18. They silenced him, he means to say, on religious subjects.
t+ In p. 132, |. 4, the expression asd, | implies the being guilty of acting fraudently, or with great chicanery, Nenee cons a, the being able to rashly reprobate or condemn. The word 24a% is in stat. con- struct. no doubt. The passage is to me not very easy satisfactorily to translate in a literal sense.
{| Perhaps—“ As regards myself, Iam aware of nothing but a ready “and vigorous will (to do what is required ).”
214 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
I, therefore, pray you, and supplicate you, on my knees, O Holy Men !*
(Now) as regards these Bishops who, when once as- sembled together, overwhelmed me with torments, and indignities, and dangers well-nigh exposing me to death, I forgive them, I am silent about them, I pray for them who thus behaved. For, of what use (need) can human vindictiveness be to Christians,— to those, to whose honour nothing so much redounds as to suffer for Christ’s sake ?
‘| Now I ask only one request—one that is suitable and appropriate for your Holy Synod to grant and befitting and proper for me to receive. And what is that ?—(that you) maintain and uphold The Faith of the Holy Fathers, Which (Faith) these men and many more, through their instrumentality, have, in my opinion wanted to deprave, and that you will not allow any Novelty, contrariant to It,to be introduced into It. Loose my tongue for the confession of The Truth, which they, referred to above, out of envy at my peacefulness, have gagged ; and open my mouth for the exposition of Divine Truth (God’s Words), seeing that it is a misfortune that I should be doomed to silence, and that my voice on behalf of Orthodoxy be extinguished (suppressed). If the Holy Fathers were jealoust for the Lord, according to what is
* In l. 12, if eS is by the scribe meant for --S¢, the passage had better be rendered thus: ‘ For this reason I beg and supplicate that you would investigate the conduct of those who assembled some time since.”
q “And all I pray is that only which is suitable.”
+ At 1 Kings, xix, 10, it is jealous for, At 1 Maccab., ii, 27 and
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. paul Ie
written ; Take* unto you now, more so than they did in old time (formerly), the armour of Gop, and transfixT manfully, with the (spear) lancet of the Spirit, the yoke (or the neck) of these false Shepherds, I mean, of those malicious and fierce (devouring) wolves who, under the mask of Shepherd, have cor- rupted the Flocks, in their unwariness, of the Good Shepherd. Effectually smite them who have intro- duced strange Doctrine into the Church and have contaminated the Elect and Precious Race ; and spare not those who have hewn in pieces many Churches, withtheswordof Impiety, like Agag.{ —_ Be like unto Elyah, who, though alone, contended (made war) against so many Priests of Baal and was crowned (victorious) over them by the sentence of fire from Heaven. || Do you, who are so great and worthy an assembly, and a mighty body of Priests, and a holy Battalion—you whose war is against two or scarcely more than two, that have sprung from two; armed, too, with tongues of Fire and of
26, and 30, it is zealous of. * J Eiph.aviy) 0 2yande 13
{| Perhaps we may translate this sentence thus—‘ T'ransfix manfully, “ with the sword of the Spirit, the couple (Domnus and Theodoret) of “these false Shepherds.” The Syriac word for couple means neck lite- rally, but my friend Martin says it can signify soc (plough-share) et p/aine ou champ labouré (field worked in). But this appears to me not to har- monise with the metaphor used.
{+ Eph., vi, 17.
ti) the same. word. for (“hewn iin) pieces,” inp.) 133, I ro, is used in I Sam., xv, 33, in Syriac O. T, to which reference is made.
| 1 Kings, xviii, 19-40. In I. 24, CSS: Ory) Sosa Zt was ‘ pronounced victorious by the heavenly sentence of fire that fell upon them.”
216 THK SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven*— do you burn those who have dared to mix strange fires and error, those who hold the Doctrine of Nestorius and who give licence, though an unsound one, to like-thinkers with him. Burn him who surreptitiously concealed letters, (Synodical) that treated of matters relating to The Faith, of the Church of Alexandria and the (Presiding) head of this Holy Synod, when the bearers of them had been sent to him; and although the guardians of them reminded him that it was only right and proper for him to read them out in the Church, (yet) he refused to do this, but demurred, through attachment to the Impious Irenzeus; and reluctantly did he, after compulsion by the Imperial Authority, consecrate an- other in his (Irenzeus’s)+ place by the Imposition of hands, so that the Vine of Sodom might perpetually sprout and many drink of the deadly wine which these artful Cultivators manipulate for the destruc- tion (of mankind).
However, the anger of God did not wait long ; for, beholding them who, having so drunk, became undone and lost, He commanded that there should take place (this) your Assembly who are true Cultivators, so that, when you apply the true
* See Acts, ti, and 2 Kings, i, 5-12. In p. 134, 1. 6, -me—wasd het erd cia apes], We may render thus—(Yes, burn) those who are taken up with the Doctrine of Nestorius, and inspire a false confidence in those who think like them.
+ It is clear from this that Irenzus was consecrated Bishop by the
Archbishop Domnus. More about this further on.
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 217
energy of love, you may accomplish the work of purification for Him, Who has put you in trust, not only when you cut off branches, but also when you utterly remove from the very root all this death-clad vine, by the exercise of the power entrusted to you by the Lord “to root out”* and to “set free.”* For, by this means, you “build up and plant”* trustfulness in believing Nations (Peoples).
That is the wisht (object) of this your Holy Synod.
With this intent you have been convoked by Gop to be a company (battalion) of The Hory Sprrir.—The Body of the Church has need of the help (hand) of the Lord, because of having been sorely devoured by evil (the wicked).
For this purpose have you all been gathered together in this place: (viz.) in order that you may establish One “ Glorious Church, having neither spot “nor blemish.”
Thus you will, for a second time, deliver and purify It by the power of The Truth, whereby you will present It to the whole earth under Heaven, not as disgraced and calumniated by Heretics, but as One invested with the Heavenly and Apostolic Glory—the Doctrine of the Alone True Religion.4
Now we have witnesses to prove the Innovation
* Jeremiah, i, 10. + This is what should have been the object of the great Eutychian and other parties connected with the Council. t Cicatrix, scar. See Ephesians, Chap. v, 27. q Or, “as still reviled.” 4 Literally, “The Doctrine of The Religion in one (only) Form.” DD
218 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
upon The Faith, made by those mentioned above ; and, if your Holy Synod command it, we can at once produce (some of) them, although we could not possibly trouble many of them to come hither in consequence of the great distance (length of time).
Praaius, Presbyter of Antioch, said :-—
We have, likewise, a Volume written by Theodoret against the first Holy CGicumenical Synod held in this place, and against a former Treatise com- posed by the Blessed Cyril: and, with it, another Book, also, which he (Theodoret) wrote against him afresh, after he had communicated with the Blessed
Cyril.*
Dioscorvs, the Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Let Pelagius, the Presbyter, produce the Volume,
and the Book lately written by Theodoret, that he has offered to show.
Joun, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :—
Copy of a Letter to the Monks against the God- fearing Bishop Cyril and against the Holy and Cicumenical Synod of Ephesust :—
When I survey the present condition (order) of the Church, and the tempest that has (so) lately risen upon the pure Bark, and the fierce storms of © the winds, and the violence of the waves, and the profound darkness; and, along with these, the
* See Vol. I, p. 320, and Appendix H in this Vol. + See the end of this celebrated Letter.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 919
quarrels, also, of those on board,* and the contentions of persons appointed to serve as Priests,t and the insobriety of the Pilots—in fine, (when I survey) the entire blackness of the calamity, I am reminded of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and with him I exclaim—‘“ My inside pains me, and my _heart’s ‘affections try me, and my soul is dissolved with “my heart, and I eagerly implore and desire, by the “means of the tears of my eyes, to drive away the “magnitude of grief.”{ For, whilst it is befitting and proper that, in this cruel winter, the crew (sailors) should be watchful and contend with the storm, and that they should be anxious for the safety of the Ship, and that the sailors should desist from conten- tions with each other, and, by prayer and by skill, aim at averting the evil (misfortunes), and the passen- gers sit peacefully, quarrelling neither with each other nor with the sailors, but should supplicate the Lord of the sea to change, by His will, the sad state of affairs, none of these things, forsooth, is anybody willing to do; but, as if it were a battle in the night, we throw one another into confusion and, leaving our adver- saries, we both turn all these weapons against ourselves and kill our own comrades as if they were the foes in (actual) antagonism with us, whilst parties standing in our very neighbourhood laugh at (the
* In p. 137 of Syriac Text, 1. 1, the word 20259 those who are sailing, the passengers, not the crew, as we learn from |. 15, where it occurs with ¢a>d\a, which future verb is used at Matthew, xx, 21.
+ It is épérrew in the Greek, remigare.
{ Lamentations, iv, Ig.
220 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
mode of) our warfare, and are delighted at our misfortunes, and rejoice as they witness our ruination of one another (our mutual destruction).*
Now, the cause of these misfortunes are persons who have striven to deprave The True and Apostolic Fairu and have dared to add to the Doctrines of the Gospel any teaching whatsoevert antagonistic to It, and have received those Impious Chapters, with the Anathematismns, of Cyril,t which they sent to the Im- perial City after having confirmed them, as they supposed, by their own subscriptions.
These (Chapters and Anathematisms) have mani- festly sprung from the bitter root of Apollinarius. They are, moreover, participative of the Blasphemies of Ariusand Eunomius.|| Further, whoever chooses to investigate the matter with accuracy will perceive that they are not far removed from the Impiety of Valentinus, and Manes, and Marcion.
For; in the 1st Chapter, he (Cyril) repudiates the INCARNATION, Which took place for our sake, by teaching that GOD did not assume Human Narurg, but was changed into Flesh, affirming that the IN- CARNATION of our Repremer existed only in
appearance and fantasy, and not in reality, which
* In]. 27, e220, cut with a sword,
+ Literally, so» | pal is whatever it be, in |. 4, but (OM ga| or COT pal is their hand.
t For S. Cyril’s Chapters see p. 112.
| This is the great Heresiarch who denied that Jesus Christ is “ God of God, Very Gop of Very Gop, &c.,”? and was condemned at the Council of Nica in 325 a.p., and Eunomius, made Bishop of Cizycum in 360 4.D., was a great supporter of Arianism.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Zork
notions, however, are the offspring of the Impiety of Marcion, and Manes, and Valentinus.*
But in the 2nd Chapter and the 3rd, as if forget- ting what he put at the beginning, he introduces an Hypostatic (Personal) Union and a Concursus, con- stituting a Physical Union ; teaching by these terms a commixture and a con-fusion of the Divine Nature and of the Likeness of a Servant.t
Now this is the offspring of the Heresy of Apolli- narius,
But in the 4th Chapter he rejects the distinction of the terms of the Gospel and of the Apostles, and does not suffer us to take those terms according to the teaching of the Orthodox Fathers, and apply to His Nature those which are proper to GOD, but (he wants) that we should attach to the Human Nature, assumed by Him, those of a humble kind, and that are spoken by Christ in a human way.‘
Hence, then, persons of a sound way of thinking become able to (trace) discern the Relationship of the Impiety.t For, Arius and Eunomius, in speak- ing of the Only-Begotten Son of GOD, as a
* These were great Heresiarchs in the Second and Third Centuries.
+ In p. 139, l. 1, possibly the right reading 1s, ies a servant, slave. But the word |, occurs again in line 14, and is effectum, a thing made. « A fusion of the Divine Nature and of the Form of a Slave. This, “then, has its origin in the Heresy of Apollinarius.”
{ Or, perhaps,—‘ According to the teaching of the Orthodox “ Fathers, he does not allow us to take those terms and to apply those “ concerning His Nature which are proper to God, and to attach to the «Human Nature assumed by Him those of a humble kind and that are “ spoken in a human way.”
{ Namely, that it sprang from Arius.
222 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“creature”* and as “ that which once was not”* and as “a thing made,”* dared to apply to the Divinity of Christ* those mean, humble, properties belonging to Humanity and spoken of as (proper to) Man, making thereby a diversity of Essence and a Dis- similarity.
Besides, to be brief, he (Cyril) affirms of the DIVINITY of Christ,—Impassible and Im- mutable — that IT both suffered and was cru- cified and died, (which is) a doctrine that-surpasses even the folly of Arius and of Eunomius. For, they who venture to call the Maker and Framer of the Universe a Creature never proceeded to such a height of Impiety (as that).
He (Cyril), likewise, blasphemes against the Hoty Guost, when he affirms that He does not proceed really from the Farunr, according to the word of our Lord, but that He derives His Essence from the Son.
Now this is fruit, produced from the seed of Apollinarius, whilst it also approaches the evil work of Marcion.
Sucu are Egyptian products—in truth, the more evil offspringe—of an evil Sire.
Now those, whose businesst is exercised in the healing of the soul, ought either to have rendered
* See Appendix K. Perhaps better—*“ those humble expressions, ‘and which were spoken by Christ in a human way.”
+ “Those,” that is, the Chief Pastors of the Church who are the soul- healers, or, rather, the under Physicians or Healers of men’s souls who act with authority from the Chief Physician and Healer,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. IAS
these things abortive when conceived, or, when brought forth, to have destroyed them, because they corrupt and (bring) a deadly poison into our Na- ture. (Instead of that, however,) they keep nur- turing* them and deeming them worthy of immense solicitude, to their own injury and to that of those who are induced to give ear to them. But, so far as we are concerned, we do our endeavour to pre- serve the Inheritance of the Fathers intact, and The Faith we have received (inviolate), with which (Faith) we do baptize and have been baptized and which we do keep spotless and pure; and we con- fess our Lord Jesus is PERFECT GOD and PER- FECT MAN,t+ of a reasonable Soul and Body subsisting: Who, as to His Divinity, was begotten of The Father before the Worlds; but, in the latter times, the Same was, as regards His Humanity, for us and for our Salvation, born of the Virgin Mary —-Co-essential with the Father as to His Diviv- iry, and Con-substantial with us as to His Humanity. For, a Union took place{ of the Two Natures.
For this reason we acknowledge One Curist, One Son, One Lorn; for, we do not dissolve the Union, but we believe the Union was made
* The Metaphor adopted in the first clause is continued, and the word @a 550/18 Pa., from [> 5, nutrivit, educavit. “They with great power “ bring them up and deem them worthy of great care..
+ These are the same words as appear in the Quicunque vult.
t Took place is the rendering of the Syriac equivalent to q¢yvopar, factus sum, in the third person.
224 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
without confusion, being assured (of this) by the Lord, Who said to the Jews:—“ Destroy this Temple “and the third day I will raise It up again.”* But, if commixture had taken place, and confusion, and One Nature formed out of those two, then it had been fitting and proper for him to have said:—“ Dis- “solve Me, and the third day I will rise again.”
But now, in order to show that the One is GOD by Nature and that the Other is the Temple, and that the two constitute Onz Christ, He said:—“ Dissolve “this Temple, and the third day I will raise It up “again;’* clearly indicating that it is not GOD, but the Temple that was subject to dissolution, and that the Nature of the One was compatible with dissolution ; but, as to the Other, (it was) His Power that raised up what was dissoluble. So, we confess Christ to be GOD and Man, following (therein) the Divine Scriptures. For, that our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, the Blessed Evangelist St. John pro- claims (thus) :—“In the beginning was The Word, ‘and The Word was with GOD, and The Word was “GOD. He was in the beginning with GOD. All “was made by Him, and without Him was not any- “thing made.”t And again:—‘ He is the True “ Light, enlightening every man that cometh into the “world.”{ But the Lord Himself manifestly teaches (this), when he says :—“ Whosoever sees Me, sees
“My Father ;’|| and:—“I and My Father are
* John, ii, 19. + John, 4/2 t John, i, 9. || John, xiv, 9.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 925
“ One;”* and :-—“ IT aminThe Father and The Father “isin Me.’t And the Blessed Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, said :—‘ Who is the Brightness of “His Glory and the Image (Impress) of His ‘“‘ Being (Essence), and Who upholds all things by “the power of His Word.”{ And in that to the Philippians (he said) :—‘“ Let this mind be “in you which was, also, that of Jesus Christ Who, although He was the Form of GOD, “ (yet) He did not think it robbery to be the counter- “part of (equal with) GOD ; but emptied (divested) “ Himself, taking the Form of a Servant.”|| And, in that to the Romans, he said:—‘ Whose are the “ Fathers, of whom, according to the Flesh, is Christ, “Who is over all, the Blessed GOD.”§ Also, in that to Titus:—“ Hoping for the announcement of “the Blessed Revelation of the Great GOD and our
* John, x;.30: f John; ¥1 35.5; xiv, TO, Ui: xvi, 2023:
t Heb., i, 3. Bishop Andrews, I think, translates this verse in the Greek N. T., thus :—‘ The brightness of His Father's glory, the very “character of His substance, the Heire of all things, by Whom Hee ‘‘ made the world.” Brightness, splendour, effulgence of His Father’s Glory, as a ray is of the Sun, helps to explain the description—Light of Light—in the Nicene Creed; and the Image of His Essence, or the Impress or character of His Being, destroys the Anomzan notion of Eunomius and his Co-thinkers who denied the Likeness of the Second Person to the First of The Trinity, as well as His Consubstantiality. Bishop Wordsworth, in his Greek N. T., at p. 380, points out that in this passage the Apostle declares the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son. (ot Phila, 5,6, 7, 10 1san IN. d, — pre-existent in the form or condition of God.
§ Rom., ix, 5. Bp. Wordsworth, at p. 247 of his N. T., shows that this passage distinctly asserts our Lord’s Jncarnation, His Existence from Everlasting, His Supremacy, His Divinity, and His claim to be called The Blessed One, and provides “a safeguard, not only against So- “cinianism and Anianism, but also against Nestorianism, by declaring “that God and Man are One Christ.”
EE
226 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“ Saviour Jesus Christ.”* Isaiah, too, exclaims: —“ A Child is born to us and a Son is given to us, —‘ He Whose power is upon His shoulder; and His “Name shall be called the Messenger of the Great “Covenant, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the “Mighty GOD, the Powerful Ovz, the Prince of “ Peace, the Father of the future world.”t And elsewhere he said: —“ After Thee shall they walk— “they who are bound with chains: and unto Thee “shall they pray, because GOD is in Thee and there “ig no GOD beside Thee ; for, Thou art truly GOD “and we knew it not,—GOD the Redeemer of “ Israel.”} But the Name of Immanuel signifies GOD and Man;; for, it is explained, according to the Doctrine of the Gospel, as ‘““ GOD with us,”|| that is, GOD in Man, GOD in our Nature.
Also, Jeremiah, the Divine prophet, proclaims it, when he says:—‘“‘He is our GOD, and no others are to “be regarded in comparison with Him. He hath dis- “ covered all the way of knowledge and hath deliv- “ered it to Jacob His Servant and to Israel His “Beloved. Afterwards was He seen upon the ‘earth and held converse with the sons of men.”§
And thousands of other expressions any one may cull from the Divine Evangelists, and from the Wri- tings of the Apostles, and from the Prophecies of
* Titus, i, 14. + elsarah,s 6s
$ Isaiah, xlv, 13. The variations, great and small, between such passages as this, or rather their translation from Syriac into English, and the English Version of the Bible will be observed.
|| Mat., 1, 23. § Baruch, ii, 36-38.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 99,7
the Prophets, proving that our Lord Jesus is VERY GOD. But that He is, also, named Man after the INCARNATION, the Lord Himself teaches, when discoursing with the Jews, and exclaiming—“ Why “do ye want to kill Me—a Man Who hath spoken to “you true things ?”* And the Blessed Paul, in the first Letter to the Corinthians, (teaches it), when he says:—“ Since through man (came) death, through “man also came the Resurrection of the Dead.”t And, in showing concerning Whom he is speaking, he explains what has been spoken, after this manner: —‘ Asin Adam all men are dead, so in Christ all “of them live.”{ In writing to Timothy, also, he said:—‘“There is only Onn GO D-—Onz Mediator, also, “of GOD and Men—The MAN Christ Jesus.”|| In the Acts of the Apostles, also, when he is address- ing the Athenians, (Paul says):—-“ GOD, then, having “ over-looked the times of ignorance, now commands “us all, in every quarter, to repent, since He. has “appointed a time when He will judge the world “in righteousness by That Man Whom He hath “appointed, affording good faith thereof to all men “in that He hath raised Him from the Dead.’§ The Blessed Peter, too, in preaching to the Jews, said:—‘‘ Men of Israel! hear these words: Jesus of “Nazareth, a Man that appeared (is revealed) from “GOD among you by signs, and wonders, and powers “which GOD wrought by Him.”**
~ * John, vii, 19, and John, viii, 40. + 1 Cor, xv, 21.
diy Oks RV, 22. PR aed Dinca eae rae § Acts, xvil, 30, 31. Sr) Acctosntty i 22,
228 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
And the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the sufferings of Christ, Whom a little before he had named GOD— Him he calls a man, thus speaking:—“ A Man Who “is one of stripe and knows how to bear sickness, “Who bears our sins and hath suffered for our gales:
But many other similar expressions to these testi- monies I should continue to cull from the Divine Writings, and insert the min this letter, were I not‘ persuaded of your Piety, that your mode of life in this world consists in meditation on the Divine Scriptures, like the man who, by the Psalmist, is designated “ Blessed.”
Leaving, then, to your industry the collecting of the proofs, I pass on to my subject (to that which is set before me).
We confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be Very GOD and Very May, not dividing the ONE (Christ) into two Persons, but we believe that the Two Natures are united without confusion.
By that means are we easily able to refute the many vain Blasphemies of the Heretics ; for, mani- fold and varied is the error of those who have opposed The Truth, as we, also, forthwith (now) show. For, Marcion, and Valentinus, and Manes deny that GOD The Word took the Nature of Man- hood; nor do they believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin, but that GOD The
* Isaiah, liti, 3. q Jiterally—* had not been persuaded of “the piety that is in you, that its mode of life in this world consists in *‘ meditation in the Divine Scriptures.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 929
Word was born in the manner (Form) of the semblance of Man and appeared as Man in Phantasy rather than in reality.* [ | But Sabellius, the Libyan, and Photinus, and Mar- cellus of Galatia, and Paul of Samosata, affirm that a mere man was born of the Virgin, since they evidently deny that Christ is, also, GOD before the worlds. Arius and Eunomius, likewise, contend that GOD The Word took body only from the Virgin, but Apollinarius, also, addsto the body an irra- tional soul, just as if the INCARNATION of GOD The Word took place for beings destitute, rather than for those possessed, of reason ; but the Doctrine of the Apostle teaches us that PERFECT MAN was assumed by PERFECT GOD. For, this sen- tence reveals it —(viz.,) “He Who is the Form of GOD “assumed the Form of a Servant,”+ because Form or figure is here substituted for Nature and Essence. That sentence indicates, then, that, whilst he had the Nature of Gop, He took the Nature of a Servant. Therefore, when speaking of the Prime Inventors of Impiety—Marcion, and Manes, and Valentinus— we are anxious to prove, from the Divine Scriptures,
* According to Migne’s Patrologie Cursus, a paragraph, contained in the original Letter of Theodoret, must be omitted by the Scribe here. It is this :—
Valentinianus et Bardesanes nativitatem quidem admittunt, sed negant nostre nature: assumptionem, et aiunt Filium DEI tanquam canali aliquo Virgine
usum esse. + Philip., ii, 6, 7. Pre-existing in the manner or form of Gop,
230 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only GOD, but Man also. On the other hand, when we would refute the Impiety of Sabellius, and Marcellus, and Pho- tinus, and of Paul, should we not have recourse to the testimony of the Scriptures to show that our Lord Christ is not Man only, but GOD before the worlds and Co-essential (Consubstantial) with the Father ?
As regards, again, the Doctrine of Arius, and Kunomius, and Apollinarius on the subject of the IN- CARNATION, we prove It to the uninitiated (ig- norant) to be imperfect, by showing, by the words of the Holy Ghost, that a Perfect Nature was assumed by The Word. For, that He took a reasonable soul our Lord Himself teaches, where He says:—‘“ Now “is My Soul troubled !” and in what He said: —“ 0, “My Father! deliver Me from this hour, but to “this hour have I come forthis.* . . . My Soul “is sorrowful, even unto death ;’+ and in another place:—“ I have the power of laying down My Soul, “and I have the power of taking It again. No man “taketh It away from Me.”t The Angel, too, said to Joseph:—“ Take the Lad and His Mother “and go into the land of Israel; for, they are dead “who sought the Soul of the Lad.”|| And the Evangelist, likewise, said:—‘“ And Jesus continued “to increase in stature and wisdom, and in favour “with GOD and man.”§ Now, THAT did not in-
* John, xii, 27. + Mat., xvi, 38. ge OND, kX, Wb. ||. Mat., ii, 20. § CLakeyi,e52.))
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. ri AL
crease in stature and wisdom Which is perfect at all times, but That Human Nature which took being in time, and increased, and came to perfection. And, therefore, all those properties of Humanity in reality appertain to our Lord Jesus Christ-—I mean hunger, thirst, and fatigue, and sleep, and sweating, and prayer, and want of knowledge, and fear, and all similar things—things such as we speak of as spe- cially appertaining to ourselves, to which, on GOD The Word accepting them, He appropriated to Him- self, when purchasing our Redemption; but the giving ability to the lame to walk again, the raising of the dead, and the multiplication of bread, and the changing water into wine, and all those other won- derful works we believe to be works proper to the power of GOD, so that This Same Christ our Lord could, I affirm, suffer and dissolve (those) sufferings: He could, in truth, suffer, and in that which was visible (to us) : and He could in truth dissolve these sufferings by That Divinity, Which, in a manner ineffable, dwelt in Him.
Now, this, also, the narrative of the Holy Evan- gelists distinctly declares: for, we learn from them that, when He was lain in the crib, whilst confined in swaddling clothes, by the star He was announced, by the Maji worshipped, and glorified by the Angels.* It is with reason that we make a distinction (be- tween these things, some from others): His being‘ The Infant, and the swaddling clothes, and the
* Matthew, ii; Luke, ii. | (The fact of ) His being.
232 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
meanness of the bed, and all the (circumstances of) poverty—these we have as things proper to His HU- MANITY : whilst the journeying of the Maji, and the guidance of the star, and the Choir of the Angels proclaim the DIVINITY of Him, “ Who hideth “ Himself.”*
In the same way He flees into Egypt, and, by the flight, escapes the wrath of Herod ;+ for, He was Man. But it was as GOD that He shakes the Idolst of Egypt ; for, He was GOD.
Being circumcised he observes the Law, and offers the sacrifices of Purification ;|| for, from the root of Jesse§ did He spring, and He was under the Law** as Man; but, afterwards dissolved the Law and gave the New Covenant : for, He was the Law- Maker, and, by His Prophets, had promised to give the Law.
He was baptised by John, and that argues His being one of us. But He was testified to, from Above, by the Father, and was manifested by the Holy Spirit, and that proclaims Him to be before the worlds. He hungered, but He also satisfied many thousands with five loaves of bread—this is a property of DIVINITY and that of HUMANITY. He thirsted and asked for water, but He was the Foun- tain of Life. The one, indeed, appertained to Human infirmity, but the other to Divine Power. He slept
in the ship, but He also quelled the storm of the sea—that belonged to a suffering nature, but this
* Jsaiah, xlv, 15; liv, 8; &c. + Matthew, ii, 14, 15. } Isaiah, xix, I. || Luke, 11, 21-24. § Isaiah, xi, I, 10. ** Galatians, iv, 4.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. yep"
to a creative and formative Power that bestowed upon every man his existence. He was wearied with exertion in walking, but He, also, caused the lame tobe swift* of foot, and He raisedt the dead from the grave —this is, 1indeed, a Power above (over) the worlds, but that isl proper to our infirmity. He feared death, but he abolished{ (loosed) death—the one was an in- dication of mortality; the other of immortality, be- sides being an indication that He gives Life. ‘“ He “was crucified,”|| according to the Doctrine of the Blessed Paul, “through weakness, but He lives by “the power of GOD.” That term ‘‘weakness” should teach us that not He, Who is Omnipotent, and Incom- prehensible, and Invariable, and Immutable, was affixed (to the Cross) by nails, but That Nature Which, by the power of GOD, took being in life, ac- cording to the Doctrine of His Apostle. He died and was buried—two characteristics these of the Form of a Servant. “The gates of brass He “ crushed into pieces, and brake the bars of iron,”S and overthrew the Empire of Death, and, on the third day, caused the Temple (of His Body) to rise again —these are proofs of the Form of GOD, according to the teaching of our Lord when He said: “ Destroy this “Temple, and the third day I will raise It up again.” **
Thus in Christ, by means of the Passion, we perceive, indeed, HUMANITY ; but, by means
* Lit. swift of leg. + John, xi, 44.
4] In these lines, “is”? I prefer to ‘ was,” as also in the previous page, the expressions “ He is circumcised,” |. 11, and “a Law-Maker,” |. 15.
2) Uae 1 DO li 2? Come sinter as
§ Isaiah, xlv, 2; Psalm, cvii, 16. ** John, ii, 19.
FF
234 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of his wonderful works, we desery His DIVINITY (DEITY), not that we divide the Two NATURES into Two CHRISTS; but we discern. the Two NATURES to exist in ONE CHRIST, and are per- suaded, as well, that GOD The WORD was be- gotten of the Father, as that He, Who is our beginning, is derived from Abraham and David. For this reason, also, it is that the Blessed Paul said, in discoursing about Abraham :—“ He said not of “Thy seeds (descendants), as of many, but as of one, and of Thy seed (descendant) which is Christ.”* And, in writing to Timothy, he said:—‘‘ Remember “that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, rose from “the dead, according to my Gospel.”t And, in writing to the Romans, he said:—“ Concerning His “ Son, Who was born of the seed of David according “to the flesh.”+ And again:—‘ Whose are the “Fathers, of whom is the Christ according to the “ flesh.” || And the Evangelist (says):— “The “Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ the Son “of David, the Son of Abraham.”’§ And the Blessed Peter, in the Acts:--‘A Prophet truly “(he said) was David; and, knowing that GOD “had sworn to him with oaths that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would “raise up Christ and cause Him to sit upon His
“Throne, he foresaw and spake concerning His Re- “ surrection.”**
* Gal, iii, 16. STi, os
{ Rom., i, 3. | Rom,, ix, 5.
§ Mat., i, 1. 1H” Acts, dC,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 935
And GOD spake to Abraham:—“ In thy seed, in- “deed, shall all the nations of the Earth be “ blessed.”
And Isaiah (says):——“‘ There shall come forth a “ Rod out of the root of Jesse, and a Sucker shall “orow up out of his root, and the Spirit of GOD “shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of Wisdom and “ Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might, “the Spirit of Knowledge and of the Fear of the “Lord. The Spirit of Godly Fear shall fill him.”t
{AND A LITTLE APTER:—
“ There shall arise a Root of Jesse, and He that shall “stand fora Head to the Gentiles, and in Him shall “the Gentiles hope ; and His rest shall be glorious.” |
It is, therefore, evident from what has now been said that Christ, according to the flesh, is the Son of Adam and David, and that He is clothed with their nature; but that, by reason of His Divinity, He existed before the worlds, as the Son of GOD and The WORD, Who was, in a manner ineffable and beyond human ken, born of THE FATHER, and is Co-eternal with Him, as (His) Brightness, as (His) _ Image, and (as His) Word. For, as word is united with mind and brightness with light, from which it cannot be separated, so is The Only Begotten SON, also, (united) with HIS FATHER.
We, therefore, affirm of our Lord Jesus Christ that He is The Only Begotten of GOD, and
* Gen., xxii, 18. 4; Jisaialy oxy 0425.12.
{ These words in the MS. are in red, as if the Notary in reading the Letter to the Synod had purposely omitted something. _|| Isaiah, xi, 10.
236 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
The First Begotten — The Only Begotten, as- suredly, before the INCARNATION and after the INCARNATION ; but The First Begotten after being born of the Virgin. or, to The Only Begotten The First Born] seems to be the contradistinction, because The Only Begotten is (so) named Who Alone is born of any substance (essence), and The First Born is He Who is the first of many brethren. Now, asregards GOD The WORD, Who Alone was born of the Father, the Holy Scrip- tures teach that The Only Begotten became, also, The - First Born when He took our nature of the Virgin and deemed them worthy of being called His brethren who believed in Him, so that the same (person) could be in reality The Only Begotten in that He was GOD, and The First Born in that He was Man.
It is thus that we, confessing the Two Natures, worship The ONE Christ and offer up the One Wor- ship to Him; for, we believe that the Union (of the Two Natures) was effected, by the Conception liself, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin: and, therefore, we speak of the Holy Virgin, as being both Mother of GOD and Mother of Man; for which reason, also, our Lord Jesus Christ is called, by the Divine Scriptures, GOD and Man: but does not (the name of) Immanuel, in this way, proclaim the Union (One-ness) of the Two Natures ?
If, then, we designate Christ GOD and Man, who is so stupid as to ery out against the term
4] Or, perhaps,—The first begotten,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 237
‘Mother of Man” when put in juxtaposition with that of “ Mother of GOD?” For, if we assign two names to our Lord Jesus Christ, on Whose account the Virgin is honoured and is called Blessed among women, what person is there, of a proper state of mind, who would refuse to call the Virgin by the ap- pellatives of our Redeemer, seeing that it is on His account that She is honoured by Believers? for, not HE, Who (was born) of Her, is, for Her sake, wor- shipped; but She, on account of HIM Who is of Her, is exalted by most lofty appellations.
If, however, Christ is GOD only and received from the Virgin a Beginning of His Essence, from that circumstance the Virgin should be named and called the Mother of GOD only, since in that case she brought forth GOD only.
But, if Christ is both GOD and Man—and He was indeed ever that (the first); for, He had no begin- ning, since He is Co-eternal with His Father, whilst the other (Man), in the last days, He took from hu- man nature—a person, who would teach from these two, must weave appellatives for the Virgin, indica- ting which is proper and appropriate to the Nature, and which to the Union of the Two Natures. If, however, any person is desirous of giving utterance to panegyrics, and of spinning out encomial sentences, and pronouncing orations of Praise, and wants only to make use of magniloquent terms, not in disputa- tion, as we said, but in panegyrizing, let him, asto- nied, as is possible, at the magnitude of the Mystery,
938 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
call her whatever he likes, let him use the very highest, let him praise, let him wonder. For, many expressions, similar to these, have I found in Orthodox Doctors. Everywhere, however, let moderation be preferred; for, I highly regard the man who asserts moderation to be best, and that, although he may not be of our flock.
This is the Confession of the Church’s Faith. This is the Doctrine of The Faith of the Gospel and Apostles. For thiswe refuse not three times and many times, by the aid of the Grace of GOD, todie. These things we have been ready to teach even to those now in error; and frequently have we challenged them to discussion, being anxious to show them THE TRUTH, but they have not consented ; for, fearing their evident refutation, they have refused the contest. For, truly weak is (falsity) Error, and it is con- joined with Darkness, as it is said that:—“ Everyone “that doeth evil cometh not to the Light, lest his “deeds should be made manifest by the Light.”*
In consequence, then, of our not inducing them, after having made great exertions for it, to acknow- ledge The Truth, we returned to our Churches sad- dened and gladdened—gladdened, inasmuch as we acted inerrantly, and saddened because of the cor- ruption of (some of) our members.
I, therefore, pray your Holiness with all your soul to supplicate our Merciful Lord, and to exclaim to Him:—“O Lord! spare Thy people, and give not
* John, tii, 20.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 239
“Thine Heritage to reproach.”* ‘QO Lord! feed us “as (our) Shepherd lest we come at last to be ‘‘what we were at first, when we acknowledged “no Head and Thy Name was not invoked over “us. O Lord! behold us a scorn to our neigh- “bours, a derision, and a by-word to those that “are round about us;’t because depraved teachings have entered into Thine Inheritance and have polluted Thy Holy Temple; and the daughters of strangers rejoice over our calamities, because we are divided into many tongues—we who, here- tofore, have been of one tongue (language). O Lord! our GOD! grant us a tongue which we have lost through neglecting Thy commandments. O Lord! our GOD! take possession of us. O Lord! beside Thee we know no other—we call on Thy Name. Make of us two one, and dissolve the middle wall of partition, even the Impiety which has arisen. Gather us together, one by one, even The New Israel which is Thine. Build up Jerusalem and assemble (reunite) the dispersed of Israel. Let there be again only One Fold and let us all be fed of Thee; for, “Thou “ art the Good Shepherd,—He W ho laid down His life “for Hissheep.”t “Awake, why sleepest Thou, O “Lord? Arise and reject (cast off) us not for ever!”| “ Rebuke the winds of the sea, and give Peace to Thy “ Church, and the stilling of the waves.”§
{| Or, “the peace which, &c.,” ifthe right reading be the word (reac with \. for its object. * Joel, ii, 17. t Psalms, xliv, 13, 143; Ixxix, 4.
£ John; x,'11. | Psalm, xliv, 23.
§ Mat., viii, 26; Psalms, cvii, 29; Ixv, 7; Ixxxix, 9.
240 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
These prayers and similar ones I beseech your Piety to utter to the GOD of All; for, since He is Good and Merciful, and ever desirous of granting the prayer of those who fear Him, He will hear your Petition, and disperse this darkness (now) imminent, which is even blacker than (that of) the Egyptian plague, and will bestow that Peace which from Him is so gracious, and will gather together the dispersed, and will receive the outcast.
Then, again shall be heard “the voice of Praise and Salvation” “in the dwelling of the Righteous.” Then, we, too, shall exclaim to Him—‘“ Thou hast made us “glad by reason of the days of our humiliation and “the years when we experienced these afilictions.””
You, likewise, having obtained your request, in praising Him, will say—‘“ Blessed is GOD Who hath “not disregarded our Prayer, nor (withheld) His “ Grace from us.”+
* Psalm, xc, 15. + Psalm, Ixvi, 20.
Compare this magnificent specimen of Catholic Theology with the celebrated Anathemas of S. Cyril, at p. 112, and the difference will appear, I think, infinitesimal, except on one point. But the fact of Theodoret’s having written against Cyril—the pregnant expression of the latter about there being only one Nature of our Incarnate Lord, with- out any explanation of it, would warrant both Theodoret and Bishop Ibas in writing against him—sufficed alone for his enemies to accuse and arraign him. 7See Appendix H, in Vols. I and II.
The Greek Letter will be found in Migne’s Cursus (Paris, 1859), beginning thus :—Ocodwprros mpos Tous év TH Ethparycia, kat Oopoy- VN, Kae Lupia, Kat Powwixey, Kae Kiarkia pov ov TAS.
Opav tyv év TO TaporTt KaipO Tis "ExKkAyoias Kardoracw, &c. Respicienti mihi presentem Ecclesiz conditionem, et procellam que nuper in divinam navem surrexerit, &c. (From Col. 1,415 to Col.
1,434. Series Greca, Tom. 83. Theodoretus Cyr. Epis. IV.) See, also, Mansi’s Nova et amplissima Collectio, Tom. 5, p. 1,023, seq.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS, yeh
(4| (a) Joun, Presbyter and Prime-Notary, said :—
The book, presented by Pelagius, the Presbyter, bears upon it the following Title : —“ An Apology of “ Theodoret, Bishop, on behalf of Diodorus and “ Theodorus, Warriors for the (True) Religion.”
The Hony Sywnop said :
That alone suffices for his Deposition, for which the Great Emperor has already given orders, so that, if anything were said relative to Theodoret against his deposition, it would be possible for even Nestorius to find an abetter,*
(b) Jouy, Presbyter and Prime-Notary, read (ex- tracts) from a Book (Treatise) of Theodoret :—
“ And what shall I say about the Athenians, (so) particularly addicted to the worship of Demons ? “The Divine Peter himself, when discoursing to “the Jews, did not designate our Lord Jesus Christ “ (as) GOD, whilst he even extended hist address “about Him in reference to His being MAN.”
cc
* ‘The undue bias and readiness of the Synod to return a verdict unfavourable to the person at the bar is remarkable: for, no sooner does the Assessor say that the MS. of Pelagius bears this Inscription— “‘ Bishop Theodoret’s Apology of Diodore and Theodore, Champions “of God”—than the Assembly cried out :—‘ That is enough to get “« Theodoret deposed ; for, the Emperor has said that to refuse to depose “him would be to support Nestorius.” In this sentence, probably, allu- sion is made to the Imperial Document (8) above, p. 8.
+ The pronoun in, MANSON, his word, p- 159, |. 3, shows that tise cannot mean The Divine Word (for He is not Peter’s Word)
but his discourse to the Jews. Literally :—dut even he also (Peter ) put forth bis word of Him (i,e., spake of Him) as of a man.
GG
242 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(c) Another extract from the same Treatise :—
“ As regards the entire Deed (writing) of Arraign- “ment, he has filled it with expressions like these, “ (viz): ‘He (Christ) did not take (upon Himself) Man.’ “ «He did not (actually) become Man, but acted in “ the manner of Man.’ ‘ The Only Begotten suffered,’ “and ‘ He (The Only Begotten) tasted of death.’ ”*
(dq) Again, from the same Treatise :— “Show, then, what there is against Diodorus. “ But you have nothing (to show). If, however, you “ stumble at the term PURPLE (Vestment) ;—for, “ this you signified in what follows, when you said “ that it is a proof of dissimilarity; and you carped “at the name of TEMPLE—’+
(e) Again, from the same Treatise :-—
“Therefore GOD The WORD is not a Lamb, but “as a Lamb1 (of sacrifice) he offered (sacrificed) the “ Nature which He had assumed, and is called ‘ the “ Lamb{ (of God) ; and that in consequence of the “ Union (of the Two Natures).”
* These sentences, forming this second Extract, cited by, and now arrainged against, [heodoret, are excerpted from a work of S. Cyril named—* De eo quod unus Christus contra Theodorum.”
+ The words Purple and Temple were commonly used by Nestorius and his followers to describe the Body in which God The Word took habitation. Also, the Nestorians were accused of “corrupting the “ Divine Writings and of removing the Landmarks of the Holy Fa- “thers,” in order to attribute the Incarnation only to the Flesh; saying that the birth and death of Christ belong simply and merely to the Temple of God, &c.
q Or, better, perhaps—He offered (sacrificed) the Nature He had as- sumed as a Lamb (of sacrifice). Isaiah, lit, 7; 1 Peter, i, 19; &c.
+ S. John’s Gospel, i, 29.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 243 (f) Again, from the same ‘Treatise :—
“How, then, do you fail to perceive this, that “when you arraign Diodorus for having affirmed “that the Nature which was assumed was the Son “ of Grace, you implicate yourself (in the charge) ? “because you have blamed him for not having “ affirmed Him to be the Very Son of the Father, “ Who is the seed of David ; for, how is that Nature “which was derived from David truly the Son of “the GOD of All? For He, Who was begotten of “ Father before the worlds, owns this name.”
(g) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“Subsequently he exhibits a certain work (creed)* “which was written by himself. And he arraigns it. “ But I have fallen in with the writings of the giant.t “This nowhere have I seen, and I have not considered “that it would be deserving of arraignment. How- “ever, I am of opinion‘ that, as regards this subject, “ people who are willing to examine the sense of what “ig written come to entertain the same sentiments. ‘For, so the writings of the Holy Gospels and Apos- “tles draw (lead on) to it every one who wishes for “ Hternal Life. There are, however, myriads of people “ who, while looking upon them in (different) various
* Probably |Sca means here, as it does so frequently, a Formulary of Faith, a Creed. At p. 160, 1. 10, it should be Lod, I have met
qwith—that is the correct word and its translation.
+ Theodore of Mopsuestia, probably.
q “But, as regards this, I am of opinion that those can understand “these views who wish to examine the sense of what is written. «, , all who wish for Eternal Life are led on to it by the writings,” &c.
244 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“senses and diversely, run in an opposite direction, “and are drawn into the outer darkness. _ But not on “that account, however, do we blame the Holy Scrip- “tures—no!—but we do reprehend the idiotcy of “those who entertain false notions (will not think “with wisdom).{ In this way and at this place “ (passage) have we acted, showing what is the mean- “ing of those things which have been written with “just intent. The meaning, then, of the Treatise is “so and so.”
“ Further,* it is only just and right to know, also, “about the Giconomy for our Redemption that GOD “consummated that Giconomy by our Lord Christ.”
“GOD he (Theodorus) here calls the GOD of “ All, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and “ Christ (he calls) GOD The WORD, Who became “INCARNATE, The Only Begotten Son of God. “ For it is, by His means, that the GOD of All pur- “chased our Redemption. Thus, too, the Blessed
{| Or it may be rendered with Martin, whose note we subjoin, thus: —‘'T'he same have we done in this actual case. We show that all that ‘has been composed with a good intention. See here, then, what is his ‘idea (of Theodorus or Diodorus)? in this writing.(2) We must “know concerning the matter of our salvation that Gop has accom- “plished it through our Lord Christ.”(2) ‘The things that have been written” would be what was put into the {Sc.m, probably.
* In p. 161, Martin considers that lines 2, 3, and 4 may bea quota- tion from Diodore or Theodore, and Hoffman as the quotation from the Creed, the {Sc.m, which is to be explained.
(a) The preceding and tho following are not without difficulty. One does not know of whom, and of what, therois a question here. However, as it isan extract froma work destined to defend 'Theodorus against 8. Cyril (Mansi, Conciliorum omnium amplix. Coll., IX, 239-255), one has a right to suppose, that it is a reply to the objections which Cyril raised against the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
(4) 1t is probably a citation from Theodore of Mopsuestia which §. Cyril had in. criminated,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. QYA5
“ Paul said that ‘God was in Christ, having recon- “ <iled the world to Himself. ”*
“Now notice, likewise, what (he says) afterwards:— “GOD The WORD took Perfect Man, who is of “the seed of Abraham and David, according to the “announcement of the Divine Scriptures :—‘ Who “ “was by Nature that which they also were, being “of their seed, (that is to say) Man, Perfect in “ «Nature, of a reasonable (intelligent) Soul, and “ “human flesh subsisting.’ ’t
(h) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“What novelty has Theodorus (advanced) in “ affirming that a ‘beginning{t was (by Christ) as- “sumed of a reasonable (intelligent) Soul and “human Body,’ and that this ‘ beginning came from ‘“ Abraham and David,’ and that ‘in Nature He is “ what they are.’ ”
(v) Again, from the same ‘Treatise :——
“ Here attend|| to the change of tenses: He said not “ “Yam His Father and He is My Son,’ but ‘I will “be to him a Father and he shall be to Me a (a4 Son.’ ”?
(7) Again, from the same ‘Treatise : “ for, One (and the same) is the Son, Who in
* 2 Corinth., v, 19. The verb is in the past participle.
+ It would seem that the verse in the Quicunque vult, or Creed called after S. Athanasius, originally came from ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia.
t The word is |Asma3, primitia.
|| “Attend or set thy mind upon.” See S. John’s Rev., xxi, 7."
246 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS °
“ Nature is The Only Begotten (and) Who (clothed “ Himself with) put on our Nature.”{
(k) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“Wherefore He took that which He had not, “ Flesh* proper ; and although It was at first Mortal, ‘It was deemed worthy of Immortality by (virtue of) the power of GOD The WORD That took it ; ‘and, through the means of It, the whole race of “men rejoiced in the benefit.”
(/) Another (extract) from the same (Theodoret’s)
Book :—
I“ Let him say, if, in consequence of the Nature, “the Worship is paid to It, which is paid by every “ one to the Nature which is assumed, and not in “consequence of the Union with that? Itis entitled “ to this from (his beng) GOD The WORD. Butif, “by reason of this, It is worshipped by all creation “as that which is united to GOD The WORD, and “is called His Temple, and because the Flesh of
q Or, “ One in Essence is the Son, Who,” &c.
* In p. 162, 1. 10, the word in the text is }oa5 [Sc which is of a rather doubtful character, but seems to be a sort of adjective to SQepS0 oF Sea3|So, Mary. The sense would bear it—He, the Flesh of Mary. tt was the Flesh that was mortal, not HE, Christ. Martin suggests LaSou;{Sa,
{ Or, perhaps, it may be better rendered in Martin’s way :— “ Let him say, then, if it is by (reason of ) nature that He receives (possesses) the homage which every man renders to the Nature that has been assumed (adopted) and whether it is not rather in consequence of the Union con- tracted with Gop The Worr, that He has been deemed worthy of this honour. If, then, the Creation adores Him (the assumed, adopted, Na- ture) on account of His adhesion to Gov The Worp, and if, (for this reason,) He has been called The Temple and The Flesh of ‘The Only Son, his opposition is superfluous and inspired by a quarrelsome spirit.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 247
“The Only Begotten, then there is the solution of “the great difficulty stated above. On the other “ hand, the Psalmist in that case is a Blasphemer and “ very presumptuous, and thou hast often said what is “agreeable to Him, and hast said it a little while “ago.
(m) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“Tf, therefore, The GOD of All raised the Flesh “ (from the dead) by the means of GOD The WORD, “‘ (then) there was a real verification (manifestation) 1 “of the word of our Lord which was made to the “« Jews ; and He raised the Temple which was dis- “ “solved by them.”*
“ But it was the Lord Jesus Who rose from the “ dead.”
“ Dost thou then, also, name the Flesh the Lord “ Jesus ? +
(x) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“The Likeness, therefore, of a Slave is associated I “with GOD The WORD, and, as you say,1 (is “ associated) with HIM in honour and glory, and in
Moreover, the Psalmist is an impudent Blasphemer. That these ideas please you, you have often declared, and you will even soon repeat it.” It probably refers to some quotation from the Psalms, putting the fine argument of his opponent out of court. About Theodoret and Theo- dore, in connection with the Psalms, see Introductory Note, page 205.
4 The word, (The Truth,) of our Lord which was stated to the Jew was verily made manifest (exhibited ).
* Reference is made to John, ii, 19.
+ In p. 163, |. 8, it should undoubtedly be hal, not Lal, in both cases.
q Or, better, perhaps :— Has communion with.” q Literally,—“According to thy words.”
248 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“all other prerogatives. Not because of the Nature, “ but, by reason of the Union, does It attain to these “ things.”
(0) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“How is He, then, Very MAN, Who is GOD “in Nature, and is Very GOI)? For, the Name of “GOD is proper for Him, seeing He is so in ‘‘ Nature and in Truth; but to Him, likewise, is “ (the name of) Man (appropriate), since* it, indeed, “belongs to the Form of a Servant which (He is) “in Truth. But, when applied to GOD The “ WORD, He is that only Ciconomically,! since “the Nature assumed is Man in Verity, whilst He, “ That assumed (It), is, indeed, Very GOD. But be- “ cause of the reason of the Giconomy, He is also “ Man, not as having been changed into this, but “ because He assumed the Human Nature.”
(p) Again, from the same Treatise :—
“ But again forgettingt these words, and having, “ also, abandoned the other{ Teaching, he turned to “ the evil peculiarly his, and covertly advanced the “ Blasphemy of Apollinarius, and exclaimed that
* At p. 163, in lines 19 and 20, the word Ax must have the same meaning. Or, perhaps, equally as well—“ By the Incarnation” in |. 21, and, in » perhaps, equally mine) ; » and, 1. 24, “by reason of the Incarnation.” ‘He is also Man, not that The Word was changed into, but that He assumed, the Human Nature.” + Or, “ Having forgotten,” 13g, oblitus est. { Other (|25.aal) teaching, apparently, was right teaching, and, therefore, old, which he had abandoned. q Or, perhaps,—‘he said again and again.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 249
“we speak of One (Only) Son, just as the “ Fathers did, and of ‘One (Only) Nature of The “*WORDINCARNATE, Look at the bitterness “ of Orthodox Teaching. For, having postulated‘ “what is evidently confessed by the Just, ‘ONE «“ ¢SON,’ he introduces after it ‘ONE NATURE,’ — “a thing which grew out of the Blasphemies of Apol- “linarius. But he added this—‘INCARNATE™* ‘being apprehensive of a disclosure of his Blas- “phemy.t He must tell us, however, what Fathers
q “For, after having previously laid down (sco 30,0) from these words, which are clearly confessed by the Just, that there is One Son, he brings forwards (a2. is Aphel) after it that there is One Nature, which (doctrine) grew out of.” At p. 164, 1. 11, [yu, prodiit, germi- navit, is the correct word.
* The word ¢2=250 is in the present tense and therefore means ~is made flesh, is Incarnate.
+ “Of One (Only) Son and of One (Only) Nature of the Incarnate “Worp.” Similar is the expression, if not identical—viz., “We “ must not, then imagine Two Natures, but One Incarnare Nature of “ Gop The Worn.” This sentence, involving, at first sizht, an heretical sentiment about the Person of Christ, Dr. Neale, in his History of the Holy Eastern Church, suggests may have been cited by Cyril “ simply because “he believed it to come from 5. Athanasius who employed the word “ dots in the sense of Person.” (See Vol. I, p. 294.) But we should look at the occasion, which, I think, the following gives: Cyrille répond: “‘ Nestorius a tout a fait raison d’enseigner les deux natures: car dans le fait, la nature du Logos est toute autre que celle de la chair: mais il a tort en ce quil ne veut pas reconnaitre avec nous |’€vwou des natures. Pour nous, nous les unissons, et c’est ainsi que nous professons un seul Christ, un seul Fils, une seule nature of Dieu devenue chair (pilav ryv Tov Qeov Piow cecapxopévyy). We cannot do better service for this celebrated and controverted sentence of S. Cyril than quote extracts expository of it from the 2nd Imperial* Edict against the Three Chap- ters. The simple words of Héfélé, as given by Delarc, will suffice :— “ Celui qui est né de Marie est un de Ja sainte 'Trinité, de mcme sentence que le Pére quant a la divinité, de méme substance que nos quant a |’humanité, passible dans sa chair, impassible dans sa divinité, et aucun autre que le Logos de Dieu ne s’est soumis a la souffrance et ala mort. II ne faut pas dire que c’est le Logos que a opéré les miracles et que c’est un au-
HH
250 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
‘“‘ brought up this expression. For,* the very contra- “ dictory to this we can discover among the Holy “ Fathers, since in their Sermons they have perfected The Two Natures. Dostt thou name Apollinarias,
tre Christ qui a souffert : car c’est le méme Seigneur Jésus Christ, Logos de Dieu, qui a pris chair et s’est fait homme. . . . En disant que le Christ est composé (avvOeros) de deux natures, de la divinité et de ’hu- manité, nous n’introduisons cependant aucun mélange (ovyyvous) dans cette unité (er wots), et en reconnaissant dans cheeeae de ces natures le seul Seigneur Jésus-Christ, le Adsos divin devenu homme, nous n’étab- lissons ni séparation, ni division, ni déchirement dans la seule et méme hypostase ; mais nous désignons la différence des natures par ce dont el- les proviennent; et cette différence n’est pas anéantie par ]’érwors, puisque chacune de ces deux natures existe dans cette unité. . . . . La nature divine n’est pas métamorphosée en la nature humaine, et la nature humaine n’est pas métamorphosée en la nature divine: mais cha- cune de ces natures reste dans les limites, le Logos a operé lunité de lhypostase. Cette unité hypostatique prouve que le Dieu Logos, cette hypostase de la Trinite, de s'est pas uni avec un homme existant antéri- eurement, mais qu’il s’est cré¢ une chair due sein de la‘sainte Vierge, de la propre hypostase de Ja sainte Vierge, et qu’il a animé cette chair d’une ame raisonnable,—et c’est 1a la nature humaine. Cette union hy posta- tique du Logos avec la chair nous a été aussi enseignée per l’apdtre S. Paul. . . . . Aussi professons-nous une double naissance du Logos: l’une immatérielle ayant en lieu du sein du Pére avant toute éter- nite, V’autre dans les derniers temps, lorsqu’il a pris chair de la sainte Mére de Dieu et qu’il est devenuhomme. . . . . Ilest Fils de Dieu par la nature, tandis que nous, nous ne le sommes que par grace ; il est, a cause de nous et car’ oikovoutar, devenu fils d d’Adam, tandis que nous, nous sommes par nature fils d’Adam . . et, aprés l’incarnation, il y en a un de Ja sainte Trinité, le Fils unique de Dieu, notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ, que se trouve compose de deux natures unies entre elles iG - Geros). ‘Telle est la doctrine des Péres. . . . ~.. Touten profes- sant Ces doctrines, nous acceptons expression de Cyrille disant qu’il n’y aquune gr oLs rou Adyov Tecapkwuery. » . ~ Car, toutes les fois quil s’est servi de cette expression, le mot dior a pour lui le sens de vméoracts... &c. (Histoire des Conciles par Mer. C. J. Héfélé, tome troisieme, Paris, 1870.)
* Perhaps—* Everything contrary to this we can discover among the Holy Fathers ; for, in preaching The T'wo Natures, they teach that The Two Natures were Perfect.’? But, if aaScw@ were a constr., it must precede the dependent noun.
+ At p. 164, 1. 20, ZoSaese (part., as the SO shows) is equiva-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. pial
“ and Kunoimius, and Asterius, and Aitius?* — For, “it was they who gave birth to this Blasphemy. Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Theodoret, who has been aforetime, and is at present, Impious, who has not desisted from his Impiety, but, even up to the present time, has per- sisted in his Blasphemies, so much so as to give umbrage to the ears of the Gracious and Christ- loving Emperors, and to move them justly to with- draw theircountenance from him, because they nauseate these pernicious Ioctrines—Theodoret, who is bent on the destruction of souls without number, who has brought trouble on all the Churches of the East, and who has planted the seed of false Doctrine, and, as far as he could, has (thereby) drawn the simple- minded into his Impiety ; who, moreover, has ven- tured to hold tenets and write in opposition to those Positions which have been laid down by our very Bles- sed Father and Bishop Cyril,—must be (estranged) removed from the whole Function of the Priesthood and its Honour and Rank, and be also interdicted Communion with the Laity; all the God-loving
lent to Lalnscacs, dost thou name.
* 'The salient point of Error in the system of Apollinarius was that he taught the Adyos, or Divine Word, took the place of the vo/s, or rational Soul, in the Human Nature of Christ, subduing the Wuyy. He denied the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of ‘The Incarnate Word. Eunomius, the voluble disciple and secretary of A&tius, was the head of the extreme Arians; and A&tius, the most odious of them, was the first to affirm that the Son was unlike the Father in essence, as well as in will, Atsterius (says Canon Bright) was the Arian “ Sophist ”” who placed the Son, as “a Power of God,” in the same category with the locusts.
bo
5D HE SECOND SYNOD Of EPHESUS
Bishops and Clerics in the world being aware that whosoever shall venture, after this judgment and synodical condemnation, to receive him anywhere, or to be with him, or to communicate at his table, or to exchange the merest conversation with him, will of necessity render himself liable to be put on his de- fence, in the Divine Court of Judgment, before the Tribunal of God ; and he will have, too, to give jus- tification of himself on the charge of* having dared to set at nought what has been decreed by this Holy and Gicumenical Synod.
Now we will conveyt (the account of) all these transactions of to-day to the Gracious and Christ- loving Auditory (audience) of the Victorious Em- perors in order that their Clemency may command these Treatises of the impious Theodoret, so replete with all Impiety and mischievous Doctrine, to be committed to the burning of the fire.
(b) Now let the Notaries Demetrius, and Flavius,
* In p. 165, |. 20, the > is omitted before La, according to the usual practice in Syriac. See Dr. R. P. Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, Fasciculus 1, on = being omitted before Lud.
[rah Ps WO, shee 4s eam) must be we have reported, or we report;
es but, if the right reading be cama (Aphel), we will report.
Let the Reader note here the bearing of the President of the Council. Not satisfied with his own sentence being pronounced, and pronounced as sufficient for the condemnation of the criminal, he affects to intimidate, and he does intimidate, other Bishops who are to follow, and to settle any wavering voters, besides con- signing, in the manner of Councils, the books of ‘Theodoret to the flames, to say nothing of taking upon himself the part of despatching envoys to Archbishop Domnus to ascertain his opinion on the day’s trans- actions, which, however, we might in charity perhaps regard, from an
\
IN THE DAYS OF DioScORUs. 958
and Primus proceed to the God-loving Domunus, Bishop of Antioch, and read to him all the transac- tions of to-day, so that he may unreservedly declare his opinion on those transactions.
(c) The Hoty Synop said :— “That is a just Judgment.”
JUVENAL, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
As regards Theodoret, who has dared to write what is contrariant to The Faith of The True Reli- gion and to the Definitions established at the former Holy and Gicumenical Synod of Ephesus, I too, give my decision that he be removed from the Rank of the Priesthood and from Communion* in the Holy Mysteries. I, also, (adjure) call all men to witness that not even a single communication between him and them ought to take place, nor ought they to offer salt, or (address even) a mere word, to him.
TuHaxassius, Bishop of Czesarea of the First Cappa- docia, said :— Theodoret, who has become the (Foster) Father and the writer of the impious Doctrine of Nestorius,
and who, from his childhood even to a protracted old age, has been trained‘ in Blasphemies against our
ecclesiastical point of view, as a piece of courtesy due to one who occu- pied the Patriarchal Throne of entire Christian Asia.
* See note at p. 145.
q Or, “brought up.” The word 4-0 is a Pass. part. of Pa., edu- catus, nutritus.
254 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Lord Christ, I give order to be deprived of the Rank of the Priesthood ; and I refuse him all communion with Christians whatever.
Kvusesivs, Bishop of Ancyrain the First Galatia, said:—
Theodoret, who dared to write in opposition to the affirmations (Chapters) of Cyril of Holy memory, is known* for his aversion for the exactness of our Orthodox Faith. I, therefore, adjudge him deserving of being deprived of the Dignity of the Priesthood and of Communion with the Laity, seeing that, by reason of his being infected? (sick) with affinity to the Doctrine of Nestorius, he has cut himself off from the Honour of the Episcopate.
Jouyx, Bishop of Sebastia, in the First Armenia, said :—
Theodoret, who is infected with the same perni- cious Doctrines as Nestorius, it is only right and just should receive the same judicial sentence ; and, seeing that he returns to the vomiting of his Blas- phemy, or, rather, since he has never desisted from it, it is fitting and proper, also, that he should be discarded from the Honour of the Priesthood and be interdicted all communion with Christians. He who neither the teaching of the Fathers, nor the Divine Scriptures, nor anything else of what has been di- vinely spoken, has put to no better use, ought to have been regarded as a man long since excommu-
* Or, “is known as one who is without love for the Catholic Faith.” q Literally: Ex eo enim quod egrotavit.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 955
nicated and condemned. 1For, it is hateful that those who have once allowed themselves to be comprehended within the mesh (snare) of Blas- phemy should assume, in old age, Orthodoxy of Faith.
Basti, Bishop of Seleucia, said :—
Him who disputes the writings of the Very Blessed Cyril, the late Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria, 1 reckon just as Impious and condemned as a person who is opposed to the Holy Gospel. I, therefore, follow your Piety in what is above indited against Theodoret ; and all matters that have been determined on I approve as just and excellent ; and I adhere to the judgement of those who have adjudged that he (Theodoret) be deposed from the Honour of the Priesthood and (deprived) of Communion in the Mysteries.
|
DiogEnrs, Bishop of Cyzicus, said :—
Assenting, as I do, for my part, to the judgment
This little sentence presents some difficulty of translation. Cas-
tell, p. 447, notes on the word yas—Peculiariter prebendi est in
carcerem duci, in vincula conjiciy and on case (strangulavit, suffocavit, from which is derived |Asoarsdo, laqueus), at p. 304—Verbum non de strangulatione solum ponitur, sed de omni suffocationis genere, ut, que fit per submersionem: And the word {maa is in the subjunctive mood, and means fo cover over, CaSvaa iS pro, and |Zom.m senectus. Martin renders it thus:—II est bien difficile, en effect, de piter dans la vieillesse des sentiments orthodoxes a ceux qui se sont une fois laissés dominer par le blasphéme. | And Hoffman thus :—Es ist freilich (geir) hisslich, auf solche, die einst (in ihrer jugend) von dem galgenstrick (ma-
256 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
that has proceeded from the Holy Fathers against Theodoret, being entirely with them, I pronounce him (Theodoret) to be deposed from all the Func- tion of the Priesthood and (deprived) of Communion in the Holy Mysteries.
Frorentivs, Bishop (of Sardis) in Lydda (Lydia), said :—
It would have been better for Theodoret not to have been born rather than that, as is the case, his writings prove him to be a Blasphemer. For, it were better for him not to have been in existence than that he should, as of himself, be so wicked as act in antagonism with the Lord of All, Christ. Because, then, he has armed his tongue against the
_ Priesthood which he once assumed, let him be deposed from the Dignity of the Episcopate and from Com- munion with the Laity, seeing that he has proved himself to be a Teacher of a deadly poison to the
people. Setevcus, Bishop (of Amasia), said :—
In following, as I do, the correct Decision of the Holy Fathers, Theodoret, who attempted to alter the Definitions which our Iathers established from of old, and to subvert the Faith established by the Holy Fathers at Nicza, | dismiss from the Dignity of the Episcopate and pronounce deprived of Com- munion with the Laity.
hnoquita) der listerung gepackt sind, im alter die korrektur fur den glau- ben auszudehnen (nkassé€ cal).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 257
Marintanvs, Bishop of Synnada,* said :—
Let Theodoret, who has been known, up to the present time, to entertain opinions beyond,+ and in excess of, the Creed of the CCCX VIII Fathers as- sembled at Niczea, be deprived of the Rank of the Episcopate and of Communion with the Laity.
KustatHivs, Bishop of Berytus, said :—
We, all of us Bishops of the East, render thanks to God the Saviour of All, and to our Gracious and Christ-loving Emperors, for having assembled here this Holy and Cicumenical Synod. For, on behalf of the liberty of the East, was this Holy As- sembly appointed! (to take place) ; and a man de- void of honour having been expelled, a man of integrity‘! can now, with freedom of speech, proclaim the Words of God; and there remains now no (place for any) Calumniator against the Kast, as we believe will (actually) be the case, when, Theodoret having been rooted out, as well as those who have already been ejected from the Church, there will also be (substituted) others in their stead —men of the Orthodox Faith—for the teaching of The True Religion to the Flocks of Christ. Let Theodoret, therefore, be adjudged, in pursuance
* No doubt the Scribe means ]220, Synnada, but he has written |ax0%2 in the MS.
+ The frequent expression -SG 3>% does not here mean strictly ad- verse OY contrary to, but, rather, that ‘Theodoret held opinions deyond or outside of the authorized Creed.
q{ Or, “established.” See Imperial Documents at pp. 3 and 39.
q Or, “a just man.”
II
258 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of your Sentence, as among those who have been ejected ; having henceforth no permission whatever, either to teach, or to address, or trouble the (inerrant) sound sheep of God, and being made to desist, too, from communicating in the Pure Mysteries.
The Hoty Sywyop said :— “That is a just sentence—cast out the Heretic. “We all declare for this—all of us agree to the
‘DEPOSITION OF THEODORET.”
fEND OF THE CAUSE OF THEODORET.]
Thus we see condemned by the Sentences of the Bishops, and by the unanimous vote, of the Synod, without a hearing even on that point of Doctrine in which we may reasonably consider him to be not faultless, a man of the purest and most innocent life, as well as possessed of the grandest virtues that can adorn humanity, a Bishop whose saintly memory, alone of all the Chiefs tried is ‘stainless, and whose deeds place him in the very van of the noblest representative personages that figure so dif- ferently during the frightfully disquieting and unhappy epoch of the fifth period of the Church.
In looking back upon this case of Theodoret, and on this Version of it, I would desire to make a few reflections. In the first place I must express a hope that some English Scholar, by means of Dr. W. Wright’s three-volumed Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. deposited in the British Museum—more rechercher and splendid than any Library in the world possesses—which Foreign Scholars so frequently visit, may, by carefully overhauling those MSS. one by one, be fortunate enough to dis- cover, not only many more treasures-trove, but the very treatise or treatises of Theodoret, in which the above, some of them very difficult, Extracts appear. And this is not chimerical or visionary. For, what may we not hope for after the discovery of the Epistles of S.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 259
Clement of Rome by Bryennius,(a) Metropolitan of Serrhe, and the Syriac MS. of those same Epistles lately sold to the Syndics of the University of Cambridge (I tried hard myself to purchase the MS.) at the sale, at Paris, of the Library of the great Oriental Scholar Jules Mohl. Already has Dr. Martin printed some Syriac MSS. the contents of which are very germane to our subject. In a journal published at Leipzig very lately, he has given to the world “ Lettres de Jacques de Saroug aux moines du Couvant de “ Mar Bassus, et 2 Paul d’Edesse relevées et traduites.” And, from the correspondence between Jacob of Sarug and these Monks, which appears to have taken place not later than 473 A.D., that is, full eighty years before our great MS. (14,530) was written—for the Scribe says he wrote it in the Month of May, 553 (see the end of this translation) — and certainly not a quarter of a century after the Second Synod of Ephesus was held, I here subjoin an Extract, from the Zeitschrift alluded to, astranslated at page 225 :—
IIT. Quelque temps plus tard, il _m’est tombé entre les mains des dis~ cours de Diodore, de Théodore, et de Théodoret et j’ai vu que tous avaient bu le fiel amer du Dragon. J’anathematise donc, avec |’impie Nestorius, que je viens de nommer, Diodore, Théodore, et 'Théodoret, ses compagnons, car il est évident pour moi que tous ces hérétiques, enivres par le fiel du serpent ancien, divisent Emmanuel en deux fils, Pun fils unique de Dieu et l’autre fils de la Vierge Marie.(d) C’est pourquoi je répete ce que j’ai dit dés long-temps: J’anathématise Nestorius, Euty- ches, et quiconque accepte leur doctrine impie; Diodore, Theodore, Théodoret, quiconque lit leurs livres en partageant leur idées, quiconque ne confesse point que Dieu le Verbe est entré par Voreille de la Vierge, sans qu'il y ait eu de péché commis, pour s’incarner et pour se faire pro- clamer par l’Ecriture fils de David, fils de Abraham. Or, lui, seul fils unique, a été engendré de deux manicres, l’une du pére, sans corps, et sans commencement, l’autre de la Vierge Marie, corporellement, suivant ce qui est écrit, Dieu a été vu dans la chair,(c) et Dieu a envoyé son fils, lequel est né de la femme.(d) L’Eglise vierge a été fiancée a celui qui était et qui est, a Jésus-Christ ; a celut qui était hier qui est aujourdhui et qui sera toujours.(e) C’est a cet époux veritable qu’est fiancée la fille de la lumiére et c’est pourquoi, pendant la célébration des Mystéres, elle lui adresse les paroles des Séraphins, comme a son Pére ; car, de méme qu’ elle célbre un pére saint, elle célébre aussi un fils saint. Ceux donc qui divisent en deux le seul Christ indivisible, et qui placent en lui des nombres et des noms, qui proclament Dieu le Verbe et qui parlent de homme qui a été pris: ceux-la, ’Eglise les anathématise. (Zeitschrift der Deutschen Mogenlandischen Gezellschaft. Drisssigster Band, IJ. Hezft. Leipzig, 1876).
“lars have not been prepared.’’ (v) Le second membre de l’énumération est omis, xa (c) Cfr. a Timothés, iii, 16. (d) Aux Galates, iv, 4. (e) Psaume, ii, 6,
96() {HE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
At page 226, following immediately after the above extract, this paragraph occurs:
IV. Ceux encore qui prétendent que Dieu le Verbe ne s’est pas in- carné de la Vierge, mais qu'il €n est sorti et qu’il s’est montré seulement en apparence, comme un fantOme et sans réalité, ceux-la aussi l’Eglise qui est pleine de la vérité du fils unique, les anathématise, parceque la bénédietion a été promise aux nations dans la semence d’Abraham. Or, cette semmence, c’est Jésus-Christ, qui s’est incarné dans le sein de la Vierge, fille de David, fille d’Abraham, appelée pour cela mére de Dieu. Ceux également qui competent et classent les natures aprés lunion, qui re- connaissent leurs propriétés et leurs singularités, ceux-la I’Liglise les declare étrangers a sa communion, parceque le Christ ne doit pas se deviser en deux. C’est un seul et méme qui est Dieu en verite, par son incarnation dans la Vierge Marie, suivant ce qui est ecrit: Le Verbe s'est fait chair ; il a operé des marveilles et a supporté des douleurs volentairement. Les’ choses elevees sont siennes et les choses humbles sont siennes encore, comme les choses elevees. Le fils unique est seul; il est insondable, inaccessible, inexplicable, indivisible, inscrutable, ineffable. A lui, a son Pére, au Saint Esprit, gloire dans les siécles des siécles !
Again, at pp. 247, 248 :—
Dans les lettres cependant que Votre Saintete a lues et qu'elle a trouvees infirmes ou mortes, “ j’anathematisais Nestorius et Eutychés, “ Diodore, Theodore et Theodoret, quiconque regoit leur doctrine, qui- “ conque ne confesse point que Dieu le Verbe est entre par Voreille de la “ Vierge afin d’habiter dans ses entrailles saintes et de s’y incarner, apres “quoi il a ete vu revétu de chair, tout en etant Dieu; quiconque ne re- “ connait point qu’un seul fils unique a ete engendre de deux manicres, “une du pére sans corps et sans commencement, l’autre de la Vierge “ Marie corporellement ;’? quiconque ne croit pas qu’uue personne seule de la Trinite s’est incarnee et que cette personne est celle du fils unique, egal a son pére en toutes choses. D’od vient qu’ avec lui et comme lui il participe aux glorifications des Seraphins. “Cewx donc qui divisent en “ deux le seul Christ indivisible et qui placent en lui des nombres et des “ noms, qui, en confessant Dieu le Verbe, parlent aussi de Vhomme qui a “ ete pris: ceux encore qui pretendent que Dieu le Verbe ne s'est pas incarne “de la Vierge, mais qu'il en est sort et qwil s’est montre seulement en “ apparence, comme un fantome sans realite; ceux qui comptent et qui « classent les natures aprés l’union, qui reconnaisen leurs proprietes et leurs “ singularites, ceux qui ne confessent pas que celui qui etait Dieu “en yerite est devenu homme en verite, par son incarnation dans le sein “de la Vierge Marie, ceux-la I’Eglise les anathematise.” Voila les paroles que Votre Paternite a dit étre infirmes et mortes.
Soon after the above was put into type came (with “ Les facultes de « Théologie et les futures Universités Catholiques,” in which Dr. Martin as “Aumonier de l’Ecole Monge” will, I doubt not, distinguish himself very considerably) the Syriac Text, the French translation, &c., kindly des- patched to me by himself, from which I extract some more matter, so opportunely brought to light, in connection with Theodoret.
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 261
Again, at p. 250:—
J’anathematise egalement ceux qui, apres 1’ union, divisent, distinguent ou comptent, dans un seul Christ, les natures, avec leurs particularites et leurs operations pour donner a& Dieu ce qui est de Dieu et a Vhomme ce qui est de ’homme ; car le Christ est un; c’est Dieu fait homme, le Verbe fait chair, le cache devenu manifeste, l’invisible rendu visible dans la chair, et qui, en etant tout cela, demeure toujours Dieu. Or, quand on ana- thematise toutes les personnes qui ont combattu cette verite et qui ont donne naissance a une infinite de disputes et de scandales, il est evident qu’on anathematise aussi tous ceux qui pensent comme elles. Elles ont toutes, en effet, developpe les idees de Nestorius. Mais Nestorius est anathematise, lui, sa doctrine et tou ceux qui pensent comme lui, qu’ils
alent vecu avant ou aprés lui. X. Ce sont les disciples de Simon le Magicien qui ont mis au jour
cette heresie ; Paul de Samosate l’a enseignee ensuite sous diverses formes, et aprés lui, Diodore et Theodore |’ont consignee par ecrit, avec tout l’art et toute la pompe de la philosophie grecque. Nestorius n’en a ete que l'interpréte et le vulgarisateur ; il l’a revetue des charmes du style. The- odoret enfin et ceux qui ont partage les mémes opinions |’ont soutenue dans leur temps, de tous leurs efforts.
I will now add to the foregoing some indications that refer to a preferable and, some of them, far more exact rendering of the Syriac Text. That at p. 217 is the following :—
The Body of the Church has the need of the hand of the Lord—(the right reading, at I. 13, p. 135 of the Text, is {a3 {2—])—because it is sorely devoured by evil. For this purpose have you all been gath- ered together in this place: (viz.) in order that you may establish for CHRIST One Glorious Church, having neither spot nor blemish,(a) and that you may, having thus for a second time saved and purified It by the power of The Truth, present it to the whole earth under Heaven, not as reviled and calumniated by Heretics, but invested with the Heavenly and Apostolic Glory of the Doctrine of The Alone True Religion.
At page 218, it should be put thus, before the beginning of Theodoret’s Letter eeyean, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :—
Copy of the Letter of Theodoret to the Monks (directed) against, &c.
Also, at foot of page 219, the reference is to the Prophecy of Jere- miah, chap. iv, verse 19; whilst, however, the long Citation itself, or ra- ther Citations, wold seem to be composed of a sort of cento of terse and laconic Jeremiads culled out of the writings of the Prophets.
(a) See Eph., v, 27 (the Church glorious); 8. John’s Rey., xxi, 2, 9 (the Church glo. rified), and xix, 7.
962 HE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
At p. 221, and |. 13, it would be better thus:—And he does not allow us to take these terms, and to apply those which are proper to God (the Divine predicates) to His Nature—to attach those which are of a humble kind and are spoken humanly (i.e., spoken of Christ as a human being) to the Human Nature assumed by Him. The words, by Christ, should be put thus—(of Christ).
— |. 19. Perhaps it should be “well-meaning persons,” as oc evppovourres generally has that signification.
At p. 222, |. 5:—-Stating the (their well-known) Diversity of Essence. ‘ Alienum paterne substantiz et dissimilem inde eum osten- “ dere festinantes,’”’ are the words of Garner of his “ Beati Theodoreti, Ep. Cyri Operum,” Tom. 5 (Opus postumum, 1684) in the Auctarium, p- 62.
— |. 21:—The noxious culture, or noisome toil (and soil), of Mar- cion. In (Garner it is “ maligne culturz,’”’ and “ Macedonius.”) Some suchexpression is wanted to correspond with the word “seed” and “fruit.”
At p. 223, l. g:—3; and The Faith, which we have received, with which we do baptize and have been baptized, we do keep spotless.
— |. 24:—for, on the one hand we do not dissolve the Union and we believe on the other hand
At p. 224, 1. 3:—For, if commixture aad con-fusion had taken place and One Nature was (had been) formed out of those two, then, &c.
— 1.14. Perhaps it would be better :—experienced the dissolution, but the Power of the other raised up what was dissolved.
At p. 226. Foot Notes—Titus, ii, 13, and Isaiah xlv, 14.
At p. 230, |. 4, it should be, as in Migne, thus—(and of Paul).
At p. 231, 1. 8:—such things as we speak of as belonging to our original or, perhaps, first-fruit, which woid is used by S. Paul at Rom. xi, 16, in that sense. At p. 234, 1. 7, the same word occurs. In the Greek it is 7 am@apyy ajwr, corresponding to the Syriac.
At p. 236, the expressions povoyevys and mpwréroxos must be dis- tinguished, and the distinction finds expression in the terms—Only Begotten and First-Born. So translate thus—Now that God The Word was Alone Born (the Only Begotten) of the Father the Scriptures teach us. But the Only Begotten became, also, the First-Born.
At p. 237, 1. 20, it would be better :—grew from Human Nature.
— |. 21:—a Dogmatic writer (or teacher) must weave appellatives from these two (must write these two in one texture).
At p. 238, 1. 1 :—‘he may enjoy his desire” is the proper rendering.
— |. 6:—who asserted moderation to be best, which is an allusion, doubtless, to the well-known saying, uérpor derorov, of one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece.
At p. 240, 1. 5 :—this present darkness, or, read prevailing instead of amminent.
To appreciate Theodoret’s Letter, and its Theological terminolgy, we must read the Original in Greek. For, it is impossible to convey in a translation the full meaning of those dogmatical expressions contained in it.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 263
The refined terms and predicates belonging to dogmatic theology, TO @ctoy déypa, can most adequately if not only, be expressed by the delicate shades of ae attached to Greek words, such as aovyxire Or pent ws, avopmowos, évaois, ovo, pios, mpdowror, ETEPOVOLOS Hence it will be best to study them in the original letter Theodoret wrote, which is subjoined according to the ‘text as produced by Hoffmann, together with some of the Syriac words, corresponding to the Greek ones, indicated by anglicised characters.
THEODORET’S LETTER.
0
‘Opav viv év To mapor ve ne TIS éxkAyotas KaTaoTAsLy Kal THY évayyos em ivarra ray TH tepa (d kita) vm Cadyy, Kat Tas oodpas KaTaryidas, KaL TOV KUBAT OY THY moo Porjv, Kat THY Babevav OKOTO- pany, Kal Teds TovToLS Tov mory pov THY épw Kat Tor tepevew [/. épérrew | Aart wy TV MANY, Kae cay TOV KuBepryTov peOnr, kat anaSam)os Ty TOY KaKav dwolay: TOV ‘Tepepiov Opivev Cv eLyAt UV} TKO- pat Kat per’ EKELVOU Bow [Ter. Ay, 19]. Thy KolAlay j20v, [Tay KoiNiay pou] eyo ahyeo Kat Ta wis Oryriipea THS Kapdtas pou paiparcer, 1” oxy) pov cmaeas Geral Kae 7) Kapola MoU, Kal myyas [Saxprer | em Cnr @, iva rats AiBaot Tey opbarpov TO TON 7s ag devetas amo- oKevar@pat (oed dhoq) [véos ]. Aéov yap €v ovTHs aypi xeuyseore [Kat | TOUS KuBepryras eypynyopévat Kat 7 KAvO@Mt paxer bat Kat THS Tou oKaous ToTnplas poovrilery” Kal Tous vavTas Tis Kar aAAnAwY Epld0s amooTavras, evNn) Kal TEXYN Ta dewa Stayner ew (meghon men): kat Tors ToT OUS HOUN Kalin’ rOatt, Kae pare aAAarots Mate TOUS KuBe spryrais Cuyouayew* Tov O€ THs Badarris tKE revely deororny, iva VEULUTe petapary (p. 123) ra oxi pumd : ToOUT@Y bev oudets oder edéret mov ws év VURT OMAN 1 de aNAgAovs ayvonoavres Kat TOUS €varvT lous KaTa\movTes, Kal’ 1) Lov avrav TavTa damavepev (nap- pequan ) Ta Bern, Kat Tovs oot ous OS mone pious TUT pwoKOMEY (qattelnan), ot Oe TANTOY EOTOTES yeoou ov THY peony, KGL TOLS HETE POLS eTEvTpUPast (metbassmin) KaKOLS Kat Xaipovow um adAjrov eas opcoures daTravepévous* airton de TOUTWY Ot Thy doo TONK AY diapletpae mioTLy prroverkyoavres Kat TOLS evaryyeAiKors déymacty aAdo- KoTov dWacKariay émiecvat TOALATAVTES, Kat Ta dvoceBy Keparaa (KupiArov), & mera avabe wares wey eis THY Baowrioa modw e&érepvar, deSapueror, Kat Tats oiKe cies Urror/pucpats, os onOyoar, BeBacooarres : a cups éK TIS mK as ’ AmroAAwaptou BePraoryke pilys, merexer Oe Kat TS *Apetou Kat Evvoptou duooe Betas €l 0€ TEs axp. Bas Kar iew EOcAnTELEY, Ove TIS Otviarerrivoy Kat Mavevros Kal Mapkiwvos corp ducoeBetas TUYXarEL. "Ep bev yap TO TOOTH KEparalw THY UTep 1} Mov yeyevnuevny oixovouiay (md: ibbranwta) ex BaAXew : ouk avewdy- évac tov @eov {[Adyor] prow avOpwmretav, adn auTov els oapKa meraPAyOnva DidaoKwv' Kat Soxyoes (Masbranuta) Kat pavracia THY
i
264 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
TOU owr pos 1) Mv évavdpomno.y, aAn’ ote aX bei ever at doryma- titwy : Tatra dé TIS Mapkiwvos Katt TOU ee kat (p. 124) Ovarertivou duocePetas tmapyer yevy Huard. ) 06 TO Jevtéow Kat TpiTY keparaiy, aomep emeAgBonevos, @v ev Tpootpsiorsg ééOero, Tv Kal? tmdoTuow evwoiy eloayer’ Kal ovvodoy Kal’ Evwcw duorkyy, Kpa soy Tia Kal vy yxvow dua TOUT OY ‘TOV ovopaTov yeyev noOae didaoKor TIS TE Oeias ptoews Kat THs Tov dovov Mops : : TOUTO TS aiperiKis ’ AtroX- Awvapiou Kawvor opias (her esiotiita) é éort Kinua. “Ev 06 TO TeTaprTe kKe- paraiy amaryopete Tov EVAYYEALKOV Kal ATOOTOALK@V gover THY diatpeow’ Kat ovUK €4 KaTa@ Tas Tov opboddéuv marépwy dwWackarias Tas ev Oeompe- mets dovas mept THs Geias crap Paveo bat (d nesqol wnessab) pe Tews” ras 0€ Tumewas Kat avOpumivas eipnuévas TH avarnpbeton mpooamrew avOpwmory re Kat evrevdev Towuy éotw evpery (ew ?) Tovs evppo- vouvTas, THY TIS aoe Betas ouyyérerar. “Apeuos yap Kat Evivopcos : KTio pa, Kat e& ovK OvTwY, Kat dovAoy, TOV povoyer 7), ueov Tov cov etvat paoKortes, Ta Tamety og (halein makkata) m0 Tov [Seororov | Xpiorov Kat avbpumivas elpnucva TH OcoTyTe avToU Tpooayat TeTOA py Kaot’ TO ETEpoOUTLOY (hat doitja hrina) évrevder kat 76 v6 jotov KarasKkevalovres" Tpos TOUTOLS, wa ouverov etm, aura THY amad} Kat dr pewrov Tov Xpicrou Oedtyra Kat Taberv Kal oravpabijvat Kal amova- vew (p. 125) [Kat tapijvar | dearyopeter : ToUTO 0€ Kat TIS ‘Apetou kat Evvopiov pavias eméxewva” Oude yap OL KTIOMa TOA partes amokaAety Tov TolnT HV Tov oAwy Kat Oy pecupyov_ (gabola) ets TauTyy eScoceay (sreku 1) TH ao éBevay. Prusyper dé Kat Els TO ceyov Teva OuK ek TOU TaTpos auro _Aéqeu ex ropever Oat (nfaq), KaTa Tay TOU Kupiou poviy, aan’ @ viov THY vmrapsey een. Kat ovros 06 TOV “‘AroAAvapiov OTE PULaATWV o KapTros* ert veacer dé Kat TH Mapktwvos movnpd 4 yewpyige Toravra Tov Aiqurtiou Ta Kuyjuara movnpow TAT pos adybas eyyova ToVNpoTEpa. Tavira dé, d€ov 7) auBAwOpid.a mouyoae il mauhatt) Kvopopoti pera, n [evid's | Tex evra duapberoae Tous tov Wuxev TIHv iat peav eyKexerpio mer ous: ws orébpea Kai THS NmETEpAs puoews OnAy- T pla ext pépovowy ot qevvadat, kal TOAARS afiover omoud7s én oACOpw ope aUT@Y Kat T@Y Tas GKoas avTOLS vméxew aveyopmevav (mettpisin). ‘Hyuets dé Tov TAT pov KAY pov aovAov pudarrew omrovdalomerv, Kat iV srapeAaBouev miotiy, ped 7s Kat €BarrioOnpuev Kat BanriC oper, (p. 126) avemagov (dla tolsi i) Kae akyparoy dvaTypovmer’ Kat opoAoyoupey Tov KUpLov 1) MOV Tysovv Xpioror, Ocov TéheLov, Kat avOpamoy TéAeLov ex Wuyijs AoneKis Kat TH MATOS, 70 aleovev bev | €K TOU TAT POS evry] Heya KaTa THY Oeoryra* en’ eoyaTwv dé Tov 7] ME POV oe aeas Kau dua THY MET EPAV ouryplay ék Mapcas TIS mapberou Tov avrov KaTa Tay arOpwrdTyTa’ Ouootoldy TO waTpi KaTa THY OedTYTA, Kat Cpoovctov 1) paev
(a) Kai otvoloy Kal? Evwow uciciy is, according to the Syriac text, to be construed with the preceding accusative, Thy Kal’ brdoTacw Evwotr, not with the following, kpaciy tia Kai obyxvow.
2
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 260
Kara THY avbpwmotyra: dve yap purer EVvoots qeyove* O10 eva Xpus- TOV, eva vlov, eva KUpLOV omohoryor wer" ov Te yap THY eveoowy Atvopev, Kat aovyxuTov array YEVE evnoOa age TO Kupte mretBopevoe AéyouTe Tots "Tovdacors* [To. 2 LO on voare TOV vaov TovTov, Kat év Tptotv psoas eyeo@ avtov. Et de Karis evyeyovet Kat yXUTESy Kat pia grows €& apo ameTenéo Oy, EX piv eimewv* Avoare Me, Kal év Tpioty N/E pals eye plo oma’ viv dé demkvs, ws GAAOS perv 0 Ocds Kara THY prow, aARos de 0 0 Vas, ets de Xoror0s apporepa, Avoate, yor, Tov vaoy ToUTOY, Kat ev TpLoLY yMEpals eyepo aro : capes dWaokor, @ ws OTL oux 0 @eds nV 0 Avopevos, QAn’ 0 vaos, kat Tou pev y y pros THY Atow tmedéexeTo" Tou 0€ 7 Svvaps 7 iyetpe TO Avopevov. QOcov be Kat avOpurroy Tov Xpuorov opohoryouuer Tais Oelas axorovdovrres ypapais. “Ort [ev] yap Oeds 0 Kvpros 1) MOV Tysous Xpiores, 0 paKapros ‘Toavyys, 0 ebayyedorys, Bog: fae | ‘Ey aexn win 0 ASyos Kat 0 Abyos Vv mpos Tov Ocov Kat Oecos mY o Aoyos* ovTos nV ev aoXn 700s Tov cov" mavra dv avrou éyéveTo, Kai Ywpis aiToU éyéveTo ovde ev [Oo yéyore]. Kae mwaAw* ee 9] "Hy (lies doitauhi hwa) TO pas TO ay vor 0 por ier mavra avOpuror EpXomevov €l¢ TOY KOoMOV. [at] aur os de 0 KUpLOS Stappydyy OwWaoKeL rey wy" [To. Ad, 9] ‘0 Ewpakes ee éwpare TOV _Tarépa [ou]. Kal, eye Kat oO maT7/p ev éoMév" Kayo ev TO TaTpL Kal Oo marI 9 €v €MOl. Kal O MaKapios TlavAos ev ev TY mos "EBpaious emorroNy [1, 3] pc “Os Ov anmatyarua TIS do0Sys, abrouv Kal Xapaxrijp TIS, UTOTTATEMS adTOL, Peper TE Ta TATA TO pypate THS dvvapews avdrou (1 haila d me lIteh). "Ev de a moos P- Aewmyoious" [2, 5] Tovro pooreioto év UL, pysiv, 0 Kat ev Xpwore Iyoou, os (fol. G5") ev poppy @ec ov ima pXov, ovy apTayyy mIoaTo TO etvat toa Oc@, GAA’ EavTov exévwoe _bopapayy dovAou AaBor. "Ev 0€ TH Tos "Pomaiors t9, 5] pyct: *Qv ot marépes Kar €& ov oO Xpioros [70 | KaTa oapKa, ody em TAT OV eos evAoyntos. "Ev 0€ TH T™pos Titov’ ee 13] Tpoadexopevor THY pakapiay edmida (Isabra dtiiba) THS EmMupa- velas Tov MeyaAov @ecov Kat wry p06 npeov Tyoov Xpiorov. [Kat] ] ‘Hoatas de Bea L9; 6] “Ort madtov eyevr 9 ret, Kat ucos 60609 nKALv, Ov 7) apr?) ETL TOU WMOU AVTOU, Kat KaAELTAaL TO ovoma avTou Mey aAns Bours ayyeros, Oaupacros, ar ‘uBovros, @cds i ioyupos. eSovoaaryjs, apyor elpqy 1S, TAT Ip Tov méAAOVTOS ate@vos. Kat Tar’ [ 45, 4)" Oniow oOvU, prov, aKo- AovOyjrouct dedepevor Xetporred aus (b sotme), Kal EV OL i moorevS ovr at ore év oot eds [core], Kal ovK €oTe @ecds wAgv ou. =v yap et ¢ Oe6s, Kal OvK 1derper, cds Tov "Iopanr CwTN0. [xat] TO "Eupavovyr de ¢ ovopa, cov kat avOpemou Tuyxaver ON MAVTLKOY, EpunveteTat yap Kara THY TOU evayyeriou diacKariar, pel? maou o eds, Tovréorey, ev avdparw cds, ev Ti ypuetépa dtoe Oeds. Kat 0 Oetos [de] ‘Tepepias 0 mpopyrys mpobeomiler Aéqwn" [Baruch 2, 36] Otros o eds MOV, Kat ov Aoyto- Ojoerat ¢ ETEPOS mpos abrov, éeiipe macayv oodov Emory uns, kat doKey aityy laxkaB To dovAw auTou, kat Iopayr TO mryaren pévep Um avrov (page 129), wera ravra ém rhs yys &pOn, Kat tos avOpamas 3
266 - THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
TUVUMETT LUD). Kut uAAus uy Tis pupias evpot povas ¢ ek Te Tov Oeiww evayyeAlar Kal TOY aTOTTONK OP ov [papuaror Kal &K TOV Toy iKeov ar aaa OELKV'S, OTE Geos cies 0 KUPLOS 1 MoVv Tyoous Xpiotos. Tt 0€ aut dv perros META THY evar puma Milind ated dWacket pe v autos 0 KILOS *Tovdatos duurey yomev 0s Kal Bow" [Io. 8, 40) Ti pe Cyrerre UTrOKTEWAL, dvOpeTor, ¢ ooTLs THY aAyOecar % tyucty AcAGANKAa 3 KAO M Kaptos Mat ‘Nos ev 7] Tos Koptr doug mporépa eMLOTOAY [15, 21] Aéywv? ’Exrecd1) yap 00 a Opwrov o Oavatos, Kat 00 avOpwmov ava- OTaOWS veKpOV. Kal dELKYIS TEpL Tivos AEeqet, Eppnveter TO elpy sero’, arrwot A€q wv" [pbidem 22] Qomep ap ev TO ‘Ada arobivjoKouct marTes ot avOpwrot, ovTws [at] év TO XpiwT@ TWarres Coomoiyrovrac. Kal Tepobe w 0€ yoapor [ onots | gnoir LI. 2, 5] ets eds, els Kat peotrys can Kae ay Opcmen : Xpioros "Iycous. Kae ev Tals mpakect Tey aTooToAw [76 30] € ev “Adyvats dnuny opav* Tous bev ovy Xpor0rs THs ay) ovas tmepiddn o 0 cds, prot, Ta wy Tapay ere Tas, Tar Tao A cet" Kabore coryoey nue par, év 7 pédAet Kpivewy THY oiKouper yy vy dixaootry ev ardpt @ Gpwe, TlOTL TapacXYav TaTW, aacTyoUS M'ToY EK 1EKPOr. [kai] 0 0 paxaptos 0€ Hérpos “lovdators dcareroperes” [Acts 2, 22] “Arvdpes, poi, (aemar : gabie, lam,) TopayAcrac, GKLUT UTE Tous Aoyous Tovrovs” *Lyoour Tov NaCwpator, apa a amo Tov cor amodedce 09 ev oY ets vas (ve! thzi bk on) OH MELOLS Kat TEpuce Kat dura pee cis emoinsev 0 Meds bt aur or. (ea. p. 1380) [nat] 0 0 T ports de "Hoaias TOU [deonorov | Xpiotov Ta maby mpoay opcvor, ov po Boayéwv ov omace cdr, TouToy ai) porror aTOKGAEL, OUT wot Aéyor" [53, 3] "Av Opurros ev mANY 2) co Kal ELO@S pépew pahaxiay" ovTos Tas AVOMLAS 1pLeov péper, Kat wre p 7jscov oduvar rat (ass): Kat GAAas 0’ av Opopper ous. MapTuplas ou dAeCus €k Tov UEelwr oupar, é1' Onna av TH ETLOTOAY Tarn, el yr) TV ter Eoay Deore Bevav ymorTapny Lov (dobbarah dabcalma neae) ex ew TH Tov Oelwy Aoyiov pedergy (herg i), Kara Tov ev War pots MaKapiGoper ov ailporov. Ty timer epg Tol pronovia KaTa- AcTOY THY TOY MupTupLoV ovAAoyHY, emt TH Tpoketmeva Badcov peat. cor [rot vr | aAnbuvey Kal ca Opwror aAyBevov TOV KUpLOY 1 aov Tyco Xpiorov omohoy ove Vv, ovK Els OVO TPoTen a dtaipourres Tov eva, a\Xa dv'o uoers acvy YUTWS yvorIa MoTEvoMEN* CUTW Yap Kat THY modunyed TOY uloEe TLKOY Braopypiay padtas duereySat bun yroueda : TOAAY) Kul TOKiAn TOV eTavacTaYTeY TH GAnbeia 1 TAaYN, Os Kat atTika DHAw- comer. Mapktwr pev yap Kat Ovadrertivos kat Mavys ovre dveiAy- pera avOpomevav prow Tov Oecov Adyor paciv, (p. 131) ovTe eK muplévou Tov KUpLOY 7yucov “Tyo Xpioriy jejer yoae TEMOTEUKATL (mhaimnin). a@AX atvroy tov Oecdv A6yov YoymarisOjrae eis Etdes (hezwa) drOpwmewov Kat daviva ds av Operon, purracia /@\Qov 4 (wlau) aAnleta NeHoapevov" Ovarerrires dé Kal [ Bupdurarys THY per qeniys déXovrat THY dé ava Amro apr ovvTu THs mer epas Privews, olov TLvt TwARVE Xpyrasdae TH Tapbevey | ANéyorTes Tov utov Tov @cov. |*
SaPéAros [de] o AiBus (Libaja) Kat Pwrewos Kat MapxeAdos o 4
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 267
Padrarns Kat HavAos 0 Lapoourer s car pom y Wirdov eK THS mraup0e vou yevvy- Oyvat Aéyoust, TO de (geir) Kul Ox ov etrat TOV Today wov Xpiorov Jeappadiyv aprovvrae’ “Apeos b€ Kat Evrcpics cOua povoy anewA per at ek TIS maobevou Tov Ocov Aoyov pau’ AmodAwapees dé TO oopart TpooreOyart Kal Woxayy Goyor, @s T1¢ eva bpwmijsews TO cou Adyeou wrep adoyar, oy tire p Aoy Kian ever mers” Dy de Tav amorTéAwY d.duoKaNia TéAcLOY dr Opurov % imo TeAelov Oeor averrjpoue dwacKet’
TO yap f Me mls 2 2, §],° ‘Os ev poppy Ceo UTa OVO poppy dorrov EdaBe, TOTO dyXor : : avTe proews yao Kae ovalas (Aitja) 7 poop) TPoKerT ae"
Smrov ap OTe prow Eywr Ceo, iow EAuse dovAou" d10 Tors meY mowros TIS aceBelas evperas MapKiwre Kal TO Mavevrs Katt Ovarertirw deaenduevor amrodetKr tral omovdalouer (p. 132) eK TOV detwr ypupar, ore ov povov @cos adda Kul dr Opwmos 0 dcomoTys Xpuoros. SaBeAAlov b€ Kat MapxédAov Kat Purewov [eat NavAov| THY aséBevar eXEVVoper, papTupt TH deta ypupy KEXPNMEVOL Kat O€tK™ wi TES, ws ovk dibpwros povov, d\AG Kat @eos Tpoarwreos Kat TO Tar pe opoctovos 0 Seomorys Xpurros. "Apelov dé Kut Evy ‘op.Lov Kal "ATroAAL- vap tov TO mept THY otKor' opcay are Neg 07Aor Too TES Tos ay overt,
Te\elay ewvat Thy Aypewav amr: p uur ope da are eK Tov lelwy Aoyiwv (mele) Tov aylov mretmatos. “Ort ao Kitt a avédaBe AoyiKyy,
autos 0 Kv 'plos dedaoxee NEyou" [To. 2, 27] Nov 9 buy pou TETAPUKTML, Kul Tt 6UTO 5 ; TaTEp Toooy Me eK a pas TatTys, aAAa dia TovTo bow els THY par TUUTYY. Kat mau" fMatth. 26, 38] Mepidvmos cori 7 Wryy) wou ews Oararov" Kal érépabe* [lo. 10, 18 8] “ESouotay exo maALy Aupety uray’ ovoets atpee airyy Gm’ euov. Kal 0 ayyenos | mpos TOV ‘Lory, [Matth. 2,20) Tlapa\aPe, part, TO maid Lov Kat THY pyre pa ead Kat Topevov els ynv "Iooan\, TebryKace ap TaVTES Ol Cyrourtes THY Wingy TOU matdlov. (p- 133) Kat o evay yyEMor Is maa prot:
Whhuk. 2552)" Ijrous de TpoeKomTer axa Kal copia Kat Raper mapa Ocw Kut ai Jpwrois. TpoKowrer de WAtKLa Kat ropa, ou (beorys ] 7 7] det reNeia, GAN’ aOpwmeta pros, 1) Xpovw [kat] 9 uy’ oper y Kat avsopev 1 Kal Tehevovpevy.
ou ya pu TH juev ay Opwmra marr TOU deomorou Xptorov ‘ mewav, ppl,
[cat ] dwar, Kat KOTOY, kal UT! OY, Kal potas, Kal Tpooevyyy, Kat ayvowav, Kat deAcar, Kal (oa ToavTa a 1 MET EPs anapxys etvai paper, WV vada on 0 @ceis Adyos toocner (oaqqet) eauT@, THY MET EP av Tay marevoueros (net ttag or) Tet y plc . TOV de TOV yonaw jpopuor, kat Tov veK pov THY aracracw, Kal TaS TOV dpTov mnyas (nebce), cat ryv ef vdUTOS. els OL ov petaBoryjy, Kat Tadd; Tas aAQas Dav par oupytas : T7¢ Oelas € tra Ova GMOS epya moTev omer. @s TOV air ov,
py [97] Tov deomaryy Xpurrov, Kat TaoxeW Kal maby Avery : ma oxelv pev KUTA TO Opwpercy, Atew O€ (man) va maby KaTa THY appijras otKouray Oedryra. SyAot dé Tor'T0 Tapes Kat TOV lepav evay yeAoT Ov 1] toropta (ssurti )* parlavoyer yap éxetBer, (p- 134) as eV parry KE(MEVOS Kat omupy au me pike, IAy Eros, UmTO aarépos EKNPUTTETO, Kat (Td payov TeooeKvverto Kat WTO ayyedav UMVELTO, Kar dtakplvopey
5
268 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
evireBos, or Tov vyTiou [ra pay | Kal Omdpyava Kat TIS Rtvys aropia Kat y Lara Evre ‘Acta, Tis avOpwrornros Vola. 0 de _Tev payov 06 sss Kat TOU aor éoos 1] Todyrya (hadday ati i) Kat 7 Tov ayyéAwv Yopeta (dj ssit) KNPUTTEL THY TOU KpuTT ope vou OeoTyTa. our as a7rooL~ OPaTKel MeV Ets Aiyuttor, Kae 77 pura TS ‘Hpwdou pavias amanAat- teva: [Kar] yap iivOparros HV. Lvoceter dé KaTa Tov _ Tpopyryy (mistake of MS.: Ber) Ta Xetporroinra Atyirrov: Ocos yap wripye. Ueperépverat Kat pudarret Tov vO [Lov Kae Kabapotous Tpoopéper Ouoias :
eK yap THs ‘Teooat BeBraornKe pil ys. Kat vo vo,.ov ws avOpwros nv. Kat eduoe Tov voplov mera TuvTa Kat JédwKE THY Kawi Seabyxyy : vopoberys yap nyt Kae Tarr yy QUuTos dovew dia TOY TpopyT av eTnyyelAaro. "EBarriody v ro ‘Teavvon : TovTO deikvuct TO 1pMeTEpor. Maprupecrac avoblev vro Tov TAT pos, Kal UTO TOU VEU PLAT OS OeiKvUTaL : ToUTO KNPUTTEL TOV TPoawvior. ’Exreivy ev" aAAa@ Kat ToAAUS KiALadas € €K TévTeE cpt ov exopece : ToUTOo Oetov, éxetvo av pomvoy. "Edayce Kal NTHOEY vdwp, adra mY qv Cons: (p. 185) Kat ro pév WV THs [avOpamivys | aovevetas, TO 0€ TIS Getas durapuews. "Exadevdyoev _€ év TO Adie, adra kai TIS dararrys THY Cadyy EKOLMATE : tovro [sic q TIS Tabyrijs pr Tews, eKeWo [ste !] ris mouyriKys Kat Sypcoupyextis [kat THs] TOS Tact TO ewvat Jwpyraperys. "Exorriace Badioas, ara Kai _Xerovs dprimodas elpyaoaro, Kat veKpovs €k TOV Taper aeoryse : > Kal TO pev nv THS BmrepKoo piov duvapews, TO Oe This Hyper Epas aobeveias. “Edet- Nace Oavatov, Kai éAvoe Odvarov: Kat TO pev TOU OvyTOU SyAwTIKOY, TO 0€ Tov aBavarov, wa\Aoy dé (bram dein) Cwomroot tuyyaver on- eee “Eotavpody, KaTa THY TOU MaKapiou TlavAov didacKkariay, e€ aobevetas, aaa Cy éx duvauews @cov. TO THS doevetas ¢ ovoua dida~ oKETO ovr, os 0 rar odtvaj405 Kat amepiypacos, Kat aTpeTTOS Kat dvaQotwros Tpooyoty, GAN 74 eK dura uews cov Cooranbetoa rors Kara THY Tov amooToAou didacKadriay amwébave Kat erady: auorepa Ts TOU dovAov popdijs. TvAas Xarkas ouvérpie (shaq) Kat Hox- Aov's o1d990Us [ ste ty ouvébhace Kai Kar éAuoe Tov Oavatrov TO Kpatos* Kal év Tpiotv npepats avéoryoe TOV oiKELoVv vaov ql haikleh) : TavTa THs TOV QMcov poppiis Ta Yyvopiopara Kara THY Tov kupiov dida- oKariay prot yap" [Io. 2, 19] Atoare Tov vaov TOUTOY Kat Ev TPLOLY jpepaes eyEepo (mqim) aurov. Otvrws ev ta [evi] Xpiorg dua pev TOV Tabor Gewpoupev THY diOporéryra, dua Oe TOY Oavpa- ioe YoovMey avTov THY Oecoryra. ou yap eis OU Xpisrovs Tas dvo voces pepiCouer, GNX’ ev TO Evt Xpuor@ voouuev Tas Ovo procs” Kat oper, OTe ev &« Tou TAT pos 0 eds Adyos eyev- in0y, €K Tov ‘ABoaaw de Kat AaBid 4 mer épa amapy7) mpoce- Anpey. Avo Kat oO Makaptos Taos pci, Tept Tou ‘ABpaau duarero- MEvos" ovK etme" [Kar] TOS oméppuact cou, ws emt moAAor, GAN’ ws évos? Kai to ome part cov, 0s €oTe Xpiords. Kat Tipobew de ypapov [U, 2, 8], uvypoveve, pyoir, *Iyoovy Xpiorov eynyepmevov ék veKpov €k omréppatos AaBid, kata TO evayyéAoy pov, Kat ‘Pwpaiors emorér-
6
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 269
Aw [1,3], Lepr Tov vov avTov, Pyol, TOU yevouévou ex omrépuaros Aes KATO oupka. kat mad [9,5]* ‘Qu of marépes cat é& dv o Xpioros TO KaTa GapKa. Kal o evayyedcorys [Matth. 1,1]: BéBros VEVETEWS Iyrou Xpiotov viov AaBid, wov ’ABpadu. Kat 0 yaxdpros [lérpos év THUS pause [Acts 2, 30], Hpopyrys, pyoiv, imapxwv 0 Aais, Kal LOWS ore opkep OMooer avT® 0 Oeos €x KapTou TIS oogptos auvrov (Ms. cavtov!) avactysew Tov Xpiorov kat Kabioat én TOU Opovov arov: moocwdas EAaAnTE Tept THis avasTaoews avtov. Kato Ocos TO ABpacp prot [Gen. 22, 18): "Ev TO omepuati cov evevAoyy- Onrovrat TavTa Ta eOvy TIS ams Ka 0 Hoatas [dé]: pa ie 1} *"EéeAcvoer at paBdes € eK TIS pins *Teooal, Kat av0os &k THS pilns auTou
avapyoer a, Kal emavarraticer at er’ ator Ted jude Oeov, mvevj.a copias Kal ouverews, mrevua BovAns Kat LOXTOS, TEU UCL ydceus Kae evgePelas, 7 mrevua doBov cov cumyaet QuTOV. Kal ber Oriya, [11, 10] Kai eorat, prety ( lam), 7] pila TOU "leooat kat o avioTapevos apxew eOvov' ér aura evn eAmouce’ Kae eorae 1] avaTravots auTov TUM» Ajdoy Toivuy ek TOY cipypévwy, OS TO ev KATA CapKa Oo Xpioros Tov ‘Adam Kat Aafid UTIPXEV amoyovos Kae THY aura avr ots mepLeKelTo prow, kara Oe wu deornra Tov Oeov mpoawvios é€oTW wos Kal Aoyos, appaorus Te Kal wmep dvb pomoy (1 cel men hauna) ek TOU maT pos qevvybets, Kae ouratdeos tmapxey, (p. 138) os amatyar pe Tos TO pas GXwploTos exer: ouTos: 0 Movorer HS ULOS 7905 TOV EaUTOU marépa. Paper ToLvUy TOV KUPLOY Lor Lyoovy Xpiorov ucov etvac povoyevt) Tou Oeov Kat TPWTOT OKOY : povoyevy pév, [Kat | To TIS evar Opamreas Kat meta THY évavOpomyot’ TPWTOTOKOY dé, mera THY EK mapbévov yéeve- ow (jalda). TO yap povoyever TO TwTOTOKoS [ovopa] evayTlov [mer elvai Tos | Soxet, duore povoyeri}s mev 0 moves EK TLVOS yevubers TPO ay opeveTa, TPWTOToKos O€ 0 ToAA@Y adehpaor TMpaTos. Tov oe @edv Adyov movov €k Tow TAT pos ae Devas qypapat even diva Aéyouct. Tivera (hwa) dé Kat TPwTOT oK OS 0 povoryers, THY npeTépav prow etAnpas eK Tis Taplévov, Ka adersor's To's eis avTov TemLOTEUKOT AS Tporayopevoa. KaTagioras: ws eat Tov avroy povorevi) pév, Kalo @ecds* TPWTOTOKOY | dé, Kalo avOpwros. OUT OS 7 pets Tas ovo poets opmodoryorivres Tov eva Xpiorov TpooKvovper, kat play auT@ mpoopépoper THY mpooxvvysw. Tiv yap éevoow && awirns TIS ounAsjvews év Tis ayias tmapbévov vydti yeyeryoOa mioretouev. Ato Kat OcoroKov Kat av pumoroKov THY aylav mapbévov Tporar/operiouer. Exes) Kai autos 0 deomsrys Xpioros, cds Kai dvOpaTros % bro TIS Oetas KaAe tT at pays. Kat 0 "Empavovyr 06, Tov Ovo picewv KypiTtTer THY évwowv. Ei dé rov Xpuorov cov Kai avO pomor (p. 139) [ouoroyorjuer Kat | Aéyouer, Tis oUTWS eis, Os puyew THY avOparroréKos porjy, pera THs Oeordxou Tie pévyv; et yap TO deomory Xpior@ Tas dvo TiHeuev mpoonyopias, dv’ ov n mapbévos TeTipyTae Kea evoynuévy €v quvacke Luk. i 28] m™poon- yopevOy, Tis Lowy] ev Ppovev TmapaiTyo aro amo TOY Tov Twrijpos OvoMaTwY amoKaAéoat THY Tapbévov, } OU eKELvoy Tapa TaV--TOTOY
7
270 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
yepaiperar; ov yap o €& avris OC attyy ceBarpios, GAN’ avr dia TOY és ars Tats ey lorus MPooyyoplas KaAAt eT (metqal Isa). ke wey obv Ocds povor o Xpirros, Kul EK TS mupder ov TOU Elvat THY apXrV einer, évrevev bovov 9 mapléros ovoualécbw Kat KadrEicOw OeotoKos, os | cov pice yevr rao. Ei dé Kat Geos Kat arOpwmes 0 Xpiores, Kal TO ev ay ael* ore ap HpSaro Tov ebay, OUI atoLos (bar mtom- majuta) ap TO yevinoarre To Oe em éoxatov TOY KaLp wY eK THs avOpwmetas éBraoryse proews : éxatépaber 0 00% pariety (d neolat) ebéAwy exer oo TM mapoer « @ Tas mpooy 5 opias, Spon, Told pev TH priser, moa dé TH EVWoEL TpooaKet’ et d€ mar nyuptKas (hi: lagal it ste = hageajat Ts Néqew EOEAOL, Kal Vp ous tpaiven (nezqor ), Kal emralrous Bueki(é rae Kat Bowrer at TOLS GEMVOTEPALS 01 Opaow avayKalas wexpraba, ou do7- parlor, @S epyy, andra may) vupitwr (nhagge) Kut Oavpaler ws oivr Te TOU puoTHpiov TO péyeOos: (p- 140) arodAacte (nqadde) Tu mobou (hau ma dmahheb), «at Tots ey adas O1opact Kexpyolw, Kat ematveirw Kat Oavualéro’ TANG © yap TuUUTaE mapa op! HoddSars duacKarors evpiokoper. Tarrayov de TO BET piov Tiare. "Eran @ ¥ yap TOV ELONKOTU, apior ov etvat TO MET pLOV, et Kal THS NMETEpUS ayédys CUK EOTLY, Avry TIS exkAYOLUTT EK TS TLOTEWS 9 Omoroyia. Tovro tis evuyyeduKys Kat amro- OTONK YS didacKaAlas TO Jorma (jollfana d haimaniita). ‘Yrep tovrov Tpis Kat ToAAGKIS aTrobavety THs Tov Or ov OnAor6TL YapLTOS GUVEpYyoroNs ov maparryso pela. Tavra Kat Tous vy Pe s ddakae mpoe ups) One? Kat Toh aKts avrous es didheEw (man! la) mpovkaeoa ueba, trodetSat aur ots oroudal ovres THY adyBevar, kal ov emetobyoar. YGo- Papevot yap Tov éAEYXOV TO % opare ES, epuy ov Tors a, arus' cabpoy 5ap os aAnbes TO Wevdos, Kal TO OK oret ouveleuymevoy (Kina cam). na 4p, poly (oamir) [lo. 3, 10], 0 parira Tparoor', ovKk epxerat Tos TO pas, ¢ iva [49) par pel wmr0 Tov pwrtos Ta Ep) a aiiro. "Emewd) Tow moAAG TETOVIKOTES, ou TeTetKa MEY atrois émyvovat THY adyjberay, eis Tas oixelas ema Bojer exkAyolas av j108’ VTES (meaqin) Kal Naipovres* TO pév, dia TO npueTEpoY anhaveés, TO dé, dua Ty TOV MeA@Y nov onmedova (tamsota). Avo ry tmerépav ayootvyy Tapakaro, evbtipos Tov PpidavOpurcy (Fae Nay MOV LKETEVTAL deomiryY, kat T™pos avroy Bojoat (tegeon) [Hoel 2 SLT]: Setoa, Ki jote, Tov Auori wou Kal py) OS Tap kAgpovopiay ov ets avewdos ToLuaver np Gs KUpte, Wa (0) qevoueda & OS TO aT apxys, OTE ouK TOXES par, aoe ETEKEKANTO TO ovoid wou ep” as. "1dé, Kiiple, ott [Ps. 78 (79), 4] eqeryOnpcy ¢ ovetd os ToL yelTooLW MOV, MUKTHOLO MOS | Kat xYAevacpos Tos KIKAw 7) cor" OTL etomAe d69- para Tov pa els THY KANpCYOmtar’ (p 141) Kai émiavay Tov vaov Tov ayo ou" ore evippavoyoay bus, atcpes ardor? wv emt ToL nueTepos Kako.s" OTL euepioOnpev els yosous moAAas cL mony [opogpovovrrés Te Kat] opopavovyTes. Kt "ple, 0 eos MOV, eipyvny (lege Isaina) dos py HY dmwheraper, TOY COV ev TOAGY ape Ayjrar TES. KUple, 0 eos 4 MOV, KT HOA ypas [Is. 26, 13]. KUpLe, EKTOS COU aAQov ouK oidapev* TO Ovoua cov oe acoeen, Toincov TA auporepa €v, Kal TO Mecororyov
8
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 971
[rou pear pou] door Kal TH avacpueto av acéBevav’ cvvayaye ais eva Kal? eva, Kat Tov véov ou *Iopanr, oikodopcov "TepovoaAy)4 Kat Tas Staropas "Iopasr _emiowvaryov" qevot eda maw pia Toluvy (cana), Kai mavTes vo oov Troup ein ev® ov yap EC 0 ToLurY O KAAOS 0 THY Wouxyv avrov reeckaos imep Tav TeoBaTwr. Seen. (vati tmvots, Kuple* avaor yo Kat my amon) Npas eS TENOS" (p. 14:2) emit uy oor (Ps. 43, 2) Tots avé ots Kat Ty Oararry’ Kai dos ya adr nV TH exkAyola TOU, | Kal KupaTov amanda nv (ghi ati a). Tavra Kal ood ToLavTa mapa- Kaho wu UpeTépav deooéBevay Bc av mpos Tov TOV OAwY Oedv’ ay ablos 4p @v Kat prravb perros Kal TO GéAnua Tov poBovperay airovy Tolwy ael, THs UmeTepas deyrews é ETUKOVGETAL, KGL TOV maporTa Copor | aTrooKEdac et TOV y TIS Aiyurrianys: TANYNS Copwdéorepor, Kal THY auTou piryr xa- pretrat yadnvyy, Kat ouracser TOUS dteTKopTT MEvoUs Kat TOUS aTwo- pévous eiodéSerar. kat akovobyoera mady Horr dyadhiacews Kal GwTyplas év oKyvats dikalwr. TOTE Kal 7 MELS Boyooper ™Mpos avTor’ CPsg9, to); Ev ppavbernper ay @Ov 1Kcpav eTameivasas (jaumata dmokkakan) pas, Kat €T@Y Ov etdopey Kaka’ Kal tyets de TIS ous Tews VMOV TUXOVTES (tesw on), avumvovvTes auTor épecre’ (Ps. 69, 2
(19)] EvAoyyros 0 @cos os ovk anéoryre ayy Teoreuyyy Yuov, Kae TO Arcos avtov ad’ yuav. [Avra 7 d0fa els Tors aidvas. ’Apyy.|
PA pe THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
| THE SENTENCE OF DOMNUS |
Made known to the Notaries on their arrival at his domicile.
We left Domnus at p. 25. The Envoys, commissioned by the Council to urge his attendance on its sittings, reported that “hey had found him perfectly unable, through bodily debility, to join in the Council’s deliberations in person.
The President, at this stage of the proceedings, despatches Nota- ries who apprize him of all the transactions of the day, of which Domnus is made to say that he thoroughly approves. But these Netaries are apparently not commissioned to announce to Domnus that he himself is soon, or perhaps the next, to be tried at the bar of Justice. For, they are positively and per- fectly silent as to the approaching fact of the Chief Bishop of Christian Asia being for one moment the subject of this Gicu- menical Synod’s formal adjudications. The Acts, we say, give no instruction of his being at all, or in any way, apprized of this circumstance, and this is in the case of a Patriarch of the Church. Can anything be more contrary to all principles of justice and fair dealing? “It is of itself enough to justify “the Anathema which fourteen centuries have cast upon the “celebrated Cabal of Ephesus.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 273 VIII.
[HIS SENTENCE DESPATCHED BY DOMNUS.]
Now when the Notaries, who had been despatched to Bishop Domnus, had read to him (an account of) what had been transacted,
Domus, Bishop of Antioch, (replied) :—
I was wishful, had I enjoyed my usual health, to have assembled with your Piety and, together with your Holiness, to have heard all that was said rela- tive to Ibas, and Daniel, and Irenzeus, and Aquilinus, and Theodoret, but, in consequence of great bodily debility, [ was prevented from doing this.
It has, however, been thought right and just by your Piety that he, who in body has been disabled‘! from going, should (learn) be informed of those matters that are already on a fair way for justice, by your judgment, O holy (Fathers)! at the hands of those who have been despatched from your Holy Synod— the Venerable Notaries, Demetrian, Flavian, and Primus.
After having heard at one (and the same) time* the whole of your holy commands and just decision concerning all of them (the accused) one by one, I
{ Better, perhaps—* He who, on account of bodily sickness, could not come, should learn all that has been (already) accomplished in a right manner—or put in the right path—by your just judgment, O holy Fathers.”
* In p. 171, |. 13, the Jud in the word mascz.2 1s a mistake of the Scribe, no doubt. In the next line the word ],ss>] is simul, at one time.
bo
74 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(can only) bestow great praise (on you), being brought to the same opinion as yourselves in all these mat- ters: and I pronounce the (same) decision with you, and I adhere to (join you in) the same com- mands as you, in regard of all those men who have been justly deposed (expelled) by you, whilst I differ from you in nothing and would make no alterations in what has been effected, but to all those transac- tions that have been apostolically* conducted and accomplished by your Blessedness, I, with all readi- ness (possible) on my part, do give my confirmation and assent.
EEND OF THE “SENTENCE OF, DOMNUS:. |
—
* In]. 24, Qelaned. means, of course, in an Apostolic manner, or, rather, in accordance with “the Apostolic Canons.” ‘The Canons, “commonly called Avpostolical or Ecclesiastical,’ number at most 85, which were drawn up by the Church’s Synods held at the end of the Second and beginning of the Third Centuries, and added to afterwards, and collected, not all at once, but as they were made, some after others, and they were the Rule of Discipline, or the Code of Canons, oF THE Primitive Cuurcu, or, however, for the Eastern Part of It. (See Johnson’s Vade-Mecum, Vol. [I.) They are referred to ex- pressly by the Great Councils of Nicaea and of Constantinople: and the fifth and sixth Holy General Councils, says Sparrow, held 700 years, more or less, after Christ’s passion, ordained that, for the government of the Churches and a preventive against disorder, eighty-five Canons of the Apostles, which had been delivered to the Church by Clemens, the dis- ciple, companion, and perpetual follower of the Apostles themselves and the successor of Peter, should by the faithful be diligently observed.” He cites the Admonition of the Apostle at 2 Thess., ii, “ Stand fast, and hold by our traditions, whether (given) by word or letter.” See A Collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, &c., by Bishop Sparrow. Imprinted at London, 1675.
RELEASE OF
CERTAIN .CLERKS.
276 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
[REMOVAL OF ECCLESIASTICAL CENSURE. ]
The spiritual power, or Discipline, of the Church, entrusted to Her by Her Divine Head, seems here to have received prac- tical illustration of what it was in the 5th century, to “bind”’ and to “loose,” and in the exercise of the Lesser Excommuni- cation called apopirpuos, separation or suspension; the greater being “the total separation, and anathema, the curse,” which was the greatest curse that could be laid upon men—zrayteAns apopiopos. The former mode of punishment consisted, says Bingham, “in excluding men from the participation of the Eucharist and prayers of the faithful, but did not expel them the Church; for, still they stay to hear the psalmody, and reading of the Scriptures, and the Sermons, and the prayers» of the catechumens and the penitents, and then depart with them, when that first service, called the service of the cate- chumens, was ended.” (Bk. XVI, Chap. xi, Sect. 7. See also Note at the end of the cause of Ibas, p. 145.)
Now four members of the Christian Church, of whom three were Deacons and the other a Reader, had been prohibited par- ticipation in the greatest privilege to membership, for some misdemeanour not named, by the exercise of the power of “binding” by no less a person than the Archbiskop cf that See that was soon to rise to be the second in Christendom— viz., that of the Royal City of Constantinople; and, using this (icumenical Tribunal as the Appellate Court in the last resort they prayed for the removal of the interdict or censure, under which they had been put by that Archbishop.
The Presiding Judge of the Council, doubtless, glad of a small opportunity of doing somewhat towards crushing the rising power of New Rome as wellas of defeating the influence of Old Rome at this Synod, over which he had shown his own power to be supreme, had no sort of hesitation in “loosing” those whom his Rival at Constantinople had “* bound.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 277 EX:
[RELEASE OF CERTAIN CLERKS. ]
Then Theosebius, and Epiphanius, and Theophilus, Deacons, and Eudromanus, Reader, approached the Holy and Gicumenical Synod, and said :—
Flavian, formerly Bishop of Constantinople, put us under an Jnterdict from appearing here (at this Tribunal). We pray your Piety to release us from the (bond of) censure.
The Hoty Sywnop said :—
It is right and just that they should be received. Dioscorvs, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Well-known matters has Theosebius mentioned, with Epiphanius and Theophilus, Deacons, and Eudromanus, Reader; but they have not alluded to the cause of Inhibition. This God-fearing, Holy, and Cicumenical Synod, however, having a regard for The True Religion, has released them from their Interdict. Let, therefore, the persons named above be admitted to Communion, as formerly.
The Horny Synop said :—
“We all say the same. We, all of us, give our “assent to this with one common voice (unani- “‘mously).”
[END OF THE “RELEASE OF CERTAIN CLERKS.” ]
278 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
It is probable that during this part of the Synod’s proceedings, or somewhere after the trial of Theodoret, another important one took place, that of the Deposition of Athanasius from the Bishopric of Perrha in Syria, and the Consecration of Sabinian to it, the discussion of which formed the 14th Session, and between which two Bishops Dijudication was effected by the Magistrates, of the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, a.p.
So, also, might have come on at this stage of the business the exami- nation of Candidian’s case, who was Bishop of Antioch, in Pisidia, referred to by Theodoret in one of his letters, and against whom several complaints were vainly submitted to this Council.
And the same may be said of Athenius whose name, it would seem, appears nowhere but in one of Theodoret’s Letters.
But this, we repeat, is only a probability. The certainty of the matter could be ascertained from a discovery of the three lost leaves of the original MS., if those leaves contained information respecting the order of the Sessions and arrangement of the proceedings, and the absence of which marks the first of the Lacune remarked upon above, at foot of p. 27.
It will not be inappropriate or inopportune to offer in this place a few observations and references relative to the Bishops, Candidian, Athanasius and Athenius.
A graphic descriptiva of the proceedings at Ephesus, and some particulars not mentioned elsewhere, we read in one of the Letters of Theodoret, addressed to John of Germanicia.*
De presenti rerum statu nihil sperare licet, Theodoret begins, defectionisque absolute initia hee esse arbitror ; and he goes on to complain, that even those who declare their abhorrence of the violent proceedings at Ephesus (uera@ Bias), now acquiesce in what was done there; while the promoters of it show more and more their insolence, actually affirming that no immovation was made in the dogma (undeulay yeyernoba rept TO Séypa Kawvorouiay), as if he, ‘Theodoret, had been expelled because of an immoral life (ob caedes et maleficia)! while even BaeBapo clearly see, that they expelled him as well as others on account of the Dogma. Kat yap roy ktiprov Aduvov, he continues, os Ta Kepadaa pr) deEdmervov Kablecdoy ot PEA- Tito, THEtpyua Tata KaAréTarTES Kal Eupérem TOVTOLS opodo0n noav- res (€y@ yao m'rav tas Kabéoers avéyrwv)* Eve dé WS TIS aipéocws Kapyor amexynpvay Kat rors dArovs wratrws dia TH aTyY attic éSE- Baroy. For that it was not a question of the moral life and con- versation (9 mpaktixy apety): atta Bod Ta Tpaypatu. Kara yap Kuvdidiavov, Tov Meotdcov, AyBEAAous éme)urav Ties, MoLyeras avrod
a This Letter, bearing the number 125 in the MSS., left out by Sirmond in the collection of Theodoret’s Letters, but given in the Appendix to vol. iv., was numbered 147 by Garnerius, and stands under the same number in Migne, Series Grmeca, vol. Ixxxiii., col. 1409 ff.
b Candidianus is mentioned as member of the Synod, vol. i., 10, 22 (ii. 16, no, 24), and 99, 17 ff. (ii. 144 no. 19), speaking judgment against Ibas.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 279
KaTyyopowrres ToAAGS Kai ETEpas Tapavopias, Kal Pacu elonkerac et doymatoy KaTyyopecre, Sexdpueba Tors ALBEAAoLS* oF) qap 700 per pot yetas dicdoa. Acad Toe Tovro Kai ‘AOyvtoy Kat ‘Adavaccor® tro TIS amooToNKys exBAnbévTas cuvddou Tas oiKeias amoAaBew eKKAyTLas EKe- Aevoay : as if our Saviour no commandment had given as to life, but only ordered to preserve the doyuata, & mp0 Tey aArwv déd-
Heipav ot coperara. Let them therefore not cloke their godless- ness, which they have proved by tongues and fists (uy... Kpumré- Tesay Thy acéBevar, HY Ka Tats YAwTTaLS Kal TAs Yepotv EBeBarwoar).
Theodoret goes on to disavow the chapters, which they had so often rejected, and which they have accepted at Ephesus. But they change their minds according to the time, like the polypus, according to the colour of the rock it lives upon, and the chame- leon to the surrounding leaves ; and having formerly applauded
my preaching as apostolic, now they condemn it (77 didacKaAiay
The moral weight of the argumentative power manifested by the great Hutychian intriguers in this deliberative assembly must have been, in the first session, whatever it may have been afterwards, infinitesimally small, whilst the physical power apper- taining to their position in the Nmpire they brought to bear upon its members in a terrific manner. The above words of Theodoret if used here as indicating instruments of Conveying terror inadequately describe the scene. ‘‘ When Dioscorus began to pro- nounce sentence against Flavian, Onesiphorus, Bishop of Iconium, rose with several others and seized his knees entreating him not to proceed, Dioscorus rose from his throne, and, standing on his footstool, aeclarecd, that although his tongue were to be cut out he could not say otherwise; and as the Bishops continued to entreat him, holding him by his knees, he cried out ‘ where are the Counts?’ which brought in the Proconsul, witha great number of soldiers, armed with swords and clubs, and bringing chains withthem. By this means the greater part of he Bishops were compelled to affix their signatures to a carte-blanche; being shut up in the church till evening, and prevented from taking either rest or refreshment, &c.’’ (Fromthe Oxford Fleury, p.310). Onthe carte-blanche referred to, it is thought was afterwards indited the long address to the Emperor, dis- covered in the magnificient MS, (No. Add. 12156,) in British Museum, of Timothy #lurus, reproduced in my Vol. 1, and translated in Vol. 2, in Appendix D.
We may add here, that according to Breviculus Hist. Hutych. (Labbe, t. 4 p. 1080, B) as given in the same page of the Oxford Fleury, it was three days after the sessionin which Flavian was deposed, that the President of the Synod managed to effect the deposition of Archbishop Domnus. ‘ Dioscorus produced some letters before the Council,— (these very interesting letters are also given in our M§, as will appear further on)—which Domnu® had written to him, charging St. Cyril’s 12 Articles with being obscure, and the Council were thus prevailed upon to depose him as suspected of Nestorianism, though he was absent and laid up with sickness’’ The session in which Flavian was deposed was the first, and the motive assigned to Dioscorus for deposing him, and using an artificein the accomplishing of his object, is that Domnus had retracted his forced subscription to the
condemnation of the Archbishop Flavian.
« Athenios is not mentioned in the List of the Members, but two of the name of Athanasios, one Bishop of Opus in Achaia (i. 2, 143 ii. 17, 49Y, the other of Busiris (i. 12, 16; ii. 19, 99); whether one or which of those can be identified with the Athanasios mentioned by Theodoret, I cannct say—perhaps the latter,
280 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
nuov arooToAKyy ovouatovtes’ Tatrny avebeuariay), and the man whom they accused of Valentinianism and Apollinarism, as vexypopov Te ole UTrov TIS TLOTEWS Kat TOY TOUTOU TpoexvAty SOUVTO TOO wr’ Kae ouyyy wun eCyrour Kae TATE pa TVEUMATLKOV éxaXouv.2 Theodoret comforts himself with the righteous judgment of the Lord ; hopes to be forgiven, because of this endurance of injustice (dca rir adixiav) ; expects that the coming election of the Patriarch of the East will make the views of everyone apparent ; and asks for the prayer of John, that he might be able to stand against the plots of his enemies.
In the famous Letter Theodoret sent to the Bishop of Rom: Leo (numbered 113),> he gives the following account of the pro- ceedings at_the Synod (AMigne, 83 col. 1316 b),
‘O yap ts “AreEavdoeias dixadraros Tededpos ork npKesOn TH aroue Taryn Kat AdiKwTaTH Kabaiperer TOV aywTaToU Kat HeodAecTaTOU T2, KerorartivovToNtav émiKémov Tov Kupiou PraBiavov ovde evémAyseE: arrow TOY Super | TOY GAwy emoKkoTov 7 TapaTrAyo ta opay 1, arN« Kame Tov amTovTa ¢ 0401006 Karan Karecpacer, ouTE KaAET AS els KpTy pte oure mapovra Kpwas, OvK EpOT Has, tive ppoves mept THS Tov Geov Ku Ler npos mov éevavOpwrrrews. Kal TOUS pev eae ee Kal TupBwpr- yous Kat Tovs TAs ardor pias ourdycarras evvac® ov TpoTepov KaTaKpivov- ow ot dualovres, ¢ 0s ay 7 airot TAS Karyyooins Tats opodoyiacs KUpO- ows, 7 Tap’ éTEpov i “97s bre yXIaouw. 7mas 0€ 0 Tots Oetors (V6 ows évreHoanucvos, mévTe Kat TpLaKovTAa oTaOpors adeoTyKoTas KaTéKpLVeEr @s mHEN GC
In this letter also Theodoret acknowledges the superiority of the See of Rome and sounds the praises of 5S. Leo, and as to the celebrated Letter Leo wrote to S. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, which, rejected at Ephesus and ed at Chalcedon, has now pee the common heritage of the Church, Theodoret says he admires it as the very language of the Holy Ghost. He speaks of his labours for the Church during the 26 years of his Bishopric, and in the 800 Parishes of his diocese, and enumerates the several works he wrote in 20 years, from which to ascertain whether he had kept The Faith or not.
He asks the advice of Leo as to whether he ought to acquies? in his unjust deposition or not, awaiting his decision.
a We find these acclamations almost verbally in the Syriac text of the Acts : ep. vol. ii.. p. 126 f. note, a proof that Theodoret did read, as he says, the depo- sitions of the Synod.
b xiii. in Wartin, Le Pseudo Synode, p- 55, note 4, is a misprint.
¢ This is appare ntly an allusion to Candidianus, Athenius and Athanasius. mentioned in !'pistle 147, where Theodoret pli veces himself in contraposition to these men: Quasnam ob emdes et maleficia eyo expulsus sum? quenam hic adultera comiisit ! quie sepulera ille perfodit, ete. ?
DOMNUS.
282 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
DOMNUS.
Last, but by no means least, on the list of the arraigned stands the cause of Domnus II; and very singular does it ap- pear. Indeed, the whole position of this Bishop among his Fellows and members of this Council is perfectly unique. For, whereas he was Patriarch* of the probably first formed See of Christendom, next after that of Jerusalem—seeing that he exercised Patriarchal Jurisdiction and occupied, in regular suc- cession from 8. Peter, the Overseership cf Antioch the Great Capital, it is no anachronism, nor incorrect, to speak of him and his as such—and Patriarch, too, of the then certainly Apostolic Throne that held the third rank, and therefore, in moral right
* Bingham, who informs us (Book II, chap. xvii) that Patri- archal Power had come to its height about the time of the Councils of Epbesus and Chalcedon, when writing on the subject of Patriarchs and referring to Domnus, says :—‘ Next in order to the Metropolitans, or primates, were the pa- triarchs; or, as they were at first called, arckbishops and exarchs of the Diocese. For though now an Archbishop or a Metropolitan be generally taken for the same, to wit, the pri- mate of a single province; yet anciently the name Archbishop was a more extensive title, and scarcely given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. That this was so appears evidently from one of Justinian’s Novels, where, erecting the bishopric of Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchal See, he says, ‘ Our pleasure is that Justiniana shall not only be a Metropolitan, but an Archbishop ?’** Here the names are clearly distinguished, and an archbishop superior to a metro- politan. And hence it was that, after the setting up of patri- archal power, the name Archbishop was appropriated to the Patriarchs. Liberatus+ gives all the Patriarchs the title of Archbishops. So does the Council of Chalcedon frequently, speaking of all the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinoplet under the name of Archbishops also. These were otherwise called érapyo THs dcouKyoews, exarchs of the Diocese, to dis- tinguish them from érapyor trys emapyias, the exarchs of a single province, which were only metropolitans. Thus Dom- nus, Bishop of Antioch, is styled exarch of the eastern dio- cese,|| by the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon.
* Justin. Novell., II. Volumus, ut non solum metropolitanus, sed etiam archiepiscopus fiat.
+ Liberat. Breviar., c. xvii. { Con. Chalced., Act. 16. It. Act. 4, et can. 30.
|| Con. Antioch. in Act. 14. Con. Chalced.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 283
and importance, able and entitled to claim the President’s chair, he was consigned to the least dignified, nay, to the lowest position of all, and, through the powerful influence of the ‘ Facinorosus Eutyches ” with the Emperor and the Court, “ Synodalis Presidentis apud Ephesum nvasor” was appointed; Equally unique, too, was afterwards his situation at Chalcedon in 451 a.p.; for, according to Christianus Lupus (1681), p. 827, * Non solus Dioscorus Alexandrinus, sed etiam Juvenalis Hie- “rosolymitanus, Thalassius COsareensis in Cappadocia, * Basilius Seleuciensis, et caetert, Primates, immo omnes La- “trocinali Judicio co-operati Episcopi, in retractatoria apud “ Chaleedonem Synodo fuerunt demutati in reos, compulsi ad “snorum operum rationes, et solemnem peenitentiam.” But Domnus took no such step and appears in no such character at Chalcedon. Again, all the other Victims to the violence of Eutychian partizanship, who were condemned and excommuni- cated at this Robber Council, repaired without delay to the Judges of the succeeding and superseding one for justice to be done to them, but Domnus alone not only put in no appear- ance but employed no representative at. Chalcedon; and these ame Judges awarded to these same Bishops the restored Dig- nity, Rank, and Authority attaching to their Office, whilst a doubt, or a half conviction, evidently hung over the judicial mind as to the innocence or criminality of the Bishop Domnus. Nor is his noble act of moral courage in retracting his coidem- nation of Flavian to be omitted from the category of facts that render him solitaire among the many, on which subject of re- traction Lupus writes thus, at p. 841:—“ Tnfelix Domnus, ut “suam pellem a Dioscori furore redimeret, condemnavit non “solum modo innocentissimum, sed insuper sibi amicissimum “ Antistitem. Manifesté contra conscientiam Divina atque “humana prevaricatus. Isto intento, Dioscorus larvam depo- “suit, resumpsit odia, et ipsum etiam Domnum, quod duode- “cem Cyrilli Capitula nuperrimé damnasset, degradavit. Ht “ejus in sedem intrusit, aut intrudi curavit Maximum, Diaco- “num et Archi-Mandritam, fidelem amicum 8. Cyrilli. . . . “Domni damnationem nequaquam propter damnata 8. Cyrilli “Capitula, sed propter adjutam 8S. Flaviani damnationem “ stabilivit atque ita hominem quasi de novo damnavit. Solus “hance causam retractavit ac definivit. Ht omnis Orientalis
284, THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Ecclesia comprobavit. Hodem igitur sue sedis Privilegio solus retractavit ac definivit caussam §, Flaviani.
THE FORMAL PROCESS OR INDICTMENT AGAINST DOMNUS CONSISTS OF 1. A Libel presented by Cyriacus, the Presbyter (172-177) 2. Various heads or counts of indictment by the same (177-180)
3. A Letter of Domnus to Archbishop Flavian (180-184) 4, A Libel of Marcellus Presbyter of Antioch and of
others written out by him (185-190) 5. The Petition of Heliodorus, Deacon, and Abraham
and Gerontius, Monks (190-195) 6. The Profession of Faith extorted from Pelagius,
the Presbyter (195-198) 7. Information furnished by Theodosius, the Monk,
to the Patriarch of Alexandria (198-200)
8. Some letters in a correspondence between the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria (inclusive) (201-229)
After which follow
9. The opinions formulated by separate Bishops of the Synod, (inclusive) (233-237)
(The figures indicate the pages in my Syriac Text.)
Now, as to these accusations against Domnus, besides invol- ving complaints about amicable relations with Bishops Theo- dcret, Irenzeus, and Ibas, the Libels pretend that the Patri- arch had manifested opposition to the Decrees of Theodosius II against Bishop Irenzeus, and had even courted the friend- ship of the Archbishop Flavian, besides recommending Theo- doret to him, so that Theodoret and Domnus were as representatives of that Archbishop in the Hast. He was, likewise, charged by them with having attempted to alter the Form of the Sacrament of Baptism, with having extorted frem the Priest Pelagius a Nestorian confession of Faith, and with having removed from the Church of Emesa Peter, who had been canonically elected, in order to give it to another Priest of doubtful morality but ofundoubted leaning and bias towards Nes- torianism. ‘They, moreover, affirmed that he had heenappointed Patriarch of Antioch through the good offices of a Pagan Queestor Isocacius, that the said Patriarch had consecrated persons to Bishoprics without observing the prescribed cere- monial, and that he had removed Bishop Alexander from the See of Antarados in order to put Paul in his place, besides other objectionable acts more or less plainly advanced.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 285
As regards the very interesting and important correspon- dence between the Archbishops of Antioch and Alexandria, the Great Capitals, the letter of admonition, issuing from the latter to the former, complains of the tendencies shown by Domnus towards the enemies of the Orthodox Faith—ie., of the favour manifested towards Nestorianism,—naming in par- ticular Bishops Ireneus and Theodoret. The date of this Epistle will be found to be, as we shall see in the note in its place, between the issuing the Imperial Decree, whereby Trenzeus was removed from the Metropolitan City of Tyre, and the appointment to that City of Photius, on 9th of September, in the year 448.
Domnus replies by a circular Letter in which, unfortunately, occur two Lacune. He complains that his calumniators should have been attended to, and professes his faith in the General Councils, and adheres to the terms of peace negotiated by Bishop Paul of Emesa with 8. Cyril of Alexandria. Dom- nus urges him to put an end to false reports and rightly to inform the Faithful of Alexandria about those of the Hast. He sends a verbal message, through the envoys despatched to him by Dioscorus, in relation to the Bishopric of Tyre. This Epistle was probably written at the end of April or the begin- ning of May, 448 a.p., about which time Theodoret was preaching some of his eloquent Sermons at Antioch. It would naturally be shewn to Theodoret, as he was a principal party concerned in it, who, doubtless, forthwith then wrote on behalf of himself and his Colleagues to the Archbishop of Alexandria.
It was about this time, too, that the Archbishop of the Hast pronuonced Sentence at the Synod at Antioch in favour of Ibas, Bishop, and against the Clerks, of Edessa, which Sentence gave such mortal offence to the great Eutychian party as to determine them to aim a second blow in order to break down the power of the Orientals by issuing an Imperial Edict against Theodoret, as the first, directed against the Bishop of ‘l'yre, had not had the desired effect. See the speech of Samuel, p. 95.
All the time that Dioscorus was exchanging letters with Dom- nus, he seemed desirous of crushing all obstacles to the attain- ment of the victory of the League to which he lent himself so willingly and successfully. He sends a final communication to to the Archbishop of Antioch—we gather it from the latter’s
286 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
reply—in which he makes sundry complaints of well-intentioned parties, (the chief person is intimated in no enigmatical terms) by their preaching and teaching, having become disturbers of
the Peace, as well as impugners of the Faith, of the Church, &e.
In all probability, likewise, he added something relative to 8. Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius. At the conclusion he expresses a wish for his letter to be read, in their assemblies, to the Faithful.
Domnus rejoins, and steadfastly resolves to abide by the peace effected by Paul of Emesa, aud refuses to rake up old grievances. Hecomplains grievously of the conduct of certain monks connected with Alexandria. He had not openly read Dioscorus’s letter, as he wished, for fear of the consequences. He makes profession of his Orthodoxy [here occurs a hiatus in the MS. ].
These were the last two Letters that passed between the two Archbishops, and how distressing and painful the corre- spondence had become to Domnns appears from a very imvor- tant Letter, hitherto attributed to Theodoret, which he (Domnus) wrote to S. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.
After viewing this last cause of the arraigned, Dr. Martin writes as follows:—“Thus was deposed Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, against all the laws of the Church and against all the forms of human justice. Knowing beforehand that he was condemned, he did not dream of protesting against the iniquity of which he was the victim. Strong in his inno- cence, he appealed to the Tribunal of God, and, disgusted with all terrestrial grandeur, he rejoined the Convent* whose sweet
* The following from Asseman, in his “ Acta 8. Simeonis Stylitea,” Adnotationes, p. 401, seems a strong confirmation of this opinion :—(18) Domnus, hujus nominis secundns in Serie Patriarcharum Antiochenorum apud landatum le Quien, quad- ragesimus primus recensetnr. Johanni avunculo successit, exeunte anno Christi 441, qaum Theodoreti testimonio constet septimum ejus annum in Christi 448 incidisse. Antiocheno autem Pontificatu privatus est & Dioscoro, subrogato Maximo, cireum annum 449. De Eo Evagrius initio Capitis Decimi tertii heee seribit: Hie (Simon) primus stationem super columna instituit, cujus domicilii ambitus via duorum erat cubitorum: quo tempore Domnus Antiochene urbis Episcopatum administrahat. Qui quim ad Simeonem venisset, stationem ejus ae virendi rationem admiratus, secretioria quedam concupivit. Ambo igitur in unum convenerunt, et quum immaculatum corpus sacrificassent, vivificam Communionem sibi mutuo impertierunt.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 287
solitude the agitations of public life had often made him regret. After having been witness of all the horrors which fanaticism could commit by men clothed with a sacred charac- ter, he declined to occupy the world with his name and his complaints, and, burying himself before the time in the silence of the tomb, he wished to be dead to all below. If once again History speaks to us of him, some years later, it is because his succesor to the See of Antioch troubled the repose due to his memory, out of compassion for his misfortunes.”
288 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
x
DOMNUS.
DOCUMENTS BROUGHT UP AGAINST DOMNUS, THE BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.*
(a) JonN, Presbyter and Proto-Notary said :—
The Venerable Presbyter Cyriacus has remitted Libels to your Holy and Cicumenical Synod, which I will read, if your Piety command it to be done.
JUVENAL, the Bishop of Jerusalem, said :— Let the Libels be received and read. (b) Jou, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read-:—
To the Holy, and God-loving, Gicumenical, Synod, assembled by the Grace of God at Ephesus, the Metropolis, from Cyriacus the Presbyter.
We have learnt from your Holiness to receive those who glorify God, and to repudiate those who blaspheme Him.
This, therefore, we now pray of your Piety—that you would repress Blasphemy and uphold the Doc- trine of those who love at all times to glorify Christ.
Now the circumstances relating to the case in hand (we will) with all brevity (subjoin).
Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch, by strenuously advocatingt the Tenet of him, has, from the begin-
* Or, “ Procedure directed against Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch.” The word used in the text is the usual Greek term Syrianized—viz., {gsarsaa0a.
+ It is no easy matter to give a satisfactory translation of line 16 on p. 173. Martin suggests that there may be an allusion to the sentence of Domnus despatched to the Synod by the Notaries (comp. p. 264) and renders it—Domnus combat son propre sentiment,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 289
ning, manifested the fruit of his partiality for Theo- doret, the Bishop of the city of Cyrus, in that he has continually lived with him, and he encouraged him so far as to assist his Impiety, openly, instead of re- vering God ; and, what is worse than all, whilst seated on the (Episcopal) Throne*, he is continually clappingt his hands in Church at the Blasphemies (uttered by Theodoret) against the Lord of all, CHRIST. And, by fulsome praises, he has rendered him presuming and = arrogant in his Impiety-—whilst, by assigning him a house in the
* At p 173, 1. 23, [Amy Se, which Castell renders Sedile (Sug- gestus, locus excelsior, wbi sacerdos ad aram stabat), doubtless implies, and refers to, the Bishop’s throne; and lag is colaphus, maxilla, and waar perculsit, tetendit, plausit manibus, Ps., xlvii, 2, and xcviii, 8. In his absence, or when at a distance, is the meaning of o ZO eset). Possibly ] 2; | may refer to J.itere formate, of the different kinds of which Bingham gives a description in Bk. II, chap. iv.
+ Theodoret, in his letter to Dioscorus, who had, truly or not, complained of T'heodoret for dividing Christ into two Sons, says in his reply, justifying himself for what he did—‘I taught thirteen years under the Blessed John (of Antioch) who was so delighted with my discourses that he often rose up and clapped his hands.’? Public ap- plause of the Preacher in church and elsewhere was called xpdros by the Greeks, as we have seen at p. 44, note +. Sometimes it was done by the assembly, similarly to the Synodical acclamations, e.g., when Paul of Emesa, in delivering a Homily in the presence of Cyril of Alexandria, “used this expression, agreeing with Cyril’s Doctrine “that had been preached before—* Mary the Mother of God hrought “ ¢forth Emmanuel’—the people immediatley cried out, ‘O Orthodox ««< Cyril, the gift of God, Thy Faith is the same; this is what we de- “ <sired to hear, if any man speak otherwise, let him be anathema.’ ”’ Sometimes they added other indications of their applause, as clapping of their hands, &c. Thus S. Jerome tells Vigilantius—“ The time was, when he himself had applauded him with his hands and feet, leaping by his side, and crying Orthodox, for his Sermon upon the Resurrection.” Many other instances of this xpdros are given by Bingham, Bk. XIV, chap. iv, sec. 27. It seems to us a strange custom, but we must remem-
NN
290 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Church*, he causes his residence there instead of in his own City (Metropolis)—by calling him at all times “ Father” (when present), and when absent by bestowing on him “ The Blessing,” and by upholding and supporting him in Letters written to other persons.
Further, he (Domnus) was in Communion with the man, in consequence of whose false faith the Gracious Emperor had determined, by Royal Orders, that he should confine himself entirely within his own Cityt.
Also, at the time when it was resolved (by the Emperor) to depose that Irenzeus of Tyre from the Ministerial Function, this aforenamed Domnus did not eject Jrenzeus from his Communion. On the conrtary, he showed himself adverse to, by question-
ber the force of habit, by which ra jy kaAa Kaa mepar Tat. S. Chry- sostom ‘“ probably, saw the system in its more outré forms (see the account given by Eusebius, E. H., VII, 30, of Paul of Samosata) and very frequently and strongly spoke against it,” &c. Fleury’s Eccle- siastical History, Oxford, p. 56, note. In his 83rd Letter Theodoret, refers to it himself, for which see Migne’s Cursus Completus.
* Under the general term “the Church” here would be included various buildings, comprehending all the otkot or exedrae of it. Domnus would assign for heodoret’s residence part of the Pastophoria, which Bingham believes included the Diaconicitum and the gaxophylacium, or treasury, and the habitations of the Bishops and Clergy and Custodes Ecclesiae.—The word pastophorium is a name taken from the Septuagint translation of Ezek. L, 17, where it is used for the chambers in the inner Court of the Temple. Hence Bingham thinks that the Pastophoria of the Christian Church were places put to the same use as in the Jewish Temple, from which the name is borrowed (Bk. VIII, Chap. VII, Sect. 11).
+ See 79th and 82nd Epistles of Theodoret.
This enforced interment was an act of very great injustice on the Emperor’s part, and filled mens’ minds with consternation ; ‘¢on ne luy put pas ne anmois, (says Tillemont) persuader qu’il fust heretique,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 991
ing, the divine (royal) Commands that had been issued by the Christ-loving Emperor, inasmuch as he did not ratify the Deposition of Irenzeus, which had been decreed by the Emperor’s good pleasure.
And, as for Theodoret, it was at the instance of this man that he (Domnus) betook himself to the Impious Flavian for an aider and abetter*.
Now, what subsequently (and consequently) hap- pened, even if we were not to speak of it, the facts clearly proclaim ; (viz.,) the agitation of the Churches —the commotion among the flocks—your troubles, O Holy Priests !—the turning upside down of the whole world together, which, according to the vulgar
seulement qu ’il troubloit la province par les assembléses qu’il tenoit a Antioche: et sur cela il écrivit de sa main un billet au General des armées Romaines (dans Ja Syria) qui portoit, que puisque l’ Evesque de Cyr assem- bloit sans celle des Synodes, et que cela troubloit les Orthodoxes, cet officier auroit soin qu’il demeurast a Cyr, sans aller en d’autres villes, et qu’il le feroit avec sagesse et precaution, [afin que cela ne causast point de bruit dans la province. ] Ce General estoit Consul en 448.
Theodose avoua et confirma le 30 mars 449, l’ordre qu’il avoit donnée a Theodoret de ne point sortir de Cyr.
II se retira donc a Cyr pour obéir a |’Empereur et il accepta cette espéce d’exil avec joie, parce qu’il luy procuroit le repos qu’il aimoit tant. Il esperoit que le traitement injuste que luy faisoient les cnemis de la verité, luy obtiendroit le pardon d’une partie de ses fautes. II re- gardoit la honte de son exil comme un honneur, et comme la verification de ce que dit St. Paul, que tous ceux qui veulent vivre avec pieté souffri- ront persecution. Ainsi quelque tort que luy fissent ses ennemis, il ne croyoit pour luy souffrit aucun tort. Cependent larelegation estoit la terreur et l’affiction commune de tout ’orient.
Tous les Saints et tous les solitaires estoient dans les larmes, et dans toutes les assemblées des personnes de pieté, on entendoit plus de soupers que de paroles.
Le temp de sa promotion nous oblige de ne mettre la relegation de Theodoret qu’a la fin de 447, ou en 448, avant Pasque (Vol XV, P- 273-5):
* Most probably an allusion is implied here to the Letter Domnus wrote to Flavian—given further on—in the month of Eloul (Sept.), 448.
292 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
custom, they thought took place, when the impious Flavian aforesaid despatched (information) of what he had done against The Faith at Constantinople, to those his two friends (Doctors) in the East, and, by their hands, to other persons, our enemies, there*.
But all that the same Theodoret has ever done in opposition to The Faith, since the Great Synod (held there) previously to this present one, which confirmed that of Niceea—who is competent to relate ?
For, he nevert desisted assembling the followers of his own opinion, and confirming them in Impiety by his writings; and, in opposition to the legislative Determinations, of the Holy Fathers, he has advanced against The Faith novel and depraved statements, — some parts (extracts) of which statements are in our possession carefully preserved; and by another treatise of Theodoret, which proceeded from him previously to that Synod which on a former occasion assembled in this place, the Determination of all the Holy Fathers he presumed to sit in judgment upon, but who can describe the Profanity of those who are now so audacious in it, that the hearing of it alone suffices to defile the hearts of the Faithful ?
At one time, for instance, he, Theodoret, ventured
* He alludes to the documents (Acts) of the Synod at Constanti- nople, in Nov., 448 a.p., being sent to the Eastern Bishops, according to the suggestion of Sabbas, Bishop of Paltus in Palestine, for signature. Domnus himself declared afterwards that he had received and signed them. Comp. Mansi, Concil. Tom. VI, 693, B. 836, A.
+ The Emperor and Enemies of Theodoret constantly harped upon this accusation.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 293
to affirm that it was obligatory (on our part) to bap- tize in a manner other than in conformity with the Holy Tradition (Doctrine) of our Redeemer.
When the Presbyter, however, who was near, and has now come into the Metropolis, in order to give information of these matters to your Holiness— when he showed him (a copy of) the book which contained the Decrees of the CCCXVIII Holy Fathers, and the Definition of the Holy Fathers who (on a former occasion) assembled here, that there was nothing whatever of that kind there which they enjoined, this great and wonderful Theodoret, snatching the book out of the hand of the Presby- ter, bade one of his own party throw it into the fire.
And there was a bath in the neighbourhood of the spot where the book was given to be committed to the flames. Now attentively consider, I beseech you, by the Holy and Everlasting Trinity, if what happened is not worthy of grief. For, as soon as the book fell into the fire, the flame suddenly elevated itself from thence, and consumed the caul- dron, liquifying the brass belonging to it with the the lead ; and the water was spilt all over the fire, —a (fit) representation of the Impiety of the man we have been mentioning, which, before God and man, will not be obliterated.
This circumstance, too, moved those who were present, at the time, to no little grief at it.
Now we entreat your Piety not to hesitate, by reason of the insignificance of the tale, but to at-
294 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
tend to the wickedness of the act committed. Among our adversaries—I mean the heathen people, or Jews, or Heretics—has any man ever dared to perpetrate such a deed against the Church ? Now do you have mercy together with God, upon the East—no small part of the worldthat is submerged in wickedness—-and do you decree and decide in matters pertaining to God and having relation to
The Holy Faith impugned. |, Cyriacus, Presbyter, present this Libel, having written 16 with my own hand, The Presbyter Cyriacus said :— I request, likewise, that these Heads (of Accusa- tion) be read.
THaLiassius, Bishop of Czesarea, said :— Let them be read.
(c) Joun, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :—
Heads (of Accusation) from the Homiletical Ex-
positions of the Bishop Domnus.
Three days after they had seized the Venerable Presbyter Pelagius, and struck him, and dragged him along in order to exact of him, in writing, an impious Profession of Faith, during the time when Service was (proceeding) in the Church of Paul, and whilst Theodoret was expounding and saying that Thomas touched Him*, Who was raised from the
* John, xx, 26,27. This sentence seems elsewhere to be attributed to Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 295
dead, and worshipped Him Who caused Him to rise, the Bishop Domnus ascended (the Bema) after Him.
After having praised him (Theodoret)—for, that he made a practice of doing (in the Church)—and spoken a good deal about him, he uttered, likewise , the following :—‘‘ He (God) spoke to the ‘ Blessed Peter—‘ Arise, Peter,! slay and eat,’* and “ nobody commits a sin in repeating to thee, Theodoret ! “<¢ Arise, slay, and eat.’ ”
Again, when the Bishop Domnus was giving Expositions (Homiletica])—it was the Wednesday of the Week which is the Great Week, during the course of hist catechizing—and was preparing those who, after three days, had to draw nigh to be bap- tized ; after having spoken a little, he added the following. Raising his left hand high, and with his right pointing to it, he went on and expressed him- self in this way :—“ Likeness and likeness. The “likeness of God was not changed into the likeness of “a servant, and the likeness of a servant was not “changed into the likeness of God{. This did eat: “that did not eat. This was wearied: that was not “wearied. Thisdidsleep: that did notsleep. This
PRN Gtey X, 13.
te oe pee 07.75 ds 25, |2era2;Sc5, “during the course of his cate- chizing on the Thursday of the Great Week (ueyaAn terapty) when preparing to offer for Baptism those who were baptized three days after.” This seems to prove that, on Easter Eve, or the day of the Burial of our Lord, the Sacrament of Baptism was administered in the Primitive Church, the other solemn times appointed by the Church for that purpose being Pentecost, Whitsuntide, and the Epiphany.
t See Appendix, B. Inp.178, |. 3, the Scribe meant to write ]as]>.
296 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
did walk: that did not walk.” And (he added) yet :—“ For me to say these things to you it is not “orievous, whilst for you it is safe*. The property “of the (likeness) Nature of God is that He is “ Un-variable,—- Unchangeable,—I ncomprehensible*
“— Tnvisible, — Intangible**—Impassable, — Un- “knowable. But the property of the form (nature, “likeness) of a Servant is that - is variable,—
“changeable, — comprehensible*** — visible,—tan- “ oible,—passable, — mortal, ara te, to injury.”
And after a second short interval he yet said :— “Do not confuse the duality of the Natures,” “whilst those impious Nestorians,. Pepirius, and “ Kutyches, and Theosebius, cried out against Him “and demanded that he should say so.”
Also, when an Edict of the Gracious Sovereigns was affixed at Antioch against the impious Nesto- rius, and against [renzeus who received the Imposi- tion of hands (in Ordination) from Domnus, although he was a man who had had two wives, and for twelve years did not communicate with the Holy Church of God, (viz.,) from the time when Nestorius was ex- iled until he became Bishop,—on that day (we say) when he was giving Expositions in the Church, and whilst the Copiatie and the Lecticari and other Nes-
*See* Pilip. viii, 1 4 |So 1S WES >a2 Zals <n = edn
also cals Nis GX Ta atta ypadew Duly Emor meV ovK ss iS
oKunpov vycy de dopanés. Ce que je vais dire ne me nuira pas et pourra vous instruire.
* Or—lInaccessible. ** Or, Impalpable. *** Or—accessible.
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUs. 297
torians were vociferating —“ Cast out the Edict !” —Domnus, in the course of his Exposition, said :— “TL accept your zeal, by which you, like Naboth,* “ will not hesitate to contend for the inheritance of “your Fathers. Fear not. ‘The billows of the sea “are they, and they shall be dissolved in foam.”
Again, too, in the Pascal Week, as he was deliv- ering a Homily on the Resurrection, when he came to our Lord (His Resurrection), he said :—‘“ The “ Man died, but God The Word raised Him from “the dead.”
And again, in the Church (Martyrium)t+ of the Holy Stephen, he said this—(viz.,) “I admire the “patience of the Holy Martyr Stephen who, when “he was being stoned, prayed for those who were “ doing it, being made like unto our Lord Christ ; “for, although the persons were different, yet the “orace was the-same.”
And, after the Heads (of Accusation) had been read,
The Hoty Sywnop said :—
Tbas never said that. This man is a teacher of “him (Ibas). Anathema to the Blasphemer ! “ Anatheina to Domnus! Ibas never said that.” (d) The Presbyter Crrtacus said :—
I request that this letter be, likewise, read. Evsrsius, Bishop of Ancyra, said :—
Let it be received and read,
te Sema
* 1 Kings, xxi. { See p. 24. OO
298 THE SECOND SYNOD oF EPHESUS
John, Presbyter and Prime-Notary, read :-—
To the Holy and God-loving Lord our Brother and fellow-Minister Flavian, Domnus sends greeting in our LORD.*
We have been of late braving the brunt of many storms, O man, who art in every respect a lover of God ! and are now appealing to the Governor of the Ark to direct the tempest that is come upon us.t
* 'This well-known letter was for centuries thought to have been com- posed by Theodoret, whereas its true Authorship, our Acts inform us, 1s to be attributed to Domnus. II., Patriarch of Antioch. It is given in full, varying considerably from this, as Epistle txxxvi_ of Theodoret in Migne’s Patrologie cursus completus (vol. 83, 1859), and appended in the original at the end of this translation. [It occurs in our Vol. Tat p. 180, 1. 10. My friend L’ Abbé Martin says: “Cette lettre “a éte attribuce jusqu’icia Théodoret, quoique beaucoup d’indices eussent “pu faire soupgonner qu’elle n’était pas de lui. On ne comprend pas, en *¢ effet, pourquoi il y est tant question des prérogatives du siege d’An- “ tioche, si Théodoret l’a composée, mais on s’explique parfaitement toutes “ces particularités, quand on sait que Domnus en est l’auteur. Un pa- “triarche d’Antioche ne pouvait parler autrement.” (Voi Fleury, Histoire Kcclésiastique, Liv. XXVII, 16, cfr. XVIII, 28.— Garnier, Historia Theodoreti, dissertatio prima, VIII, 10. Patrol, grecque, 84, col., 130-131.—Henrion, Histoire Ecclesiastique, in 4°- Paris, 1859, XV, col. 1404.—Dom Ceillier, Histoire Générale des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques, in 4°, Paris, Vivés, Tom. 10, chap. iv, sur Theodoret, § viii, p. 71, etc.)
In p. 181, from ;2sI, inl. 15, to a) in]. 22, the whole passage is omitted in the Letter as given by Migne, as well as the words corre- sponding to the sentence— so worthy in all points of the Doctrine of “the Church,” or, very literally, “which is not deficient (wanting) in “any of all those points appropriate to the Doctrine of the Church.”’
Again, after the word. KO Jal, in 1. 2, at p. 184, to end, i.e., to lSany, the Syriac Letter altogether differs from that in Migne, which concludes as given below. But the chief, and most interesting, difference appears in the last sentence of, or rather the post-script appended to, the Syriac Letter, which letter must have been written in the month of September, 448 A.D., as that month had not elapsed. ‘The month AS is Sep- tember, or, rather, part of August and September.
t I somewhat differ from Martin in the rendering of the first part of the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS, 299
What, however, has now become imminent over us through (a man’s) daring, in my estimation, bafiles all description. For, at the time when we calculated that we had in my Lord, the God-loving Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, a helper and fellow-worker against all who conspired in antagonism to The Faith of the Apostles, we sent, as. a matter of obligation, one of the Venerable Presbyters that are with us*— an honoured man, distinguished in The Faith and for wisdom —with two Synodical letters, informing His Piety that, to the articles of the (covenant) Agreement drawn up in the days of Cyril of Blessed memoryt, we held ourselves bound in all propriety and rectitude to assent, as well as to his letter so worthy in all points of the Doctrine of the Church : and as regards the letter of that Blessed man whose memory lives amung the Faithful, Athanasius, which he wrote to the Blessed Epictetus, that also we re- ceived with (all) welcome, but, above all, we ac- cepted and assented to The Faith, as defined at Niczea in Bithynia by those Holy and very Blessed Fathers (who assembled there).
We prayed his Piety to compel those, who refused
Letter, as will be seen by comparing the following with my English Version :—“ Dans ces derniers temps, nous avons subi l’impétuosité des “nombreux orages, 6 homme ami de Dieu; nous avous invoqué Celui “qui gouverne toutes choses et nous avons pu resister a la tempéte qui a “fondu sur nous.’
Governor of the Ark is translation of the reading in the MS. tjasay but this is perhaps an old mistake (though it gives a very good meaning ) for Sas 9 of the Universe, as the Original has in this place tov mavrds.
* Eusebius.
t+ The agreement of Cyril and Paul of Emesa, in the year 443, A.D.
300 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
to hold to it (the agreement), to subscribe to it. But one of ours*, one of those who think differently from us and have caused these troubles, hurried (to Alexandria) and led into error several parties well- known there. By raising calumnies against us, he succeeded in exciting cries in the Church without end against the God-loving Oriental Bishops. My Lord the pious Bishop Dioscorus, acting excellently, imposed silence upon them promising to write to us aud to send Venerable Presbyters to us who should inform us of the talk of which we were the object. This is what he did, but he wrote letters which he ought never to have addressed to us, as one who knows the Word of God—‘“ Lend not ear to vain rumours.’t For, he gave credence to all that was said against us, as he might have a night to do, if he had discussed everything to the bottom and had long recognized the justice of the accu- sations. Here is the injustice of which Dioscorus has been guilty towards us ; but we, who have suf- fered this injury, replied to him boldly, although in friendly terms. We assured his Piety that all these rumours were destitute of foundation, and that none of the God-loving Oriental Bishops held opmions contrariant to Apostolic Doctrine. Moreover, the Venerable Presbyters whom he sent were ~ con- vinced by examination into the facts. But as to him,
* «One of ours”’—most probably would be the Monk Theodosius of whom mention is made further on. + Exodus xxiii, I,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 301
without going any further into the matter, and giving ear to all those who calumniate us, he did a thing which we could not have believed, had not the entire Church (assembly) of the Faithful been a witness of it. For, yielding to the counsels of those who anathematised us, he rose (from his seat) and pro nounced his adhesion to their cries. Still further, he despatched to the Royal City, as we learnt, cer- tain Bishops who depend upon him, to excite, as he hoped, fresh troubles against us.
We, however, prior to every (other) consideration, have our Defender in the all-seeing ONE, since it is for the Doctrines of GOD that we are contending.
And in thesecond place we now make appeal, also» to your Holiness and urge you to contend and fight for The Faith (so violently assailed) and on behalf of the Canons (so grievously) trampled upon.
For, when in the Royal City the Holy and very Blessed Fathers of the Church were assembled, they confirmed, with one consent, and justified the ar- rangements of those who assembled at Niceea con- cerning the Governors of Diocceses (Provinces), assigning to each Governor that (province) which appertained to him, and repudiating as contrary to all order (the idea) that any one Governor should infringe upon the others, but that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over the Egyptians only. Thus, each Governor has to ad
302 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
minister his own particular Province.* But this man
* The decision here alluded to of the Council of Nicwa is to be found in its sixth Canon, and that of the Synod of Constantinople in its second. It seems to be worth while to give the original Greek of both in full, because of their importance and the many questions which have been raised about them.
CANON VI. OF NIC#HA.
Ta apyata ¢0y kpateitw ra év Aiqinre Kat AiBin Kat Tevramdrer, adore tov “AdreEardpetas emioxowoy mavtwy TotTwy éxew tHv e€ovciar, ered) Kat TO eV TH Pouy émurkome TOUTO ovvnbes EoTLV* OpMolws Oe Kat KaTa "Artidyecar Kal év Tats GANas émapyiaes Ta mpeoBeca oalerbat Tais exkAnotas’ KaboAov be mpodyAov EKEWO, ore el THs Xwpts yvouns Tov MAT OOTONT OU qévorro emicKkorros, TOV ToLovTov 1 Meyarn ovvooos dpe 13) det ewat €mloKorov" €ay pevToL TH Koy) TAVT WY Wipe, evrAoyo oven Kul KUT KavOVa eKKAT LAT TLKOY, Ovo 7) Tpets Oe? otKElav silane! avTiAéywot, KpaTE(Tw 1) TOY TAELOVWY Wipes.
Héfilé gives an interpretation of this Canon in the first volume of his great work on th Councils of the Church (French edition, 1869, pp. 378—393), and in the course of it he quotes (on p. 885) the above passage of this Letter of Domnus, then still supposed to be one of Theodoret’s. In J. Johnson’s The Clergy- -man’s Vade-mecum, containing the Canonical Codes of the Primitive and Universal Church (London, 1723, third edition), occurs the following English translation (Vol. IL, p. 48) :—
“ Let Ancient Customs prevail (as for Instance), those in Lyypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis: That the Bishop of Alexandria have Power over all these, since the same is customary for the Bishop ot Rome. Likewise in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the Pri- vileges be secured to the Churches. This is manifest as anything at all, that if any be made a Bishop, without consent of his Me- tropolitan, this great Synod has determin’d that such a one ought not to be Bishop. If any two or three out of Affectation of Dispute do contradict the Suffrage of the Generality, when duly pass’d according to Ecclesiastical Canon, let the Votes of the Majority prevail.”
CANON II. OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
Tov's tare p dtoixyow € emitkoTrous TALS Ure popiots "ExxAyoiaes 19) emévat, pnoe ouyxeey Tas "ExAgoias’ ava Kara Tovs Kavovas Tov me ‘Ares- avd petas eTrioKoTLY Ta év AigtaTw povoy oixovopery, Tors dé TIS ava- TOARS EmioKOTOUS THY Gvanenoe Movnv dioKery, PudarTroméevwy Tov év
iN THR DAYS oF DioScoRts. 803
(Dioscorus), as events prove, refused to conform to these decisions, and (exceeding) violating them, ob- trudes on our notice the Throne of the Blessed Mark, and that, whilst he knows evidently that the great city of Antioch possesses the Throne of Peter*, who was, too, the teacher of Blessed Mark and of all the first
Tots Kavooe tos kata Nixatav pea Belov TH ArTioxewr "ExkAyoia, Kat TOUS THs ‘Aorarys duotkyTews € ETLTKOTOUS Ta KUTA THY ’ Aciav pouny olKo- VOMELY, Kal Tous TNS Tovrexyjs Ta TIS Tlovtuxcijs Mover, kat TOUS TIS Ooakns Ta THS Opaxixys povoy oikovouerv. “AkAyTous dé émioKorous tmep dLoikyoww pry émiBaivery ert Xetporovias ToL arhaus otkov OpLLals EKKANT LATTE ALS. Purarropéevov de Tou Toy er/pappuevov Tept Tov Otot- KYTEWV KAVOVOS, evdnAov & ws TO Kal? eRaoT HY emupxiay 7 wp emapxias avvodos dwoiKyoe, KaTa Ta év Nixaia wpiopéva. Tas dé év rows Bap- Bapixois eOveot Tov Ocov ’ExkAyslas oikovopetoOa yp7 KaTa THY KpaTy= cacay ovvyJeav Tapa TOV TATEpwr.
Com pare Heéfélé, Op. eit. Vol. I., 202—204, and Johnson’s Vade- mecum I1., 124s. where the following translation of this Canon is given :—
“Let not Bishops go out of their Diocese to Churches out of their Bounds ; but let the Bishop of Alewandria, according to the Canon, administer the affairs of Egypt, and the Bishops of the East the Affairs of the Hast only, with a Salvo to the ancient Pri- vileges of the Church of Antioch, mention’d in the Nicene Canons. Let the Bishops ot the Asian Diocese administer the dszan Affairs only, and they of Pontus the Pontic, and they of Thrace the Thracian. And \ct not Bishops go out of their Dioceses to Ordi- nation, or any Administrations, uuless they be invited. And by the aforesaid Canon, concerning Dioceses being observed, ’tis evident that the Provincial Synod will have the Management of every Province, as was decreed at Mice. ‘The Churches amongst the Barbarians must be govern’d according to the Customs which prevail’d with their Ancestors.”’
* Bishop Pearson says that He built His Church upon one to show the Unity, and upon many to show the Universality, of It. St. Cyprian says that upon one He builds His Church ; and, though he gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says—“ As my Father hath sent Me so “send I you,” yet, in order to manifest unity, He has, by His own au- thority, so placed the source of the same unity as to begin from one. Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of power and honour; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one. . . - Let no one deceive the Brotherhood by falsehood, no one corrupt the
304 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Apostles together, as well as their (head) leader. As for ourselves we are assured indeed of the exalted character of this Apostolic Throne, but we know also and measure ourselves; for, we have learnt fromabove to practice the Apostolic humility.
We supplicate your Holiness, then, that you would not allow the Holy Canons to be (with impunity) trampled upon, but readily to contend* for The Faith, since in This is our hope of Salvation, as likewise you yourself are persuaded ; and through It (alone) can we hope to be thought worthy of Mercy and Grace, and look forward to tstand before the dread Judgement-seat of God and our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. Be induced, my Lord who art holy in every way, [to afford us help and to pray on our behalf. |
truth of our faith by a faithless treachery. The Episcopate is one, of which a part is held by each without a division of the whole. (De Unit. Eccl., c. iv.) In the great Synod at Constantinople in 553 A.D. it is said that the Grace of the Holy Ghost was abundantly given to every single Apostle, so that he needed not the advice of an- other in what was to be done, yet they did not like to decide on the point in question, . . . before every one of them had supported his sen- tence with Scriptural Authority. S. John Damascenus calls all the Apostles “The twelve-corded Lyre of the Holy Ghost. But neither “ Peter alone is this Lyre, nor Andrew, but all the Apostles together. “If anyone declares Peter to be this Lyre, he is a Liar.” §. Chryso- stom says—‘ Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter. Is there anything “more humble than this soul? He did not need Peter, but was his “equal. Still he goes to him, as if he were his superior and senior.”’ And again— He shows himself equal to the other Apostles, but he “does not compare himself with the others, but with the first of them, “ showing thereby that every one of them had the same dignity. (On Gal., i, 11, and ti, 3). The above is from a long catena of Latin and Greek authors to the same effectas given in Overbeck’s Orthodox Review, * Romans xiv, 10. + Jude ii.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 305
J and those who are with me desire to offer much salutation to you and all the Brethren with you.
Further, let your Charity take notice that to Tyre the Metropolis was assigned a Bishop on the 9th of Eloul (September) now instant ; (viz.) the Venerable Presbyter Photius.*
* This passage is the Postscript, referred to in note on p. 298, of this celebrated Epistle, of which the immediately preceding paragraph is in all probability the termination. It is one of those passages in the MS. num- bered 14,530 in the British Museum, which enable us to correet what has passed as matter of history, and which will justify an attempt at a Dissertation on the subject of the corrections which our previous information must receive about the Second Synod of Ephesus from these newly dis- covered Acts contained in the MS. alluded to, as well as about other historical points. At the quaternian Centenary of the University ot Tubingen in the Kingdom of Wiirtemberg to be commemorated in August next (1877), such a theme is formally to be proposed as a Prize Essay by the distinguished Professor—all honor to that University for the honor shown to Divinity—who has just been elected by the Deans of all the Faculties to be the Rector of the University and Pre- siding Genius of the University proceedings and has ordered the medal to be struck shall bear the proud inscription—quintuMm sECULUM SUPERIORIBUS CLARIUS suRGIT—for the Jubilee year.
Historians have recorded much about various characters who occupied the See of Constantinople, but it is remarkable how little history gives us of S. Flavian. One of the chief objects of the Second Synod of Ephesus was to settle the controversy between him and Eutyches. The Orientals anathematized the one in their writings in which the other, however, is hardly mentioned. How strange to us appear events ! “There is Eutyches who founds monophysism and the monophysists anathematize him! Ibas, Theodoret, and Flavian contend against Eutyches, and the memory of the first two is perpetuated from age to age to be an object of horror and malediction, while that of the third is completely effaced and disappears in eternal oblivion! Of Flavian not a word is there in Philoxéne of Maboug, in Severus of Antioch, in John Sabas, &c. The tomb has swallowed him whole. The Holy Martyr is dead for ever to the Christians of Asia.”
In his Martyrologium (1603), Baronius, on Februarii 18, writes thus :— De eodem Graeci agunt in Menologio hac die; ubi testantur Flavianum actum in exilium, and cd-fectum aerumnis obiisse, idque ex sententia Marcellini Comitis in Chron. sub Protogene et Asterio Conss. ubi ait eum exulasse factione Dioscori et Saturnini. Sed haec quidem omnia repugnare
306 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Pray, then, I beseech you, that Apostolic Peace in the Holy Churches may everywhere abound and extend.
Pray, my Lord—a lover of God in truth—that we may have health in our Lord.
videntur Actis sacrosancti Concilii Chalced. in actione etenim prima et tertia Euseb. Episc. Dorilaei, et in Actione 4. Archimadritae Catholici, oblato S. Synodo libello, cdclamarunt adversus Dioscorum, 5S. Flavianum factione Dioscori necatum esse: id ipsum etiam Liberatus diaconus in breviar. haeres. Nestor. et Eutych. exacté describit cap. 12. factumque refert, antequam Epheso recessissent Episcopi. Id etiam Evagrius Scholast hist. libr. 2. cap. 2. Id denique Nicephorus (ut practeream recentiores ) pluribus testatur libr. 14. cap. 47. Caeterbm contigit utrumgue esse verum: nimirum Flaviani a Dioscoro ita ut aiunt male habitum, sicque affectum continud missum esse in exilium, et tertia die vita Agua Confirmantur haec ex libro manuscripto qui habetur in Bibliotheca Vatican, num. 1855. In quo descriptee habentur com- plures Epistolee Ronen, Pontiff. ubi inest libellus incerti auctoris . .
oP its In eo igitur haec de Flaviano leguntur: Ducitur in exilium glee epee) et apud Epypam, quae est civitas Lydiae . ... .» qua Ptolomaeus Hypepam vocat &c. Contigit obitus Flaviani sub Consulatu Asterii et Protogenis . . . . . . «~ Celebratur hac die solénis translatio, quando yenerandum corpus ejus per Marcianum Augustum, et 5. Pulcheriam conjugem summo cum __honore Constantinopolim translatum est &c. . . . « « Miriticis laudibus S. Flavianum prosecuti sunt Patres, ij praesertim, qui Chalcedonem ad Concilium convenerunt ; ubi inter alia ejus praeconia, haec in Actione i. sunt acclamata: Flaviano «xterna memoria :ecce ultio, ecce veritas : Flavianus post mortem vivit, martyr pro nobis exorat: Flavianus post mortem fidem exposuit &c. Secundus Abel appellatur a Sebasteno Episcopo . . . . ~~ De restituendo nomine ejus in diptycha, et abolenda memoria Eutychij, extat |. quoniam. C. de Episc. et cleric. Ceteras autem ejus res gestas, tam synodicas, quam privatas, intexuimus in Annal. Ecclesiasticis, per annos singulo servata temporum ratione. (P. 131. on the words—S. Flaviani Episcopi, qui ctiim fidem Catholicam Ephesi propugnarit, ab impij Dioscori factione pugnis atque calcibus percussus, atque in exilium actus, post triduum vitam finivit. )
Note that on p. 304, at I. 1, ** Leader”? (Coryphaeus) ends the passage referred to at p. 170, that the brackets in 1, 15 and 16 should be removed, and note marks * and + interchanged. Also, at note} on p. 299, the date should be 433, a.p.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 307
Now,when the Letter had been read, The Holy Synod exclaimed :—
“ He, who calumniates thee (Dioscorus!), is a Here- “ tie —He who calumniates thee, is a calumniator of “the Synod—He who calumniates thee, is a calumni- “ator of Cyril—He who calumniates thee, is a “blasphemer of God.— We did not know all that. —To “the Bishops long life—to the Emperors long life—to “the Holy Synod long life—Through thee God has ‘‘spoken—the Holy Spirit has spoken in_ thee. “Speak, my Lord! it becomes you—speak, my Lord! “and Christ will speak. Cutaway this root—Be full “of zeal for the Lord, Orthodox Teacher! and cut (off) “this root, Orthodox Teacher ! the posterity of Nes- “torius shall not continue. Always victorious, the “ Christ will be victor--the victorious Cross will “ always be victor—To the Emperors long life—to “the Patriarchs long life-— Victorious is The Faith of “the Emperors—Victorious is The Faith of the “‘Orthodox—~Those who remain silent are Heretics*— “ Cut off this root-—Let the root have its quietus— “By your endeavours The Faith stands sure and ““ stedfast.”
* Very valuable is this little sentence, since it shows that there were some Members of the Synod who were far from agreeing with its pro- ceedings. ‘Terrified, no doubt, by the terrible scene in connection with the first Session when Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, was so mercilessly handled by the President ; conscious of the injustice as well as violence of the Eutychian leaguers, &c., they remained taciturn rather than be participators in other men’s atrocious deeds, and preferred to submit to be branded as Heretical to the charge of depraving That Deposit which the whole Church of Christ had received, by a right Tradition, from the Apostles themselves.
308 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, said :—
I have, likewise, other Libels against the God- fearing Bishop Domnus, which are presented to your Synod, as well as a Confession of Faith, from the Venerable Pelagius, Presbyter of Antioch ; and I bring this circumstance (now) to your knowledge.
Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, said :— Let them, likewise, be read and deposited among the Acts (Documentary).
John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :—
TO THE Holy, Great, Gicumenical Synod which, by the grace of God and the God-fearing zeal of the Gracious and Christ-loving Emperors, is here assembled, the Petition and Complaint of Mayr- cellus, Presbyter and Monk”, and of the Brethren that are with me.
A heavy storm has overtaken the Holy Churches in the East, O Holy (Fathers!) and from a small spark a great fire has been interminably kindling ; and little by little the evil, insinuating itself into the Churches, has introduced there a pernicious malady. For, those Heads of the Church,t who adhere to the
* Ifthe printed text p. 186, 1. 2 5490 gives the correct reading, we must translate with Abbe Martin :—“ complaint of Pelagius Presbyter, and of my monastery and etc.” ; but, probably, we must read Lea, as in the Subscription p. 189, l. 27. ;
t At p. 186, I. 9 the word [amug Principes Ecclesiae, ie. Episcopi, Princes of the Church, to distinguish them from secular Princes, apply- ing to them that prophecy of Isaiah, Ix, 17, which, according to Jerome’s
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 309
Doctrines of the false Faith of Nestorius, persecute the Orthodox Doctors and vex the peoples catholically minded by preaching among them the opinions of that Beast.
Now, the source of all these calamities and the cause of the ruin in the East is the Venerable Dom- nus, the Bishop of Antioch, who consecrated them,* and Theodoret, who is full of all Impiety, receiving such from him (Domnus), as it were, by a sort of tradition, and who has, like some ferocious swine, dispersed the sheep of Christ.
translation, is: ‘I will make thy Princes peace, and thy Bishops right- eousness.” In the Greek writers they are styled apyovres éxkAyotor (Bingham).
* Tn “ Domnus, who ordained them” (the Nestorian-minded Heads of the Church or Bishops by Consecration), Abbé Martin thinks, there is undoubtedly an implied allusion to the ordination of Irenaeus of ‘Tyre. That fact, affirmed more clearly elsewhere, would tend to show that the Epistle 110, attributed to Theodoret is, in reality, that of Domnus. This opinion which occurred to him immediately on reading the I1oth Epistle of Theodoret, he thinks capable of irrefragable proof, and he shows it to be correct in the following manner.
The author of the Letter, after having spoken of the ordination of Irenaeus by himself, although the latter was a Bigamist, adds : Quod vero ad digamiam attinet, majorum vestigiis inhaesimus. Nam et beatae sanctaeque memoriae Alexander, qui apostolicam hanc sedem rexit, una cum sanctissime Acacio Beroeae episcopo, beatae memoriae Diogenem digamum ordinavit, etc.
It is very evident that the Author of the Letter speaks first of his pre- decessor in this See, secondly of his See as an Apostolical one, thirdly of Alexander as one of his predecessors. Now all this is applicable to the Bishop of Antioch and not at all to the Bishop of Cyrus. Alexander of Antioch was contemporary with Acacius of Beroea and was living at the commencement of the fifth century, [vie-siécle in Martin, le brigandage p- 145, note 4 is a misprint]. What seems strange, is, that authors, in borrowing details from the letter attributed to Theodoret, should not have perceived that the letter ought to be ascribed to Domnus. (Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 408, 31-32, 441, 71.-—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a [Histoire eccl., xiv, 802, au mot Acace, 813, au mot Alexandre d’ Antioche, et pages 174, 224-225; xv, 265, 868.—Dom Ceillier,
310 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
However, not for ever will God, whom these men (persecute) vex, extend His patience ; for, moving by Divine zeal our Gracious and Christ-loving Emperor, He has assembled in this place this your Holy, and (Ecumenical Synod, in order to reduce the tempest to a calm: and He has lopped off the holders of the Doctrines of Nestorius, in order that you might lopp off branches belonging to him, and at once administer consolation to the wearied Churches of the East, and restore peace to the Orthodox Doctors (so) persecuted, the Holy Spirit granting assistance to your Piety (for that purpose).
Moreover, the Venerable Bishop Domnus upset the Church of Emesa* and handed over its property (possessions) to the Treasury (of the Mother-Church). For, whilst the God-loving Bishops of Phcenicia Li- banensis (secunda)t+ were, according to the Canons,
Histoire générale des Auteurs Ecclésiastiques in 49, Ed. Vivés, x, ch. iv, § Vil, p. 72.)}—Swivant nous (says Martin at the end of his note p. 145), Liepitre 110 est une lettre de Domnus a Théodoret et lépitre 112 en est la response.
* Emesa (the modern Homs), reckoned the Metropolis of Phcenicia Secunda, in the Wositia of Hierocles, is situated near the river Orontes. Here Constantine built a splendid Church, renowned for its beauty, in rivalry perhaps to the magnificent Temple of the Sun, the youthful Priest of which, Bassian, was raised to the imperial purple by the Roman Le- gionaries in Syria A.D. 218, which under the name of Heliogabalus he wore for less than four years. No doubt, in this same Church, the Ordination took place, which is here spoken of as so irregular and dis- orderly. The great Mosk of Homsis built on the site of this Church, about which see Rey. G. Williams’ introduction to Neale’s Patriarchate of Antioch, p. xxii ff.—At Homs Husseyin Pasha was defeated by Ibrahim Pasha in 1832.
+ The expression [aOoIDas? ja:c22 laama] seems to me to include no and, as Hoffmann supposes—Pheenicia (prima) and (Pheenicia )
IN THE DAYS OF DiIOSCORUS. 311
imposing hands (in Ordination) on the God-fearing Bishop Peter, a certain Uranius, a man of corrupt life, who had been several times publicly reprimanded for his dissolute habits, ventured to seize the Throne of the Church aforesaid in violation of the Canons, —no prayer at the time being made or invocation for Divine Grace— Jews and Pagans and Mimics having helped him for that purpose and placed simply the Holy Gospel on his head, while the God-fearing Bishops of the Province suffered violence. But, after having escaped thence, they despatched while on their way an Inhibition in writing to the whole Clergy (of the Diocese), forbidding them to communicate with Uranius or to regard him as their Bishop ; and they adjudged and assigned a punishment for the case of his affecting to act the Bishop. Likewise, they wrote to Valerius, Bishop of Laodicea, who is a Nestorian, to caution him against commanicating with him (Uranius), and, since he did not comply, they noti- fied the same thing to the Clergy, and addressed an Inhibition to the Laity, of the city (of Laodicea). Matters having, then, eventuated in this way, all the Monasteries of those parts and many of the Clergy and Laity withdrew fromUranius; whereupon this man without delay repaired to Theodoret and forced his Brother, while yet a lad, to receive Im- position of hands from himself for the Diaconate.
Libanensis (secunda). His reasons, however, for removing the and are quite correct ; compare his note 287, and Le Quien II, 834, the Wocitia, of Hierocles, ed. Parthey 715,5, 717,I.
ole THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
He, likewise, wasted the Church’s Treasure. Sub- sequently, he betook himself to the God-fearing Dom- nus, the Bishop of Antioch who, overcome by the witchery, so to speak,of Theodoret, imagined he could make a Bishop of a man so despicable, by means of mere Letters, whereby the Monasteries of the East felt scandalized, being well aware of the corrupt bringings up (education) of the man.
I also, therefore, having before my eyes the fear of God, and witnessing the ruin of this Church and the violation of the Canons of the Blessed Fathers,—I have left, at the age you see me, my Monastery with my Brethren and hastened (to fall) at the feet of your Sanctity, all the Orthodox Monks, who arevery nume- rous, supplicating your Piety, through my means and mediation, to order the Letters of the Province to be read, whose Metropolitan, now here present, (viz) the God-fearing Theodorus of Damascus, will be able in person to confirm what he has written or what we have said, whereby your Piety will beable to ascertain to how great an extent the Venerable Bishops Dom- nus and Theodoret have trampled under foot the Canons, and will effectually rid the flock of Christ of the Nestorian Uranius who, we may add, subscribed to the unlawful Deposition of the God-fearing Presbyter and Archimandrite Eutyches, although he was not a Bishop. Further, he (Uranius) imposed hands, as one and as if intent, on injury, creating con- fusion and trouble in the Churches ; and he handed
over Strategius, who for twenty-two years had been
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. ale
a Reader of the same Church, to the Curial Author- ity, in consequence of his assenting to the Letters written against him by the Bishops of the Province.
Further, not long ago he (Domnus) located the Venerable Timothy in the city of Arcai,* in another Province, who ought to have been ordained by our Holy Father Juvenal, Bishop of Psalton* (Salton) in Palestine, whom (Timothy), in violation of all Canon- ical Order, the God-fearing Domnus translated to Arcai, having given orders for Uranius to do nothing more than to lay hands on him (in Ordination).
I, Marcellus, Presbyter and Monk, present these Libels to the Holy, Great, and CGicumenical Synod, which, by the Grace of God andthe God-fearing zeal of our Clement and Christ-loving Emperors, is assemble at Ephesus the Metropolis.
* Arcai was, it seems,in Palaestina Prima, and Psalton nowhere. "The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, formed out of that of Antioch, had three Provinces, says Bingham, assigned for the limits of its jurisdiction— Palaestina, Prima, Secunda, Tertia, but it never had quite fifty Bishops at the same time. In 451 a.p., Juvenal and Maximus agreed as a settlement of a long dispute that “5. Peter’s See of Antioch should have the two Pheenicias and Arabia”? and “the Holy Resurrection of Christ the three Palestines.” | Assemanus says :—“avulsis ab eadem (Hierosolym.) Metropoli nonnullis Arabiae Ecclestis, quae tertiam Palaestinam constituerunt, Petra urbs, Bostrenae quondam subjecta, Metropoliticis juribus ornata est, quum id Maximus Antiochenus Juvenali Hierosolymitano permisisset, ut liquet ex his Liberati Diaconi verbis in Brevario cap. 13, Septimo Secretario (loquitur de Con. Chalced.) ives actae sunt causae propter quod tres eus com- putantur actiones. Prima est, qua Sirmata sunt, qude convenerunt inter Maximum Antiochenum, et Juvenalem Hierosolymitanum Episcopos, ut duae Pheniciae et Arabia dependerent Sedi Antiochenae ; Hierosolymitanae vero tres Palaestinae provinciae, quarum primae metropolis Caesareea, secundae Scythopolis, tertiae Petra. (T'om. til, pt. 2, p. 594.)
314 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(6) THE PETITION AND COMPLAINT OF THE DEACON HELIODORUS, AND OF THE MONKS, SIMON AND ABRAHAM AND GERONTIUS.
All peace and tranquillity did the Churches of God in the Eastern parts enjoy in the days of John of pious Memory and of those Blessed Fathers who preceded him. But lo! as soon as the God-fearing Domnus had, by the contrivance of the Pagan Iso- cacius and of others attached to theatricals, become Bishop, without any* election (or any meeting) of Bishops who, according to custom, should assemble (at Antioch) for his Consecrationt—as soon as he had been made such, contrary to all Laws and Canons, at the 10th hour of the day{—for, there was neither any assembly for (Divine) Service (held) on bis account, nor Communion in the Mysteries, from
* Bingham gives the usual order of the Church in all the circumstances alluded to in this passage. Assemanus on Numerus Electorum Patriarche ” at p. 678, of Tom. iti, writes :—Metropolitarum unusquisque secum adducit tres Episcopos ex sua Provincia. ne en eee De numero Electorum apud Graecos haec Codinus : Episcopi qui Constanti- nopoli versantur, tametsi plures adsint conveniunt ; saltem vero duodecim : alii etiam ex vicinis Ecclesiis evocati. Si vero neque ex tis qui peregre advenerunt, neque ex vicinis Ecclestis duodecim Episcopi reperiantur : tunc pro necessitate in loco electionis, quotcumque reperti fuerint, consident.
+ Every Bishop, by the laws and customs of the Church, had to be ordained in his own Church in the presence of his own people, the Metro- politan or Primate and the Bishops of the Province meeting there for his Election and Ordination. St. Augustine, of Hippo, is an instance of this almost universally acknowledged rule.
t In lL. 17 ofp. 190 [iw ;MS2 (not |aJ as printed) at the 10th hour i.e. 4 p-m., an uncanonical hour ; for, Ordination usually took place at the time of the Oblation at the Morning Service, when the Ordained either celebrated or partook of the Eucharist, whether of Bishops, Priests or Deacons. This was one of the irregularities against this ancient rule of the Church, urged against Novatian.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. BLb
which circumstance, also, irregular proceedings can be proved—(ever since, we say) all has become (and is still) full of trouble and confusion. For, pre- cisely because he began in this way, did he (Domnus) -upset the Churches of the East, by delivering them over, through treachery, to Theodoret the Blasphe- mer, Nestorian, and Oppressor*, in conjunction with whom he put up a number of Nestorian Bishops of the same sentiments as himself. What, how- ever, constitutes the chief mischief is this ;—thatto the prejudice of the Faithful, he made Pompeianus Bishop of Emesa and Uranius (Bishop) of it after him, as well as Paul Bishop of Antaradus, by mere Letters, and without any Invocation for Divine Grace ; shewing thereby that the Imposition of hands on himself (in Ordination) was (attained) for his abolishing with impunity the Canons of the Ta- therst. Further, as regards the God-fearing Bishop Alexander, who can be (favourably) testified to for rectitude of conduct and for conversation and for Or- thodoxy, which fact, we opine, he (Domnus) himself would not call in question—although he was
* At p. 190, |. 26, the original Syriac Noun, derived from the Verb (signifying deglutivit, devoravit, absumpsit), may designate a devowrer of food and drink, or of men. The term iniquus absorbet justum i.e. oppressit, indicative of the signification of the same verb, gives the third appellative to Theodoret.
f “The Canons of the Fathers.” This refers probably to “ the Book of Canons,” very frequently quoted in the Council at Chalcedon, in 451 A.D. and composed of the Canons of the Primitive Church, containing the Apostolical Canons, and the Code of the Universal Church i.e. the Ni- caene, Ancyran, Neo-Caesarean, Gangran, Antiochean, Laodicean and Constantinopolitan, Canons, to which were afterwards added those of Ephesus and Chalcedon ; making in all 207 Canons.
o1G THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
examined, selected, and ad-judged by our Father S. Cyril, and by the Pious Proelus, and by the Holy Synod* assembled by them at Constantinople, for the purpose of occupying (the See of) Antaradus, as also the Letters despatched by them to the God- fearing Domnus certify, and (although) he had been received by them and communicated with them at Alexandria, at Ephesus, and at Constantinople, and the Blessed Cyril had addressed him as a Fellow- Minister,—(notwithstanding all this) he (Domnus) ejected him from Antaradus, because he does not hold the opinions of Nestorius, and in consequence of his having resorted, in a time of trouble, to the Blessed Cyril; and he presented, through Letters, Antaradus to Paul as recompence for having gone to the Oasis to Nestorius, and for having preached his Impieties in the Church, disturbing and agitating the Faithful there.
Refusing, moreover, to yield in this matter to the Blessed Bishops and to the Synod that assembled with them, on having learned that the Very Blessed Cyril had departed to the Lord, he seized the God- fearmg Alexander in the Bishop’s Hallt+, (Court) when Theodoret and Pompeianus, originators of all these violent proceedings, were present with him, and ex-
* This was no doubt a ctvodos évdyuovca, similar to the one held in Noy. 448, a.p. at Constantinople, at which Eutyches was condemned.
+ This might be the Secretarium or Diaconicium magnum without the Church, which was reckoned one of its exedrae. The consistory or tribunal was here, and it was large enough to hold a provincial and sometimes general Council. (Bingham).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 317
torted from him a Document, which Theodoret had drawn up, (to the effect) that he (Alexander) would act (only) as a Presbyter and would not exercise the Power of the Episcopate. Then, completing all these violent proceedings, Domnus compelled Alex- ander to add, that he would not carry his complaints to the Holy Synod or to our Christ-loving Emperor, nor ever enter the house of the latter.
Now, this man labouring under these restrictive burdens is unable to get to your Holiness by reason of the document which was extorted from him con- trary to (all) Law, and in consequence of the punish- ment which, contrary to all Justice, has been inflicted upon hin.
It is for this reason, then, that we in our own per- sons, moved by zeal and wishful that the Districts of Aradus and Antaradus in conjunction with the Churches of the East should have pity bestowed up- on them, have hastened to come as supplicants, fall- ing at the feet of your Great, Holy, and Gicumenical Synod, in order to proffer this information, touching the God-fearing Domnus and regarding the way in which he has brought ruin upon the Cities through reposing confidence in Theodoret ; and we entreat your Holiness to order, that what we have presented in writing as proof of our (oral) statements should be read, and also to order that Paul, the Nestorian and Blasphemer, who journied as far as the Oasis, be removed from Antaradus and Aradus, and the God- loving Alexander be reinstituted thereunto, who for
318 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
seven years has been detained at Antioch And (we further entreat you) to make null and void the docu- ment, which, contrary to Order, was extorted from him, so that he may occupy again these places (as his own) in the same manner as heretofore. For, he (Alexander) is acceptable to all the people living at those places, as (the documentary proof of) their Elec- tion of him, addressed to the Blessed Proclus, attests ; a copy of whichhe (Proclus) despatched* tothe Bishop Domnus, as wellas to the then Bishop of the Metro- polis, Tyre. It is in consequence of this that people without end have not, up to the present time, communicated with, but have even suffered persecu- tion from, Paul as a Nestorian.
Finally, those sentiments, relating to the same Venerable Alexander, which were decided upon (pro- nounced) in an appropriate and canonical way by the Very Blessed Cyril and the Pius Proclus, as well as by the Synod that was assembled by their means, should be confirmed by your Holiness.
I, Helodorus, Deacon and (we) Simon, Abraham and Gerontius, Monks, have presented this Libel,
after having subscribed it by the hands (means) of the Venerable John.
* ‘This and other acts of Proclus, referred to in this instrument, are in keeping with his fidelity to the Regimen and Discipline, as his first great Sermon on the Theotokos preached in the presence of his Patriarch, (afterwards pronounced the Arch-heretic Nestorius), and other instances of his title to a great Doctor in Divinity, were in keeping} with his fidelity to The Faith and Doctrine, of the Catholic Church of Christ.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 319
(7) CONFESSION* OF FAITH OF THE PRESBYTER PELAGIUS,
To my Lord, the Holy and God-loving Archbishop Domnus, and to the God-loving (men) Domnus, Theoctistus,Gerontius, Sabbas, Theodoret, Julianus and Julianus, Damianus of Sidon, Eustathius of Aegea, Meletius, the Presbyter Pelagius (sends) greeting in our Lordt.
Because some of those, who are continually in fa- miliar intercourse with me, have appeared to your Holiness to entertain and affirm Doctrines contrariant to (those of) the Church-—for, they contend that GOD Tue Worp became Flesh by change, and that the Flesh of our Lord was changed into the Nature of the Diviniry, and they aim at proving that the Diviniry and the Humanity of our LORD CHRIST constitute One only Nature—Your Holi- ness, moved by this consideration, has made me come, demanding of me some apology (explanation) relative to these False Doctrines. Moreover, some God-fear- ing men, Presbyters, have informed your Holiness, that I called the Doctors of the Church Jews.
In consequence of this, I have drawn up this Book of Confession of Faith in order that, by means of it, I might make confession inconformity with the Doctrine
® Or “ Profession.” See 2 Tim., vi, 13. + As Hoffman remarks, this address does not seem to be quite complete or correct.
320 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of the Holy Fathers,—that Ong indeed is the SON of GOD, Who became IncarnatE—GOD The Worp —just as GOD the FATHER is Ong, and the HOLY GHOST Owner. I, furthermore, confess the Divinity of Him, Who became Incarnate, as well as His Humaniry, and that, after the Union, they (the Dr- vinitry and the Humanity) remained without confusion—not that GOD The Worp by (any) change whatsoever became Flesh, nor that the Flesh was changed into the Naturs of DEITY—, but (I con- fess) that, after His Resurrection, our Lord’s Flesh was not subject to suffering or corruption ordeath, but was made glorious in the Glory of the Diviniry as being the Bovy of GOD The Worp. Notwithstanding, it abides within the properties (limits) of that (Hu- man) Nature and preserves also the (appearance) impress of the Humaniry according to that voice of the Holy Angels* viz. “ Assuredly this Jesus, Who hasbeen taken up from youinto Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven.” In the same way He, our Lord, said to (His) Disciples after His Resurrectiont :—‘“ Touch me and perceive that a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones, as ye see that I have.”
I anathematize, therefore, those who affirm that there is One Nature (only) of the Divinity of CHRIST and of His Humaniry, and those also who attribute suffering to the Divine Narurg, .and
-
+ Luke xxiv., 39.—See Matthew xxiv, 30, and Daniel vii, 13. * Acts i, 11.—See John xx, 20 and 27.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 321
do not confess the Properties of the Two Natures — viz., that of Impassibility of the DIVINITY and that of Passibility of the HUMANITY.
I thus confess One Only SON—the same to be GOD before the world, (but become also) Man in these last days—Son of GOD, even the FATHER, in His capacity as GOD, and Son of David in his capacity as MAN, Who is certainly designated the Son of David according to the Flesh, but the Son of GOD as tothe DIVINITY*, Who was born of the Virgin Mary as to the Flesh. So, further, I call the Holy Virginthe MotherofGOD ; because, in the conception, GOD The Worp united to Him The NATU RE, which was assumed by Him, that is, PERFECT MAN.
Thus I believe, thus I confess ; but those, who hold opinions contrary to these sentiments and speak of these Two NATURES of our LORD CHRIST as One NATURE, which (Natures) were possessed (by Him) without confusion, I anathematize and pro- nounce strangers to (the True) Religion.
If, however, I am proved, after this Confession written in this book, to hold opinions other than this, or to speak differently in discussion, or to teach (differently) in private—since your Holiness has com- manded that we must be content with the instructions given in the Church without aay disputations—I confess that I ought to be removed from the Dignity of the Priesthood, to be anathematized as an Heretic, and to be handed over to the Laws.
* Romans, Chap. i, verses 3 and 4.
RR
B yaya THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Now, that by my own free will I have written this, and not under compulsion, I take Oath by the Holy Trinity and by the Clemency of the Victorious Lords of the World.
Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
You have listened to those documents that have been read. It is (now) befitting, that the Venerable John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, should also in- form us whether he has anything else in his hands.
John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, said :—
Some time ago (or last year), there came to Alex- andria a certain Monk, Theodosius by name*, who attracted with him other Monks as well. He said a good deal against Theodoret, who was Bishop of Cyrus, andagainst the God-fearmg Bishop Domnus of Antioch.
* After the great Council of Chalcedon, this Monk Theodosius went to Jerusalem, and so excited the monks there against their Bishop Juvenal (who had subscribed to the Coun- cil), that they would not receive him any more on his return, but raised Theodosius himself to the Episcopal Throne. But with the help of the Emperor Marcian, (several letters written by him and by the Empress Pulcheria, on this matter, to the Monks, Nuns, and other inhabitants of Jerusalem, and Sinai and Palestine ; are given in Mansi’s Tom. V.) Juvenal was reinstated by the army of the Comes Dorotheus ; and Theodosius had to flee. A minute account of this, with some interesting anecdotes, (a blind Samaritan restored to sight, by ap- plying the blood of the killed Monophysites ; a zealous Monk throw- ing a basket full of dust and ashes on the head of Juvenal; an apparation of Christ to Petrus [berius, whom Theodosius had made Bishop of Gaza; etc.) is to be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Bishop of Meletina in Armenia. Already Assemanus had given some extracts of this work from an incomplete Vatican Manuscript, in Tom. I] of the Bibl. Orient. p. 54-62, esp. p. 55: and A. Mai printed the whole with a Latin translation in 1838, (Vol. x, Script. Vet. Nova Collectio). But as late as 1870, J, Pp. N. LAND published from a more
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. elo
He, also, produced papers containing Homilies and Exclamations made at Antioch. And, after there had been (consequent on the recital of these papers) much agitation at Alexandria, and all these Monks had gone and appeared (stood) before the Holy, God- loving Dioscorus, our Archbishop, and when, though with difficulty, the Monasteries were kept in order by the skilful management of him, their Chief, it seemed good to his Blessedness to write to the God-fearing Domuus, the Bishop of Antioch.
He wrote a first letter and despatched it by the hands of Clerics. The God-fearing Bishop, above- mentioned, made reply to it, when he wrote a second letter, and he (Domnus) rephed to that also. Now we hold all these letters (in our hands) and notify the fact, in order that you may give what orders you please (on the subject).
complete MS. of the British Museum(Add. 17202), the whole of the work of Zacharias Rhetor in the third Volume of his Anecdota Syriaca. Book iti, Ch. 3—1otreatsof Theodosius. Chap. 9 informsus, that, after his flight, Theodosius wandered about in the dress of a soldier, confirming the Monophysites, till he was recognised somewhere near Sidon, and was taken up and shut up ina small room of a cloister, where he had many discussions with his opponents, the Eutychians, who wished to consider him as one of their party, as well as with the Adherents of the Council of Chalcedon, who tried to win him over to their side. ‘Towards the end of his life he was troubled by reason of the Heresy of John Rhetor of Alexandria, who published several writings under the name of ‘Theodosius and his friend Petrus of Gaza. On p. 342-345 of the book quoted, Land prints, from another MS. ofthe Brit. Mus. (12174,) another account of the last days of the “ Bishop, Confessor, and Martyr, Theodosius,” which is also (probably) by Zacharias, who seems to be connected with Theodosius and his friends, not only through their common belief, but still closer as a native of Gaza. There are, however, some slight differences between these two accounts. According to the latter, Theodosius went first to Egypt after his expulsion from Jerusalem, then he desired to get
324 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea, said :— Let the papers be read and deposited among the accredited Documents.
John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :~-
When the Bishop Theodoret was giving Homilies, and said “ that GOD assumed (the Form of) May, even although it was not pleasing to men,” and, again, that “ Thomas touched Him Who rose, but wor- shipped Him Who raised Him (from the dead),” the people shouted these exclamations :—“ That is the “ Faith of the Apostles—that is The Orthodox “ Faith — that is the Faith of Diodorus and “Theodorus—just as Diodorus and Theodorus (be- “lieved), sodo we believe. No man is a believer in
to Antioch, to unite his fellow-believers there, but particularly (as some say ), to see the holy Simeon, who stood upon a Column in these regions. But before the doors of Antioch he was recognised, as he had lived there some time in the monastery of Mar Bassus. He was to have been sent to Constantinople by order of the Emperor, but he left him afterwards in charge of the Abbat of a Cloister, named in the Syriac, who tried to convert him first by flattering, then by cruelty. In consequence of ill treatment, he died on his way to the Capital of the Emperor Leo. His friends sailed with his body to Cyprus, where it was deposited in a Monastery of the “ Orthodox.” His Commemoration was kept on the thirtieth of the first Canun, soon after that of Jacob, the Brother of our Lord; and marvellously, says the writer, it happened, that the Commemora- tion day of the first Bishop of Jerusalem and that of Theodosius her ortho- dox Bishop fell together.” On the night of his death, the writer adds, Peter (of Gaza), who was at that time in Alexandria, saw in a vision Theodosius triumphantly accompanied by a host of angels, dressed in the white robe which the Archbishop of Jerusalem used to wear when bap- tisiag, and so he was carried into heaven.
We have given this note, as one proof more, how much information, elucidatory of Church History, can be gathered from Syriac sources, especially from the rich Collection in our British Museum. Abbé Mar- tin, notwithstanding, in no enigmatical terms, states that nobody knows what became of this wonderful Monk.
4
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 325
“an Edict—no man receives his faith from an Edict. “We are servants of the Apostles. Turn out the “ enemies of the Church—turn out Heretics—him who “makes (believes) God to suffer, turn out—turn out “ calumniators-—turn out Eutyches and Maximianus “turn out Heretics. Let Anathemas rest upon “those two. Let the Monastery of Maximianus “be instantly burnt; let us make him go thither now “(for that purpose). He is Satan and not a Monk.”
Also, at the time when the Copiatae and Lecti- carv and the Laborantes* and some other Brethren were shouting out these exclamations among the people, Theodoret in the course of his Homily said to the people :—“ Naboth, the Jezreelite, because “he would not deliver up the inheritance and “vineyard of his Fathers, was stoned with stones, “ exclaiming—‘ | will not deliver up the inheritance “of my Fatherst.’ Do you, likewise, be zealous for “the Doctrines of your Fathers, saying—‘ We will “not deliver up the inheritance of our Fathers.’ “‘ Now there is nothing strange in this, that they who “labour for (the true) Religion should suffer evil (persecution) ; for, from Above the Blessed Paul
Mili 206.1545 30,0 Laborantes. The Syriac word is ren- dered into this general term which, however, by no means accurately represents the meaning, nor does any English expression that I am ac- quainted with do so. We give only an approximation to it. It is given by Martin, as equivalent to Ordonnateurs, apparently ; though he seems not to wish to indicate that their functions were the same as those of modern French Ordonnateurs (at Funerals), | Hoffmann, who consulted a MS. Lexicon of the Library at Halle, translates the Syriac word into a German one that signifies Layers of the Table-cloth.
t Kings xxi, 6.
326 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“teaches (this) when he says :—‘all those who will “live godly in Jesus Christ must (will) suffer persecu- “tion. But wicked men and deceivers (seducers) “ will add to (their) wickedness, being deceived and “ deceiving ’.”*
Again the people cried out—“ Magicians to the Stadium—the attributers of suffering to God to the Stadium—O Thou, The Alone GOD! strike them.”
And many other such exclamations did they con- tinue to shout out, when provoked to it by expres- sions of the Homilist.t
* 2 Timothy, iii, 12,13. The Text and Syriac N.T. vary from the Greek.
iT ekap. 200; 2 55 [aaaaw is the Homilist, or the Interpreter. Atp. 116, Note }, it is rendered by Assemanus Commentator, seu interpres. See Bingham iii, Chap. xii, 4. I have translated it Homilist, because it seems to refer to the deliverer of the Homilies or Conferences—T heodo- ret. But, if interpreter is the correct word, then it implies that just as the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, after the Dispersion of the Jews, when that language ceased to be vernacular, required the interpretation or explanation afforded by the Syriac Targums, or as Uranius Bishop of Himeria used an interpreter into Syriac of addresses (see page 159) de- livered in Greek, so the delivery in Greek of Theodoret’s Homilies was attended by a Syriac Interpreter in order to render their meaning in telligible to the audience. ¥
Hoffmann in his note refers to Bingham and to £. 4. Frommann, de hermeneutis veteris ecclesiae, Altdorf 1747, 4° (which dissertation has been republished in the Author’s Opusculorum philologici atque historici argumenti Tomi duo. Coburgi 1770, 8°). It appears from both, that very little is known about the Office of an Interpreter or Hermeneuta in the Ancient Church. The most explicit statement is that of Epiphanius (Expos. Fid. n. 21, i, p- 1104), who ranks him together with the exorcista (émopxiors,) and before the copiata ; this is confirmed by a passage of Eusebius, de Mart. Palaest. p. 172 (comp. the notes of Walesius) and one of Procopius. Of course the office was only wanted in Churches where different languages were used, and it would be interesting to know, whether the sermons of Theodoret in Antioch were, sentence by sentence, after they were pronounced by him in Greek, translated by the Interpreter into Syriac. We should then have here an Analogon to a similar praxis in the Synagogue. (Note from a Syriac Scholar).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 327
COPY OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE HOLY ARCHBISHOP
DIOSCORUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, THE GREAT (CAPITAL),
TO THE GOD-LOVING DOMNUS, BISHOP OF THE CITY OF ANTIOCH.
I have been brought to admire the Divine Scrip- ture which exclaims—“ If it be possible, as muchas lieth on you, make peace with all men,’”* but par- ticularly do J admire, O God-loving man ! the Word —‘“J] am at peace with those who hate peace’t— ; and, I judge, I can repeat it with truth; since, learn- ing it from the Psalmist, I have it constantly im- pressed on my mind, and, although people should scoff at me, I refuse and fear to return their infamy and scoffing. Yea, even when they show an auda- cious inclination to strike me and, by act, give proof of their intention, it isnot mine to punish (for such acts) ; they must all be borne with, and no great at- tention ought to be paid to them.
That is my will to occupy myself in matters which concern our Community—(e.g.) that CHRIST is the Onty Bzcorren Son or Gop and The First Brcottsn, in Whom and by Whom are all things, Who, for our sakes, became Incarnate and Who has, in no res- pect whatever, undergone (even) the shadow of a change.
With any of those, who, through ignorance or a false belief, have been pushed so far4, that statements
* Rom. xii, 18. ch PS Gxix; /6.
t In the Codex Vaticanus (Vercellone and Cozza, 1871) to which I have easy access, the exact words are—MNAPWOYKE NINA PAAAATHHTPONHCANO CKIACMATOC.
{| Or, perhaps, “into (the position of) Dignity, and have advanced statements, &c.”
328 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
have been advanced by them embodying Blasphemy, which lead to what is unbefitting (the character of) the Great and Profound Mystery of the (Divine) C#- conomy—with any of those people, because it is a necessity, and impossible for me to escape it, I do find myself in direct (manifest) antagonism, being re- minded of the only wise man who indicates this in saying*—-‘ Everything is good in its season ”— “there is a time for war and a time for peace ”—“a time to serve and be zealous for the Lord.” “Be clothed in the armour of God,” Paul never ceases to cry out toust. Too short would be the time for me, if I wished to quote and point out Sentences of the Di- vine Writers, which stimulate us{ to the propriety and duty of resisting manfully, and of turning our faces from, and of hating, those who hate our Lord.
But it is time now for me to disclose the reasons tor, and to show the object of, this letter.
(Some) people give out—and the number of these I believe to be considerable and of an irreproachable life—that all, so to speak, of the Eastern people, zealous and Christ-loving as they are, feel at the present time scandalized and distressed. And, what is of still more importance, (they say) that those per- sons, who in reality ought to have steered skilfully through,—according to (the laws of their) art—and to have silenced the turmoil of, the approaching
* Eccles. ili, 11, and 8. q, eph. vise ts
t In. p. 202. 1. 16 aegis would seem to be the correct word, but the original MS. has
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 329
waves, are in fact the very parties, who raised the storm through havingdrunk the poison of the Impious Nestorius, which they do not hesitate to vomit, by their teaching, in the Church, after having given their assent and consent to the Holy and (ecumenical Sy- nod* that took place of old at Nicaea, as well as to its Sister and Consentient one—I refer to that of Ephesus—and after having anathematized the Beastt, that contended with Christ, and all his Impious and unclean Doctrines.
Let any one say, in reference to those of whose acts an explanation has thus been intimated, who they are—and let him dart against them the affixing arrow of the true parable (viz.) “the dog that re- turns to his ownvomit and the swine, that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire{’—(who they are) that are labouring, after having destroyed the middle wall (fence of separation)§, to raise it again, without perhaps paying the matter proper attention, or without saying to themselves, as propriety sug- gests,—“ if I build up again what I have pulled
* To the decisions, etc., of the 318 Fathers at the Council of Niceea in 325, A.D., and to those of the Fathers at the General Coun- cil at Ephesus in 431, A.D., those of the Council of Constantinople in 381, A.D., being most probably included.
+ Meaning the Heresiarch Nestorius.
ii Peter, ii, 22—We find this expression frequently used. Bingham, Bk., xvii, ii, 3, speaks of an Order of a Council, “that if Clergymen, who are once corrected for their offence, shall relapse, and return to their vomit again, they shall be deprived of their dignity, etc.”
§ The Peshitto-text in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (ii, 14) is. [DSpesc> Jom yo? hye ie
At p. 203, |. 19, it should be comaeS3, |. 21 [25, 1. 25 Ne
SS
330 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
down, I am a transgressor of the command.” And the fact of their having considered it at all and speaking of it incorrectly, who have undertaken the office of Priest and Teacher, renders them lable to the charge of folly, and to be the subject of laugh- ter.
Now, if in that great Church of Antioch in which were found assembled a vast concourse of people, these persons uttered Blasphemous expressions, without anybody reproving them, who is there to heal (the weund expressed by) the tears of those scandalized thereby ? And who is there that would not consequently feel heaviness and sorrow, if, at the very place of healing where it is right and proper for them to be healed, they should there wither away”%, whilst yet your Piety possessed the power of curing, yea the power to heal the lamet by word and deed ?
So, I was astonished on learning that, upon an occasion when an assembly was taking place there (at the Church in Antioch), that wise Bishop of Cyrus took authority upon him—whence I know not—to assert, and that in the presence of your Perfection, that he was not dividing Immanuel by affirming that ‘the mere Man only was palpable to (touched by) Thomas, and that God only was worshipped” (by him), “ speaking such things out of his own heart, not out of the mouth of the Lord,” as it
* Meaning, “ If they should find no remedy.” + Meaning, probably, “the power to apply a perfectly efficacious remedy.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Sal
is written* ; of whom it is time to ask—“ what have you been saying ?” or this—“ whither are you going ?” and “vou walk not circumspectly in forsakinet+ the Royal Road.” ‘ Cease to struggle in opposition to the Divine Scriptures.” “ Put a door upon, and a bridle, into your mouth.” ‘Be in awe for the voice of the Father, which came from Heaven saying, “This is My Beloved Son in Whom I ain well pleasedf.” “Do not divide our One Lord Jesus Christ into Two Sons.” For, although He became (to be in the Flesh), (derived) from a woman, yet, in the Assumption of the Flesh with a reasonable Soul, He continued to remain what He was before, that 1s, Gop. And hear the Philospher Paul, asking you and saying—“Is Christ divided§$?” No, you wil reply, if you do not suppose Two Sons and Two Christs and Two Lords? Further, immediately meets you the Prophet, who restricts you by saying —‘ This is our Gop, and no other is to be compared “with Him. He has discovered all the way of “knowledge and has imparted it to Jacob His “servant, and to Israel beloved of Him. After- ‘wards, He appeared upon Earth and held converse “ with the Sons of Men.”
In order, too, that the Holy Virgin might be called the Mother of GOD, and the Evangelist be confirmed who writes—‘“The WORD be-
* Jeremiah xxii, 14. + Ephesians v, 15.
{ Matthew iii, 17. § 1 Corinthiansi,13. || Baruch it, 35 and 36.
332 THK SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
came Flesh and dwelt among us*,” The (One) Who was worshipped by the Cherubin and adored by the Seraphint—This Same One became like us for our sake, sate upon-a colt the foal of an ass, and, when the servants smote Him upon His cheeks, endured it patiently ‘| in order to fulfil all Righteousness.
‘These things they have handed down to us, “who from the beginiug were eye-witnesses and ministers off The Word.” These are the Doctrines of the Ancient and the Modern Synod. In these, John of Blessed memory, who was the Bishop previously to your Piety, (was consentient) and concurred with us completely.
But once more I turn to you, O God-loving Priest of Antioch and my Brother! and (I pray) you for his sake who never ceased from supporting (up- holdingS) that Concord (Peace) of the Church common to us and you, which he rendered powerless for men to dis-sever.
(1 mention this) because they (alluded to above) are disturbers (of Concord) and highly reprehensible in speaking against a time of peace, not knowing how great a boon it is to live in peace.
Moreover, they composed treatises exceedingly reprehensible inasmuch as these are, according to their
=
* John i, 14. + Isaiah i, 2 and 3.
| Conformably to the Laws of the Incarnation.
1 MAO OLI Ly ET.
) Included, perhaps, is the sense of ‘ drawing closer the bonds of the Concord, Union. ”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 333
own statement, in direct antagonism to the writings of our Blessed and Famous Father and Bishop, Cyril. This proves beyond doubt that they are highly reprehensible and not in accord with Holy Scriptures. *For, our wise and distinguished Father became the Teacher of the whole world, seeing that he wrote in amore Catholic and enlightened manner than all the world besides. He was not only skilful in speech‘i—for, that nature bestowed on him from early youth—but, being richly endowed with gifts from Above, he gave an exact Ex- position, as It admitted of it, of the Mysrrry of Tut INCARNATION of THe Onty Becorren Son of Gop. And nothing proceeded from him, in which he did not excel toadmiration. Whether a treatise be named, ora letter, or a set exposition, (Commentary), oran address (discourse) toa Community, or Chapters, or Anathematisms, all was exact, and accurate, neat, and what might be inferred from the Divine Words, so thatit would be truly notinappropriate to say of them— “ Who is wise ? He shall understand them ; and the “foolish ? and he may know them‘i——that the ways of “the Lord are right and that the Righteous will walk “therein, but the transgressors shall fall therebyt.”
Now such a commotion, as at present exists in
* See one of the extracts in Appendices G, in Vols. 1 and 2.
{ Or, perhaps, “an excellent Rhetorician.” Literally, ‘ elaborator of words.”
4 Or, “and who the intelligent ? and he will know them.”
t Hosea xiv, 9.
334 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the Churches, will not stamp out even those members of them that are true Christians", although some persons change those (right ways of the Lord), or repudiate them according to their pleasure ; although they silence the Orthodox, and subject them to severe toils, and demand their manuscripts, and compel them to silence ; even although they re- verse, so to say, the new order of things, by silencing, (though) in vain, those to whom our Redeemer ordered—“ Go and teach all nations* ”—whilst al- lowing those to speak, without let or hindrance, to whom our Master and Redeemer neverthelesst said—‘“ Peace, be stillf.” For, “if thou hast “wisdom, give reply to thy neighbour,” says the Holy Scripture ; “and if not, let thy hand be upon thy mouths ”
Besides, however, the above-mentioned eircum- stances, there is this one, which has occasioned grief to us and to the Egyptian Synod||,— for, it is only right and just that, when I write to your Holiness, I should, with a frankness and a love befit- ting Brothers, make known all matters to you openly and without reserve, particularly those that make
for the service of and are of utility to the fair name
{| Or, perhaps, “ separate (sever) those who are true Christians from the Churches,”
* Literally, “ necessarily.” + Matthew xxviii, 19.
t Mark iv, 39. § Ecclesiasticus v, 12.
|| The Church’s Synod there.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. oo0
of the (your) Community as wellas to the spiritual*
flocks of Christ.
(The matter I refer to is this)—Our Serene and Christ-loving Emperor, the Great Theodosius, being a source of Piety as he is, and that a perennial one, not long ago agreed to make certain Decrees, whereby he delighted the whole earth under Heaven and completely exhibited it as replete with enjoyment and gladness, and wherein he issued distinct orders respecting the writings of Porphyry and Nestorius, and respecting people, who entertain like opinions and make aftir- mations similarly to them and (so) stand in direct opposition to the Decisions of the Two Supreme and only Synods ; to wit, those held at Nicaea and at Ephesus.
Moreover, he further issued a pious and holy Decree against Irenzeus the Blasphemer, who had two wives and was unclean and impiousand a fellow- believer in Nestorius’s profane Doctrine, and removed the man who was without God from the Church of Tyre into exile, (thereby) ridding that Church of the cur that was incessantly barking at and worrying (teasing) the sheep. Now, whereas it is befitting
and proper that this Church should have, forthwith,
* Literally, “ reason-endowed,”’ or rational.
See page 169 for quotations and information made about Ireneus from Lupus and the Synodicon,
336 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
adorned herself with, and have received, a Priest who knows how “rightly to divide The Word of Truth*,” and is competent to administer the means of (spiritual) healing to the people there who have been so situated as if lacerated by some wild animal, a prey to savages, and abandoned to the preverse will of a false Shepherd, we have learnt that she has been in (widowed) sorrow up to the present time, and that many have (been scan- dalized) taken umbrage at that fact, and that they make mention of your Perfection in no flattering terms, fearing lest there should indeed be, through this so protracted delay, a way for the second time achieved for the Wolf, which, though God permitted it, we cannot desire ; lest the bitter root, germinating afresh, should again occasion trouble, and (so), by its means, many be contaminated.
I therefore pray your Piety, who ure not, I think, devoid of that wisdom which yields to the kind re- quests of Brethren, to rise up now and stop every
mouth that utters iniquity against God. But par-
* 2 Timothy, u, 15, yaks Dalya Z sel eeidetes Ae luSo o v. ~ |3za2 JDSSo,
{| Or perhaps we may translate it, ‘fearing the termination of this “‘ wearisome delay (ava8oAn) will be a second betrothal to that wolf: “the which, supposing God would allow it, we do not hope, lest wolf’s ‘bane might spring up anew, contaminating many,”’
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Bah
ticularly do I instruct (counsel) you to cry out to the Orthodox and exhort them to put out (their) silver to the money-changers*. Concede, then, to the Church of Tyrea Bishop. Forthwith ordain, by Imposition of hands, one whom you will test and examine by (the exercise of) that power and authority entrusted to you by Godt. For, we are, in this way, participators in your Orthodox acts, God-loving man! if they be (those correspondent to) The Faith. It is true, as- suredly, that when one member is honored, all the members are honored with it, and when, on the con- trary, one member suffers, the others suffer with it.
* Matthew xxv, 27. Metaphorical allusion seems often made in our Syriac MSS. to this text. See Vol. 1, p.314, (24) of Dr. W. Wright’s “« Apocryphal Acts of the Avpostles,”’ AON oe] SEN ASa.9 yans
i cg i ; Lavo Luels yal ahs mes eoMa 10 Tle. yIONS) Coss
S which, at p. 280 of Vol. 2, “The Acts of Judas Thomas,” is thus rendered: “Thy silver, which Tnou gavest me, I have cast down upon Thy table; try it, and give it to me with its usury, as Thou hast promised.” Compare, also, Wright’s Aphraates ” p- La, 21f., as well as “ The Doctrine of Addai” by Dr. G. Phillips, (Triibner, 1876) where occurs
this sentence :—|a] pmmsoo ta] {paso la aoe’ eas 22>? yal
&e. ta} 1803] ln Locka As mame which in the English Translation is thus rendered by Dr. Phillips at p22), “ As my Lord commanded me, behold, I preach and publish. And his silver on the table, behold I cast before you, and the seed of His Word I sow in the ears of every man.”
The term, 0 rpameCirys, the money-chinger was given to ‘Theodotus who followed the great one of that name, viz. 6 oxters the currier, the first who asserted Christ to be a mere Man and taught Monarchianism, and who was excommunicated by Victor, in the second Century.
+ This passage and other similar ones in our Document imply that Imposition of hands and prayer form the first essential of Ordination and that Episcopal presupposes Sacerdotal Ordination. On this subject wemay quote Courayer on the Validity of Orders in the English Church. He says the Scripture does not clearly and distinctly determine the
say
338 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
May this (last alternative), however, be far off on account of the love and affection which we entertain towards each other in Christ !
Now, this letter is communicated to you by my dear friends, Isaiah and Cyrus, Presbyters, whom your Piety will (we hope) regard with pleasure and will be pleased to send back to us immediately. No doubt you will favor us by writing a reply and will
pray for us.
matter and form of Ordinations but it at least names imposition of hands and prayer, and names nothing else. He continues thus :—
This indication is supported by the testimony of Fathers and Councils, represented in the ancient Pontificials and other Ecclesiastical Books, being found to be conformable to these testimonies, does not leave the least probability of the necessity of any thing else. Nor is the judgment of the Catholic Church so incompetent a tribunal as is supposed. It is not the cause of the Anglicans that is concerned herein ; it is that of the whole Church: and even if the question did concern only the English who reject her infallibility, yet in a matter of this kind, the practice of the Ancient Church alone forms a proof, to which they have always professed to be willing to conform. ‘To reduce then this whole answer to a few words, it is certain that the Scripture implies the sufficiency of the imposition of hands and of prayer, and implies nothing else ; that the Fathers and Councils support it uncontestably ; and that the practice of the Church demonstrates it.
Allowing the Sacrifice to be the Priesthood’s Chief Function, on p. 222 we find this: it is certain, says Grabe, that St. Ireneeus and all the Fathers, as well those who had seen the Apostles, as those who succeeded them, regarded the Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Law, and that they offered the bread and wine as sacred offer- ings: offering them to God before the consecration, as the first fruits of His creatures, to acknowledge His sovereign dominion over all things; and after the consecration, as the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, in order to represent the bloody Sacrifice offered on the Cross, and to obtain the fruits of His death for all them for whom it is offered. This is not, says he, the Doctrine of one particular Church or Doctor, but of the Church Universal. The Church had received it from the Apostles and the Apostles from Jesus Christ. Andthat this was not the private doctrine of a particular Church or Doctor, but the public doctrine and practice of Church Universal which she received from the Apostles, the Apostles received as the teaching of Christ Himself, Irenzeus teaches distinctly, and before him Justin Martyr, and Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others:
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 339
THE LETTER OF DOMNUS THE BISHOP OF THE CITY
OF ANTIOCH, WHICH HE WROTE TO THE PIOUS AND
HOLY DIOSCORUS THE BISHOP OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREAT (CAPITAL).
To the Holy Lord and our God-loving Brother and Fellow-minister Dioscorus, Domnus (sends) greeting in our Lord :—
Your Piety’s Letter I have read with great pleasure, God-loving man! wherein are exhibited many manifestations of your fraternal affection for me, and indications of the Spiritual nobleness of
your God-loving soul. |
Now assuredly your Piety learnt the concord subsisting in Evangelical Doctrines, between the God-fearmg Bishops of the East: and the Holy Fathers who assembled at Niceea, at the time when many Synodical Tomes used frequently to be despatched from hence to you in the days of the Pious Bishop Cyril of Blessed Memory. Nor was there anything contrary to The Faith in what we wrote to you just lately through the God-fearing Presbyter Eusebius. For, we have demanded of those who have affirmed Doctrines contrariant to The Truth to receive instruction at the hands of your Piety, in order that they may assent both to The Faith, —The Faith of the whole world—as defined by the Holy and Blessed Fathers at Niczea, and glorified and eulogized by the Holy Fathers assembled at Ephesus, and also to those Letters, written by Cyril of Blessed Memory, to John of Blessed Memory who
340 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
previously to me governed this Church, in which he (Cyril) set forth the Doctrines (Orthodox) of (The True) Religion.
So also ought the same persons to assent to the Letter which the very Blessed Athanasius* wrote to the Blessed Epictetus.
We should not have (defended) advanced the progress of these Doctrines, or have laboured to convert others to them, had we not been strongly attached to them, as being (among those belonging to) Orthodox and True ones: and we always make assent to, when we preach, them.
As for those who, instead of promoting peace, prefer commotions, not only—
Here the original MS. suddenly breaks off, and the blank leaf opposite represents the break—this “‘ hiatus valde deflendus ””— in it as well as the actual blank leaf in the bound Volume in the British Museum. Of the Lacune in the MS. this is the first one that is indicated in the Volume. ‘The first actual break, which occurs in the early part, is not indicated by a blank vellum leaf, as we have remarked in a note at foot of the p. 27.
* The splendid large Volume in the British Museum, numbered Add. MS. 12,156, written against the great Chalcedon Council and attributed to the guidance, if not to the pen, of Timothy AZlurus contains in Syriac this famous Letter.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 343
in all those matters belonging to God—in order to silence intemperate tongues, but exhort those who have given credence to these calumnies, not to lend their ears to mendacious reports.
Now, as regards the Holy Church at Tyre we have had some conversation on the subject with the Honored and God-fearing Presbyters, Isaiah and Cyrus, whom, whilst we praise them as noble in their bearing and for the wisdom of their God-loving souls, we have looked upon for the time being and have regarded, as our own Clergy ; and we have admired the choice of your Piety.
We, also, requested them to repeat to your Piety all that they had witnessed, and we ask your Reverence to hold us in remembrance (in your prayers) and to gratify us with a reply in writing from all the Brotherhood that are with you.
I and those with me desire (to offer) salutation.
(Here) ends the Letter, written by Domnus the Bishop of Antioch, to the Holy Dioscorus the Bishop of Alexandria.
From this conclusion of the Letter it is evident that the preceding great hiatus, alluded to above, occurs in the Letter commencing as at the heading on page 339.
This page also is evidence of the good feelings existing between the Patriarchs, Domnus and Dioscorus up to a certain period, it may not be here inappropriate to remark.
344 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
COPY OF A LETTER WRITTEN BY THE HOLY BISHOP DIOSCORUS TO THE GOD-FEARING BISHOP DOMNUS, THE BISHOP OF ANTIOCH.
When any matter of grave and urgent import presses-—of a nature which would occasion a great deal of harm to the soul, if 1t were neglected—then, just then, to rest and be at ease would be the act of a slothful mind and of one that knows not how to awaken itself.* May this condition of things, however, be a great way removed to a distance from us, so that they “who seek to find occasion” may “obtain none occasiont !”
For this reason I would wish to write what is amicable at all times and to make use of a pacific kindof writing, aswell asto meet with a reciprocation ; for, that is an indication of unanimity in the Churches and of a consentient Catholic Faith.
But, probably, [ am wanting that which 1s impossible.
However, what I do say is this. . Affairs (now in- stant) oblige me to this by their not proceeding in a straight path but in a tortuous one, especiallyin a lame sort of way. Even in insignificant and unimportant matters, we should, nevertheless, not proceed insen- sible to it, but as matters now stand, (actual) prin- ciples are jeopardized ; and how can we be exonerated
from reproach by an unjustifiable (@nopportune) silence @
* Meaning, probably, “to awaken itself to energy.” + Daniel vi, 4. 2 Corinthians, ti, 12.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 345
Knowing, then, how to exclaim with the wise Paul and say—‘“ Who shall separate us from the love of “ Christ ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, “or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? ‘as it “is written, For thy sake are we killed all the day long,*” I have, with this Example and Teaching, come for the purpose of writing again this time to urge your Piety to restrain certain Teachers with you, leading them to what is consistent with propriety and duty, who magnify themselves, pre- suming that they can speak well, and consequently entertain very high opinion of themselves ; whilst, I am certain, they scandalize very many people and are naturally laughed at, “understanding neither
* Romans viii, 35- The Codex Vaticanus thus gives this beautiful passage with the quotation.
EAT Wey chet te TIC HMACXWPICEIAROTHC
APTANHCTOYEYTHCE
XWIYEAEIVICHCTEN? XWPIA HAIWEFMOCHAE: MOC HIFYMNOCTHCH KINAYNOC HMAXAIPA
“KABWCFEFPANTAIOTI
“ EYEKENCOYOGANATOY
“ MEG@AOAHNTHNHME
“ PANENOFICGHMENWC
“MPOBATACOATHC: UU
346 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
what they say nor whereof they affirm*.” But it is a matter to be provided for by your Piety that you take the bridle and rein, and put restraint upon the contentions of those who war against God ; for, it is against Him that they are reported to have had the audacity to assert that the Impious and Profane Nestorius received (the punishment of) Deposition, not for having deviated from the Royal Road, nor even because he had opened a mouth of Blasphemy against CHRIST, although he mixed spurious (stuff) with The Evangelic and Apostolic Faith, but they say (it was) because he refused to put himself for- ward and assemble with the Holy and Cécumenical Synod which was, by the will of God, convened at Ephesus, and (they say) he was not in reality pro- hibited an entrance into the Blessed and Holy Synod.
It is the fact, that he did not trust himself'to enter that Blessed and Holy Synod. I confess the same ; for, “what concord has belief with unbelief and “what (concord) has Christ with Satant ?”
But what really caused him to avoid intercourse with the Holy Synod, although It summoned him to (appear), was nothing else but his being kept back bya reproaching conscience. For, it is true to say :— “The wickea (man) fleeth whennoone pursueth himf.”
Further, he also showed us another example4, as far
* x Timothy, i, 7.
+ 2 Corinthians, vi, 15.
+ Proverbs xxviii, I
{ Or, perhaps, “he manifested himself to us as an example (of warning ).”
i — _
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 34:7
as he was a Heretic and a false Scribe who in every respect resembled his Father, that is, the Devil; and he was prevented from approaching, and holding con- verse with, any Holy Orthodox Fathers whatever, ac- cording to a certain true old adage which declares that “itis well (and proper) for the wicked to depart “(be withdrawn) that he may not behold the “Majesty of the Lord*,” which (Majesty) then descended and blessed those assembled together, —no man can doubt it, if he use correct and holy knowledge, being also mindful of the Lord’s voice promising expressly that ‘where two or three are “gathered together in my name, there am I in the “midst of themt.” If, therefore, when only two are met together, or three for purposes of good, in the midst of them is CHRIST immediately present, causing the bystanders to fear and tremble because of (such a) Synod, how is it that some people have no hesitation in presuming to contemn the Synod of Ephesus and to separate it from the Holy Synod that took place on a previous occasion at Nicza, whereas the task of both thesef two Synods was one and the same: (viz.) to contend in conjunction on behalf of the Glory of Christ. The
* There is probably a reference in this passage to a sentence of the great Evangelical Prophet who says:—‘ Let favour be shown to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the Majesty of the Lord.”
+ Matthew xviii, 20.
{ The Council of Nicaea “determined nothing new.” ‘The words of Acesius, as quoted by Canoa Bright, to the Emperor Constantine,
5348 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
one excommunicated Arius and the other Nestorius. The former left the whole world freed from error, whilst its successor (at Ephesus), by confirming the
Decisions (of Niczea), has woven for itself an imperish- able crown—
Here occurs the second of the Lacune in the Original MS., and the opposite blank page, with the dotted lines, represents, as the one before, the break and the vellum leaf in the MS. °
Hoffman who is very competent to express a reliable opinion on the subject is of opinion that six or seven leaves are missing.
show that the sacred Deposit, “The Faith once and once for all de- livered to the Saints,” ‘* Catholic Truth”? was effectually reasserted. “ The Definition of Faith agree with what I have learned by tradition from the Apostles,” said he. Its dire enemy Arianism struggled on till the second General Council when the Faith’s Victory was completely won. But Nestorianism, notwithstanding its Anathematisation by the
Great Council of Ephesus in 431 a.pD., continued afterwards and con- tinues now to flourish in the East.
, sive jf ; | ) ie i a Clb ea Ona) ne mi Ba Mh Me
pt seats |
Be ee wey
i ; nie
iio ig atv Bs <i iin
an ae
wd See he no re, | ta a , Ap BR de
ivi iy Sih) on
4 ts oe ny, Lipa ripe ;
ae : i. Sia
ia, chk
350 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
—(and I hope that your Piety) will administer re- proof to those who have a longing for violating—I know not why —the peace of the Churches subsisting with us and with you, and who have occasioned scandal not only to many Monks in the East, but also to Venerable Monks with us (at Alexandria) ; for, coming over from there, they walk about in the Monasteries of Alexandria, retailing these rumours to persons who have withdrawn from the corrupting influences of the world. Consequently, these Mon- asteries are at present in an complete state of commotion (excitement), and but one cry is heard ; (viz.) “he that has disturbed us shall (some day) “receive his punishment, whosoever he may be.”
To your Piety, then, belongs the duty of reflecting in what confusion we find ourselves ; and what will you do to calm the multitude ?—(I will tell you)— you should read my letter in the Assembly of the Faithful (the Community).
If giving offence to (scandalizing) “ one of the little ones that believe in Christ ” suttice to expose (us) to a judgment (at once) complete, severe, and valid, to what end wil that scandal lead us which has thrown so many Monks into murmuring and dis-
quietude @
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. Sot
Nevertheless, we ought to reflect that our Redeemer is competent to allay all the commotion ; for, in “Tlim we live and move and have our being.” (2) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
This Holy and Great Synod has heard what I wrote to the God-fearing Bishop Domnus when I was desirous to preserve everywhere the peace of the Churches intact and you are my witnesses that I did not permit anything beyond what propriety al- lows. Will your Reverences say whether I have written anything contrariant to Catholic Truth ?
(6) The Holy Synod, said :—
“These words agree with those of the Fathers— “These are the sentiments of the Fathers—These “are consentient with the Orthodox Faith—These “accord with the Faith of the Fathers—These are “the Doctrines of the Fathers at Niceea—These agree “with the Two Synods—whoever keeps these secret “is not Orthodox—whoever does not proclaim these “before men is not Orthodox. He who is a calum- “niator of these is not Orthodox. He who has “written what is in opposition to these is not “ Orthodox.”
(c) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
From (these outward) expressions we discern that which characterises your Reverences and the Divine zeal settled in your hearts.
Now be induced to hear, also, what was written to me by him (Domnus).
352 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
[14] John, Presbyter and Prime Notary, read :— To the Holy and God-loving, our Brother and Fellow-
Minister, Mar Dioscorus, Domnus (sends) Greeting
in our Lord :
To be intent on motives (subservient), and bent on means conducive, to peace in God,—promptly to baffle those conducive to division and _ strife—is righteous.
Now Your Holiness is per fectly aware of the causes of the Dispute, of that long standing Dispute, which has all but reached the ends of the world.
It was with difficulty that the efforts of the Christ- fearing and Gracious Emperors, together with the wisdom of thosealso whoadorn our Episcopal Thrones, brought together what was dispersed. For, the Blessed John who before our Humbleness governed the East was bent on peace with all his soul. He assented to the Royal promises (propositions) ; and the Blessed Cyril, who before your Holiness used to rule Egypt, manifested a similar solici- tude and desire on behalf ot the same. For, when we learnt from him who is ot Blessed Memory, (viz.) Paul of Emesa, that the 12 chapters were acceptable to the Easterns, he abstained making any mention of anyone of these in letters addressed to the Blessed John, but, concurring in those ex- planations (propositions), transmitted thence, in re-
The above allusion is to the Nestorian Controversy which was by no means set at rest by the Council of Ephesus .p. 431, although the Church declared Nestorianism to be Heresy and exiled the Heresiarch, nor did it terminate with the happy results arising between the reconciliation of
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. oN
lation to the Incarnation of our Redeemer, he indited the assenting reply, and eradicated hostility, and restored peace to the Holy Churches of God throughout the world ; and so, by God’s Grace, up to the present time the Churches of the East and West have had (abiding) concordant Union in God.
Now this (peace), I pray, let us preserve and not become exciters of another Division in the Churches. For, if the God-loving Bishops and Venerable Clerics should learn, as well as the Faithful Communities (of the Laity) of the East, that we make mention of these (Articles) Chapters, your Holiness may rest assured that they would shun communication with me ; and, if the Christ-loving ones of this Apostolic
John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria through the instances of the Emperor and the Good Offices of Paul of Emesa in 433 4.p., April 23, when the latter announced the true Doctrine as their ancestral treasure among the delighted audience of Cyril’s Church, or even after Cyril had written his magnificent letter, beginning “ Let the Heavens rejoice.”
The Emperor’s proferred promises, or propositions made in his last attempt at reconciliation through the Tribune and Notary Aristolaus to John of Antioch, refer to the acceptance by the latter, of certain Dogmas in order to move him to peace with Cyril. Theodosius re- minded him how little it became the Bishops who ought to be the Teachers of Charity to trouble, by their misunderstanding, the peace of the Churches and gave him distinctly to understand, that if his exhort- ations were not sufficient to re-establish a concord with which were so closely bound up both the welfare of religion and that of the Empire, he would know how to resort to more cojent reasons. The ‘ Propositions ”” included the Confession that Christ was Perfect God and Perfect Man, that there was an union of the T'wo Natures in the One Christ, that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, &c., all which Cyril readily accepted, notwithstanding John’s showing by word of mouth his opposition to Cyril’s 12 Anathemas,
The word jemasse in lines 5 and 17, p. 226 means excitatores from 2a but neither Castell nor Scaaf gives the sense. Hoffman seems to render it by a German term signifying Pioneers.
VV
354 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Church now also become acquainted with that, as a fact, be assured of this, God-loving man, that they either (will) openly contemn us or allow the Churches to le waste and desolate. To such an extent will they resist the mentioning of these (Articles) Chap- ters. Let us not, then, I beg, be exciters of com- motion in the Churches,—commotion which (once aroused) cannot easily be allayed, but let us stand to the written (treaties or) propositions for Peace, and confirm the letter of the Blessed Cyril and that of Saint Athanasius which he addressed to Epictetus. For, one of the clauses in the Articles of Peace treats of their being mentioned ; and as regards those who are resolved on reviving commotions, and—mark my word !—on picking advantage by Divisions, let us turn away from them in disgust as the enemies of Peace : for, be well assured, God-loving man! that we weve bitterly grieved, on being informed, that when the (Eucharistic) Solemnities were celebrated, some of the Monks living with you had the audacity to shout before the congregation and to say— “whether you like it or not, God died.”
What is worse than this Blasphemy? This the followers ot Arius never dared to say. Your Piety, it is true, was quite scandalized by it, as we have been informed, but there was no reproof from you of those who had defiled themselves with such Impiety, as was befitting and proper, in order that the rest also might learn, through them, the heinousness of this Impiety. I, therefore, pray that they may not be
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 355
allowed to enjoy any freedom of speech whatever on these subjects, and that the Anathemas should rest upon them ; for, they have, before now, agitated us with disturbance of (our) Peace.
Further, we have sufficiently convinced your Piety, on a former occasion, as regards the God-loving Bishops and Venerable Clerics of the Hast, that they all give assent to The Faith which was formulated (as set forth) by the Blessed and Holy Fathers at Niceea, in Bithynia, and to which the Synod that assembled in Ephesus acknowledged its assent (and consent) also.
This (Faith) I and they most unhesitatingly preach ;.and this (Faith) we teach to those who offer themselves for Most Holy Baptism. For this (Faith) we take upon our ourselves to suffer everything. We understand It just as the very Blessed Fathers did—(viz.) Damasus Bishop of Rome the Great Capital, and Ambrose of Milan, and Cyprian, the Shining Light of Lybia; and Alexander and Theophilus and Athanasius, your Lights; and the Very Blessed Ignatius and Eustathius who adorned the Synod of Niceea ; and Miletius who lived (was exiled) for It a long time beyond his Province ; and Flavian who accepted the Exarchate ; and Basil and Gregory who were illustrious in the Pontic Province ; and John and Atticus who ruled the Royal City in the High Priesthood and whosoever has pronounced what is in accord with them—with these men we are in accord; the (confessions) of these we commend: those
356 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
who hold opinions opposite to these we pronounce tobe strangers to Grace : these all the God-loving Bishops of the East support.
I request, therefore, of your Piety to be solicitous forand aim at peace , and not to give a single occasion for Division. As regards ourselves, being anxious for (not to disturb) this (Peace), we have not made public those letters just lately despatched (to us) by your Piety, in order to avoid kindling a great conflagration (of commotion).
That all the Brotherhood in Christ who are with thee may have Peace is the frequent prayer of my- self and of those with me !
[15] (a) Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :-— Who (now) seems to your Reverences to reject the twelve Chapters of our very Blessed Father Cyril ? (3| The Holy Synod said :— Anathema to him who rejects these !—Let him who does not receive these be Anathematised !
The missing leaves in this hiatus, no doubt, if ever discovered will be found to report the sentences of the President of the Council and of other Bishops, as well as the commencement of Bishop Juvenal’s.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 359
[(c) Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, said :— | Ct eS Mea i SE ae SSE 2 * %e * * * * come COR, OU, Sioa, x * * * %* *
what was written by the wise Solomon applies thus also to him (viz*.) ‘“ Who tears down a hedge, (fence) him will the snake bite.” For, his Impiety has rendered him alien to the Honour of the Episcopate and to all the Function of the Priesthood.
(d) Thalassius, Bishop of Czesarea, said :—
The letters which have just now been read to us of the Holy Archbishop Dioscorus and those that were written in reply to his Holiness by Domnus the Bishop of Antioch have not before come to our knowledge. Since, however, now that the reading of them has taken place, we have ascertained their meaning and perceive that they are at variance with the Holy Synod which was once assembled here, we for our part adjudge Domnus to be removed from (alien to) the Office of the High Priesthood.
(e) Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, said)
To how great an extent did Domnus, the late Bishop of Antioch, err, when he became infected with the Impiety of Nestorius! For, whilst he concealed his views, he laboured to so great a degree to avoid disclosing what he really was. But since the Truth of God is superior to all intrigue, it has not allowed
* Eccles. x, 8.
360 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the here (arising) injury to become serious. For, as we have ascertained from the letters just now read to your Blessedness that there is not the least excuse for any one to contend with God by taking in his own person the evil office of Calumniator, for that reason must he (Domnus) receive a punishment after the analogy of those who are charged with being Nestorians, suffering the same Deposition as they, and be removed from the Honor of the Episcopate and be considered unworthy of the Commnnion of the Pure Mysteries. For, this in concurrence with your Holy Synod is my decision.
(f) Eusebius, Bishop of Ancyra, said :—
Domnus, as I have learnt from .the Epistolary missives which have just now been read, holds Doctrines antagonistic to those of the Blessed Cyril, and, moreover, antagonistic to the Decrees of the Holy Fathers at Niceea and of those Fathers who assembled at Ephesus. J, for my part, adjudge him to be removed from the Honor of the Episcopate. (h) Cyrus, Bishop of Aphrodisias of the Carians,
said :—
It is evident from those Epistolary messages which have been just now read that Domnus of Antioch holds Doctrines antagonistic to those of the Holy Fathers at Niceea and to those of the Holy Fathers who, on a former occasion, assembled in this place. I, therefore, assenting to the Holy Fathers before me
determine that he be removed from the Honor of the Priesthood.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS, 361
(i) Meletius, Bishop of Larissa, who also occupied the place of the Venerable Domnus, Bishop of Apameia, said :—
It has become known, through the letters that have been read, that Domnus who was Bishop of Antioch held opinions contrary to those of the Holy Fathers. Therefore, on learning this, I also along with the Holy Fathers do pronounce my decision, and I ad- judge him to be removed from (alien to) all the Honor of the Episcopate and of the Priesthood.
(j) Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, said :—
To what has been decided on by the Holy Fathers I give my assent, as well as to the transactions (di- rected) against Domnus of Antioch who once was
Bishop (there).
(k) John, Bishop of Sebastia (Sebaste), said : — Fora man to make war with the teachings of the Fathers is nothing else but to inflict upon him- self wounds for which there is no cure. Now Dom- nus, who was at one time Bishop of Antioch, in presuming (to attempt) to change those XII Chapters, formulated in conformity with the Faith and Charity by him of Blessed and Pious Memory, the Arch- bishop Cyril, has laboured to discompose the Peace of the Catholic Faith. He ought, for that reason, to be removed from the Grade of the Priesthood in
consequence of his Blasphemy. ww
362 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(1) Basil, Bishop of Seleucia of Isauria, said :—
Antagonism is evident between the Orthodox Doctrines of the Church and the letters, written by Domunus Bishop of Antioch, to his Perfection the Holy Archbishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, wherein he has blamed the Blessed Cyril’s XII Chapters that the Synod long since received which, by the Grace of God, assembled at Ephesus. For this reason, following after you, Fathers! I adjudge that he be removed from the Honor of the Priesthood.
(m) Photius, Bishop of Tyre, said :—
As regards Douimus who was Bishop of Antioch, I state for my part that I give my assent to the Holy and Blessed Synod, and I reckon he ought to be re- moved fiom the Honor of the Episcopate, because he is a follower of Nestorius.
(n) Theodorus, Bishop of Damascus, said :—
From the letters that have just now been read, Domnus who was the Bishop of Antioch appears to hold the opinions of Nestorius, and for that reason I also cause him to be deprived ofall the Honor of the Priesthood and of Communion in the Holy Mysteries.
(0) Mares, Bishop of Dionysias, said :-—
I, too, give my assent to the just Sentence of the Holy Fathers, which has been pronounced upon Domnus who was Bishop of Antioch, and I do de- prive him of all the Honor of the Priesthood and of Communion with the Laity. |
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 363
(p) Olympius, Bishop of Sozopolis, said :—
I give my assent to all that has been decided on in reference to Domnus, who was the Bishop of Antioch, by (this) Holy, Great and Cécumenical Synod. For that reason I likewise deprive him of the Honor of the Priesthood and of Communion in
the Holy Mysteries.
Thus ends the trial of the great reticent Patriarch of the great Capital of Antioch, Domnus II; and thus end the proceedings, under cover, not thick, of the GEcumenical Form of the ecclesiastical procedure of the Tribunal of the Catholic Church, of the celebrated Triumvirate, the over- reaching Chrysaphius, the astute but dogged Archimandrite Eutyches and the marvellously infamous Archbishop Dioscorus—proceedings which, as devoloped by the discovery of this invaluable Syriac Document pur- porting to be the very Acts of the latter session or sessions of the second Conncil of Ephesus, will, in the eyes of the nineteenth century, more than ever justify the appropriateness of the scarthing Epithet with which St. Leo, the Great, branded this council, when in his celebrated Letter he for ever designated it as the
LATROCINIUM EPHESINUM.
LAUS DEO.
364 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
pf
[EDICT OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS IT. AVOUCHING THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COUNCIL*. |
(TRANSLATION.)
We cannot by any means allow that the Laws proclaimed for the benefit of the Community be consigned to oblivion, or, again, that the Salutary Ordinances of our (Iniperial) Government be depraved by the presumption of others. On the contrary, with that philanthropy which is constantly exercised by us, we apply ourselves to correct acts of presumption : that is, however, without (having recourse to) capital punishment, and only by a tempering of menace we reach those who are the originators (of crime) as well as prevent others from offending in the same manner. As to wit: when Nestorius attacked the Adorable Religion which the Fathers handed down (to us) and which Holy Priests assembled of old at the City of Niceea from every quarter (of the world) for the purpose ofconfirming and consolidating—when (after- wards, I say,) this Nestorius publicly proclaimed positions (of Doctrine calculated to conduce) to the prejudice and injury of the simple (the Faithful), immediately our Clemency, in case the evil, creeping in by a licence of speech, should render obdurate the minds of the simple-minded, rather (if it be proper
“Translation” here implies that, first, the Roman Law was written in Latin and Greek. Then the original Greek Transcriber of that Law 3) written rendered into it Greek for the Church’s Synod or for some of the Metropolitans, and finally the Syriac transcriber (see his note at the end) of the Greek Acts brought it into his MS, which we now possess,
ee ee ee ee
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 365
to speak the truth) lest it should destroy them com- pletely, gave orders that the Bishops should assemble, not inconsiderately and suddenly—for, it was no little or trifling subject on which there was deliberation, but one relating to our Adorable Religion, (the principles of) which uphold and consolidate our Kingdom—that, for this purpose, Expounders and Doctors of the Divine Religion, selected from the whole Empire, as is right and just to say, of the Romans, should proceed to and assemble together at Ephesus in order to search into and investigate, with a judgment prompted by Religion and Justice, certain hitherto insoluble (unsolved) questions which we brought to their remembrance, who not only con- solidated and confirmed for us The Faith which was from the beginning transmitted to us, but, having proved the controversy of the aforesaid Nestorius to be groundless, deposed him from the Throne of the Episcopate and divested him of (its) Dignity.
After (the Report of) all these transactions, there- fore, had been despatched and read over to our Clemency, we remitted to them their judicial sentence so pleasing to God, and, by a salutary Law which has necessarily been promulged, we enjoined that theafore- mentioned Nestorius and his participators in Impiety should be deprived of the company of Christians and name of (Christian).
We, further, decreed that they should be designated Simonians, because, according to the investigation of the Holy Priests, they followed the practices of that
366 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
person, (Simon,) and, by a just punishment which is clearly laid down in our Injunctions, we determined that they should be so designated.
Although, then, these results had been ae- complished on principles of Religion and Justice, Flavian and Eusebius resolved to resuscitate what had been set at rest by Our Clemeucy, and presumed to renew the depraved error of Nestorius in opposition to the Injunction of Our Clemency, and threw into the Churches the divisions and scandals of Heretics when silenced and at rest. Consequently, our Clemency, bound by necessity, commanded that Holy Bishops should go from various and distant cities and assemble at Ephesus the City afore-named in order that, on the eradication, by vigour and God- loving deliberation, of the pernicious seed from the (very) roots, The Faith alone might grow up (floursh).
Nor have we been disappointed in our expectation. For, after the whole of the investigation which they undertook had become less and less and (finally) closed, and the Holy Reiigion, which from the be- ginning had been handed down to us, become truly and powerfully strengthened, those persons, so often named above, together with their co-adjutors, (viz.) Domnus, who is said to preside over the Church of Antioch, and -Theodoret and certain other persons, beguiled by the same ignorance, were deposed from the Throne of the Episcopate, because they showed themselves unworthy of so great a Dignity by cor- rupting the Word of Truth.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 367
Moreover, it was resolved by a God-fearing Decree to determine that no one should by any means dare— not even partially—to deprave the Decision( Definition) of the CCCX VIII Bishops who assembled at Niceea,
norto presume to add to, or subtract anything from, It.
. . e . . . . . . . . . ° . . . .
The break in the MS. here which may be the loss to us of several folios. interrupts the continuity of this interesting Document of the Roman Empire.
Mansi has thisin Vol. VII. Interpretatio legis a Theodosio Imperatore Juniore cum seductus fuisset a Chrysaphio adversus Flavianum et socios pro Eutyche promulgata: quam religiosissimi Marciani Principis lex subsecuta destruxit.
Generalem promulgavimus legem, quae tam praedictum Nestorium quam eos qui ei similia sapiunt, damnat; praecipientes ne Christiano saltem nomine censerentur sed ut Simoniani potius vocarentur quoniam blasphemiam Simonis dilexerunt.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 369
and considering your work as our own, seeing we honor you asa Father, we pray your Piety (Dioscorus) to draw up Circular Letters in which to insert this our God-loving Law, the Creed of our Holy Faith and the Definition of the Two Synods afore-men- tioned, as well as this—that “nobody shall add to “Tt, even one word, or subtract from It, and that “‘ nobody shall presume to interpret It, seeing that It “ig Its own expositor and obvious to everybody.” Your Piety, having then taken copies of It, will despatch It to the Venerable Bishops of the Royal City of Constantinople and Jerusalem, and to the other Metropolitans, in order that all those Bishops, suffragan to them, may sign It also and forward It to us with those letters, notifying the same to us, and (in order that) every one of the Bishops who has a copy may read It in Church before all the people. But before anything else, your Piety, with all your Suffragan Bishops, will append your signatures, and forward the same to the Auditory of our Serene Highness. Finally, as often as your Piety receives information of Books of any author, written in antagonism to the Orthodox Faith heretofore or at the present time, or containing to the injury of man- kind the polluted Doctrine of Nestorius,—seeing we know nothing of these, these could not be inserted in
our Statute—your Piety will order that, on being , XX
370 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
claimed and delivered up, they must be committed to the flames by the hands of the God-fearing Bishops according to our Law which was enacted on purpose to destroy everything that is in antagonism to our Holy Faith from the (very) root.
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN OUR FAITHEUL AND GOD- LOVING EMPEROR THEODOSIUS AND JUVENAL THE BISHOP OF JERUSALEM*.
Seeing our Clemency has excercised great solici- tude on behalf of The Holy Faith in the matter of those scandals that have sprung up concerning It and disturbed the peace of the Holy Churches of God, I now likewise command, by a God-loving Edict, all Venerable Bishops to subscribe to The Holy Faith of Niceea and to the Definition concerning It communi- cated by these two Holy and Cicumenical Synods established in compliance with the will of our Clemency, and that nothing is to be added to It, not even a word, or subtracted from It, because It is final (perfect), as That Which has been accomplished by the co-operation of the HOLY GHOST.
The opposite blank leaf represents another hiatus and the blank vellum leaf in the original MS.
—
* Or thus—“A letter, in reply, of our Faithful and God-loving Emperor Theodosius to Juvenal the Bishop of Jerusalem.”
Bp 8 8185 eer eae oor hs:
ry 3
> i we ; bse il Cay At fh
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 373
[XII]
ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF THE ARCHBISHOP DIOS- CORUS TO THE BISHOPS.—DEFICIENT AT THE BEGINNING.
ay Oe) el Lee). ah ie “ia ee wy Je Je fe) a) -e oe Je, ‘oe (ele (0 -o yo: (a Fue: “ete
(1) [The Books of Nestorius and his deposed partisans must be destroyed, | so that we do not abandon the country to their designs and will; and it becomes necessary for this to be done, when their statements, but little Orthodox, get embellished with (are put under the cover of) the names of other (authors), whilst it ought at the same time to be publicly known that the Treatises of the Blessed Fathers and of the Orthodox Doctors who have excelled (so much) in the Orthodox Faith or who were at the two Holy Synods (at Ephesus), wholly possessed with the (True) Religion, must continue (in ure) for ever ; seeing that they possess excellence and exactitude but by no means any human doctrines or positions injurious to The Faith (Symbol) spoken of, to wit, to the Creed of the CCCX VITI Bishops as well as the Definitions of the two Holy Synods who assembled at Ephesus— treatises that should be exhibited and, when approved, be of force. The Books, however, (of Nestorius and others) must be committed to the fire, seeing they are written in antagonism with the peace of the Holy and Immaculate Faith 7.e. with the Symbol of the CCCX VIII Bishops and with the Definition of the
374 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
two Holy Synods alluded to. For, these, (the Symbol and the Definition) have been proved by (being received by) all the world to be unimpeachable and to be the Mothers of the Orthodox Faith.
That the Christ-loving Emperor has settled by a Law, and all of us have received that Law with gladness and thankfulness.
This point*, however, must not be omitted which the Law itself of the Community has deemed deserving of solicitude (care): for, it says that “nobody who is a follower of Nestorius or who “holds such opinions as his shall be admitted to the “Priesthood: and further, that he who may have been “ (so admitted) by surprise shall be removed from the “ Grade of the Priesthood and shall not be reckoned “among the number of Priests, but that such persons “must rather be driven from every place, and not be ‘allowed to be received by any body into houses or “into public company, so that they may be appre- “hensive of (incurring) the punishments prescribed by “the Law, who act in violation of the Law.”
This is what we would wish to urge (viz.) : itis for your Holiness to notify all this to the Metropolitans under your Authority and to require of them the observance of it, the Forms of Votes (or of
* Mansi vii, 497.
Sed nec habeat aliquis, aut Jegat, aut transcribit, proferatve Nestorii vel (decreta) terminosque, aut codices noxios, et maxime quos contra solas Porphyrius edidit Christianas literas; neque Theodoreti scripta, sed quicunque hujusmodi codices habet, publice illos proferat, et cunctis videntibus igni tradantur.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 375
Declarations) being transmitted to them. All, who assent to what has been decreed by the Christ-loving and Gracious Sovereign, should subscribe. All has been ordered well and shonld be observed with all vigilance. And in this way, by means of the Anaphoree (report), it will be notified to our God- loving Emperor that legality has been observed in these (Ordinances) which Our Serene Highness has for our part determined on and arranged ; whilst the execution of them has been undertaken, in a friendly manner, by his Excellency Eulogius the Preetorian Tribune and Notary, whose fidelity and ability, on many other occasions and not the least on the occasion of these present transactions at Ephesus, our Christ-loving Emperor received instances of, and we ourselves have much admired : inasmuch as we have
received many proofs of his importance (intelligence):
FORM OF SUBSCRIPTION. I. M. Bishop of the City of N. have subscribed to
what is written above in this Law, and I stand to it all, and I consent to observe everything that 1s written in this Letter, without adding to, or leaving out, anything inserted therein.
(HERE) ENDS THE LETTER OF THE HOLY ARCH-
BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA WHICH HE WROTE TO THE REST OF THE VENERABLE BISHOPS.
376 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(HERE) ENDS THE SECOND SYNOD WHICH ASSEMBLED AT EPHESUS IN THE DAYS OF THE HOLY AND GOD- LOVING DIOSCORUS, BISHOP OF ALEX-
ANDRIA AND IN THE DAYS OF THE
VICTORIOUS EMPERORS, THEODOSIUS AND VALENTINIAN.
GLORY BE “ASCRIBED TO THE FATHER AND TO THE SON AND TO THE HOLY GHOST—.ONE PERFECT MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY—FOR EVER. AMEN.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. ObF
[THE SCRIBES POSTSCRIPT. | This book was finished* in the year MCCCXLVI,
according to the reckoning ot Alexander, in the month of Jor, on thet 10th thereof, in the Holy Monastery of the Blessed Mar Eusebius of Kafra IY Bartha, in the days of the Priest-Archimandrite John, the excellent and God-loving watchful Shepherd, the Governor, full of wisdom{, merciful to strangers, a firm adamantine wall reared for (the defence of) his Flock that none of the ravenous wolves may break through and. do harm to any one of the lambs in the Monasteries which are gathered together within the peaceful fold. From that God, for whose name’s sake he has laboured, and for whose Holy Monastery he has acquired this book, may he, on that great and terrible day§, when the resounding trumpet, breaking open the tombs, shall reanimate the dead and make them sing Glory—(in the day when) the Throne is set up, the judge seated and the books opened and everyonel| receives (according to) what he has done
* «In MCCCXLVI according to the reckoning of Alexander,” which, when 311 are substracted from it, brings it to the 535th year of our Era.
+ The month Jor corresponding to may, the date according to the Julian Calendar would be May 16th 535 A.D.
The place Kafra D’Bartha was situated in the region of Apamea (Apameia) on the river Orontes.
t{ Or “ lover of guests.”
§ In p. 254, |. 16, it should be {Asa>0Z. The word in the MS, is indistinct : laSiS IZ. is Theotocos, Mother of God.
| At p. 255, 1. 22, the last word should be eapeo and the first word almost erased in the MS., of the next line should perhaps be «#23,
XX2
78 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
from the Just Judge, in whose judgment is no* re- spect of persons—(may he) at that time hear this sweet and pleasant voicet: “over a little thou hast “been faithful : enter thou into the joy of thy Lord, “and over much will I place thee!” And may he with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and with all the Just and Righteous, be included in the prayers of the Blessed and God-bearing Mary. Yea and Amen.
Here occur eight lines in the Original MS. incapable of | decipherment, and therefore incapable of translation or even of | meaning except that the beginning seems to be a sort of prayer. | A beautiful Photographic representation of this whole page and that of another page from the body of the MS. affording internal evidence as to the intended Gicumenicity of the Council are given in the copy of my ‘‘ Ancient Syriac Document, Part 1 &c,” drawn up to commemorate the Pan-Anglican Synod and presented to the late Archbishop of Canterbury and deposited by the present Archbishop in the Lambeth Library. |
\|_—_—_
Further, this Book was written in the days of God-loving Shining-lights of the Church, (who are) pleasant havens, pious and holy lovers of hospitality, influential through their manner of life, zealous for the Catholic Faith, who are a beautiful sight to all their beholders, from whom envy is far distant, in whom full and perfect love is planted, and who
and in |. 25 the fourth word had better have had the diacritic point above, instead of below, it.
* Or “ guest-loving.”
+ The word lpaScsZ is very obscured, the letter » being indistinct in last line of p. 254, and at p. 255, |. 2, the two words 1:dnd. Ge the latter being indistinct, should be [204 followed by |nsl>
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 379
perform all good works, in whom our Lord delighteth, —(in the days) of Mar Abraham the Governor of the same Monastery who is from blessed Caphya.
May God,—for Whose name’s sake, on behalf of the beloved Brethren who dwelt with them, the Lord Presbyter Abraham himself and Mar Eusebius his disciple who is from the village of Tar and has also charge ofthe Treasury of (and) the Library of the same Monastery, weary themselves out with labour—in that -day when the good will be separated from the bad, the goats from the lambs, the tares from the wheat,—in that dreadful day when the trumpets speak before the Just Judge—(may God) deem them worthy of His Bridechamber which never passes away and of His incorruptible Kingdom, of that which “no ear hath heard, and no eye hath seen, and which has not entered into human heart,” as to something God has prepared for them who love Him; through the prayers of the Martyrs, slain for the Gospel, (slain for) their Lord! Yea and Amen.
I, the sinful, miserable and imperfect John, of the country of Antiochene, and living in the house of Mar Eusebius of Kafra D’Birtha, have written this Book.
But let everybody, who reads therein and learns the power of the Orthodox Faith, pray for the poor fellow who has written it, that the Merciful, the Long- suffering, and very Gracious Lord will forgive him all his imperfections, and cut in pieces his bonds, and strike out his sins by reason of the Greatness of His
580 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Compassion ; and that he may be deemed worthy of the Havens of Delight in the Paradise of Light, and in the Bridal Chamber of Promises, and (that he may) with all those who are doers of good works, and are instant in Prayer, and earnest in Service, ana watchful in Fasts, rejoice and leap: with the prayer of every one who does the will of our Lord and does it in the world that is passing away, and in the world that does not pass away. Yea and Amen.
And (the prayer) of all the Worshippers of Christ. And may this prayer (be granted) to the (Tran)- scriber and to every one who will possess it, and joy
and greeting in all.
ENS:
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 381
EPISTOLA DOMNI AD FLAVIANUM,
PrAaBiava éemiokiTo Kovoravtivovroréos.
TloAAas per ev TO maporre Kapa, Ta Tava Deopuréorare, TPLKUALLOV edeSa pea mposBoAas, Kae Tov TOU TavTos emtkaAe oa uevor KuPepynryy, avrioxew nOvry: Iyer Tpus Tov KAvOWVa’ Ta Oe VUY Ka’ 1] Mev emixeton- dévra 7a ray TpAyIKTY trepBucver dunno. Nopioai res yap oUMpayor OXI TEL Kal ouvepyov els TU KATA TIS amooroNKys TLOTE WS Tupevouera., TOV BeodiA€orarov TIS ‘ArcSavdpetas €TLOKOTON, Tov KUpLOV AvooKopor, ameoreiAapey eva TOV Tip’ pac cihaBeorarer mpeaBurEepor, ouvecet KOO (LOU MEVOY, “eva CUVOOLK@Y PUM aT or’, dWaSarres aur ou tiv Ococé- Bevav, ws Tas peryev ner als emt Tov TIS paKaplas pai neys KupiAdou ouvOyKas Empévoper, Kal THY TE Tao atirou yoademar oTEpyopey émororyy, 7H TE TOU Ei ue kat €v ayiots Avavasion, HV ™pos TOV MaKaptov "Enix ytov & é4 ypawer, aATTUTLOs dexoucbur Kat 7™p0 ye Tow TWV TV év Nixaia tTys Bibuvias éxtebetoay mist timo Tov aylov Kat paKapiov Marépor. Ka Tapexaréoaper TOUS T[0 Jorrrorg € [dk LEVELY ov Bovdopévous € émpervae TaparKkeva sat. ‘AAAG Tis evTetbey Spayav Tor Tavavria ppovorvrwn, Kai TOUS [col. 1280] Bop Bous TovTOUS epyatopée- vor, eataryoas Tov avToOe Tac, Kat Mupias Kad” nyscov ovKopart tas ipyvas, TApEgTKEvacev alec pos Kav ypav ex Boyoers ever Oat.
‘O Oe Deopuréararos eTLTKOTOS AtooKopos yeypagev 1) Atv emeoT ory, HV ov eder yeaa Tov mapa TOU Te Aw Geou me madnkora dkony paraiay ov mapadéxerat. Torevoas yap Tots Kad’ nov elpnuérors, as axptBos ToTeY exaotov é&eTacas, Kat ék THIS Bacavov MenabyKeos [7 ]aAydes, ovr ws mca Karey ypioaro. "AAA? apecs qevvatos THY OvuKo- pavriay aveyKaper kai XpyoTors pau pacw jucwa ucba., Kae memeikauey avrov THV OevcéBeiav, Os TATU TavTa Wendy, Kat ws ovdEts TAY TIS ‘Avat oAjjs deopireorar wy emLTKOT WY ev avria Tos amooToAtKots ppover doymacty. "EmetoOy sav Kat Ov avTys TOV TPAYMaTwY THS meipas Kat oe amooranérres map’ avrov evAaBéoraror KAnptKot. ‘0 de masw Eppaodat ppacas, Kal Tos ovKopavTovar Tas aKoas exdovs, T™Mpay ba memoinkev ovdaMaS morevOivae durapevor, el pa) TAaTay eLYe MapTupovoay THY "ExAyotay. "Hyéoxero mev yap Tov avabepariCovrwy npas* dvaoras dé Kat mooopuryoas exe ivy povas éme BEBawce. Il pos de TOUTOS, kai Twas Tov GeodiAcorar wr emiokoTuy eis THY BactAevovcarv améoretAev,
1 YY
382 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
oS eyvoper, TOA, andy oa Tous Kal!’ pas Jopi Bou S eAmiCwr. “Hyecs de mparov mev Tov ToY OAWwY "Eonryy T POMAX OV EX OMED™ vmep yap Tar Oeiwy avrov DoymaT ov a ay eloped. "Eve:ra Oe Kat THY ony arywootvyy TapakaAon per TIS moe pou ners TLOTEWS Ureppuay you, Kat TOY TWaTy- OévT wv Umepay ovicar bat Kkavovev. *Ev éxewy yao TH Baotrevovon ToAEt ouveAborres OL aKkaptot Narépes, o TUUPOreS TOS ev Nixaia ovvabpoo- Beco Tas Seouxyjoers dvéxpway, Kat eKGOTY dtorKyoee TA eauT ys amévetpav, ayTiKpus. dmayopetoarres, € EKATEPUS | «répas Neap. | Tw as dronKnoews érépg pay emcéva’ andra TOV ‘AreSardpetas emtoKomey Ta THs Aiqurrou pova dtokety, Kat ExaoTyY dtotKyow.Ta oiKeta. “O de TovToOLS Eupéevew Tos opos ov Bovrerac, GAN’ avo Kal KaT@ TOU Makapiov Mapxou Tov Opovor mpoBarreran* Kat TATA Tapas cid@s, os TOU peyaarou [lérpov Tov Opovov 4 Avrioxéor peyadorro\s EXEL, OS Kat Tou Makapiou Mapxou didaoKaros NV; Kat TOU YOpov TwY UTOTTOAwY Toros Kal Kopupatos. "AAN’ pes Tou pev [ mev addiderat Neap. ] Opovov TO vWos emorapeba, éauTovs 06 Kai yvooKouer Kal MeTpotiuev. TH yap Grroor ohuKgy TAaTELVO- peworryy aveobev pe pabyjxaper. Tyv dé ony ooror nr mapaxanov ner, pajre TOUS ayious Kavovas TuTou mévous mapidety, Kat THs Betas mioTews Umep wax joa Tpoipos. Ets tavtyy yap éxopev eArrida TIS CwTnplas, Kat Ova TavTyY TuxeLy T pos doKaper piravOounias.
‘va dé pndé TovTo aywono oou y Oot NS , io, déomora, wS THY TPOS pas EoXE MekpoWuxiar, ef ov ToLs map’ vucy ever nuevors ouvodiKors émt TOU TIS pakapias py mys I poxAou ourebéueba, Tots Tov ayiov [arépov Kavoow aKoAovlyoartes* Kat _Tept Tovrov Kat amaé yyy Kat dis evexaAecer, ws Tpoded Koo Kal Tis Artixéwv, ws A€yet, Kat STHS ‘Are [col. 1281} Sard péwr ” ExkAyoias ra dikaa. Torro Mer uevos, Kat KaLpov evipor, ws wméAaBe, 7, v duc mevevay éderEev. ‘AAAa TS aAn- Hetas ovder t LoXUpOTEpOY. Ode qa auTy Kal be oie” uiKQY. Tlapa- KaA® dE cov THY ayloryra, Kal MV yjovevov m eov év Tats mos TOV Kipioy mpocevyats, (va avrioxyewy Ovrvyb@puev mpds TA Siahopa Kvpara.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 383
DUODECIM CAPITULA CYRILLI.
i
Ey TUS ovyi opodoryec, @edv elvar Kara aAgevay Tov "Eupavounr, Kai dia TovTo Oc ordkov Thy ayiay Tapbévov" yer evvyke yap CUpKiK@s oapKa yeyovora Tov ék @eov Llatpos Adjov' avabeua éoto.
Il.
af x va. ‘ ? € ‘ 2 ca) Ei tis ovy omoroyer, capxit Kal? vmoctaciv yvaocbOa Tov ex Ocov 4 > s wy O77 Tlarpos Adyov, eva te etvar Xpiotoy peta THs Wlas TapKoS, TOV avTOY , c a A J 2 7 Ua OnAovéTe Oedv Te Omov, Kat avOpwrov" avabeya EoTw. | ’ BK
nK:
Ei tis emt Tov év0s Xpiorov dearer Tas UmrooTarens pera THY Ever”, porn ouvamr wy auras ouvapeta, ™ KaTa THY agiav, 7youv avdert iar, Y) duvacreiay, Kal ovxt On maddAov cvvodov tHy Kad evwowy duoikyy’ ava- Ge pa éorw.
IV.
2/ 4 ‘ y+ c s s > lal > E Tis Mpoowmors Svuoiv, YOY VTOTTATETL, TAS TE EY TOLS evayyeN- Kows Kat aroa OAK ots uy pau pas deavE pet povas, i emt Xpure Tapa TOV aryl Aeyouévas, i] Wap’ avTov Tept EavTov" Kat TAS Mev OS avbpi- mT) Tapa Tov ek Oeov Tarpos Aoyov toiKas vooupevey Tpoounrel, Tas 0é ws Oeomrpemrets wovw TH EK Ocov fier pac Moyo" avabepa oro.
V.
Ei tis TOAMG Aéyety Aeopopov dvOpwroy Tov Xpiorors Kal oxi on ee @ecov ewvat Kara GAj lear, kat Yiov eva kat Hier, Kao yeyove oapé o Aoyos, KGL KEKOLYOKNKE TUpATAYTLWS nulY aiuaTosS, Kat OupKos" ava0epa €or.
Y ) > a a) x 2 a . Ei tig @eov 4 Aeomoryy etvac Aéyer TOU Xpiotov Tov ex Ocov Larpos ia ‘ SEEN x mn ‘ Ue SS c me lay) ‘ \ Aoyov, kat ovxt 07 waXAov Tov avTov omoAoyer omou TE Deoy Kat avOpw- a x ~ , Ie, Tov, ws yeyovotos capKos Tov Adyou kata Tas Tpadas* avabepua éorw.
WET:
Et tis pyow OS av Opurroy évypynobae wre Tov Beov Adyou Toy Iyoour, at THY TOU Movoyevous evdokiav mepinp0a ws érépw Tap’ avrov vmapxortt’ avabeua Ero.
3
384 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
VILE
Ev THs TOAUG Neveu, Tov avadynpbévra dv8 peorov oummpooxuversbat dew TO Ocw Noy, Kal ovvdoSaler bat, Kal ouyxpnpuatilew @cor, oS ere pov érepyy” TO yap, Dy, aet T poor We ye vov TOUTO vow avayKacet Kal out 07 padAov mea TOOTKUVYTEL TYG Tov "Empavouyr, Kat play aur THY opodroyiay cuvamtet, Kabd yéyove Gap o Aoyos* avabeua éorw.
1B.e
E ris pyot, tov eva Kiiproy Tyoouy Xpurrov bob alec Bat mapa Tou TIvevparos, os adAor pig Ouvaper TH idug anirov Xpwpevor, Kal map’ avrov AaBovra TO €1 epyew dvvatba Kara TVEUMAT WY axalaprwv, Kat TO mAypovr els dvOpwrrous Tas Beoonpias, Kat ovxt O74 pa \Aov ‘Stow avrov ro [vevua dyou, 00 ov Kat evnoynoe Tas Oeoonmias’ avabeua €or
x
JApxsepéa, Kal aTooToAOY TIS opororias mar qeyeviio bat Xpioror, 4 beta Aéyet Tpady: TorkeKopiKevae de eau ov tre p pv els oo MAY evwdias Te Oc@ kai Iarpi. Ei tis Toirvy apyepéa, Kat amooToAoy Hpev yeyeriiobai pyow ovK avroy Tov ék @eov [larpos Aoqov, ore yévyove caps, Kat Kad? 7 mas dvOowmos, aAn’ @s ere pos Tap avror, (iKos dv Opemov éx yui auKcos® a eu Tes Aéryet tmp éavTou _Tpogeverykety avroy THY mpooopav, Kal ovixt 07) ha a \Aov wmrep Bovew 1pe@ov" ov yap av €de40n Mpocpopa; o uy cides auaptiav’ avabeua EoTw.
XI.
Et TIS ou opsodoryet THY Tov) Kupiou odpxa Coomooy etvat, Kat iSiav auvTov Tov ex eov larpos Aoyou, GAN’ ws ETepou TLVOS map! avrov ouvnupevov Bev aire | Kata THv aéiav, 7 ayryour ws movyy évoikyow eoxy- kOTOS, Kai out 8y pa \Aov Cworoor, ws epyper, ore yéyover iia Tov Aéyou tov Ta Tavta Cworaety ioxyvortos’ avdbeua éoTu.
ba i
c al ‘ Ve Ev ris ovy oporoyer, Tov Tov @eov Adyov mabévra capki, Kai eCrav- ‘\ ~ ¢ 7 uN popmévoy capki, Kat Oavatov yevoauevoy capi, yeyovoTa dé mpwToToKoP €x vexpaor, Kalo Cwy éori, Kai Cworoids, kat Oeds* avabepa éoTo.
4
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 385
IBZ AD MARIM PERSAM EPISTOLA.
"Ev ovyT pep dé TH ovvére: Cou TH purewy, TH Oe orto Ta ToAANG emiytvworkovon, ota ™po Bpuxews | Kat vu éyér €TO, qvepioat corouda- oaper, ElOOTES, 2S, Taira TH on DeoreBeta yeaorres, 7 are dua TIS ons omrovdNs TOS éxewwe yvoplma yiveTu Ta TAP’ MOV, ws oudepcoy évaay jv at mapa Tov cor dobewma 5 ypapai € éAaBov. Totov uae de THY apy yy TIS UTOvETEWS ek Tav Aoywr dy Kat auiros emioracat® eyéveTo prAoverkia, eé ovmep y 0) deca éBeva evravba Hr, Tots dv0 avlpwrois TOUTOLS, Neoropiy Kat Kupidaw* _kat ouveypayar Kar’ GAAjAwr Aoyous BraBepor S oiTives oKavdaror noav Tous AKOVOUCL. Neorépios ap elpyKev év Tots avToU Aoyous, Kaas Kat 4 oF Deore Bera emioTAT Aly ort 4 pakapia Mapia GeotoKos ovK ori’ ws vopucbjvae ToLs TONAOLS, EK 71/5 aipécews IlavAou rot Laporareos aur ov etvae TOU packorvros [ MS. Tov paoxorra], avOpwrov Widor etvac Tov Xpiorov" KupiAdos 0€, OéAwy Tors Aoyous Neoropiov avar peat, even Epirreov eis TO doyma "AmroAA- vapiov" ouvéypawe yap Kat aur os opotws Ser ore autos: 0 cos Aoryos qéyovev dvO purrs” wos py etvac Siapopar petaSe Tov vaov Kat Tov évor- KOUVT OS év aura. ouvéypae yap Ta OwWdeKa Keparata, d amep vopite Kat THY OV Beoré Berar é eqvenxér ae" ort pia Pious €or THs Te Oeoryros Kat THs avOpurmoryT os Tov Kupiov myacor Iyoou Xpirrov" kat os ou xen, ws pyst, Seaupew Tas povas Tas etpyuevas, as 1 0 KUpLOS TEpL EavTOU elpyker 7 i ot evaryyehorat Te pl avr ov" oons de oe Betas memAjpwrat Tara, Kae po Tov mas etmewy kat 1) o7 ayiwotry émiorarau® TOS yap duvaror, AnpOivae TO" eV apex iv 0 Adryos [Ioh. 1, dhe emt TOU vaov Tov evry Oévros ék Mapias ; 5 i EKELVO TO" [Ps. 8, 5] jdarrwras avrov Boaxt TimTap ayyéhous, Tepe TIS Geornros TOU povoyevor's pyOyvae ; 7] yap éxkAyoia ouT as Neyer, ws Kal 4 on OeonéBera e€ apxiis ed:dax On kut eornpixOy TH Ocig didackaria &k TwV A6ywv TOY paKapiwy TaTépwr* Sto Hioeis, pia divamts, év ™poowmov* ome p éoriv, eis Utos KUptos *Iycot's Xpioros* dua TauT yy THY piAoverkiay ot vent at Kat PiravO parrot Buowrers éxé- Aevoray Tous eapyous TOV ETIOKOTWY ELS THY Edesiov moAwv ouvaxOrvac, Kat em TavTov TOUS Adyous Neoropiou Kat KupiAdou KpOyvat. ™po be Tou TavTAasS Tos emiTKorrous, Tors Kerevabévras ovvax iva, éAGew els THY "Egeoor, mporaBar o ards Kipiados, Tas akoas TO pappary T@ mypovvTe TOUS opbarpous TOV copay TpokaTérxev* evpe 0€ airiay ék TOU bicous Tou ™pos Neorépiov. kai ™p0 Tou eis THY OvVOdOY Taparyev- éoBat TOV ay.osrarov kat BeopuAéorarov apxvemiokomoy "loavyyy, éx THC emiokorns TOY Neoréptov Kabetov, Kpioews Kai Cyracews Ba) evomerys. peta O¢ dvo 7 MEpas TIS TOUTOU Kabarpévews 7ABopev els “Edeoor" Kal, padorvTwy ypov ore év TH Kabaipéece: TH Yyevouevyn Tap’ avrav, Ta dwoeKa
386 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Keparara Ta ouryypaperra mapa Kupidrov, évavtia ova ™ mioret ™ arn Oi, avéOnkay kat éBeBaiwoay, Kat ouvébevro avrots ds TH GAnOwy mioret ouupovore : ; TavTes ot Tis ‘AvaroAjs éniox Tot avTOV KipiAdov KabecAov, Kat Kara Tov aAAwv émoKoTror Tov ove peveov Tots Kepa- Aaiors dkotveornotay Optra" Kal peTa TavTyY THY dragiay € EKAOTOS els THY moAw THY éavTou vméor pepe. Neoréptos dé, émewdy € Beak mapa THs TOAE WS Kat TOV Meyda ov Tov ovT@y év art, exet vrooT peat ouK your. kat Emetver 7 ovvodos 7 dvarr oALKs) My KOLV@VOVTE TOLS ETLO= Komrots Tots Koon Tact Kupidarw: kat dua Tavra Atmry ToAAy) peragv avrav éyéveTo, Kal év pudoverkia éminKorrot Mpos EmLOKOTOUS eyévovro Kat Aaot mpos Aaovs* Kat TO yeypapepcvov épyo emrAnpwdn’ ore éoTwoay ExOpor avdpos ot oiKeLaKot avrou, [Matth. 10; 36] Kat éx TovTov AowWopiat moAQat Kal? nov éyévorto, Ed jvoy TE Kai aipeTiKar. ov yap eToAma Ths aro TOAEWS eis mohw, | amo Xwpas els Ywpav Gmépxeo- Gat. GAN’ €xaoros Tov mAyotov os exOpov ediwke. ToARot be, Ma EXovTes _PpoBov cov mpo cpbarpor, Tmpopager Sijrov TOU vmep Tey éxxAgoror, iy etxyov &xOpav _kexpupmevyy ey Tm Kapo ig airoy, es épyov ayayew eorovdacav* ov ets e€ awry TUyxaver 0 TIS iperepas aT poTrONews TUparvos, ov Kat airs OuK ayvoeis” oores mpopacet Tis TioTEWS OU [MOVOY TOvs Covras apr ver at, anna Kat TOS marae apos TOV @ecov amedyAvO ST as" av eis cor 0 paKaptos Ocddupos, 0 Kypvé Tis ahyBetas Kat didaoKaros TNS exkAyotas® os ov povoy év ™ Con avrou Tous aiperiKou's exohagioer els THY an Bei aurou mioTW, adda Kat mera Toy Oavarov aitov omAov mvevmaTiKoY ev Tots ovr Tay pao avrov Tots TEKVOLS THIS exkAyoias katérewe* [....] Torroy eToAuNoeD 0 mavTa TOA MOV er [ MS. TOAMOY én’) exkAyolas, pavepas dvabe j.a- Tioat, tov dua CnAov Oeov ov povov THY tolav mo kK TIS mhavng es THY aAyecav émorpeyarta, adda Kat Tas Makpav ovous éxxAyotas Tat= devoavTa TH aur ov diarKaria,. Kat Tepl TOV BiBrov avrov TONAy} Epeuva mavTaxov €9 yEVETO, | ov dua ro TH TioTet 7H ahybuy évartias auras elvar—ETL yap Corros avrov, ouvEeX es aurov emyvet Kat eis Ta BiPria _auTou avenue aie dua THY exOpar THY Kek PUM péevny, Hv eixe Tos a'ror, med) aie ev aurov Pavepas év ™m ovvddy. TOUT WY dé Tov KK @V metas auTov Vvopeve | Kat EKaOTOU ws éBotAero kaTa@ TO yey Geer ov UMLOVTOS, 0 @eds 7 Mav o ™pooKu- VATOS, 0 TavTOTe TH pravipoma avrou poorrilor TOV aywraTwv EKKAIT LON dujyerpe TOU TLOTOTATOU Pac€os TOV VOUV, meuWat dydpa péeyav Ka qve@ptpor amo Tou maAdatiov Tov tdtov avaykalovra Tov ayer arov dpyvemioKomor TIS ‘Avutorys Tov Kup "Lwavyyy diadrAa- yyvae Kupitrw" vm avrou ap TIS emiTKomr 7s Kady pyro. Kat wera TO déSas0a Ta ¥ yoda MuaTu TOU BuriNws améoTeiAe TOY TiMLOT ATOY Kat GeoduAéorarov Mae hav: TOV éritKomov "Epéoys, Mer” émoToA@y ets THY ‘AdeSardperar, amooreihas de abrou tHv aAnOivyy mot Ly kai mapayyet- Aas auT@, ort, ef Ta’Ty TH Winter otvOnTa KtpiAAos Kat avabeparion
iN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 387
Tous Aéyorras* ore 9 Ocorys emabe, Kal TOUS Aéyorras" ort ic iors éort Oeoryr os Kat avOpumornros : auT@ KOLV@vyT et. jBovryOy dé 0 Geos, 0 WavTOTE poorrilor TIS idias éxxAyotas TS TO lw aware avrou Aut ~ pwbletons, Kal THY kapodtay Tou Aiyurriov pardéau, Kai exTos movov Kat oKvAGEws THY TioTL deSacbar Kat TavTas TOUS eKTOS TAUT NS ToTEvov- Tas avabe war ioc Kat KOLVOVTAVT wy adAgrors a prroverkia ék péoou
mp9 Kat elpyvy ev TH éxkAnoia qeryoue® Kal ovK €TL Aovmov ev aur y OXITMA, ¢ adda eipyvy we TO Tporepov €or. Tiva d€€ eoTe Ta pnmara Ta Tupa TOU AcopiAeorar ov dpxlemoKOToU ypaperra, kat motu avriypapa edéSato mapa Kupidaov, avtas Tas emioToAds TaUT TH ™pos THY onv OeonéPevay ousers 54S améoret\a, wa avarvovs yrs Ka Tao ToLs adeA- pors 1 MOV Tots ay aTrecw etpyvyy evayyerion, ore 1 pAoverkia Aovmov WETAVT AL, kat TO MecoToLxov 700y TIS expas, Kat OL ATaKTOS Kar a Cavtwy Kat vexpov éemeAOortes év aicytvy eloiv, amToAoyovpevoe UTEP TOV LOLwV TTALO WaT cov Kal évar Tia Thi Tporn avrav dvdayn didaoKovres” ov yap ToAMG TLS elmeW, ore pia éort puors deor yr os kat avOpomo- TUT OSs aia omoroyorioey els Tov vaov Kal els TOY ev aire évorkovvTa, ovra eva vitor ‘Tycoty Xpioror. TavTa d€ eypaya 7 on beore Beta ék TOAAIs deabléscws, 7) ns EYw Tos Ge, Te MELT MEVOS, os 1 on antootvy VUK- Tos Kal nucpas ev TH OWdacKaAia Tov cov éavTHy yupvaler, va ToAAOLS aperynon. :
: ah nA: a + ee, 3 e
‘ bite Sei iyviee pit ph Ae rs ’ as 4 (4 w sr aeclan oo} rae DALY Atiavil Ps a ie ay Re ural? “ > y- aA ihe ei phe \ ke Aealig ie ae: pirates av: an penis “y NP ;
1%
wee ian a ays js. » 4 Ne api ‘ é 7 j a4 ie iG ~ me MODE OF VX “7 - UY ns oe, “| ims 7 yer 4 ~~ é oe - uf, - 4 a ‘ ca : seins t ; . . M * ~ t. a is . JF f F : ‘ 3 i = ’ . -_ x 7 iy « . ‘ . \ ‘ 7 \ ' . ; ee t 4 ‘ « bd . ’ i ' - ’ I ~ ‘ as : 4 * 7 5 ny ey 2] * of) F 7 , " : a s ’ eas ‘ P £ ' i ~ - ® ; * - yi e* aa “ >on ¢ pay ' -
APPENDICES.
A*®
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 390
The following Appendices consist of the translation of extracts from various MSS in the British Museum, all of which refer, directly or indirectly, to the great Codex of Vol. i, viz., A, as well as to the great Controversy in the 5th century relative to the true Person of Jesus Christ, and some of which cite, by unmistakeable quotations, the very Volume of ‘‘the Acts” of the Second Synod of Ephesus. The value of the testimony they bear to A can hardly be over rated. In Vol. ithey are all printed, line for line, like the originals except D, which would have taken too much space to have done so with it. The character of them all is given by Dr. W. Wright, formerly of the British Museum, in his three volumed Catalogue as follows, that of the magnificent Codex from which I have made no less than four extracts being fully set forth by which to judge of the rest.
That catalogue describes the Volume as consisting of ‘Vellum, about 124in. by 93, consisting of 187 leaves, some of which, especially near the beginning, are slightly stained and torn. The quires, 18 in number, are signed with letters. One leaf is wanting at the beginning, and four leaves after folio 8. Each page is divided into three columns, of from 48 to 51 lines. This volume is written in a fine Edessene hand of the 6th century before A. Gr., 878, A.D., 562, and contains a compilation consisting of treatises, letters, and extracts from various authors, directed chiefly against the doctrines of the Diphy- sites and the Council of Chalcedon. As the most important of these documents were composed by Timotheus (Aclurus),* Bishop of Alexandria,t under whose direction, or at whose orders the work was drawn up, it is entitled ‘The Book of Timotheus against the Council of Chalcedon:’ gaasy [>)>
Saco }o3 amass], Ioocma| woldse.g ujpSods
on 110 ,aa>9 [VAsaw5 | Dor»nI0W
* /Elurus signifies a weasel or cat. + See Le Quien, Or. Christ, tom. ii., Col. 412, and Renaudot Hist.
Patr, Alexandr, Jacobit., p. 120. (Note from Catalogue),
391 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Extracts B, D, I, K, in my Vol. i, were transcribed by me from that Volume. The first is the shorter of two letters on the same subject by the same writer. The very lengthy D belongs to the first Session of the Second Synod of Ephesus, the first part of which Extract gives another Version of the Imperial instrument convoking the Synod, and the latter the matter of the hitherto unknown blank page on which the President and his Coadjutors required the Bishops to inscribe their signatures. It contains also a Syriac Version of the celebrated Defence of himself, made by the Heresiarch Eutyches at the Council of Constantinople, under the Presidency of Flavian, Archbishop of that City, in 448, a.p. His ‘“‘Libellus”’ and other intermediate Documents {are all given in Labbe, Harduin, and other Historians.
As regards the other appendices, it may be noted that C is an extract from ‘“a volume written in a good current hand of the 6th or 7th century,” but that some parts of the Extract are greatly defaced in the original.
Extracts E and F are from a Codex written in a “ small elegant hand of the 6th or 7th century.”
Extract G is from a volume written ‘“‘in a good regular Estrangela of the 7th century, and contains the Correspondence ot Sergius Grammaticus and Severus of Antioch, regarding the doctrine of the ‘ Two Natures of Christ.’ ”
H is from one ‘“‘ written in a small, neat hand, apparently of the 8th century.”
And L is from a Manuscript written in ‘‘a small, neat hand of the 7th century, probably soon after,A.D. 641.”
As regard Extract C, the whole letter of Philoxenus is so im- portant that it should be published. TI hope to have it and the other mentioned by Assemanni from the Vatican Library. They are referred to at p. 37 of his Orient. Bib. Vol ii, and at p. 569 of Voli, “ Epistolae duae ad Monachos Teledenses eA
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 392
iB:
AN EXTACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 12,156.
BHROMeAS Wb Re (OR RHE BYESSHD DlOSCORUS) WEE ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WRITTEN FROM EXILE IN GANGRA, TO THE MONKS OF THE HENNATON :—_*
IT am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man +walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him {sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him §walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him |/hungry, as Man, andtheysaw Him {feeding (others), as God. They saw Him **thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving *drink, as God. They saw Him {stoned bythe Jews, as Man, and they saw Him {/*/worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him +ftempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the }{Devils, as God. And similarly of many (other) things. But in order not to make much din (trouble) in writing, I will leave the matter for the purpose of collecting testimonies of every one of the heads together ; and I mean to collect them, by the help of God, when a convenient opportunity bids me to it.
*The Monastery was distant from Alexandria about nine miles. Hence the designation.
+S. Mat. rv. 18. tS. Mat. vir. 24. §S. Mat. xiv. 25. || S. Mat. rv. 2. qS. Mat. xv. 36. ** S, John tv. 7. *§, John rv. 14. §§ S. John x. 31, J Luke 11, 14. t7S. Mat. Iv. 3.
tt S. Mark v. 13.
393 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
But we leave the absurdity of those who hold opposite notions, and we confess One and the Same to be the Redeemer the Lord and God, although we see Him to have become by CEconomy Man. Hold to the Confess- ion, therefore, of the fathers and do not listen to the soul- destroying words of Heretics, nor hold intercourse with those who divide into Two Him Who is One; for, One is our Redeemer, as I said, although out of compassion for us He became Man.
Sufficiently indeed, as I consider, to the great confu- sion of Heretics, the Teachings of Holy Bishops and Orthodox Archbishops have proved the fatuity of the Affirmations of Heretics and shewn at the same time that it is an Impiety to speak of Two Natures in God The Word Incarnate; for, they have excommunicated those who hold this Doctrine, and they have banished from The Hope of Christians those who do not confess God The Word to be Consubstantial with the Father, because He became Consubstantial with Man, taking Flesh, although He remained unchangeably what He was before; as they had done (excommunicated and banished) with the rest of the Heretics.
But to persuade more and more those who build their foundation upon the Immoveable Rock of the Orthodox Faith and to confute more and more the Heresies men- tioned above, I adduce testimonies from the Divine New Testament written under the Spirit, along with the Expositions of the Holy Fathers, by whose aid it is pos- sible manifestly to condemn the Heresies alluded to above and to hold to the Immoveable and Blessings- bringing Orthodox Faith Which was transmitted by the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 394
Holy Apostles and by our Blessed and Learned Father. Perhaps, they who have fallen from and denied the Lord will hear and will repent, as said the Prophet, and turn to the Lord with confession and abound in tears of Re- pentance, in order that they may be healed; for, God does continually takecare of, and gives His hand to,* those driven from him afar off, calling them to Him.
—And after testimonies from the Scriptures—
These things, then, refer to those who will not repent and turn to The Lord, whom The Lord Jesus Christ bought with His Own blood. For, He is Very God and the Eternal Life of the World, as says John; for, One is The Lord Jesus Christ, for ever and ever. Amen.
* Tsaiah 1x,
395 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS C.
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 14,663. Fou. 11, RECTO. von. 1,
“He made for Himself a Temple in the Womb of the Virgin, and He was as one that was created.”
And again ;—“ he reviled the Son of God on the Cross and said—‘ How is He the Giver of Life who died, and how could He give Life to the dead, who was delivered into death: He was not God—He who suffered, but Man which God took of us.’”
And again he said—“ the sufferings were His, for He is passible. The Impassible is superior to sufferings. The likeness of a servant suffered.”
Also, “ He (Himself) truly said—*Why do ye desire to kill me? Now, Divine Life was not killed, but only His mortal nature.” And again he repeated (the statement) : —“it was not God who had suffered, but Man which God took of us.”
“Therefore, in conformity with the (Gospel) Giéconomy we worship, as One Son, Him who took (our Nature) and Him who was taken (ofit). And we recognise differ- ent Natures, but only One Person. Just as our Lord tspoke of a man and his wife that “they are not twain but one flesh,” so also it is befitting and proper for us to say, according to the term (implying) Union, that they are not twain but one flesh; for, as the number does not preclude us (at all) from saying of a man and a
* John vir. 20. + Matthew xrx. 5.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 396
woman that they are one flesh, so the number of Natures does not preclude Unity of Person.”
“When we differentiate these (two) Natures, how can we speak of the substance without (speaking of) the Per- son; for, the Nature of the Son of Man is perfect as is His Person, and also is Perfect the Nature of the Deity.”
“When, then, we look at the Co-herence (Union), we affirm One Person, and when we differentiate the Natures, we make affirmation of the Perfect Person of the Son of Man, and the Perfect Person of His Deity.”
And again, he said—“§Thomas touched Him Who rose, and worshipped Him Who raised Him.” Wonder, O Heavens! at this, and be astonied, O Earth! at this, —that him who openly proclaims two Sons, this Synod receives as Orthodox, and him who utters those Blas- phemies It declares to be a true Teacher, and eulogized by acclamations, as It had eulogized his fellow.
Who can now define the source of the Impiety of the Teacher of this (Heresy)? We have expounded to you only a small trickling stream from the river of his Blas- phemies—how the Orthodox of that Assembly uttered those Blasphemies, and how they received with praise his sermons, contaminating the hearing; but, how was it that they did not receive openly Nestorius, since they received the praises of Nestorius and of his Teachers? Who will doubt that he (Theodoret) had in his heart the Doctrine of Paul of Samosata and of Nestorius? insomuch that The Emperor Theodosius II, worthy of remembrance, said, on hearing the Blasphemy of this man, “that if Ripe ONLINE EE ele MAM Gi 222 ce
§ John xx, 28,
397 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
there was any doubt about the deservedness of the De- position of Theodoret, there must be also doubt about the deservedness of that of Nestorius.” Thus spake this God-loving man who well understood the subject.
But, although the man (Theodoret) was rejected by God, by men, by Kings, by true Priests, they at Chal- cedon received him with applause, with the honour of the Orthodox. These accepted and welcomed him as Ortho- dox, but then they must accept as Orthodox other peo- ple. If, indeed, this Assembly received Jews as these, It must also receive another Jew who blasphemed more than these (people.) I allude to the Impious Ibas, who was at Edessa, who also is proved to be more impious than these by the blasphemies which he spoke, some of which—a few out of many—I am prepared to note for the purpose of arraigning (condemning) them, and for your instruction, and especially for the confusion of those who accepted as Orthodox a man excommunicated by reason of his Blasphemies, declaring and testifying that, from his words Ibas was Orthodox and deserving of being restored to the Episcopal Throne, and who gave abundant approbation to this Impious man.
True Believers, however, will perceive what is this impious Orthodoxy. For, thus in one place he said :— “T do not envy Christ becoming God, because I shall be what He was; for, He was of our nature.*”
And again, he said in his Homily :—“In the foreknow- ledge of God The Word, He knew thatt Jesus would be justified by His Works.”
*Seep.101&c. tee p. 101, 1 24.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 398
And again, in a Homily on the Day of the Resurection (Easter Day) he said— {To-day Jesus in reality became Immortal.”
And again, when he was discoursing about Gehennah he said that “that was written (only) as a threatening,” dissolving by this the Word of our Lord. Again, as regards the Judgment, he denies it adding to his Blas- phemies, as the Psalmist says—the wicked man says in his heart “there is no God.”
And again, he said—§“It is one Person who died, and another who is in Heaven. It is one Person who had no beginning, and another who has a beginning. It is one Person who is of the Father, and another who is, Of the!) Viggin.”
And again, he said—||“‘If God died, who is it that vivified Him and raised Him?’ O frightful Impiety !
Again he said—* “as when the purple was insulted, the insult passed over to the King, so the suffering pas- sed over to God.
Again, he said—“the Jews must not be elated by pride; for, they did not crucify God,” and “ Mary is not the Mother of God.
Again, when writing +to the Impious Mares the Persian, he attacked the Chapters of the Blessed Cyril, saying ; that “in them there was Impiety.”
And again, he said—that the Deposition of Nestorius was unjust.
And again, he said that the ‘‘ Blessed Theodore was a Preacher of the Truth and Doctor of the Church not only in his lifetime, but also after his death.”
See p. 104,16 &. §See page 105, p. 21. || See p. 106,12. * See p. 106,116. +See p.111 d&e.
399 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
And again he said—‘ Worship is due to the Nature of God by right and only by Grace to the Nature of Him Who was from Mary—for His Union was with the Word—for, he as being composed may be divided.”
And again he said, “Just as the grace replenished the Temple which (came) from Mary, so also the grace may replenish those who worship Him.”
And again he said, “Just as the Sons of Jacob did contaminate the garment with blood, so also did the Lord suffer in the covering he took from Mary.”
Who will not shut his ears against such Blasphemous words? How could he not suffer, and how could he not protest against them, who proclaims openly Two Natures, who affirms God to be a Creature and who denies the Virgin to be the Mother of God, who thinks our Lord to be only one of the Just who has been Justi- fied by His works.
See, therefore, Lovers of the Faith! what Blasphemies they at Chalcedon proclaimed !
And see also how Impious is the man whom the Ortho- dox received with praise.
Which are the ears and minds of Believers that can uphold these Blasphemies? Notwithstanding, all those Blasphemies were assented to (by the Council of Chalce- don). ‘True Belivers abominate hearing them, whilst these Blasphemies were sweet to the Council who pro- claimed them Orthodox.
But the Holy Synod which condemned Ibas shouted— ““ Cease to speak these Blasphemies—*Spare our hearing “these words, fit (only) for heathens—the Devils are more
* See page 124,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 400
“modest than Ibas—all of us excommunicate Ibas—every ““body who says such things ought to be burnt.”
The Fathers shouted such exclamations when they ex- comumnicated him (Ibas), but when the true ones thus shouted—those who had departed from the Truth shouted the contrary. For they rejected him as Heathen and these received him for Orthodox. They rejected him as a Liar and these received him as a truth-speaking man; they excommunicated him as a heretic, and these hon- oured him as a believer.
And again, they (the Council) did more than that; for, they considered as Impious men the sons who excom- municated those Heretics: and some of them they sent into exile, and they presented a Petition to the King to the effect that the Synod (of Ephsus) should not be called a Synod.
Who, then, would not assent to the Synod which ex- communicated him (Ibas) for the Impieties which he uttered? Who will assent to the Synod which received him, (Ibas), notwithstanding the Blasphemous expressions which he produced?
Who therefore would not condemn this assembly which assented to these Impieties, and to Leo, to Ibas, to Theodoret, and, with them, also to their Teachers, impious men and Doctors of evil, that calumniated The Truth?
4,01 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
D
EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 12,156.
FROM THE SYNODICON OF THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
*After the (year of the) Consulate of the Illustrious Zeno and Postumianus, on the roth of the Month Abib which, according to the Egyptians, is the 15th of Mesouri, Indiction the third, when the Synod assembled at the Metropolis of Ephesus in compliance with the commands of the God-loving and Christ-loving Emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian, and when were seated the God-loving and Holy Bishops,t in the Holy Church, which is desig- nated Mary, John Presbyter of Alexandria, the chief Notary, said :—It has seemed good at the present time to the God-fearing and Christ-loving Emperors to com- mand that your Great and Holy Synod should assemble here in order to make investigation into the evil that has just sprung up concerning our Orthodox and Blameless (Inerrant) Faith and to uproot it, lest it should inhere in and attract any simple minded men, and cast us into the ditch of Error and bad faith. And it is right and just that those who love our Religion should preserve, with- out injury and without change, the Definitions relative to our True Religion made in the first instance by the Blessed Fathers assembled at Nicaea, and then con- firmed a little while ago by those who, assembled in this City, entirely assented and agreed to them (in theirfullness)
* See page 13, t A list of these Bishops is given in pages 13—19.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 402
so that no one should consider or determine anything at variance with them.
Now we bear these pure Decrees (Definitions) of the Holy Fathers, and make them known to your Holiness, in order that you may command what is your pleasure.
Dioscorus, the Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Let the faith-full (fideles) Letters of the Christ-loving Emperors be read, which were addressed to this Holy Synod.
John, Presbyter and Prime Notary, read :—
COPY OF DIVINE (ROYAL) LETTERS.
The Imperial (Autocratic) Caesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors and Illustrious by Victories, the Noble, the Worshipful, the Augusti, to Dioscorus Archbishop of Alexandria.*
It is obvious to everybody that the good order (Status) of our government and of human affairs generally is estab- lished and confirmed by an exalted Piety towards God; and so long as God is favourable to us, matters usually advance and are regulated readily, and according to our wish.
Seeing, then, that we are deemed worthy by Divine Providence to reign, we necessarily take every care of the Religion and the prosperity of those who are under our authority, whereby our True Religion and our Government may shine forth (flourish), being maintained by a true service towards God, and by Faith.
Now, seeing that all on a sudden a Controversy has just lately sprung up, touching the conservancy of the
* See page 3.
403 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Catholic and Apostolic Doctrine of the Orthodox Faith, which (controversy) so frequently leads people off into diverse opinions and enflames and agitates the affections and souls of men; it has appeared to us that it would not be well to hold back from a matter of this sort, disgraceful though it be, lest, by disregarding it, it seem to bring dishonour upon God Himself. Sowehaveordered that Pious and God-loving persons, of much zeal for Re- ligion and for the Orthodox and True Faith, should as- semble at one place that, an accurate investigation having been made, the whole vain Controversy be composed, and the Orthodox and True Faith which is so dear to God be consolidated. Your Piety, then, taking with you ten Venerable Metropolitan Bishops from the Province under you, and other ten Pious Bishops, distinguished for elo- quence and integrity of life and for Orthodoxy in The Inerrant and True Faith, and illustrious to everyone for knowledge and learning, before the month of August by the first of it, must repair without delay to Ephesus, the Metropolis of Asia—no other person besides those mentioned above being allowed to trouble the Holy Synod—so that, when all these Holy and God-loving Bishops together, whom we have by our godly (divine) Letters commanded to assemble, have reached the city above mentioned and made an accurate investigation and enquiry, the whole Error of deceit may be removed from (our) midst, but the Doctrine of the Orthodox and True Faith which loves our Redeemer Christ be confirmed and be resplendent, as usual, so that all men may pre- serve It from the present to the future intact and inviolate through the help of God, But, ifany man take upon him
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 404
to disregard this Synod which necessity demands, and which is dear to God (in accordance with God’s will), and does not repair with all his might, at the time stated above, to the place selected, not a single excuse shall he be able to find (available) with God or our Piety. For, if he excuses himself from an assembly of Priests, it neces- sarily follows that his soul is agitated by no good con- science. But Theodoret the Bishop of the City of Cyrus, whom on a former occasion we ordered to confine himself within his own Church, we forbid tc go to the Holy Synod, unless it should seem fit to the whole Holy Synod, when It has assembled, that he also should come and take part in It. But if, on his account, there should arise any division of opinion, we give order that the Holy Synod assemble without him and execute the commands (given).
(This Ordinance) was issued in the Month of Adar, on the xxxth of it, at Constantinople, after the Consul- ship of the Illustrious Zeno and Postumian.
The Bishop Julius, filling the place of the Holy Bishop of Rome, Leo, and interpreted by Florentius, Bishop of Lydda, said :—
According to acommand similar to this (one) from the God-fearing and Christ-loving Emperors, our Holy Father of the Church of Rome, the Governor Leo, was summoned (to the Synod).
John, Presbyter and Prime Notary, said :—
Another gracious order was forwarded to our God- loving Archbishop, Dioscorus, which, tc», I hold (in my hand), that your Holiness may give direction as you please (about it).
o*
405 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Juvenal, the Bishop of Jerusalem, said :— Let it be read and deposited among the accredited Documents.
(4) The Autocrat Czsars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors and Illustrious by Victories, the Noble, the Worshipful, the Augusti, to Dioscorus.
It has come to the hearing of our Serenity that many Venerable Archimandrites of the East, with Orthodox peoples, have been troubled in one City after another of the East, by certain Bishops, said to be infected with the Impiety of Nestorius, and have had a great contest for the Catholic Faith. For this reason, then, it has seemed fit to our divinity (Serenity) that the God-loving Presbyter and Archimandrite Barsumas, who is distin- guished for integrity of character and orthodoxy of faith, should proceed to the City of Ephesus, and, acting as representative of all the God-loving Archimandrites, should assemble with your Piety, and with all the Holy Fathers who are collected there; and then you will begin your proceedings on all these matters, as it is pleasing to God. Your Piety will therefore be induced, bearing in mind our entire anxiety for the Catholic Faith, joy- fully to receive the above-named Archimandrite, and to cause that he take part in your Holy Synod.
This (Ordinance) was issued in the Month of IJjar, on the second day of it.
Juvenal, the Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
The same was addressed to me also respecting the Archimandrite Barsumas, and therefore it is with right and justice that he will assemble with the Holy Synod.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 406
The Bishop Dioscorus, said :
If the Illustrious Count Elpidius and Eulogius, the Tribune and Notary, have any information to give us respecting this cause which we have in hand, let them speak.
THE INSTRUCTION OF COUNT ELPIDIUS.
The Count Elpidius said :—
(5) Satan, who is the originator of every evil, never ceases from making war with the Holy Churches, and the God- fearing Emperor stays not from contending, with justice, with him who so wars, rightly considering that he is fighting on his Kingdom’s behalf, when he arms himself for a struggle in behalf of réligion, nor does he do pre- judice to himself, because from the beginning many things have been adjudged in his favour rather by reason than by arms, and for that cause he has, with you, con- demned the rebellion of Nestorius, who, although he had been appointed for the service of God, became the Father and Teacher of Impious Doctrines, as if he were one who had accepted (taken) the Priestly Office on behalf of Demons, and not for the sake of Religion, but he is at present consigned to a place suited to him; being re- served for the torment that will not fail to overtake him in the world to come; seeing that he gave himself up to all this Blasphemy, and has overwhelmed many with himself, whom he has persuaded.
Now, as regards the present Controversy, the Royal (Divine) Emperor brings it before you as before Fathers and Judges, and asks of you to bring about such a solution of this controversy, as may serve for a general
4.07 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
warning to the Community—to himself, and to all who are under his government. What those matters, then, are that the Royal (Divine) Emperor has enjoyned upon us, and has written to you, I now forthwith make known to you, adding this as being one of them who rightly, under your authority, hold to the True Religion: —To-day the Lord of all, God The Word and Saviour, submits Himself to you for judgment, and when you are judging, He is present among you, and is honoured by the authority of your sentence ; so that seeing you judge rightly matters concerning Himself, He will here honor you now, and before the Father will again own you; and if He find some people who have estranged themselves from the True Religion by their imaginations, and who have brought into the Controversy other persons, per- suaded by their eloquence, then He will bring upon both classes punishment from God and from the King. It would have been better for these not to have been born ; for, they do not confess so well as the Robber, the Publican, the Courtesan, the Canaanite woman, the pure Glory of Him Who has humbled Himself for us.
Now I will read what has been commanded to me and
to you by the Faithful and God-loving Autocratic Emperor.
COPY OF THE COMMONITORY TO HIM (ELPIDIUS).
To the distinguished Count Elpidius. (6) The Blasphemy against God of the Impious Nes- torius was the cause of the Godly assembling of the Holy Synod on a former occasion at Ephesus: and he therefore received the punishment he deserved at the
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 408
hands of the Holy Fathers who assembled there. But, because another controversy also has now arisen, against The Divine Faith, we have commanded this Second Synod to take place at Ephesus; being anxious to cut away entirely the root of the evil, and that when we have driven away from all sides disturbance arising from Doctrine, we may guard in purity, by prayer, the Ortho- doxy of our Belief; and that will be a protection for our government and a benefit for men. For this reason, then, we have chosen your Admirableness (Eminence) and the distinguished Eulogius, Tribune and Pretorian Notary, for the Service of The Faith, as experienced men who are both upright in other matters and hold religion purely, and able to execute our commands with efficiency relative to the transactions to be carried on at Ephesus by the Holy Synod; and you will not permit any commotion to take place on either side. But if you should perceive any man aiming at exciting com- motion and disturbance to the injury of The Holy Faith, you will observe him with vigilance, and then give in- formation of the circumstance to us, and let the proceed- ings of the case go on according to order, occupying yourself in taking cognisance of the cause; and you will take care that there be, speedily, a thorough examination made by the Holy Synod, of which you shall give information to us, those persons being present indeed, who sat in judgment on the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches, but silently and not acting as judges, but expectant of the general assent of all the other Holy Fathers, since those matters that were then adjudicated upon are now again examined into.
409 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Itis not, however, permitted that any matter should be mooted, having relation to property, before those which relate to The Orthodox Faith be concluded.
In order to this end, (fortified) by the Letters addressed to the Illustrious Proconsul and with the aid from the Judges and from the Roman (soldiers) quartered there which I have assigned to you, together with your own energy—fortified by these supports, you will find your- selves competent for the accomplishment of what is commanded, which is as far superior to other advantages as the things of God are superior to those of men. And do you report to us information of all the transact- ions in this cause.
(This Ordinance) was proclaimed in the Month of Jar, at Alexandria.
Count Elpidius said :—
Now command that what has been written to you by the divine (Royal) Head, be received and read.
Dioscorus said :—
Let the [Illustrious Letters of the Christ-loving Emperors, which have been addressed to this Great and Holy Synod, be received and read.
John, the Proto-Notary, read :-—
(7) The Autocratic Cesars, Theodosius and Valentinian, Victors and Illustrious by Victories, the Noble, the Worshipful, the Augusti, to the Holy Synod at Ephesus.
We assuredly desire that the Holy Church of God may exist without all this trouble, and that you your- selves, abiding in your Holy Churches, as usual, may
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 410
exercise the function of the Priesthood in what pertains to the service of God, and that there may not arise to you so much anxiety and labour.
But, since the God-loving Bishop Flavian resolves on agitating a question touching The Holy Faith, with the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches, and, having estab- lished a Tribunal, has begun to effect something, we have frequently sent to him (viz.,) to that God-loving Bishop, with the desire to prevent commotion arising, being fully assured that sufficient for us is The Faith, delivered by the Holy and Orthodox Fathers at Nicea, and confirmed by the Holy Synod at Ephesus.
But seeing that we have many times requested the God-loving Bishop to desist from such an object, as there is no reason for disturbing the whole world, and that he has not assented, whilst we are of opinion that there is no objection, independently of your own Holy Synod and those first Holy Synods, to such a question concerning The Faith being mooted, we think it necessary that your Holinesses should meet in assembly when you would give instructions as to the transactions thus to take place, and as to the question to be mooted, and would cut off the whole root of calumny, and expel from the Churches those who contend for the Blasphemy of the Impious Nestorius, and work for its retention, whilst you could command the conservation of the Catholic Faith in Its true and inerrant character, because all our hopes and the consolidation of our Kingdom are dependent upon The Orthodox Faith in God and upon your Holy Prayers.
Ata THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
(This Ordinance) was issued in the Month of Heziran at the City of Constantinople, during the Consulate of Protogenes.
(8) The PETITON of the Archimandrite, EUTYCHES, which was presented to the Christ-loving Emperor Theodosius, and which moved him to convoke the Holy Synod of Ephesus.
To the God-fearing, Faithful, Christ-loving Emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian, the ever-August, from the Archimandrite Eutyches :—
(Next) after the God of the Living and of the Truth your Piety is Illumination to me. You are, too, in no way backward in making investigation of matters concerning The Faith and my troubles. For, as regards the Documents that were imposed upon me by the Ven- erable Bishop Flavian, you read them yesterday, and you found that the opposite of what was actually done, was put on paper. For, what he said to me was not put on paper, and what I did not say, they put into the Documents. I request, therefore, of your Piety, who are continually anxious about The Orthodox Faith, of my Humbleness to be induced to command that the God- loving Bishops who were then seated in the Assembly, and the Notaries of Bishop Flavian, and the Venerable Clerics, who were despatched by him to me, and my Reader, who came to the Synod, and Athanasius, Deacon of the God-fearing Bishop Basil, shall assemble in the presence of the Venerable Bishop Thalassius, in order to be requested to depose in writing what they are cog-
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 412
nisant of, with a view to my subscribing to it, according to usual custom, when it is done.
The Emperor, therefore, ordered that, first, the trans- actions at Constantinople should be investigated, and, then, he assembled the Synod at Ephesus, and sent the business to the Synod to be despatched.
(9) THE LIBEL OF EUTYCHES WHICH WAS PRESENTED TO THE HOLY SYNOD:
To the Holy and God-loving Cécumenical Synod, assembled at Ephesus the Metropolis, from the Archimandrite EUTYCHES.
I give thanks to God, Holy in all things, at the present time in which the True Religion, through your means, has received a well-established ground of trust. And I give information to your Holy Synod of what has been done against me and especially against The Orthodox Faith. My main end and object, from my childhood up to a ripe old age, has been to lead a life of quiet, apart from any business, and to continue to do so without any disturbing causes. I was not, however, permitted to continue in the enjoyment of such an object, but ex- perienced great suffering arising from the intrigues of others, because, acceding to the Definition of your Holy Synod which took place here, I would not presume to entertain opinions contrary to The Faith set forth by the Fathers at Nicza.
ies: however, necessary for me, before showing what had been done against me, for the satisfaction of your Holiness, again to make manifest the Confession I hold
fa
ps
413 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
concerning Holy Dogma, calling to witness God, as well as your Holy Synod, with what power I have stood up for The Catholic Faith against Heretics.
I believe in One God Almighty, &c.
And, after he had repeated the whole Faith of the CCCXVIII, he said:— Thus, having received (the Symbol) from the beginning from my forefathers, have I believed and do I believe. For, in It, too, was I born and forthwith dedicated to God; and His own Mercy accepted me. And in this Faith I was baptized, was signed with the cross (confirmed), and have lived up to It to this day, and in It I ask (of God) to die. This Faith, also, the first Holy and Cécumenical Synod held and, as mentioned above, confirmed, whose President was our Father, of Blessed memory, the Bishop Cyril, who drew up the Definition (of Faith) that whoever exceeded this Faith by way of addition or invented one or taught it should be subject to the punishment then prescribed, a copy of which, in writing, the afore-mentioned and Blessed Father the Bishop Cyril sent to me, which I hold in my hands.
Submitting myself to the Holy Synod I have kept this Definition till the present time, and I reckon, as well as your Piety, all those Holy Fathers Orthodox and Faith- ful, and I accept them as my Teachers, anathematizing Manes, Velentinus, Appollinarius, and Nestorius, and all Heretics up to Simon Magus, as well as those who affirm that the Flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ descended from Heaven. |
But, while living according to this Faith and continu- ing instant in Prayer, I sustained an accusation against
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 414
myself, (occasioned) by the intrigue of Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleum, who presented Libels against me to the Venerable Bishop Flavian, and those others who, for temporary reasons, were in the Royal City; who called me a contemptible Heretic without advancing any specific Heresy in his Libel, when, suddenly having in the altercations of dispute committed those lapses of the tongue so customary in such confusion and through strong voices, I fell into mistake; then he commanded me to meet the Libel of accusation, whilst the accuser constantly continued in his company, although that accuser was not his intimate friend.
And he imagined that I, accustomed as I always was to abide in my Monastery, would not go to exhibit my presence, and therefore he could effect my Deposition, as, having not gone, I discovered when I went from my Monastery to the Royal City, being informed by Magnus the distinguished Silentiary, whom our Faithful and Christ-loving Emperor selected as one who would not suffer danger to threaten my life, when he replied to me that then my presence was superfluous, as indeed, before examination, my condemnation had taken place, which the Deposition of the Silentary, which was afterwards made, proved.
But when I went to make my Defence at the Tribunal before the Judges, and brought with me a Confession of Faith which I had subscribed, as being defined by the Holy Fathers at Nicaea, and afterwards confirmed at Ephesus by the Holy Synod there—/haf he would neither accept nor permit to be recited. The agitation and tumult (confusion) took place in the Tribunal, many
415 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
persons being agitated and pressing forward with cries from every quarter, as asserting the different Deposi- tions (statements) which afterwards were taken down in writing by the Judges relating to that disturbance. Subsequently, I was ordered to proclaim myself my Con- fession of Faith, and I said, I believe according to the Definitions of the Holy Fathers of Nicaea, which Defini- tions were confirmed by the Holy Synod of Ephesus. Then he told me that I had before confessed something different from the Symbol of Niczea and Ephesus.
But, through fear of exceeding (transgressing) the Definition set up by the Holy Synod which formerly by the will of God assembled here, and those things touch- ing The Faith that were settled by the Holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea, I requested to make known Z/zs to your Holy Synod, because I am prepared to stand by what will be investigated and settled by your Highness. But whilst I was saying that, all on a sudden my Con- demnation, long ago drawn up ugainst me, as it had pleased him (Flavian), was read out, as being the con- tinuation (sequence) of words uttered by them and by me and of other Depositions. Then I Confessed that I believed, as has been defined by the Holy Fathers assembled at Nicezea and by those assembled at Ephesus, before the Documents asserting the contrary were drawn up, as it has been proved by the writings drawn up after- wards at my request and at the request of the Faithful and Christ-loving Emperor, but the Pious Bishop Flavian did not make any mention at all of the appeal I had made to your Piety, nor had he any regard for my grey hairs, with which I have grown old in wars against
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 416
Heretics and in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith, but, being in possession of power to do every-thing alone touching The Faith and reserving no authority whatever for your Piety on the (subject of the) equity of such a sentence, he pronounced condemnation upon me and cut me off from the Church, as he thought, and deprived me of the Priesthood, as he supposed, and inhibited me from Communion in the Divine Mysteries, and unjustly expelled me from the Government of the Monastery, and handed me over to the multitude who were prepared to drag me through the Episcopal and (other) public places, as a Heretic, a Blasphemer, and a Manichzan, if Divine Providence had not liberated me and this day delivered me to the guardianship of your Holiness.
He, moreover, at various Feasts of the Saints, after that tumult and my taking exception to his judgment, ordered this sentence against me to be proclaimed, and ~ he ex-communicated me, and those who visit me and con- verse with me he estranged (inhibited) from the Holy Communion, without waiting for the judgment of your Holy Synod, and he obliged the Monks to subscribe to the Condemnation made against me, although sucha practice had never been done, as your Charity well knows, even against Heretics. He, also, sent papers to the East and to different parts in order that other God- fearing Bishops and Monks, although they took no part in adjudicating, might subscribe to them, and although it would appear far preferable and proper for the High Priests to have subscribed before everybody, to whom I made appeal.
At this present time, then, whilst I am scarcely liberated
A17 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
I have made known these transactions by Libel to your Piety. And I ask the God-fearing and Faithful Em- peror that you, who are Pious and God-loving and despise all Calumny and Detraction, should become Judges of what was adjudicated upon, and I ask now of your Holiness to consider the Calumny and Injury that have been heaped upon me, and the commotion that, from this cause, has been occasioned to the Holy Churches everywhere, and the scandal that has thence arisen to many, and, by the Christ-loving wisdom which you possess, to subject to ecclesiastical rules those who have occasioned these evils, and so cut off the whole root of Blasphemy and Impiety. For, from the begin- ning, I appealed to the Tribunal of your Blessedness, and I bear witness before Jesus Christ, Who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good Confession, that thus _I believe, I understand, I think, as The Faith which was delivered to us by the Holy Fathers who assembled at Nicezea, and which also the Holy Fathers at the First Synod of Ephesus confirmed. And, if any man thinks contrary to this Faith, I anathematize him according to their Definition.
The Subscription of Eutyches, Archimandrite.
Thus I believe, as is written above, having sub- scribed the Document by my own hands and presented this Libel.
(9) After the Reading of the Royal Letters before the Holy Synod at Ephesus, Dioscorus, the Arch- bishop of Alexandria, said :—
It is evident to us that the Faithful Letters of our
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 418
God-loving Emperor, when the matter was mooted at Constantinople for a Synod to take place, commanded that the claims of those Synods should first be made known, because it is not proper for us to depart from those ascertained Definitions and Canons which the Synods have decreed. Our Christ-loving, Faithful Emperor, seeing that a certain controversy has arisen, commanded that this Holy Synod should assemble, not to formulate our Faith, which already our Fathers have done, but to examine what has arisen, and to see if it be in accordance with what has been determined on by the Holy Fathers. It is right and just, then, that what has arisen be first examined and scrutinized by us to see if things are in accordance with the Definition of the Holy Fathers; and if it is so, you will again proclaim The Symbol of the Holy Fathers.
The Holy Synod Said :—
“Whoever rejects It let him be anathematized—who- “ever perverts It let him be anathematized—The Faith “of the Fathers preserve.”
Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, said :—
For the sake of peace to everybody and of the confir- mation of The Faith and for the annihilation of what has arisen, I examined The Faith of the Fathers at Niczea and at Ephesus.
The Holy Synod said :—
“That saves the world—that maintains The Faith.”
Dioscorus, the Bishop, said :—
Although two Synods are mentioned, yet only One Faith has been delivered.
The Holy Synod said :—
419 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
“With perfection did the Fathers determine every- “thing—he who goes beyond them is excommunicate— “no man must add to or subtract from.”
Dioscorus, the Bishop, said :—
Seeing that God accepts your voices and that you yourselves accept what is true and pleasing to God, whoever, as an enquirer, or investigator, or teacher, ex- ceeds what was done and what was decreed by the Holy Fathers who assembled at Niczea, and who gathered together in this place, must be excommunicate.
The Holy Synod said :—
“To the great preserver of The Faith, to Dioscorus “the Archbishop, many years.”
Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, said :—
‘Another thing, too, I would mention—one of fear and trembling—(viz.), that, if one man sin against another, let him pray for him to the Lord; but if he sin against the Lord, who will pray for him? If, then, the Holy Ghost is present with the assembly of the Fathers, as He assuredly is, and decrees what is decreed, he who rejects them ignores the Grace of the Blessed Spirit.
The Holy Synod said :—
“We all say the same—let him who rejects them be “excommunicate.”
Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, said :—
Nobody now defines what has been defined.
The Holy Synod said :—
“That is the voice of the Holy Spirit—Preserver of “the Canons! in thee the Fathers live! Preserver of “The Faith is Dioscorus, the Archbishop.”
Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, said :—
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 42.0
The order, as well as that which is right and proper, is—that, first, the transactions in this cause should be read, and, then, the Letters of the God-loving Arch- bishop of Rome; and therefore, as it is agreeable to the Holy Synod, let the transactions be read.
John, Presbyter and Prime Notary, said :—
Your Great and Holy Synod has ordered that the transactions, in the Royal City of Constantinople, re- specting this cause which is now mooted, should be read. Since, then, the God-loving Bishop of the City of Constantinople, Flavian, has presented these Documents and the Venerable Presbyter and Archimandrite, Eutyches, has also given a copy, I now read them ac- cording to your orders.
And, when the Documents had been presented, the Praxis was read—both the second and the third—in which were reported some conversations of Flavian’s party against The Faith, from which are extracted the following,
Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, said :—
When the discourses (compositions) of the Blessed Cyril have been read, who will arraign the sentences of our Blessed Father Cyril who, by his wisdom, has checked the Impiety of Nestorius, which (Impiety) was rending the world and dividing into two Persons and into two Natures our ONE LORD and GOD and Redeemer CHRIST? For, he showed that, in ONE Person, in ONE Son, and in ONE LORD of Creation we acknowledge a PERFECT DIVINITY and a PERFECT HUMANITY. We receive, then, all that was written and sent forth by him (Cyril), as being
EB
421 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
The Truth and full of Piety; and we worship ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST, Whom we acknowledge to be of Two Natures. For, He was indeed before the worlds, as One Who is the Splendor of the Glory of the Father, but He, as One born of His Mother for our sakes, took Corporeity from her, and was called PERFECT GOD and The SON of God, as well as PERFECT MAN and SON of Man, by which he seeks to make us all Life. But we affirm of those who stand up against (oppose) such Doctrines that they are the enemies of the Church.
Julius, the Bishop of Cos, said :—
Nobody of a sound way of thinking can stand up against The Faith established by the Holy Bishops at Nicezea, and again by the Holy Synod of Ephesus. We confess, therefore, TWO NATURES in ONE PERSON, and, because of that, we confess the ONE SON and ONE JESUS CHRIST our LORD. | And) whoever adopts the insanity of Satan and brings his own ideas to be like His, having opinions contrariant to what we have received from the Holy Fathers, let him be anathe- matized.
Audoxius, Bishop of Bosphorus, said :—
When our Father Cyril, worthy of Blessedness, sus- tained the Holy Synod of Niczea, he made known clearly to us the origin of our Lord and Redeemer that He was GOD, Who, The Son of the FATHER, before the Worlds, was born as man at the end of the ages in order to tear in pieces the engagements (hand writing) which existed against us (men), and took Perfect Manhood for our Redemption.
The Notary, who was the Reader at Ephesus, said :—
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 429,
By what has been read we are certain that another Faith, other than that which the Fathers formulated, is that of those who have thus spoken.
Olympius, the Bishop of Evasa, said :—
If dissolvers of The Faith appear by the Documents which they present, let them (the Dissolvers) be anatha- matized.
Then Seleucus, the Bishop of Amasia, said in his Deposition :—
We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, in The Word from God, in the Light of Light, in the Two Natures after the INCARNATION and the Assumption of Flesh which was received of the Holy Mary. And we proclaim him who thinks differently from this to be estranged from the Church (as excommunicate).
And when these things were read, the Holy Synod at Ephesus said :—
““No body proclaims our Lord to be Two after The IN- ““CARNATION—nobody Divides that which is Indivisible “__Nestorius did this. Thus Nestorius thought—but not “the Bishop of Amasia—not the Bishop of Amasia of << Sinope.”
Dioscorus, the Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Wait a little to hear other Blasphemies—you indeed charge only Nestorius. Lo! there are now many Nestorians.
And in another place the Notary of Flavian made Deposition against Eutyches, saying :—
Of the Two (Natures) before the Union he said not Two, but worhips One Nature of GOD Who took body.
And, in another place, he said concerning Him :—
493 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
I confess that He is Perfect GOD and Perfect MAN Who was born, but He had not Flesh Con-substantial with us.
Again, he made another Deposition concerning Him, saying :—
He said—spare me speaking of Two Natures in our LORD or investigating into the Nature of my GOD.
And, when the same Eutyches was asked by Flavian to affirm that His Flesh was Consubstantial with us, he spoke thus :—
Because I confess the body of God, I do not confess that the body of God is the body of man. But it isa human body, and I affirm that our Lord took body of the Virgin. But if it is befitting and proper to speak of the Virgin as Consubstantial with us, ¢izs also, my Lord, I confess. Nevertheless, of the Only Begotten Son of GOD, I confess that He is LORD and KING with the FATHER, with Whom He is also seated and glori- fied. For, Iam not speaking of the same Nature when I deny that He is The SON of God.
Florantius said to him :—
Do you affirm of our Lord that He is Consubstantial with us and of Two Natures after INCARNATION by the Virgin, or not?
Eutyches said :—
I confess that our LORD was of Two Natures before the Union, but after the Union I confess Him to be of One Nature.
Dioscorus and the Holy Synod at Ephesus with Him, said :—
‘““We all assent to this,—yes, all of us.”
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 494
Again, there was read the conversation of Basil, Bishop of Seleucia, with Eutyches at Flavian’s Synod.
And if you do not speak of Two Natures after the Union, you speak of mixture and of a con-fusing.
And when this sentence was read at Ephesus, immedi- ately Basil stood up and denied that sentence to be his, saying, that “‘this sentence which they affirm I said, I did not say in those words, and I am certain that I did not speak them.”
Juvenal, of Jerusalem, said :—
This sentence, therefore, was altered.
Basil said :—
I do not remember and I do not know if I did say so.
Again, from the Documents of Flavian, Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleum, after the reading of Cyril’s Letter, said :—
Does Eutyches assent to what has now been read of the Blessed Cyril and Confess that there is a Union of the Two Natures in ONE Person and ONE Substance, or not:
Florantius said :—
Do you hear, Archimandrite! what your accuser says?
Eutyches said :—
Yes, I affirm our Lord to be of Two Natures.
Eusebius, of Doryleeum, said :—
Do you confess Two Natures, my Lord Archimandrite, after the Incarnation? and do you affirm of Christ in the Flesh that He is Consubstantial with us?
And when this was read the Holy Synod at Ephesus said :—
425 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
“Take and burn Eusebius—this man ought to be burnt “alive—this man ought to be divided into two, as he “ divided.”
Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—
Is it pleasing to you to affirm, after the Incarnation, Two Natures?
The Holy Synod said :—
““ Anathema be to him who affirms so.”
Dioscorus of Alexandria, said :—
I want both your voices and your hands. Let him who cannot shout put up his hand.
The Holy Synod said :—
““ Whoever affirms Two Natures let him be Anathema- “tied.”
Whilst these and other things were shouted, after a little, Basil, the Bishop of Seleucia, said :—
I assent to The Faith of the Holy Fathers at Nicza, and of those at Ephesus who confirmed It. And them who think at all oppositely, whether to those at Nicea or at Ephesus, I abhor; and I anathematize those who separate the Two Natures after the Union or the Sub- stance or the Person of The ONE JESUS CHRIST our LORD, whilst I blame and arraign my own statement which I made concerning the Two Natures in the Docu- mentary Transactions at the Royal City of Constanti- nople; and I worship One Nature of the Divinity of The Only Begotten (Son) Who became Incarnate and assumed corporeity (took body).
Seleucus, Bishop, said :—
I assent and consent to what was formulated at Nicea, and confirmed at Ephesus, and I blame the expression
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 426
which I made in the splendid (City of) Constantinople, in which (expression) I (affirm) it is right to confess our Lord to be of Two Natures after the Union, and I anathematize those who divide our Lord Jesus Christ into Two Natures or Two Persons or Two Substances after the Union, and I look upon them as alien from Ecclesiastical Com- munion; and so also said others.
Moreover, he (the Notary) read that, after the charges against Eutyches, preferred by the Notary of Eusebius, and after the sentence of Basil against him, the Synod in conjunction with Flavian and Basil stood and excom- municated him. And then Flavian made some observa- tions thus.
(10) THE DEPOSITION OF EUTYCHES.
The Bishop Flavian said—when Eutyches was by those things convicted, who formerly had been Presbyter and Archimandrite—that, in consequence of what had already been done, and from his own present Deposi- tion (shewing that) he was infected with the false doctrines of Valentinus and Apollinarius and (yet) un- alteringly entertained their Blasphemies, who also revered not our ad.nonition and teaching and refused to assent to Orthodox Doctrine, we, whilst weeping and lamenting for his entire ruin, determine, by our Lord Jesus Christ Whom he has Blasphemed, that he be alien from the whole Order of the Priesthood and from Communion with us and from the government of a Monastery, whilst all those who, after this, converse with him and meet him (in company), are quite aware that they subject themselves to the pain of Excommuni-
427 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
cation, in consequence of not having ceased to hold intercourse with him. Then (follow) the Subscriptions.
When these transactions before Flavian had been read before the Holy Synod at Ephesus, Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, said :—
Now that what has been read is known to all, let everyone of the Bishops here present say in what he knows the Archimandrite to be true to The Faith, and (say) what he determines respecting him.
Juvenal, of Jerusalem, said :—
Inasmuch as he (Eutyches) has frequently made the declaration that he is Orthodox, I withdraw what I said about him. And J, also, decree and vote that he be restored to his Monastery and to his Grade.
The Holy Synod said :—
“That is a correct judgment.”
Domunus, the Bishop of Antioch, said :—
Because of what was once forwarded to me by the Holy Synod that assembled at the Royal City, relative to the Archimandrite Eutyches, I subscribed to his De- position. But by the Libel which he has now presented he confesses to assent to The Faith of the CCCXVIII Holy Fathers and of the CL at Ephesus, and so I agree with your Piety that the Dignity of the Presbyterate ought to be restored to him as well as the Government of the Brethren under his authority.
Stephen, the Bishop of Hieropolis, said :—
What appears good and right to the Holy Fathers to be done respecting the God-fearing Presbyter and Archimandrite Eutyches, I likewise give my assent to,
IN IHR DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 428
because from what has been read I agree that he is Orthodox; and, therefore, I adjudge him worthy of exercising the office of the Priesthood and of the Government of the Monastery.
John, the Bishop of (Massana,) Messena, said :—
As one who has transgressed in nothing with reference to what was formulated as a matter of The Faith by the Holy Fathers at Niceea as well as by the Holy Fathers at Ephesus, he ought to be in the enjoyment of the Dignity of the Priesthood, and, according to his former custom, likewise, he ought to be reinstated in the govern- ment of the Venerable Monastery of Brothers.
And Basil of Seleucia and all the Holy Bishops up to the Archimandrite Barsumas delivered their addresses in the same way.
Dioscorus, the Bishop, said :—
Agreeing with the opinions of all this Holy and (Ecumenical Synod, which have been expressed relative to the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches, I also unite my mind with yours (viz.) that he be replaced in the Order of Presbyter and be allowed to govern his Monastery as heretofore.
Now when all had delivered their addresses and absolved Eutyches and when the whole Synod had justly contemned Flavian and Eusebius, such (condemnation) did not take place in consequence of any acts committed by them, but because they did not repent and confess the offences they committed and ask pardon, as the rest did with whom they had condemned Eutyches. [or that reason their Deposition ran thus :—
pe
429 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS. 11. THE DEPOSITION OF FLAVIAN AND EUSEBIUS.
When the whole Synod had condemned Flavian, the Archbishop Dioscorus said :—
Because that great and Holy Synod which, by the will of God, assembled of old at Niczea formulated for us that Orthodox and Inerrant Faith which the Holy Synod, assembled a little while since here, confirmed, I determine that this only shall be adhered to and pro- claimed in Churches, decreeing likewise this (viz.), that nobody shall formulate a Faith other than this, or bring forward or introduce any thing new, or at all moot any matter connected with our pure Religion. But those who, contrary to this, are resolved to think or desire or set up something of the kind, or venture at all to change what has been decreed, I shall put under certain punish- ments, so that if they be Bishops they shall be removed from the Episcopate, but if Clerics from the clerical roll, if laymen they shall be deprived of Communion.
We learn from the Documents that have just now been read that these things are proved, as this Holy Synod perceives, (viz.) that Flavian, who was Bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and Eusebius of Dory- leum unsettled and altered everything, in many respects, and became a cause of scandal and of commotion to the Holy Churches and to the Communities of the Orthodox, some of whom have subjected themselves to punish- ments which then were determined on, at the Synod, by the Holy Fathers. And therefore also we, confirming these things, adjudge them whom we have called to remembrance, (viz.) Flavian and Eusebius, alien from
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 430
all the Honor of the Priesthood and of the Episcopate But let everyone of the God-loving Bishops here present speak his own mind and openly authorise it to be put in - the Documents. But all that has been done and written to-day must be made known to the God-fearing and Christ-loving Emperors.
Flavian said :—
I repudiate you. I protest.
Hilarius, Deacon of Rome, said :-—
To that will be made a reply.
Juvenal, the Bishop of Jerusalem, said :—
Flavian and Eusebius have shown themselves alien from the Priesthood and the Dignity of the Episcopate, because they have dared to add to, or substract from, The Catholic Faith.
And after many observations (he continued) :—
And therefore I decree the very same as the Holy and Pious Archbishop Dioscorus, removing them from the Dignity of the Episcopate.
Erasistratus, the Bishop of Corinth in Hellas, said :—
Being present and knowing from what was written, that Flavian and Eusebius are not consentient with The Orthodox Faith, and do not assent to the Holy Synod of Niczea and to that which a little while since assembled at Ephesus, I am, too, consentient with the Holy Bishops assembled, and I regard them as alien from the Dignity of the Episcopate—I allude to Flavian and Eusebius.
Stephen, the Bishop of Hieropolis, said :—
I for my part, also, assent to the punishment assigned by your Piety. to Flavian and Eusebius, who formerly
431 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
were Bishops, and who lately were present here, as having transgressed the Holy Canons of Nicea. And, considering that they thus have been and are aliens from the Episcopate, I assent to what has been decreed by you.
And in‘a similar manner to this, Basil also, and all the other Bishops and Archimandrites decreed.
WHEN ALL THIS HAD BEEN DONE, THE WHOLE SYNOD UNITED IN ADDRESSING THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS thus :—
(12) Ifany person should designate your Illustrious and Christ-loving Kingdom a source of (the true) Religion, and of a good Confession, and of Faith, he would not be surpassing the bounds of the truth. But it is possible for him to remain under the mark in using words which are not adequate for enlarging upon the greatness of the Godly love which attaches to you, O Glorious and Vic- torious Emperors! For, every day there flows from you, O Venerable (Sires)! a (refreshing) drink of the true knowledge of God upon those who are under your authority, and in continuous descent it comes, as a spiritual and life-giving power, copious upon all the earth, so that the powerful authority of the Kingdom will perpetu- ally abide, not so much by (the force of) arms as by prevailing through service toward God. By ¢haf you will prevail over your enemies, and prevail abidingly, since the King of Kings, on account of your watchfulness over The Catholic Faith, raises up invisible hosts against them (enemies), whilst that preserves the Sceptre of your Kingdom from destruction and renders it terrible to
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 432
those who set themselves up in opposition to you.
On you lies the responsibility (care) not only of guard- ing the human race from the army of the barbarians but of its continuing completely unmolested and pre- served from novelties of language used by those who, with adverse notions, spread mischief (impiety), like some deadly poison upon an arrow, and shoot destructively against the souls of the simple a shot which, it is true, causes no wound to the body, but lasting death to the soul. Further, it is now known that both formerly this Faithful and Christ-loving desire moved and at present moves your Venerableness to be zealous for the Lordandhas very rightly been diligent (exercised) in serving, in accord- ance with the expression of the Prophet, spiritual weapons and a shield, and in standing up in defence of your Ortho- dox and Spotless Faith which people have been caught— and they are not far off—bent on unsettling. They have too, unmasked themselves by their works (deeds), (shewing) that they discuss other things than the disciples of Christ discuss, and preach to them error strange to themselves. For this reason you commanded us by Royal and Illus- trious letters to assemble at the City of Ephesus and to repair to John the Theologian, with whose (help) the Fathers had already (before this) cut off, with the Sword of the Spirit, the tongue of Nestorius who had armed himself against the Glory of Christ, whilst in this noble contest they had the Blessed Cyril as their Leader, who was our Father and Bishop.
As soon as the Letters of your Serenity, like a loud- voiced and devout Trumpet summoned us to fight for The Faith, we hastened hither, everyone from a different
433 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
side, this from afar, that from near, another out of the midst, and all from all quarters to the City of John and Timothy, where all of us assembled and reached (re- paired to) the Temple of the Holy Church, named Maria (Mary) and—so that the place itself will become a monu- ment and a witness of our True and Divine Belief—we thereupon directed our thoughts to the investigation of the matter.
Now there passed (before us) and stood in our midst the Venerable Archimandrite Eutyches, who presented to us his complaint (plea) in which—invoking CHRIST as a witness of his thoughts and speech—he said at the end that he had learnt from his youth the Holy Confession of Faith of the Fathers of Niczea and that he had kept that (Faith) intact up to the present time and had never varied at all from the principles which they had decided on.
Subsequently, in a similar way, he had adhered to the principles decided on a former occasion at the City of Ephesus by the Holy Synod assembled there, and to the Laws then promulged to protect The Orthodox Faith.
After the Presbyter had communicated this, and as they were present who had adjudged him in the Royal City, we caused, as a matter of obligation, an investiga- tion to be made into the matter; for, haf the Revered Words of your Christ-loving Authority commanded us to do.
When the (documentary) Acts were then presented, we ordered them to be read aloud, without leaving out any- thing whatever therein laid down, so that, by that means, the Truth should be elicited and traced out.
We forbear to relate that some of our official Brethren
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. A434
who were at Constantinople charged some of the (determinations) depositions that were put in the Acts as their own personal ones, with being falsely returned, (distinctly) affirming of them—‘ they are frauds ’””—and that others, on their part, blamed what was affirmed of them (the latter) as not well-done.
We leave off speaking, abbreviating the prolixity of the subject with the view of not being tiresome.
As we found, however, that the Archimandrite Eutyches confessed as well by his own voice after coming, on the third citation, before the Holy Synod, as by means of the Libel which he now presents to us, that he held fast to the confession of The Orthodox Faith and that he has not undertaken to introduce any novelty whatever or anything alien from what was defined by the Holy Fathers who assembled at Nicaea and Ephesus—for that reason have we, on the one hand, expressed to him our approbation, in the matter of his faith which is Orthodox and which does not deviate (from the true one) on any side, and accordingly have decided that he shall exercise the Office of the Priesthood, as he has done hitherto; and on the other hand, we have shed tears not so much over him who was unjustly condemned, as over those who condemned him, that is, the astute accuser and the wonderful (!) judge. Not in this only have they acted with unwisdom—for, how often is a sinner to be found who can easily be healed—but they presumed to throw a false Doctrine in the ways of God and to cause innocent people to overstep the bounds of True Religion and—as if from the first—for the second time to introduce again into our midst the Impure and Blasphemous Doctrines
435 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
of Nestorius which (doctrines) the enactment of your faithful Laws have ejected from our midst as well as the Synod which, on a former occasion, assembled at Ephesus—it was not without the entrance and enlighten- ment of the Holy Spirit—when you decreed the following among other matters (viz..—No one shall have the authority to formulate a Faith other than that proposed at Nicza, still less to seek one out, or to renew one, or to alter unalterable things. But they who do so, if Bishops, shall be removed from their Bishoprics, if Clerics, from the (number of the) Clerus, if Laymen, from Com- munion in the Holy Mysteries. For, It (the Synod) was aware and was convinced—seeing that It was, of a truth, speaking by the Spirit and was filled with men (richly) endowed with the Word of faultless Doctrine—that to wrangle with useless words would chiefly contribute to confuse the hearers, as also the wise Paul says, continuing thus—“ But abstain from vain and strange words, for they will still (more) increase in Impiety, and their speech will spread around like a canker.” To these belong Flavian and Eusebius, who, after having erred from the Truth, were ejected from the Dignity of the Priesthood, and deprived of all the Honour of the Episcopate, inasmuch as they were pronounced guilty by us all unanimously, and with one voice and tongue have been condemned by the assembly, because they went. beyond what was formerly established in Ephesus, and because they stood forth as inventors and teachers of idle subtleties. Further, inasmuch as they brought a violent storm on the Churches, and have thrown disquiet and alarm into the minds of the Faithful, and as they do not well nor
IN L'HE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. | 436
skilfully understand how to pasture their flock ; it should consequently be said to them:—Go hence in yourown light, and in the flame which you have made to blaze on high. Now, may these eat the fruit of their own ways, and be satisfied with their own devices, as it is * written; but, with respect to our Catholic and Holy Faith, we have decided only to hold fast that which the Fathers resolved upon, who were earlier assembled in Nica, and lately in Ephesus, seeing that we have learnt, out of the Divine Scripture,t—this: ‘Displace not the ancient. boundaries “‘which thy fathers have placed’’; for, it is not allowed us to add anything to them nor to take anything away from them.
Now, we beg your Invincible Power that you would have compassion on the bodies of us, who are become old, and, through being weary with the journey upon our long way, are sick and cast down, especially in con- sequence of the bad atmosphere in Ephesus; and that you will command, that we depart from this place some- what quickly, particularly on account of the long delay, so that every one may get back to his own Church and Town, and may offer up prayers for the pure and Christ-loving Dignity of the Sovereign.
AND THIS ALL SUBSCRIBED. {
* Proverbs, chapter i, v. 31. + See Proverbs chapter xxii, v. 28.
ft It should be remembered that these are the words of Timothy filurus, stating that all the Fathers of the Council subscribed to the Document (12), and it was, at the end of its first Session, that they gave their signatures to it. Now Historians relate (Mansi, Héfélé, &c.,) that at the council of Chalcedon mention was made of Bishops at the Ephesine Synod being forced to subscribe to a blank paper. The Greek Acts of the latter, of which A is a translation, make no allusion to any letter written upon it. But Timothy, in his great work directed against the former Council, gives the whole letter, of which the above is a translation into English.
“1e:
437 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
E.
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE
BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 14,602. FoLs 95. AND 96.
CANON THE 70TH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES:
If a Bishop be accused of any Crime, by persons who are believers and worthy of credit, he must be cited by Bishops; and, if he appear and confess it, let him be admonished, and some punishment inflicted upon him. But if, when cited, he should not obey, let him be cited a second time. But if, in this case, he should not pay attention, let him be cited a third time by sending two Bishops again to him. If, however, he should even then show contempt, and refuse to appear, let the Synod of Bishops pronounce against him what seems befitting to them, in order that he may not seem to be advantaged by flying (from the trials).
[Here] ends Chapter the Second. CHAPTER THE THIRD.
Ibas and Theodoret were excommunicated by Dio- scorus and his Synod, although they were not cited (to appear at it). So, also, was Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, although Libels (bills of indictment) against him were presented by persons of credit, as is evident from their Synodicals.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 438
REPLY TO, AND SOLUTION OF, THIS (DIFFICULTY).
“Who will make my head a fount of waters and my eyes a source of weeping, that I may lament with bitter- ness?” For, behold! again is Jesus “numbered with the wicked” by those of his own people. Behold! again is the Blessed Paul (of Antioch) likened to the arrogant Egyptian and Imposter. Look, (Regard) Lord! and be not silent. Awaken, Lord !—why sleepest thou? Arise and be not far removed from us, and turn not thy face away from us.” Have mercy upon Thy little flock, seeing that now, O Lord! we are despised by all the Gentiles and brought low in all the Earth, by reason of our trans- gressions and sins, lest we should mercilessly injure and devour one another, and exterminate each other, and beco:ne a terror (derision) to the Gentiles. Why, then, do we love schism and speak up for division? Why do we fuse together what is infusible?
Let us see if the affair of our Blessed Patriarch, what- ever it may be, has some likeness to the causes of Ibas and Theodoret and Domnus.
And, first, let us examine the circumstances of Ibas. Now, who does not know the cause of Ibas, although he may be as insignificant as I am, after having perused the ecclesiastical annals? In those annals it is seen that the people of Edessa, being tired of his Blasphemies against Christ (God) and of his crimes without end, presented a Petition to the Memorable Theodosius the Emperor, complaining of and deploring his excessive Profanity. The God-fearing Emperor, compassionating them, com- manded Photius, Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius, of
439 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
Berytus, and Uranius, of Himeria, to investigate the charges made against Ibas, so that, whatever they are, anyone who wished to know might easily learn from those Acts that were drawn up at Berytus.*
When, however, delay arose about the judgment pro- nounced upon him (from a reason which we are prepared to give information about from the voice of the judges) and when his accusers became pressingly urgent upon the Emperor, he commanded the Second Synod of Ephesus to investigate the circumstances of the case as well as the judgment they (the Bishops) had given against him at the City of Berytus.
When, then, the Bishops Photius and Eustathius were asked by the Synod what judgment they pronounced upon Ibas, they replied in the following words :—
* As regards Ibas, indeed, great action was first taken against him in writing, touching The Faith, and seeing that many witnesses would be necessary and long journey to bring them, we determined that the Clerics of the City Edessa should affirm on oath before (upon) the Evan- gelists, whatever they were cognizant of in reference to the accusation advanced against him (Ibas) touching the matter of The Faith. For, much was committed to Doc- uments at the same (city of) Edessa, which were brought also to the cognizance of the Faithful and Gracious Em- peror. Because, then, the Victory-Clad Emperor assented to them, and received the affidavit of all the persons who gave testimony in the Praxis, as your Holiness has just now heard, we make request that these Documents be read before you.*
* See pages 10—138, 41—483.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 440
—And after other things.—
“‘ But this we apprise your Highness of (viz.), that, after the hearing of these men (at the Tribunal), we were not inclined to hold communication with Ibas referred to.” * I, myself, am of opinion that from this Deposition alone of these Commissioners, as well as from their refusal to hold communion with him, it is tolerably patent and manifest that they pronounced a definite (adequate) judg- ment in consequence of his false Faith.
+ But how many are the accusations heaped upon him, and written in the Documentary Acts drawn up at Edessa—for, these judges decreed that the testimonies received against him there should have a full value—it is possible to see by those Docu- ments drawn up at Edessa. For, from all the Civil Dignities and classes of men in that City, and from its neighbourhood, and even from Women, formal accusa- tions were advanced against him (Ibas) before Chereeas, the (Hegemon) Governor of that City, charging Ibas before him who put down the charges in minutes, with all the evil Doctrine of Nestorius and with committing Sacrilege in holy things, and (especially) with the silver Vessels of the Altar, some of which he even melted down for the purpose of making utensils for his own table, while others he sold, and pilfered the purchase money, along with a good deal of property belonging to the Poor and the Captives. They charged him, also, with exercising the art of Incantation, naming certain persons who were his companions in such things; and they called him by
* See p. 43. + See p. 44—73.
44] THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
the nickname of jockey, because he used to take pleasure in certain foul practices of inebriety and such like.
For the certification of all these counts (of indictment) they drew up Documents which were brought to the cognizance of the Serene-minded Emperor Theodosius, who received and examined them, and approved of them, and despatched them to the Holy “Second Synod of Ephesus,’ which, on their being read to It, together with the Impious letter Ibas wrote to Mares the Persian, the Bishops Photius and Eustathius being present, as well as those accusers of his, then and there, after the scrutiny, prononounced upon him a judgment in accord- ance with Law.*
This we have narrated with brevity about the affair of Ibas: and (we have seen) howmuch carewas used in allthe . investigation which was instituted concerning him every- where and how, after all that investigation, and after the assent of the Emperor himself, the Holy Synod + did not hesitate (contemn) to investigate it again, as it was right to do, notwithstanding the personal detestation in which Ibas was held.
Now, were these new investigations necessary after all that careful examination?
And now, (let me ask) has something of the same kind been done relative to the holy Patriarch of Antioch, Mar Paul?
I pray and adjure every hearer of me to judge and to
* See pp. 134-145,
+ Or, “even the Holy Synod did not neglect the necessary examination although an (absolutely) necessary examination was not required in the person of Ibas.” The original seems patient of this rendering.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 442
decide for himself, as before Christ-God, the Searcher of all.
And as to Theodoret, how can anybody with any simplicity relate his history? Who is ignorant of that history? Who is ignorant of his efforts on behalf of Nestorius? With what power he contended in written and unwritten ways for Theodore and Diodore, Heretics? Who is ignorant of his writings and his ardent attacks Mpeneost Cyril, the Doctor of the Church: >For the moment I forbear to speak of all the other things he has done. I should like to recite, in its entirety, his letter to John of Antioch, after the death of the Blessed Cyril, in which he despises, derides, and ridicules the death of the Saint, and his God-pleasing Faith; and in that way I could show to what a pitch it was possible for Satan to excite this man (Theodoret). But not to prolong that history I will only cite a part, and that, the beginning of that Letter which is truly the bitter product of his impure heart, and of his diabolical tongue.
445 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
F
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 14,602. FoL. 97.
FROM A LETTER WHICH HE (THEODORET) WROTE, AFTER RETURNING FROM EPHESUS, TO THE MONKS OF THE EAST.
* Now, the cause of this are those who want to deprave the Apostolic Faith, and desire to introduce, what is changeable, into the Evangelical Doctrine; and they accepted the Impious Chapters of Cyril, which they also despatched to the Royal City, confirming them, as they thought, by their subscriptions. These evidently germi- nate from the bitter root of Apollinarius, and are par- ticipaters of the Blasphemy of Arius and of Eunomius. If, however, anybody will, with minute accuracy investi- gate them, they will be found to be not free from the Impiety of Valentinus, and of Manes, and of Marcion, and such like who were the offspring of the Egyptian,t truly an evil offspring of a more evil sire.
* See p. 220, 1. 4—18 + See p. 221, 1. 9, and p. 222, 1. 23.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 446 G
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 17,154. Fouts. 31 & 32.
Because, as I heard, people declared of the letters I (Dioscorus) wrote once to you, that they are not very agreeable to the words of the Holy Cyril, from a want of learning or from bold treatment, they set themselves up to make it known that they were adverse to those holy contests against the Synod which took place at Chalcedon.
For, Dioscorus, a witness for Christ, who alone did not himself bend the knee to Baal in the assembly of Schism, thus wrote to Domnus, who at that time sat on the Throne (Episcopal) at Antioch, concerning those who dared to compose evil (calumnious) statements against some writings of the wise Cyril.
DIOSCORUS.
““*Moreover, they composed treatises exceedingly repre- hensible and not in accordance with, but in contradiction to the Holy Scriptures and to those of our Blessed and universally praised Brother, the Bishop Cyril. For, this proves assuredly that they are reprehensible and not in accordance with the Holy Words (of God). For, our wise and distinguished Father became an Uni- versal Teacher. Now he wrote, if any other man did, in a manner Catholic and unblameable, and, being not
* See page 333. H*
447 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
only a skiful elaborator of words—for, he was glorious in this last (mentioned thing), as he shone in this from his early youth—but, being richly endowed with gifts from above, he gave an exact Exposition, as It admitted of it, of the Mystery of the INCARNATION of the Only- Begotten Son of God. And nothing proceeded from him, in which he did not excel to alladmiration. For, indeed, whether a Treatise be mentioned, or a Letter, or an Exposition, or an extempore Commentary, or a Homily for the Community, or a Chapter, or Anathematisms— all was exact and accurate, and neat and appropriately wrought, and in consonance with the Divine Words, so that it would be not inappropriate to say of his writings —‘Who is wise? and yet he may not know them; and who is intelligent? and does not understand them—that the ways of the Lord are right, and that the Righteous walk therein, but transgressors shall fall thereby.’ ” * How, then, can modesty condemn them ?
(Here) ends the Second Letter of the Patriarch Severus to Sergius the Grammarian.
* See page 333.
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 448 H
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERHD 12,155. rFous. 112 & 113.
The CHAPTERS, on account of which Theodoret was ex-communicated by “the Second Synod of Ephesus ;” without having required of him a retractation of which, the Synod of Chalcedon received him.
From the Synodicon of “the Second Synod of Eph- esus,’ respecting the Deposition of Theodoret.
Pelagius, the Presbyter of Antioch, said :—
I possess a Volume, also written by Theodoret against the first Holy GEcumenical Synod which assembled here, and against what was written from time to time by the Blessed Cyril; and, with it, a treatise drawn up
afresh against him* after his communion with the Blessed Cyril.
THEODORET.
From a Volume which was read before the Synod.
A little after the beginning,—speaking against Cyril and against the Synod which received his Chapters, and ex-communicated Nestorius,—they aimed (he sayst) at depraving the Apostolic Faith, and were antagonistic to the Doctrine of the Evangelical teach- ing, to which they dared to add the impious Chapters of Cyril, which they received along with the Anathema-
* See page 218, line 7. + See page 220, line 4, to page 221, line 7.
449 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
tisms and despatched to the Royal City and confirmed, as they thought, by their (own) subscriptions, which manifestly sprung from the bitter root of Apollinarius. Further, they are participative of the Blasphemies of Arius and Eunomius. But, if any one wishes minutely (accurately) to inspect them, they will be found to be not free from the Impiety of Valentinus and Manes and Marcion. For, in the first Chapter, he (Cyril) proceeds to dilate upon what took place on our behalf, teaching that God did not (really) take human Nature, but was changed into flesh, teaching that the INCARNATION of Our Redeemer took place in appearance and in phantasy, and not in reality. This, however, is the offspring of the Impiety of Marcion, and of Manes, and of Valentinus.
But, in the second and third Chapters, as if he had forgotten what he had put at the beginning, he introduces an Hypostatic (Personal) Union and a concursus constituting a Physical Union, teaching (thereby) a Commixture and Con-fusion.
And, again, after a little :—
*We confess Our Lord Jesus Christ to be Perfect GOD and Perfect MAN, of a reasonable soul and body, Who, as to His Divinity, was born of the Father before the worlds, but, in the last times, for us and for our salvation the Same was born, as to His Humanity, of the Virgin Mary—consubstantial (co-essential) with the Father as to The Divinity, and consubstantial with us as to The Humanity.
*See page 223, line 13.
IN HE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 450
The Union consists of The Two Natures. On this account we confess One Christ, One Son, One Lord: for, we do not dissolve the Union.
—And after other things :—
““He was crucified through weakness, but He liveth by the power of God.”* By the term “weakness” we should learn that not He Who is Almighty, Inexhaust- able, Unchangeable, Immutable, was crucified by nails, but That Nature, Which became by the Power of God among the Living, according to the teaching of His Apostle, died and was buried — two circumstances appertaining to the likeness of a Servant.
After the reading of Theodoret’s Volume,
John, Presbyter and Prime Notary, said :—
The Book, presented by Pelagius, bears upon it the following Title:—Lzshop Theodoret: an Apology for Diodorus, Warrtor of (The True) Religion.
The Holy Synod said :—
That alone suffices for his Depositon.
SOME OF THE BLASPHEMIES FROM THE BOOK PRESENTED.
+ “And what shall I say aboutthe Athenians, (such) par- “ticular worshippers of the unknown God. The Divine “Peter himself, when discoursing to the Jews, did not “designate our Lord Christ (as) God, but he even ex- ‘tended his address about Him, as Man.”
And, again, when arraigning Cyril’s Treatises against Diodorus, he said :—
* gee page 223, line 9, + See page 241, line 15.
451 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
* «For, the whole Deed (writing) of Arraignment ‘is full of such (expressions) as these—He (Christ) did “not take (upon Himself) Man: He did not actually “become Man: He was not a Son of Man, but acted in “the manner of men: He, the Only Begotten, suffered : “ He tasted of Death.”
And, again, against Cyril he amplifies in this Treatise.
+“ And show, then, what there is against Diodorus, “but you have nothing to show.”
And, again, from the same Treatise.
+t “How do you, then, fail to perceive this, that, when “you arraign Diodorus for having affirmed that the ‘““Nature, which was assumed, was the Son of Grace, “you implicate yourself (in the charge)? because you “have blamed him for not having affirmed Him to be “the Very Son of the Father, Who is of the Seed of “David; for, how is that Nature, which was derived “from David, the Very Son of the God of All? for, He, “Who was begotten of the Father before the worlds, — “owns this Name.”
And, again, from the same Treatise, when he is speaking about Cyril :—
§ “ But again forgetting these words, and, having also “‘abandoned the other Teaching, he turned to the evil “peculiarly his, and covertly advanced the Blasphemy of “ Apollinarius, and exclaimed that we speak of One (Only) “Son, just as the Fathers did, and of One (Only) Nature “of THE WORD INCARNATE. Look at the bitter- * See page 242, line 2. See page 242, line 9 ft See page 248, line 2.
§ See page 248, line 19,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 452
“nessofOrthodox Teaching. For, having postulated what “is evidently confessed by the Just—One SON—he intro- “duces after it “ONE NATURE,” a thing which grew “outofthe Blasphemiesof Apollinarius. Buthe addedthis “__INCARNATE—being apprehensive of a disclosure “of his Blasphemies. He must tell us, however, what “ Fathers brought up this expression. For, the very con- “‘tradictory tothis we can discover among the Holy Fathers, “since, in their Sermons, they have perfected The Two “Natures. Dost thouname Apollinarius, and Eunomius, “and Asterius, and Atius? For, it was they who gave “birth to this Blasphemy.”
Hence this is an ascertained fact—that, what was re- covered by Cyril, Theodoret put into this writing (Treatise) which has received condemnation by Dioscorus and by his Synod from the testimony brought to it by Cyril, who says—We affirm One Son, &c. For, Cyril put this in the first letter to the Synod in which Cyril firmly avows that he wrote it after he had received the Easterns (into Communion).
Again—what specially belongs to Theodoret—from an Exposition he delivered in the Church of Antioch, when Domnus, too, the Patriarch of Antioch, stood up and delivered an Exposition :—
* “Thomas touched Him Who rose, and worshipped “Him Who raised Him.”
And, again, when he was expounding in the Church of Antioch, he said :—
* See page 294, lines 20, and 26.
453 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
“God took Man, although it was not apparent (agree- able) to men.”
[After the above Extract from the thick and closely indited Volume (12, 155) there follows a passage from “the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon” (451 A.D.) referring to Bishop Theodoret. Then, after six more lines follows an extract from an address of the Bishop of Antioch, Maximus. After eleven more lines, a sentence from Theodoret thus : |
THEODORET. From the refutation of the first An- athematism of Cyril.
There is, assuredly, ONE PERSON, and ONE SON and CHRIST. To confess ¢hese is Catholic. But to make affirmation of Two BEINGS, and of Two NATURES is not only hateful, but it is, likewise, to add to (The Catholic Faith).
The Syrac is— , DAS5002 faoeo [oper [apd dC On. famatSS pes |75 pao fD0%;D SO pm o] PScorS ar cadL . jywdZ QarasGs Loon Pyseio [S) Yea ES Steca Se ee
One Person indeed, and One Son, and One Christ, &c.
IN FHE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 454
I:
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS_ IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 12,156.
RORVIUIGAIYA Ob TEE HOLYS SYNOD OF “EHR Cl At CONSTANTINOPLE.
I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, THE FATHER, ALMIGHTY —THE MAKER OF HEAVEN AND OF EARTH (AND) OF ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE :
AND (I BELIEVE) INONE LORD JESUS CHRIST— THE ONLY SON oF GOD, WHO WAS BEGOTTEN CF THE FATHER BEFORE ALL WORLDS—LIGHT CF (FROM) LIGHT—VveERy GOD OF (FROM) VERY GOD— WHO WAS BEGOTTEN AND WAS NOT MADE—CO-ESSEN- TIAL WITH THE FATHER—BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE—WHO, FOR THE SAKE OF US SONS OF MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION, CAME DOWN FROM HEAVEN AND BECAME INCARNATE sy THE HOLY GHOST AND BY THE VIRGIN MARY AND WAS MADE MAN ; AND WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US IN THE DAYS OF PONTIUS PILATE AND SUFFERED AND was BURIED AND ROSE AGAIN ON THE THIRD DAY, ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, AND ASCENDED iIntTO HEAVEN AND SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND oF His FATHER AND WILL COME acain IN GLORY TO JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD—WHOSE KINGDOM HATH NO END ;
455 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
AND (I BELIEVE) IN THE HOLY GHOST, THE LORD AND THE LIFE-GIVER, WHO PROCEEDETH FROM THE FATHER, WHO, WITH THE: FATHER AND THE SON, IS WORSHIPPED AND GLORIFIED, WHO SPAKE BY THE PRoPHETS; AND (] BELIEVE) IN ONE, “HOE APOSTOLIC, anp CATHOLIC, ‘CHURCH. = i care FESS ONE BAPTISM FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; AND I ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESURRECTION oF THE DEAD AND THE LIFE oF THE WORLD To COME. AMEN.*
* This Symbol was not received, ag a Creed of the Charch, until the Souncil of Chalcedon A.D. 451, which Council, even afterwards, speak of the Creed of the 318, as the one summary of Teaching.
It was not known to 8. Cyril of Alexandria in 429 or 430, chiefly through the circumstances of the times,
One Nestorius quoted the Nicene Creed with C P addition; and 8. Cyril the actual creed, and then speaks of the addition as ‘‘ an innovation of this man.” This he could not have done, had he known that the words were added in Council of CP.
This Creed was never purposely interpolated, and the Filioque prob- ably came into Latin Copy of the Nicene Creed from the Uniform Western Use. (Dr. Puszr).
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 456 IK:
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS IN
THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 12,156.
.
But, in reference to those who affirm that there was a time when He (Christ) was not, or who affirm that He is of another Being or Essence, or is Changeable, or is a Mutable Son of God, the Catholic and Apostolic Church which is One and Only, anathematizes them.
She Formulates against Arius.*
* The sum and substance of the Arian Heresy is that it holds that the Son of God is “a Creature ;” and this is more than implied in the above which was, originally, part of the Nicene Creed. It began at Antioch. Lucian broached similar ideas, but Paul of Samosata, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, were the great Fautors of it. Socrates the Historian, relates how the Heresy broke out, how Bishop Alexander in discoursing declared “in the Unity there was a Trinity,” and how Arius accused him of Sabel- lianism and asserted ‘‘ that, if the Father begat the Son, there was a time when the Son was not, He who was begotten had a beginning to His ex- istence ; whence it is manifest that there was a time when the Son was not, as a consequence that He had His Person out of non-existence. In short, he asserted that our Lord was a creature.”
The Arians grounded their arguments on such passages of Scripture as these,—“ The firstborn of every creature,” which means that He was begotten before all creatures,—‘‘ The Lord created me in the beginning of his way,” which some misinterpretated, taking "Extyoaro for €xTIoe. —‘ But of that day knoweth..... neither the Son...... >?” which shows, in assuming human nature, he assumed human ignorance, as one of the accidents of humanity—‘ Jesus increased in wisdom and stature... ,’ which He did, not as The Word, but as He was man. Then there could be no phantasm (doxyow) instead of a real manifes- tation of God. So all things, by which human nature is characterized, are related of him in Scripture, the propensity to sin excluded. (BrisHop FORBES.)
457 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS
L.
AN EXTRACT FROM ONE OF THE ADDITIONAL MSS_ IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NUMBERED 14,526.
SYNOPSIS OF MATTERS BELONGING TO THE SYNODS.
The Synod which assembled at Nicza in the days of Constantine the Great :—
The Heads were Alexander the Archbishop of Alex- andria and, in the place of the Pope of Rome, were Vantonius and Vancentius, Priests of Rome.
The Synod which assembled at Constantinople in the days of Theodosius the Great :— The Heads were Nectarius Bishop of the same Con- stantinople, and Timothy the Great, Bishop of Alexan- dria.
The Synod which assembled at Ephesus in the days of Theodosius the Less :— . The Heads were Calistinus, Bishop of Rome, and
Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and Memnon, Bishop of
Ephesus.
The Synod which assembled at Chalcedon, in the days of the Emperor Marcian :— The Heads were Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople,
IN THE DAYS OF DIOSCORUS. 458 ©
and Leo of Rome, represented by his letter and by those who filled his place.
Again: the Synod that assembled at Nicaea has reference to the Impious Arians, who predicated of the Son that the Son (proceeded) from the Nature of the Father, but against His being Begotten of the Father. They called Him “one made,” and “a creature,” but not “Consubstantial with the Father.”
Again: the Great Synod which assembled at Constan- tinople dealt with the Impieties of the Macedonians who Blasphemed against The HOLY GHOST and refused to designate Him GOD, and (to declare Him) to be of the same Essence and the same Nature as The Father and The Son, but only a certain Spirit sent forth.
Again: The Synod which assembled at Ephesus regarded Nestorius and his fellow thinkers as Impious, that is, John of Antioch in Syria, and Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas the Bishop of Edessa, with some others.
Again: the Synod at Chalcedon assembled nominally, indeed, about the tenet of the Impious Eutyches who avowed that the Divine Nature was changed into a certain thick and corporeal nature, like that of our Humanity. We, however, affirm that It assembled really—from the sense of Its Confession and from Its Symbol determined and set forth—to confirm and to strengthen the Doctrine of the Impious Nestorius ; and
459 THE SECOND SYNOD OF EPHESUS.
this is perfectly evident, because It accepted the Letter of Leo of Rome, which Letter affirmed of the following expressions that they do not relate to the same Nature, when Christ said:—“I and my Father are One,” and
“My Father is greater than I.”
FINIS.
BW765.449 .P46 The Second Synod of Ephesus, together in Sem eer
Princeton Theological inary—Speer Library
1 1012 00064 7893
: US YLORD #3523P| Printed In U GA
ree me
yi oe | ei ah i) on cae ie " ae nk Aa 9 ee oe MY a ie iy i ms vie A | 1 oer
“eet Cee tees
. é +e {ty he ep Mente pee eee eae hoe gor {: bey isi Hate aa “aPVent at at hada
oo ve
\ ity ae pee epee
ea ate i
Ritdel ‘
4d we
OH AS PM
Vee that bj its WBS phy
1B LI ‘
UHR Fa Pra CPL Mth ; ‘ Ce hae
CHP ts ate
v4 ru wn ae se Piano nin) 1S ua eed AR AO SHAS PH eds ASN, ai INT wae
MSS Sot ed Ran eho sas 2 EN
Pewee Wy wong QAM oboe rtd | mn ‘
“a ! ' he i MERON u vial! Ce AN pa a Nai Niheuc id thadtiaudr inal ieee ta 9 We Apres ath MAN vary Dem tt i py yet who { a A ge Syl beyS Oe Le
wht Wont Oo Yer ae eel ‘ 1 Ue Pm
ink? CL Oto Pe Pe ocd wets
Oa ba 4 4 wd et