Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History

ToposText · Evagrius Scholasticus · 219 sections

urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.praef.1
§ 1.praef.1 BOOK 1 Eusebius Pamphili —an especially able writer, to the extent, in particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though failing to perfect them in the faith—and Sozomen, Theodoret, and Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our compassionate God, and His ascension into heaven, and of all that has been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as well as of the other martyrs; and, further, of whatever events have occurred among us, whether more or less worthy of mention, down to a certain period of the reign of Theodosius. But since events subsequent, and scarcely inferior to these, have not hitherto been made the subject of a continuous narrative, I have resolved, though but ill-qualified for such a task, to undertake the labour which the subject demands, and to embody them in a history; surely trusting in Him who enlightened fishermen, and endued a brute tongue with articulate utterance, for ability to raise up transactions already entombed in oblivion, to reanimate them by language, and immortalise them by memory: my object being, that my readers may learn the nature of each of these events, up to our time; the period, place, and manner of its occurrence, as well as those who were its objects and authors; and that no circumstance worthy of recollection, may be lost under the veil of listless indifference, or, its neighbour, forgetfulness. I shall then begin, led onwards by the divine impulse, from the point where the above-mentioned writers closed the history.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.1.6
§ 1.1.6 Scarce had the impiety of Julian been flooded over by the blood of the martyrs, and the frenzy of Arius been bound fast in the fetters forged at Nicaea, and, moreover, Eunomius and Macedonius, by the agency of the Holy Spirit, had been swept as by a blast to the Bosphorus, and wrecked against the sacred city of Constantine; scarce had the holy church cast off her recent defilement, and was being restored to her ancient beauty, robed in a vesture inwrought with gold, and in varied array, and becoming meet for the bridegroom, when the demon enemy of good, unable to endure it, commences against us a new mode of warfare, disdaining idolatry, now laid in the dust, nor deigning to employ the servile madness of Arius. He fears to assault the faith in open war, embattled by so many holy fathers, and he had been already shorn of nearly all his power in battling against it: but he pursues his purpose with a robber's stealth, by raising certain questions and answers; his new device being to turn the course of error towards Judaism, little foreseeing the overthrow that hence would befall the miserable designer. For the faith which formerly was alone arrayed against him, this he now affects: and, no longer exulting in the thought of forcing us to abandon the whole, but of succeeding in corrupting a single term, while he wound himself with many a malignant wile, he devised the change of merely a letter, tending indeed to the same sense, but still with the intention of severing the thought and the tongue, that both might no longer with one accord offer the same confession and glorification to God. The manner and result of these transactions I will set forth, each at its proper juncture; giving at the same time a place in my narrative to other matters that may occur to me, which, though not belonging to my immediate subject, are worthy of mention, laying up the record of them wherever it shall please our compassionate God.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.2.7
§ 1.2.7 Since, then, Nestorius, that God-assaulting tongue, that second conclave of Caiaphas, that workshop of blasphemy, in whose case Christ is again made a subject of bargain and sale, by having His natures divided and torn asunder—He of whom not a single bone was broken even on the cross, according to Scripture, and whose seamless vest suffered no rending at the hands of God-slaying men — since, then, he thrust aside and rejected the term, Mother of God, which had been already wrought by the Holy Spirit through the instrumentality of many chosen fathers, and substituted a spurious one of his own coining—Mother of Christ; and further filled the Church with innumerable wars, deluging it with kindred blood, I think that I shall not be at a loss for a well-judged arrangement of my history, nor miss its end, if, with the aid of Christ, who is God over all, I preface it with the impious blasphemy of Nestorius. The war of the churches took its rise from the following circumstances. A certain presbyter named Anastasius, a man of corrupt opinions, and a warm admirer of Nestorius and his Jewish sentiments, who also accompanied him when setting out from his country to take possession of his bishoprick; at which time Nestorius, having met with Theodore at Mopsuestia, was perverted by his teaching from godly doctrine, as Theodulus writes in an epistle upon this subject—this Anastasius, in discoursing to the Christ -loving people in the church of Constantinople, dared to say, without any reserve, “Let no one style Mary the Mother of God; for Mary was human, and it is impossible for God to be born of a human being.” When the Christ -loving people were disgusted, and with reason regarded his discourse as blasphemous, Nestorius, the real teacher of the blasphemy, so far from restraining him and upholding the true doctrine, on the contrary, imparted to the teaching of Anastasius the impulse it acquired, by urging on the question with more than ordinary pugnacity. And further, by mingling with it notions of his own, and thus vomiting forth the venom of his soul, he endeavoured to inculcate opinions still more blasphemous, proceeding so far as thus to avouch, upon his own peril, “I could never be induced to call that God which admitted of being two months old or three months old.” These circumstances rest on the distinct authority of Socrates, and the former synod at Ephesus.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.3.1
§ 1.3.1 When Cyril, the renowned bishop of the church of the Alexandrians, had communicated to Nestorius his reprobation of these transactions, and he, in rejoinder, paid no regard to what was addressed to him by Cyril, and by Celestine, bishop of the elder Rome, but was irreverently pouring forth his own vomit over the whole church, there was just occasion for the convening of the first synod of Ephesus, at the injunction of the younger Theodosius, sovereign of the Eastern empire, by the issuing of imperial letters to Cyril and the presidents of the holy churches in every quarter, naming, at the same time, as the day of meeting, the sacred Pentecost, on which the life-giving Spirit descended upon us. Nestorius, on account of the short distance of Ephesus from Constantinople, arrives early; and Cyril too, with his company, came before the appointed day; but John, the president of the church of Antioch, with his associate bishops, was behind the appointed time; not intentionally, as his defence has been thought by many to have sufficiently proved, but because he could not muster his associates with sufficient despatch, who were at a distance of what would be a twelve days' journey to an expeditious traveller from the city formerly named from Antiochus, but now Theopolis (City of God), and in some cases more; and Ephesus was then just thirty days' journey from Antioch. He stoutly defended himself on the ground that the observance of what is called the New Lord's Day by his bishops in their respective sees, was an insuperable impediment to his arriving before the stated day.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.4.1
§ 1.4.1 When fifteen days had elapsed from the prescribed period, the bishops who had assembled for this business, considering that the Orientals would not join them at all, or, at least, after a considerable delay, hold a conclave, under the presidency of the divine Cyril, occupying the post of Celestine, who, as has been before mentioned, was bishop of the elder Rome. They accordingly summon Nestorius, with an exhortation that he would defend himself against the allegations. When, however, notwithstanding a promise given on the preceding day, that he would present himself if there were occasion, he did not appear, though thrice summoned, the assembly proceeded to the investigation of the matter. Memnon, the president of the Ephesian church, recounted the days which had elapsed, fifteen in number: then were read the letters addressed to Nestorius by the divine Cyril, and his rejoinders; there being also inserted the sacred epistle of the illustrious Celestine to Nestorius himself. Theodotus, bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, of Melitene, also detailed the blasphemous language to which Nestorius had unreservedly given utterance at Ephesus. With these were combined many statements in which holy fathers had purely set forth the true faith, having side by side with them various blasphemies which the frenzy of the impious Nestorius had vented. When all this had been done, the holy synod declared its judgment precisely in the following terms: “Since, in addition to the other matters, the most reverend Nestorius has refused to submit to our summons, or yet to admit the most holy and godly bishops who were sent by us, we have of necessity proceeded to the investigation of his impieties: and having convicted him of entertaining and avowing impious sentiments, on the evidence both of his letters and writings which have been read, and also of words uttered by him lately in this metropolitan city, and established by sufficient testimony, at length, compelled by the canons, and in accordance with the epistle of our most holy father and fellow-minister, Celestine, bishop of the church of Rome, we have, with many tears, proceeded to this sad sentence. The Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, has, through the agency of this holy synod, decreed, that the same Nestorius is alien from the episcopal dignity, and from every sacerdotal assembly.”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.5.1
§ 1.5.1 After the delivery of this most legitimate and just sentence, John, the bishop of Antioch, arrives with his associate priests, five days after the act of deposition; and having convened all his company, he deposes Cyril and Memnon. On account, however, of libelli put forth by Cyril and Memnon to the synod which had been assembled in company with themselves (although Socrates, in ignorance, has given a different account), John is summoned to justify the deposition which he had pronounced; and, on his not appearing after a thrice repeated summons, Cyril and Memnon are released from their sentence, and John and his associate priests are cut off from the holy communion and all sacerdotal authority. When, however, Theodosius, notwithstanding his refusal at first to sanction the deposition of Nestorius, had subsequently, on being fully informed of his blasphemy, addressed pious letters both to Cyril and John, they are reconciled to each other, and ratify the act of deposition.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.6.1
§ 1.6.1 On occasion of the arrival of Paul, bishop of Emesa, at Alexandria, and his delivery before the church of that discourse which is extant on this subject, Cyril also, after highly commending the epistle of John, wrote to him in these words: “Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad, for the middle wall of partition is broken down, exasperation is stilled, and all occasion for dissension utterly removed through the bestowal of peace upon his churches by Christ, the Saviour of us all; at the call, too, of our most religious and divinely favoured sovereigns, who, in excellent imitation of ancestral piety, preserve in their own souls a well-founded and unshaken maintenance of the true faith, and a singular care for the holy churches, that they may acquire an everlasting renown, and render their reign most glorious. On them the Lord of Hosts himself bestows blessings with a bountiful hand, and grants them victory over their adversaries. Victory He does bestow: for never can he lie who says, As I live, saith the Lord, those that glorify me, I glorify. On the arrival, then, of my most pious brother and fellow minister, my lord Paul, at Alexandria, I was filled with delight, and with great reason, at the mediation of such a man, and his voluntary engagement in labours beyond his strength, in order that he might subdue the malice of the devil, close our breaches, and, by the removal of the stumbling-blocks that lay between us, might crown both our churches and yours with unanimity and peace.” And presently he proceeds thus: “That the dissension of the church has been altogether unnecessary and without sufficient ground, I am fully convinced, now that my lord the most pious bishop Paul has brought a paper presenting an unexceptionable confession of the faith, and has assured me that it was drawn up by your holiness and the most pious bishops of your country.” And such is the writing thus drawn up, and inserted verbatim in the epistle; which, with reference to the Mother of God, speaks as follows: “When we read these your sacred words, and were conscious that our own sentiments were correspondent—for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism—we glorified God, the Preserver of all things, with a feeling of mutual joy, that both your churches and ours maintain a faith in agreement with the divinely inspired Scriptures and the tradition of our holy fathers.” Of these matters any one may be assured, who is disposed to investigate diligently the transactions of those times.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.7.12
§ 1.7.12 Historians have not detailed either the banishment of Nestorius, his subsequent fortunes, or the manner in which his life was closed, and the retribution with which he was visited for his blasphemy; matters which would have been allowed to slip into oblivion, and have been altogether swallowed up by time, so as not to be current even in hearsay, if I had not met with a book written by himself, which supplied an account of them. Nestorius, then, himself, the father of the blasphemy, who raised his structure not on the foundation already laid, but built upon the sand one which, in accordance with the Lord's parable, quickly fell to ruin, here, in addition to other matters of his choice, puts forth a defence of his own blasphemy, in reply to those who had charged him with unnecessary innovation and an unseemly demand for the convening of the synod at Ephesus. He asserts that he was driven to assume this position by absolute necessity, on account of the division of the church into two parties, one maintaining that Mary ought to be styled Mother of Man; the other, Mother of God; and he devised the title, Mother of Christ, in order, as he says, that error might not be incurred by adopting either extreme, either a term which too closely united immortal essence with humanity, or one which, while admitting one of the two natures, involved no mention of the other. He also intimates that Theodosius, from feelings of friendship, withheld his ratification of the sentence of deposition; and, afterwards, that, on occasion of the mission of several bishops of both parties from Ephesus to the emperor, and, moreover, at his own request, he was allowed to retire to his own monastery, situated without the gates of the city now called Theopolis. It is not, indeed, expressly named by Nestorius, but is said to be that which is now styled the monastery of Euprepius; which we know to be, in fact, not more than two stadia from that city. Nestorius, then, himself says, that during a residence there of four years, he received every mark of respect and distinction; and that, by a second edict of Theodosius, he is banished to the place called Oasis. But the pith of the matter he has suppressed. For in his retirement he did not cease from his peculiar blasphemy; so that John, the president of the church of Antioch, was led to report the circumstance, and Nestorius was, in consequence, condemned to perpetual banishment. He has addressed also a formal discourse to a certain Egyptian, on the subject of his banishment to Oasis, where he treats of these circumstances more fully. But the retribution with which, unable to escape the all-seeing eye, he was visited for his blasphemous imaginations, may be gathered from other writings addressed by him to the governor of the Thebaid: in which one may see how that, since he had not yet reached the full measure of his deserts, the vengeance of God visited him, in pursuance, with the most terrible of all calamities, captivity. Being, then, still deserving of greater penalties, he was liberated by the Blemmyes, into whose hands he had fallen; and, after Theodosius had decreed his return to his place of exile, wandering from place to place on the verge of the Thebaid,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.7.14
§ 1.7.14 and severely injured by a fall, he closed his life in a manner worthy of his deeds: whose fate, like that of Arius, was a judicial declaration, what are the appointed wages of blasphemy against Christ: for both committed similar blasphemy against him; the one by calling him a creature; the other, regarding him as human. When Nestorius impugns the integrity of the acts of the council of Ephesus, and refers them to subtle designs and lawless innovation on the part of Cyril, I should be most ready thus to reply:—How came it to pass, that he was banished even by Theodosius, notwithstanding his friendly feelings towards him, and was condemned by repeated sentences of extermination, and closed this life under those unhappy circumstances? If Cyril and his associate priests were not guided by heaven in their judgment, how came it to pass that, when both parties were no longer numbered with the living, in which case a heathen sage3 has observed, “A frank and kindly meed is yielded to departed worth,” the one is reprobated as a blasphemer and enemy of God, the other is lauded and proclaimed to the world as the sonorous herald and mighty champion of true doctrine? In order that I may not incur a charge of slander, let me bring Nestorius himself into court as an evidence on these points. Read me then, word for word, some passages of thy epistle, addressed to the governor of the Thebaid:—"On account of the matters which have been lately mooted at Ephesus concerning our holy religion, Oasis, further called Ibis, has been appointed as the place of my residence by an imperial decree." And presently he proceeds thus: “Inasmuch as the beforementioned place has fallen into the hands of the barbarians, and been reduced to utter desolation by fire and sword, and I, by a most unexpected act of compassion, have been liberated by them, with a menacing injunction instantly to fly from the spot, since the Mazices were upon the point of succeeding them in their occupation of it; I have, accordingly, reached the Thebaid, together with the captive survivors whom they had joined with me, by an act of pity for which I am unable to account. They, accordingly, have been allowed to disperse themselves to the places whither their individual inclinations led them, and I, proceeding to Panopolis, have shewed myself in public, for fear lest any one, making the circumstance of my seizure an occasion of criminal proceeding, should raise a charge against me, either of escaping from my place of exile, or some other imagined delinquency: for malice never wants occasion for slander. Therefore I entreat your highness to take that just view of my seizure which the laws would enjoin, and not sacrifice a prisoner of war to the malice and evil designs of men: lest there should hence arise this melancholy story with all posterity, that it is better to be made captive by barbarians, than to fly for refuge to the protection of the Roman sovereignty.” He then prefers, with solemn adjuration, the following request: “I request you to lay before the emperor the circumstance, that my arrival hither from Oasis arose from my liberation by the barbarians; so that my final disposal, according to God's good pleasure, may now be determined.” The second epistle, from the same to the same, contains as follows: “Whether you are disposed to regard this present letter as a friendly communication from me to your highness, or as an admonition from a father to a son, I beseech you bear with its detail, embracing, indeed, many matters, but as briefly as the case would allow. When Ibis had been devastated by a numerous body of Nomades,” and so forth. “Under these circumstances, by what motive or pretext on the part of your highness I know not, I was conducted by barbarous soldiers from Panopolis to Elephantine, a place on the verge of the province of the Thebaid, being dragged thither by the aforesaid military force; and when, sorely shattered, I had accomplished the greater part of the journey, I am encountered by an unwritten order from your valour to return to Panopolis.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.7.16
§ 1.7.16 Thus, miserably worn with the casualties of the road, with a body afflicted by disease and age, and a mangled hand and side, I arrived at Panopolis in extreme exhaustion, and further tormented with cruel pains: whence a second written injunction from your valour, speedily overtaking me, transported me to its adjacent territory. While I was supposing that this treatment would now cease, and was awaiting the determination of our glorious sovereigns respecting me, another merciless order was suddenly issued for a fourth deportation.” And presently he proceeds: “But I pray you to rest satisfied with what has been done, and with having inflicted so many banishments on one individual. And I call upon you kindly to leave to our glorious sovereigns the inquisition, for which reports laid before them by your highness, and by myself too, by whom it was proper that information should be given, would furnish materials. If, however, this should excite your indignation, continue to deal with me as before, according to your pleasure; since no words ca,n prevail over your will.” Thus does this man, who had not learned moderation even by his sufferings, in his writings strike and trample with fist and heel, even reviling both the supreme and provincial governments. I learn from one who wrote an account of his demise, that, when his tongue had been eaten through with worms, he departed to the greater and everlasting judgment which awaited him.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.8.1
§ 1.8.1 Next in succession to that malignant spirit Nestorius, Maximianus is invested with the bishopric of the city of the renowned Constantine, in whose time the church of God enjoyed perfect peace: and when he was departed from among men, Proclus holds the helm of the see, who had some time before been ordained bishop of Cyzicus. When he too had gone the way of all mankind, Flavian succeeds to the see.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.9.1
§ 1.9.1 In his time arose the stir about the impious Eutyches, when a partial synod was assembled at Constantinople, and a written charge was preferred by Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, who, while still practising as a rhetorician, was the first to expose the blasphemy of Nestorius. Since Eutyches, when summoned, did not appear, and afterwards, even on his appearance, was convicted on certain points; for he had said, “I allow that our Lord was produced from two natures before their union, but I confess only one nature after their union;” and he even maintained that our Lord's body was not of the same substance with ourselves—on these grounds he is sentenced to deprivation: but on his presenting a petition to Theodosius, on the plea that the acts, as set forth, had been concocted in the hands of Flavian, the synod of the neighbouring region is assembled at Constantinople, and Flavian is tried by it and some of the magistrates; and when the truth of the acts had been confirmed, the second synod at Ephesus is summoned.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.10.1
§ 1.10.1 Of this council, Dioscorus, the successor of Cyril in the see of Alexandria, was appointed president, by an intrigue, in enmity to Flavian, of Chrysaphius, who at that time swayed the imperial court. There hasten to Ephesus Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem, who was present at the former council, with a great number of associate priests, and with him also Domnus, the successor of John at Antioch: and besides them, Julius, a bishop, who was the representative of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome. Flavian also was present with his associate bishops, an edict having been addressed by Theodosius to Elpidius, in these precise terms. “Provided that those who had on the former occasion passed judgment on the most religious Archimandrite Eutyches, be present, but take no part in the proceedings, by abstaining from the functions of judges, and awaiting the resolution of all the most holy fathers; inasmuch as their own previous decision is now a subject of inquisition.” In this council, the deposition of Eutyches is revoked by Dioscorus and his associates—as is contained in the acts—and that sentence is passed upon Flavian, and Eusebius, president of the church of Dorylaeum. At the same time, Ibas, bishop of Edessa, is excommunicated; and Daniel, bishop of Carrhae, Irenaeus of Tyre, and Aquilinus of Byblus, are deposed. Some measures were also taken on account of Sophronius, bishop of Constantina: and they depose Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, and even Domnus of Antioch. What afterwards befel the last mentioned, I am not able to discover. After these proceedings the second council of Ephesus was dissolved.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.11.1
§ 1.11.1 And here let not any one of the deluded worshippers of idols presume to sneer, as if it were the business of succeeding councils to depose their predecessors, and to be ever devising some addition to the faith. For while we are endeavouring to trace the unutterable and unsearchable scheme of God's mercy to man, and to revere and exalt it to the utmost, our opinions are swayed in this or that direction: and with none of those who have been the authors of heresies among Christians, was blasphemy the first intention; nor did they fall from the truth in a desire to dishonour the Deity, but rather from an idea which each entertained, that he should improve upon his predecessors by upholding such and such doctrines. Besides, all parties agree in a confession which embraces the essential points; for a Trinity is the single object of our worship, and unity the complex one of our glorification, and the Word, who is God begotten before the worlds, and became flesh by a second birth in mercy to the creature: and if new opinions have been broached on other points, these also have arisen from the freedom granted to our will by our Saviour God, even on these subjects, in order that the holy catholic and apostolic church might be the more exercised in bringing opposing opinions into captivity to truth and piety, and arrive, at length, at one smooth and straight path. Accordingly the apostle says most distinctly: “There is need of heresies among you, that the approved ones may be manifested.” And here also, we have occasion to admire the unutterable wisdom of God, who said to the divine Paul, “My strength is made perfect in weakness.” For by the very causes by which the members of the church have been broken off, the true and pure doctrine has been more accurately established, and the catholic and apostolic church of God has attained amplification and exaltation to heaven. But those who have been nurtured in Grecian error, having no desire to extol God or his tender care of men, were continually endeavouring to shake the opinions of their predecessors, and of each other, rather devising gods upon gods, and assigning to them by express titles the tutelage of their own passions, in order that they might find an excuse for their own debaucheries by associating such deities with them. Thus, their supreme Father of Gods and men, under the form of a bird, shamelessly carried off the Phrygian boy; and as a reward of his vile service, bestowed the cup, with leave to pledge him in an amorous draught, that they might with the nectar drink in their common shame. Besides innumerable other villanies, reprobated by the meanest of mankind, and transformations into every form of brutes, himself the most brutish of all, he becomes bi-sexual, pregnant, if not in his belly yet in his thigh, that even this violation of nature might be fulfilled in his person: whence springing, the bi-sexual dithyrambic birth outraged either sex; author of drunkenness, surfeit, and mad debauch, and all their fearful consequences. To this Aegis-wearer, this Thunderer, they attach, in spite of these majestic titles, the crime of parricide, universally regarded as the extremity of guilt; inasmuch as he dethroned Saturn who unhappily had begotten him. Why need I also mention their consecration of fornication, over which they made Venus to preside, the shell-born Cyprian, who abhorred chastity as an unhallowed and monstrous thing, but delighted in fornication and all filthiness, and willed to be propitiated by them: in whose company Mars also suffers unseemly exposure, being, by the contrivance of Vulcan, made a spectacle and laughing-stock to the Gods? Justly would one ridicule their phalli and ithyphalli, and phallagogia; their Priapus, and Pan, and the Eleusinian mysteries, which in one respect deserve praise, namely, that the sun was not allowed to see them, but they were condemned to dwell with darkness. Leaving, then, the worshippers and the worshipped in their shame, let us urge our steed to the goal, and set forth, in compendious survey, the remaining transactions of the reign of Theodosius.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.12.1
§ 1.12.1 Theodosius, then, issued a most pious constitution, which is included in the first book of what is termed the Code of Justinian, and is the third under the first title; in which, moved by heaven, he condemned, by all the votes, as the saying is, him to whom he had been long attached, as Nestorius himself writes, and placed him under anathema. The precise terms are as follow: “Further we ordain, that those who favour the impious creed of Nestorius, or follow his unlawful doctrine, be ejected from the holy churches, if they be bishops or clerks; and if laics, be anathematised.” Other enactments were also promulgated by him relating to our religion, which shew his burning zeal.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.13.21
§ 1.13.21 In these times flourished and became illustrious Simeon, of holy and famous memory, who originated the contrivance of stationing himself on the top of a column, thereby occupying a spot of scarce two cubits in circumference. Domnus was then bishop of Antioch; and he, having visited Simeon, and being struck with the singularity of his position and mode of life, was desirous of more mystic intercourse. They met accordingly, and having consecrated the immaculate body, imparted to each other the life-giving communion. This man, endeavouring to realise in the flesh the existence of the heavenly hosts, lifts himself above the concerns of earth, and, overpowering the downward tendency of man's nature, is intent upon things above: placed between earth and heaven, he holds communion with God, and unites with the angels in praising him; from earth, offering his intercessions on behalf of men, and from heaven, drawing down upon them the divine favour. An account of his miracles has been written by one of those who were eye-witnesses, and an eloquent record by Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus: though they have omitted a circumstance in particular, the memory of which I found to be still retained by the inhabitants of the holy desert, and which I learnt from them as follows. When Simeon, that angel upon earth, that citizen in the flesh of the heavenly Jerusalem, had devised this strange and hitherto unknown walk, the inhabitants of the holy desert send a person to him, charged with an injunction to render a reason of this singular habitude, namely, why, abandoning the beaten path which the saints had trodden, he is pursuing another altogether unknown to mankind; and, further, that he should come down and travel the road of the elect fathers.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.13.22
§ 1.13.22 They, at the same time, gave orders, that, if he should manifest a perfect readiness to come down, liberty should be given him to follow out the course he had chosen, inasmuch as his compliance would be sufficient proof that under God's guidance he persevered in this his endurance: but that he should be dragged down by force, in case he should manifest repugnance, or be swayed by self-will, and refuse to be guided implicitly by the injunction. When the person, thus deputed, came and announced the command of the fathers, and Simeon, in pursuance of the injunction, immediately put one foot forward, then he declared him free to fulfil his own course, saying,'Be stout, and play the man: the post which thou hast chosen is from God.' This circumstance, which is omitted by those who have written about him, I have thus thought worthy of record. In so great a measure had the power of divine grace taken possession of him, that, when Theodosius had issued a mandate, that the synagogues of which they had been previously deprived by the Christians, should be restored to the Jews of Antioch, he wrote to the emperor with so much freedom and vehement rebuke, as standing in awe of none but his own immediate sovereign, that Theodosius re-called his commands, and in every respect favoured the Christians, even superseding the prefect who had suggested the measure. He further proceeded to prefer a request to this effect, to the holy and aerial martyr, that he would entreat and pray for him, and impart a share of his own peculiar benediction. Simeon prolonged his endurance of this mode of life through fifty-six years, nine of which he spent in the first monastery, where he was instructed in divine knowledge, and forty-seven in the Mandra, as it is termed; namely, ten in a certain nook; on shorter columns, seven; and thirty upon one of forty cubits. After his departure, his holy body was conveyed to Antioch, during the episcopate of Martyrius, and the reign of the emperor Leo, when Ardabyrius was in command of the forces of the East, on which occasion the troops, with a concourse of their followers and others, proceeded to the Mandra,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.13.23
§ 1.13.23 and escorted the venerable body of the blessed Simeon, lest the inhabitants of the neighbouring cities should muster and carry it off. In this manner, it was conveyed to Antioch, and attended during its progress by extraordinary prodigies. The emperor also demanded possession of the body; and the people of Antioch addressed to him a petition in deprecation of his purpose, in these terms: “Forasmuch as our city is without walls, for we have been visited in wrath by their fall, we brought hither the sacred body to be our wall and bulwark.” Moved by these considerations, the emperor yielded to their prayer, and left them in possession of the venerable body. It has been preserved nearly entire to my time: and, in company with many priests, I enjoyed the sight of his sacred head, in the episcopate of the famous Gregory, when Philippicus had requested that precious relics of saints might be sent to him for the protection of the Eastern armies. And, strange as is the circumstance, the hair of his head had not perished, but is in the same state of preservation as when he was alive and sojourning with mankind. The skin of his forehead, too, was wrinkled and indurated, but is nevertheless preserved, as well as the greater part of his teeth, except such as had been violently removed by the hands of faithful men, affording by their appearance an indication of the personal appearance and years of the man of God. Beside the head lies the iron collar, to which, as the companion of its endurance, the famous body has imparted a share of its own divinely-bestowed honours; for not even in death has Simeon been deserted by the loving iron. In this manner would I have detailed every particular, thereby benefiting both myself and my readers, had not Theodoret, as I said before, already performed the task more fully.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.14.1
§ 1.14.1 Let me, however, add a record of another circumstance which I witnessed. I was desirous of visiting the precinct of this saint, distant nearly thirty stadia from Theopolis, and situated near the very summit of the mountain. The people of the country give it the title of Mandra, a name bequeathed to the spot, as I suppose, by the holy Simeon, in respect of the discipline which he there had practised. The ascent of the mountain is as much as twenty stadia. The temple is constructed in the form of a cross, adorned with colonnades on the four sides. Beside the colonnades are arranged handsome columns of polished stone, sustaining a roof of considerable elevation; while the centre is occupied by an unroofed court of the most excellent workmanship, where stands the pillar, of forty-cubits, on which the incarnate angel upon earth spent his heavenly life. Adjoining the roof of the colonnades is a balustrade, termed by some persons windows, forming a fence towards both the before-mentioned court and the colonnades. At the balustrade, on the left of the pillar, I saw, in company with all the people who were there assembled, while the rustics were performing dances round it, a very large and brilliant star, shooting along the whole balustrade, not merely once, twice, or thrice, but repeatedly; vanishing, moreover, frequently, and again suddenly appearing: and this occurs only at the commemorations of the saint. There are also persons who affirm—and there is no reason to doubt the prodigy, considering the credibility of the vouchers, and the other circumstances which I actually witnessed—that they have seen a resemblance of the saint's face flitting about here and there, with a long beard, and wearing a tiara, as was his habit. Free ingress is allowed to men, who repeatedly compass the pillar with their beasts of burden: but the most scrupulous precaution is taken, for what reason I am unable to say, that no woman should enter the sacred building: but they obtain a view of the prodigy from the threshold without, since one of the doors is opposite to the star's rays.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.15.1
§ 1.15.1 In the same reign Isidore was also conspicuous: “wide whose renown,” according to the language of poetry; having become universally celebrated by deed and word. To such a degree did he waste his flesh by severe discipline, and feed his soul by elevating doctrine, as to pursue upon earth the life of angels, and be ever a living monument of monastic life and contemplation of God. Besides his numerous other writings, well stored with various profit, there are some addressed to the renowned Cyril; from which it appears that he flourished contemporary with the divine bishop. And now, while endeavouring to give every attraction to my work, let me also bring upon the scene Synesius of Cyrene, whose memory will add an embellishment to my narrative. This Synesius, while possessed of every other kind of learning, carried the study of philosophy, in particular, to its highest pitch; so as to gain the admiration even of those Christians whose decision upon things which fall under their observation is not guided by favouring or adverse prejudice. They, accordingly, persuade him to resolve on partaking of the saving regeneration, and to take upon himself the yoke of the priesthood, while as yet he did not admit the doctrine of the resurrection, nor was inclined to hold that tenet; anticipating, with well-aimed conjecture, that this belief would be added to his other excellencies, since divine grace is never content to leave its work unfinished. Nor were they disappointed in their expectation: for his epistles, written after his accession to the priesthood, and composed with elegance and learning, as well as his discourse addressed to Theodosius himself, and whatever is extant of his valuable writings, sufficiently show how excellent and great a man he was.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.16.1
§ 1.16.1 At the same period also took place the translation of the divine Ignatius, as is recorded, with other matters, by John the rhetorician: who, having found a tomb, as he himself desired, in the bowels of the wild beasts, in the amphitheatre of Rome, had, nevertheless, through the preservation of the more solid bones, which were conveyed to Antioch, long reposed in what is called the cemetery: the good God having moved Theodosius to dignify the bearer of the name Theophorus with increased honours, and to dedicate a temple, long ago devoted to the demons, and called by the inhabitants Tychaeum, to the victorious martyr. Thus, what was formerly the shrine of Fortune, became a sanctuary and holy precinct for Ignatius, by depositing there his sacred remains, which were conveyed on a car through the city, attended by a solemn procession. From this event arose the celebration of a public festival, accompanied with rejoicings of the whole population; which has continued to our times, and received increased magnificence at the hands of the prelate Gregory. Such results were brought about by the conspiring agency of friends and foes, while God was decreeing honour to the holy memories of the saints. For the impious Julian, that heaven-detested power, when the Daphnaean Apollo, whose prophetic voice proceeded from the Castalian fount, could give no response to the emperor's consultation, since the holy Babylas, from his neighbouring resting-place, restrained his utterance; was goaded on to be an unwilling instrument in honouring that saint by a translation; on which occasion was also erected to him, outside the city, a spacious temple, which has remained entire to the present day: the object of the removal being that the demons might no longer be overawed in the pursuit of their own practices, the performance of which, as is said, they had previously promised to Julian. Thus were events disposed by the providence of God, in his design that both the power of those who were dignified by martyrdom should be clearly manifested, and the sacred relics of the holy martyr should be transferred to sacred ground, and be honoured with a noble precinct.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.17.1
§ 1.17.1 During those times arose the celebrated war of Attila, king of the Scythians: the history of which has been written with great care and distinguished ability by Priscus the rhetorician, who details, in a very elegant narrative, his attacks on the eastern and western parts of the empire, how many and important cities he reduced, and the series of his achievements until he was removed from the world. It was also in the reign of Theodosius that an extraordinary earthquake occurred, which threw all former ones into the shade, and extended, so to speak, over the whole world. Such was its violence, that many of the towers in different parts of the imperial city were overthrown, and the long wall, as it is termed, of the Chersonese, was laid in ruins; the earth opened and swallowed up many villages; and innumerable other calamities happened both by land and sea. Several fountains became dry, and, on the other hand, large bodies of water were formed on the surface, where none existed before: entire trees were torn up by the roots and hurled aloft, and mountains were suddenly formed by the accumulation of masses thrown up. The sea also cast up dead fish; many islands were submerged; and, again, ships were seen stranded by the retreat of the waters. At the same time Bithynia, the Hellespont, and each Phrygia, suffered severely. This calamity prevailed for a considerable time, though the violence with which it commenced, did not continue, but abated by degrees until it entirely ceased.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.18.1
§ 1.18.1 In the course of the same period, Memnonius, Zoilus, and Callistus, were sent out by Theodosius to the government of Antioch, men who made our religion an object of marked honour. Memnonius also rebuilt from the foundation, in a beautiful and elaborate style, the edifice which we name Psephium, leaving an unroofed court in the centre. Zoilus built the basilica, which is situated on the south side of that of Rufinus, and which has continued to bear his name to our times, although the structure itself has undergone changes from various casualties. Callistus, too, erected a noble and striking edifice, called both in former and present times the Basilica of Callistus, in front of the seats of justice, and opposite the forum where stand the splendid buildings which are the quarters of the military commanders. Subsequently, Anatolius, having been sent out as commander of the forces of the East, erects the basilica which bears his name, and embellishes it with every variety of material. The introduction of these matters, though beside my more immediate purpose, will not offend the taste of the curious reader.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.19.1
§ 1.19.1 In the times of Theodosius, repeated revolts took place in Europe, during the reign of Valentinian at Rome. These were crushed by Theodosius, who sent out for that purpose large land and naval forces. He also so far quelled the insolence of the Persians, whose sovereign at that time was Isdigerdes, the father of Vararanes, or, as Socrates thinks, Vararanes himself, as to reduce them to solicit peace; which was granted, and lasted till the twelfth year of the reign of Anastasius. These transactions have been recorded by other writers, and have also been very elegantly epitomised by Eustathius of Epiphania, the Syrian, who wrote, besides, an account of the capture of Amida. In that age, too, it is said that the poets Claudian and Cyrus flourished; and that Cyrus was elevated to the seat of highest dignity among the prefects, styled by our ancestors the prefect of the palace, and was also invested with the command of the forces of the West, when the Vandals under Genseric had made themselves masters of Carthage.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.20.1
§ 1.20.1 Theodosius also espoused Eudocia, who had previously participated in the saving baptism; an Athenian by birth, and distinguished by poetic skill and beauty of person; through the offices of his sister, the princess Pulcheria. By her he had a daughter Eudoxia, whom, when she had reached a marriageable age, the emperor Valentinian afterwards espoused; for which purpose he made a voyage from the elder Rome to the city of Constantine. At a subsequent period, when Eudocia was pursuing a journey to the holy city of Christ our God, she also visits this place; and concluded an address to our people with the following verse,'Tis from your blood I proudly trace my line: in allusion to the colonies which were sent hither from Greece. Of these, if any one is curious to know the particulars, an elaborate account has been given by Strabo, the geographer, Phlegon, and Diodorus Siculus, as well as by Arrian and Pisander the poet, and, besides, by the distinguished sophists, Ulpian, Libanius, and Julian. On this occasion, the sons of the Antiochenes honoured her with a skilfully executed statue in brass, which has been preserved even to our times. At her suggestion, Theodosius considerably enlarges the bounds of the city, by extending the circuit of the wall as far as the gate which leads to the suburb of Daphne: of which those who are disposed, may assure themselves by visible proof; for the whole wall may still be traced, since the remains afford a sufficient guidance to the eye. Some, however, say that the elder Theodosius extended the wall. He gave, besides, two hundred pounds' weight of gold for the restoration of the baths of Valens, which had been partially burnt.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.21.29
§ 1.21.29 From this city Eudocia proceeds on two occasions to Jerusalem; but on account of what circumstances, or with what object in the first instance, must be gathered through those writers who have treated the subject, although they do not appear to me to give true accounts. At all events, when visiting the holy city of Christ, she did many things for the honour of our Saviour God, even so far as to erect holy monasteries, and what are termed laurae. In these places the mode of life is different, but the discipline of each terminates in the same devout object. For those who live together in companies are still not under the influence of any of those things which weigh down to the earth, since they possess no gold: but why should I say gold? when no article of even dress or food is the sole property of any one among them, but the gown or vest which one is now wearing, another presently puts on, so that the clothing of all appears to belong to one, and that of one to all. A common table also is set before them, not delicately furnished with meats or any other dainties, but supplied with fare of herbs and pulse, and that only in sufficient quantity to sustain life. They maintain common supplications to God throughout the day and night, to such a degree distressing themselves, so galling themselves by their severe service, as to seem, in a manner, tombless corpses. They also frequently practice superadditions, as they are called, namely, by maintaining their fastings for two or three days; and some on the fifth day, or even later, scarcely allow themselves a portion of necessary food. On the other hand, there is a class who pursue a contrary course, and individually seclude themselves in chambers of so limited a height and width, that they can neither stand upright nor lie down at ease, confining their existence to “dens and caves of the earth,” as says the apostle. Some, too, take up their dwelling with the wild beasts, and in untracked recesses of the ground; and thus offer their supplications to God. Another mode has also been devised, one which reaches to the utmost extent of resolution and endurance: for transporting themselves to a scorched wilderness, and covering only those parts which nature requires to be concealed, both men and women leave the rest of their persons exposed both to excessive frosts and scorching blasts, regardless alike of heat and cold. They, moreover, cast off the ordinary food of mankind, and feed upon the produce of the ground, whence they are termed Grazers; allowing themselves no more than is barely sufficient to sustain life. In consequence, they at length became assimilated to wild beasts, with their outward form altogether disfigured, and their mind in a state no longer fitted for intercourse with their species, whom they even shun when they see them; and, on being pursued, contrive to escape, favoured either by their swiftness of foot, or by places difficult of access.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.21.31
§ 1.21.31 I will mention still another class, which had almost escaped recollection, though it bears away the preeminence from all others. Its numbers are very small; but still there are persons, who, when by virtue they have attained to a condition exempt from passion, return to the world. In the midst of the stir, by plainly intimating that they are indifferent to those who view them with amazement, they thus trample under foot vain-glory, the last garment, according to the wise Plato, which it is the nature of the soul to cast off. By similar means they study the art of apathy in eating, practising it even, if need be, with the petty retailers of victuals. They also constantly frequent the public baths, mostly mingling and bathing with women, since they have attained to such an ascendancy over their passions, as to possess dominion over nature, and neither by sight, touch, or even embracing of the female, to relapse into their natural condition; it being their desire to be men among men, and women among women, and to participate in both sexes. In short, by a life thus all excellent and divine, virtue exercises a sovereignty in opposition to nature, establishing her own laws, so as not to allow them to partake to satiety in any necessary. Indeed, their own rule enjoins them to hunger and thirst, and to clothe the body only so far as necessity requires: and their mode of life is balanced by opposite scales, so accurately poised, that they are unconscious of any tendency to motion, though arising from strongly antagonist forces; for opposing principles are, in their case, mingled to such a degree, by the power of divine grace combining and again severing things that are incongruous, that life and death dwell together in them, things opposed to each other in nature and in circumstances: for where passion enters, they must be dead and entombed; where prayer to God is required, they must display vigour of body and energy of spirit, though the flower of life be past. Thus with them are the two modes of life combined, so as to be constantly living with a total renunciation of the flesh, and at the same time mingling with the living; both applying remedies to their bodies, and presenting to God the cries of suppliants, and in all other respects fully maintaining a practice in accordance with their former mode of life, except as regards restriction in intercourse and place: on the contrary, they listen to all, and associate with all. They also practise a long and continuous series of kneelings and risings, their earnestness alone serving to reinvigorate their years and self-inflicted weakness; being, as it were, fleshless athletes, bloodless wrestlers, esteeming fasting as a varied and luxurious feast, and the utmost abstinence from food a completely furnished table. On the other hand, whenever a stranger visits them, even at early dawn, they welcome him with generous entertainment, devising another form of fasting in eating against their will. Hence the marvel, how far the pittance on which they subsist falls short of a sufficient allowance of food; foes of their own desires and of nature, but devoted to the wills of those around them, in order that fleshly enjoyment may be constantly expelled, and the soul, diligently selecting and maintaining whatever is most seemly and pleasing to God, may alone bear sway: happy in their mode of existence here, happier in their departure hence, on which they are ever intent, impatient to behold Him whom they desire.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:1.22.1
§ 1.22.1 After having conversed with many persons of this description, and founded, as I have already said, many such seats of contemplation, and, besides, restored the walls of Jerusalem, the consort of Theodosius also erected a very large sanctuary, conspicuous for elevation and beauty, in honour of Stephen, the first of deacons and martyrs, distant less than a stadium from Jerusalem. Here her own remains were deposited, when she had departed to the unfading life. When Theodosius had subsequently, or, as some think, before Eudocia, departed the sovereignty which he had administered for eight and thirty years, the most excellent Marcian is invested with the empire of the Romans. The sequel of my history shall very clearly set forth the transactions of his reign over the East, while the heavenly impulse bestows its own kindly aid.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.1.36
§ 2.1.36 THE SECOND BOOK. The transactions of the time of Theodosius have been embraced in the preceding book. Let me now introduce upon the scene Marcian, the renowned emperor of the Romans, and in so doing, first recount who and whence he was, and by what means he won the imperial power: and having done this, let me record the occurrences of his reign in the order of time. Marcian, as has been recorded by many other writers, and in particular by Priscus, the rhetorician, was by birth a Thracian, and the son of a military man. In his desire to follow his father's mode of life, he had set out for Philippopolis, where he could be enrolled in the legions, and on the road sees the body of a person recently slain, lying exposed upon the ground. On going up to it—for, besides the excellence of his other virtues, he was singularly compassionate—he commiserated the occurrence, and suspended his journey for some time, from a desire to discharge the due offices to the dead. Some persons, observing the circumstance, reported it to the authorities at Philippopolis, and they proceeded to apprehend Marcian, and interrogated him respecting the murder: and when, through the prevalence of conjecture and mere probability over truth and asseveration of innocence, he was upon the point of suffering the punishment of guilt,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.1.37
§ 2.1.37 a providential interposition suddenly brings into their hands the real criminal, who, by forfeiting his own head as the penalty of the deed, procures an acquittance of the head of Marcian. After this unexpected escape, he presents himself to one of the military bodies stationed in the place, with the intention of enlistment. Struck with the singularity of his fortunes, and with reason concluding that he would arrive at power and preeminent distinction, they gladly admitted him, and that too without placing him, according to military rule, lowest on the roll; but they assigned to him the grade of a lately deceased soldier, named Augustus, by inscribing in the list, Marcian, called also Augustus. Thus did his name anticipate the style of our sovereigns, who assume the title of Augustus on attaining the purple. It was as if the name refused to abide on him without its appropriate rank, and, on the other hand, the rank was not ambitious of another name for the augmentation of its style: and thus arose an identity of his personal and titular appellations, since his dignity and his name found an expression in the same term. Another circumstance also occurred, which might serve as a prognostic of the imperial power being destined to Marcian. When serving under Aspar against the Vandals, he was one of many who fell into their hands on the total defeat of that general; and, on the demand of Genseric to see the prisoners, was dragged with the rest along the plain. When the whole body was collected, Genseric sat in an upper chamber, surveying with delight the numbers that had been taken. As the time wore on, they pursued each his own inclination, for the guard had, at the order of Genseric, released them from their bonds; and while they accordingly disposed of themselves each in his several way, Marcian laid himself down upon the ground to sleep in the sun, which was shining with unusual heat for the season of the year. An eagle, however, poising his flight above him, and directly intercepting the sun as with a cloud,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.1.38
§ 2.1.38 thus produced a shade and its consequent refreshment, to the amazement of Genseric, who, rightly presaging the future, sent for Marcian, and liberated him, having previously bound him by solemn oaths, that on attaining the imperial power he would maintain faithfully the rights of treaty towards the Vandals, and not commence hostilities against them; and Procopius records, that Marcian observed these conditions. But let us leave this digression, and return to my subject. Marcian was pious towards God, and just towards those under his rule; regarding as wealth neither treasured stores nor the revenue of imposts, but only the means of providing relief to the needy, and to the wealthy the security of their possessions. He was dreaded, not in the infliction of punishment, but only by its anticipation. On this account he received the sovereignty not as an inheritance, but as the prize of virtue, conferred by the unanimous voice both of the senate and men of all ranks, at the suggestion of Pulcheria, whom he also espoused as his partner in the imperial dignity, though she still remained a virgin to old age. These transactions took place without a previous ratification of the choice by Valentinian, the emperor of Rome, who, however, accorded his approval to the virtues of the person elected. It was further the desire of Marcian, that an undivided service should be offered up by all to God, by uniting in pious concord the tongues which the arts of impiety had confounded, and that the Deity should be honoured by one and the same doxology.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.2.1
§ 2.2.1 While entertaining these intentions, the emperor is addressed both by the legates of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, who alleged that Dioscorus had, during the second council of Ephesus, refused to receive the epistle of Leo, containing a formula of the true doctrine; and also by those who had been contumeliously treated by Dioscorus, intreating that their case might be submitted to the decision of a synod. But Eusebius, who had been president of the church of Dorylaeum, was especially urgent, and affirmed that both himself and Flavian had been deposed by the intrigues of Chrysaphius, the minister of Theodosius, because, in reply to his demand of an offering in gold, Flavian had, in acknowledgment of his own appointment, sent the sacred vessels to shame him; and also that Chrysaphius made a near approach to Eutyches in erroneous doctrine. He also said, that Flavian had even been brought to a miserable end by being thrust and trampled on by Dioscorus himself. These circumstances caused the synod at Chalcedon to be assembled; for which purpose the bearers of missives were despatched, and the prelates in all quarters were summoned by pious letters. The place named was, in the first instance, Nicaea; and, accordingly, Leo, the president of Rome, on writing an epistle respecting Paschasianus, Lucentius, and others, whom he had sent as his representatives, inscribed it to the council assembled at Nicaea. It was, however, subsequently convened at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Zacharias, the rhetorician, influenced by partiality, says that Nestorius was also fetched from his place of exile: but this is disproved by the circumstance, that Nestorius was generally anathematised by the members of the synod. And Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, clearly establishes the point, when writing in the following terms to John, a bishop, and another John, a presbyter, respecting the matters agitated in the assembly. “Those who were in quest of the remains of Nestorius, again presenting themselves, clamorously demanded of the synod, why the saints are anathematised: so that the emperor indignantly ordered the guards to drive them far from the place.” How then Nestorius was summoned, when he had departed from the world, I am unable to say.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.3.1
§ 2.3.1 The place of meeting was the sacred precinct of Euphemia, the martyr, situated in the district of Chalcedon in Bithynia, and distant not more than two stadia from the Bosphorus. The site is a beautiful spot, of so gentle an ascent, that those who are on their way to the temple, are not aware of their immediate approach, but suddenly find themselves within the sanctuary on elevated ground; so that, extending their gaze from a commanding position, they can survey the level surface of the plain spread out beneath them, green with herbage, waving with corn, and beautified with every kind of tree; at the same time including within their range woody mountains, towering gracefully or boldly swelling, as well as parts of the sea under various aspects: here, where the winds do not reach them, the still waters, with their dark blue tint, sweetly playing with gentle ripple on the beach; there wildly surging, and sweeping back the sea-weeds and the lighter shell-fish with the recoil of its waves. Directly opposite is Constantinople: and thus the beauty of the site is enhanced by the view of so vast a city. The holy place consists of three immense buildings. One is open to the sky, including a court of great extent, and embellished on all sides with columns; and next to it another, nearly resembling it in its length, breadth, and columns, and differing from it only in being roofed. On the north side of this, facing the East, is a round building, skilfully terminated in a dome, and surrounded in the interior with columns of uniform materials and size. These support a gallery under the same roof, so contrived, that those who are disposed, may thence both supplicate the martyr and be present at the mysteries. Within the domed building, towards the Eastern part, is a splendid enclosure, where are preserved the sacred remains of the martyr in a long coffin (it is distinguished by some persons by the term “long”) of silver, skilfully worked. The wonders which have at certain times been wrought by the holy martyr, are manifest to all Christians. For frequently she has appeared in a dream to the bishops of the city from time to time, and even to certain persons whose lives have been otherwise distinguished, and has bid them visit her and gather a vintage at her sanctuary. When such an occurrence has been ascertained by the sovereigns, the patriarch, and the city, they visit the temple, both those who sway the sceptre, and those who are invested with sacred and civil offices, as well as the whole multitude, desirous to partake in the mysteries. Accordingly, the president of the church of Constantinople, with his attendant priests, enters, in sight of the public, the sanctuary where the already-mentioned sacred body is deposited. There is an aperture in the left side of the coffin, secured with small doors, through which they introduce a sponge attached to an iron rod, so as to reach the sacred relics, and after turning it round, they draw it out, covered with stains and clots of blood. On witnessing this, all the people bend in worship, giving glory to God. So great has been the quantity of blood thus extracted, that both the pious sovereigns and the assembled priests, as well as the congregated people, all share in a liberal distribution, and portions are sent to those of the faithful who desire them, in every place under the sun. The clots also are permanent, neither does the appearance of the sacred blood undergo any change. These divine manifestations occur not at the recurrence of any definite period, but according as the life of the prelate or gravity of manners calls for them. Accordingly it is said, that when the governor of the church is a person reverend and remarkable for virtues, the marvel occurs with peculiar frequency; but when such is not his character, such divine operations are rarely displayed. I will, however, mention a circumstance which suffers no interruption depending on lapse of time or seasonable occasion, nor yet is vouchsafed with a distinction between the faithful and infidels, but to all indiscriminately. Whenever any person approaches the spot where is deposited the precious coffin in which are the holy relics, he is filled with an odour surpassing in sweetness every perfume with which mankind are acquainted, for it resembles neither the mingled fragrance of the meadows, nor that which is exhaled from the sweetest substances, nor is it such as any perfumer could prepare: but it is of a peculiar and surpassing kind, of itself sufficiently indicating the virtue of its source.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.42
§ 2.4.42 This was, then, the place of meeting of the before-mentioned synod; at which the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and the presbyter Boniface, were the representatives of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome; there being present Anatolius president of Constantinople, Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem: on whom attended both their associate priests, and those who held the places of highest rank in the most excellent senate. To the latter the representatives of Leo alleged, that Dioscorus ought not to be seated with themselves; for such, they said, were their instructions from their bishop: as also that they would withdraw from the church, if they should be unable to maintain this point. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus, according to a resolution of the senate, had taken his seat in the centre, Eusebius demanded, in the following words, that the petition should be read which he had presented to the sovereign power: “I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged: the bishop Flavian was murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read.” When the matter had been discussed, the petition was allowed to be read: it was couched in the following terms. “To our Christ -loving and most religious and pious sovereigns, Flavius Valentinianus, and Flavius Marcianus, the petition of 02 Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Dorylaeum, who now pleads on behalf of himself and the orthodox faith, and the sainted Flavian, formerly bishop of Constantinople. It is the aim of your majesty to exercise a providential care of all your subjects, and stretch forth a protecting hand to all who are suffering wrong,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.43
§ 2.4.43 and to those especially who are invested with the priesthood; for by this means service is rendered to God, from whom you have received the bestowal of supremacy and power over all regions under the sun. Inasmuch, then, as the Christian faith and we have suffered many outrages at the hands of Dioscorus, the most reverent bishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, we address ourselves to your piety in pursuance of our rights. The circumstances of the case are as follow:— At the synod lately held at the metropolitan city of the Ephesians —would that it had never met, nor the world been thereby filled with mischiefs and tumult— the excellent Dioscorus, regarding neither the principle of justice nor the fear of God, sharing also in the opinions and feelings of the visionary and heretical Eutyches, though unsuspected by the multitude of being such as he afterwards shewed himself, took occasion of the charge advanced by me against his fellow in doctrine, Eutyches, and the decision given by the sainted bishop Flavian, and having gathered a disorderly rabble, and procured an overbearing influence by bribes, made havoc, as far as lay in his power, of the pious religion of the orthodox, and established the erroneous doctrine of Eutyches the monk, which had from the first been repudiated by the holy fathers. Since, then, his aggressions against the Christian faith and us are of no trifling magnitude, we beseech and supplicate your majesty to issue your commands to the same most reverent bishop Dioscorus, to defend himself against our allegations; namely, when the record of the acts which Dioscorus procured against us, shall be read before the holy synod; on the ground of which we are able to shew, that he is estranged from the orthodox faith, that he strengthened a heresy utterly impious, that he wrongfully deposed and has cruelly outraged us.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.44
§ 2.4.44 And this we will do on the issuing of your divine and revered mandates to the holy and universal synod of the bishops, highly beloved of God, to the effect, that they should give a formal hearing to the matters which concern both us and the before-mentioned Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to the decision of your piety, as shall seem fit to your immortal supremacy. If we obtain this our request, we shall ever pray for your everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns.” In the next place, at the joint request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the acts of the second council of Ephesus were publicly read, the particulars of which, as being lengthy, and at the same time embraced by the detail of the proceedings at Chalcedon, I have subjoined to the present book of the history, that I might not seem prolix to those who are eager to be brought to the end of the transactions; thereby leaving to such as are desirous of minute acquaintance with every particular, the means of leisurely consultation and an accurate conception of the whole. By way of a cursory statement of the more important points, I mention, that Dioscorus was convicted of having suppressed the epistle of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome; and farther, of having enacted the deposition of Flavian, bishop of new Rome, in the space of a single day, and procured the subscriptions of the assembled prelates to a blank paper, represented as containing the form of the deposition. Upon these grounds, the senators decreed as follows: “Of points relating to the orthodox and catholic faith, we are agreed that a more exact inquiry should take place before a fuller assembly of the council, at its next meeting. But inasmuch as it has been shewn, from examination of the acts and decrees, and from the oral testimony of the presidents of that synod, who admit that themselves were in error, and the deposition was void, that Flavian, of pious memory, and the most reverent bishop Eusebius, were convicted of no error concerning the faith, and were wrongfully deposed, it seems to us, according to God's good pleasure, to be a just proceeding, if approved by our most divine and pious sovereign, that Dioscorus, the most reverent bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria; who exercised sway and precedency in that synod; should be subjected to the selfsame penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor's sacred supremacy.” On the presentation of libelli against Dioscorus at the next meeting of the council, containing charges of slander and extortion, and his refusal, for certain alleged reasons, to appear, after a twice and thrice repeated summons, the representatives of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, made the following declaration:—"The aggressions committed by Dioscorus, lately bishop of the great city Alexandria, in violation of canonical order and the constitution of the church, have been clearly proved by the investigations at the former meeting, and the proceedings of to-day. For, not to mention the mass of his offences, he did, on his own authority, uncanonically admit to communion his partisan Eutyches, after having been canonically deprived by his own bishop, namely, our sainted father and archbishop Flavian; and this before he sat in council with the other bishops at Ephesus.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.46
§ 2.4.46 To them, indeed, the holy see granted pardon for the transactions of which they were not the deliberate authors, and they have hitherto continued obedient to the most holy archbishop Leo, and the body of the holy and universal synod; on which account he also admitted them into communion with him, as being his fellows in faith. Whereas Dioscorus has continued to maintain a haughty carriage, on account of those very circumstances over which he ought to have bewailed and humbled himself to the earth. Moreover, he did not even allow the epistle to be read which the blessed pope Leo had addressed to Flavian, of holy memory; and that too, notwithstanding he was repeatedly exhorted thereto by the bearers, and had promised with an oath to that effect. The result of the epistle not being read, has been to fill the most holy churches throughout the world with scandals and mischief. Notwithstanding, however, such presumption, it was our purpose to deal mercifully with him as regards his past impiety, as we had done to the other bishops, although they had not held an equal judicial authority with him. But inasmuch as he has, by his subsequent conduct, overshot his former iniquity, and has presumed to pronounce excommunication against Leo, the most holy and religious archbishop of great Rome; since, moreover, on the presentation of a paper full of grievous charges against him to the holy and great synod, he refused to appear, though once, twice, and thrice canonically summoned by the bishops, pricked no doubt by his own conscience; and since he has unlawfully given reception to those who had been duly deposed by different synods; he has thus, by variously trampling upon the laws of the church, given his own verdict against himself. Wherefore Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, has, by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all honoured Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, deprived him of the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every priestly function. Accordingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of the canons on the aforesaid Dioscorus." After the ratification of these measures by the synod, and the transaction of some other matters, those who had been deposed together with Dioscorus, were reinstated, at the request of the synod and the assent of the imperial government; and, after some further transactions, a definition of faith was enounced in these precise words: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, while confirming the knowledge of the faith in his disciples said,'My peace I give to you; my peace I leave to you;' to the purpose, that no one should differ from his neighbour in the doctrines of piety, but should accord in publishing the declaration of the truth.” After the reading of the holy Nicene creed, and also that of the hundred and fifty holy fathers, they subjoined as follows: “This wise and salutary symbol of divine grace is indeed sufficient for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of godliness; for, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, its teaching is plain and complete, and it sufficiently suggests the incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.48
§ 2.4.48 But since the enemies of the truth are endeavouring to subvert its doctrine by heresies of their own, and have given birth to certain empty speeches, some daring to pervert the mystery of the economy which the Lord bore for our sakes, and rejecting the term'Mother of God,' in the case of the Virgin; others introducing a confusion and commixture of substance, and inconsiderately moulding into one the natures of the flesh and of the Godhead, and by such confusion producing the monstrous notion of passibility in the divine nature of the Only-begotten; for this reason the present great and universal holy synod, from a desire to preclude every device of theirs against the truth, and to maintain the hitherto unshaken declaration of doctrine, has determined primarily that the creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers shall be indefeasible; and, on account of those who impugn the Holy Spirit, it ratifies the doctrine delivered subsequently concerning the substance of the Spirit by the hundred and fifty fathers, who assembled in the imperial city, and by them promulgated universally, not as though they were supplying some defect on the part of their predecessors, but were more clearly setting forth, by expressly recorded testimony, their notion respecting the Holy Spirit, in opposition to those who endeavoured to annul His prerogative. In respect to those who have dared to corrupt the mystery of the economy, and with shameless wantonness to represent Him who was born of the holy Virgin as a mere man, the, council has adopted the synodic epistles of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church of the Alexandrians, addressed to Nestorius and the prelates of the East, in refutation of the madness of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who with pious zeal are desirous of being impressed with a due conception of the saving symbol. To these the council has not without reason appended, in order to the confirmation of the true doctrines, the epistle of the president of the great and elder Rome,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.4.49
§ 2.4.49 which the most blessed and holy archbishop Leo addressed to the sainted archbishop Flavian, for the overthrow of the evil design of Eutyches; as being in agreement with the confession of the mighty Peter, and forming with it a monument of concurrent testimony against the maintainers of pernicious opinions; for it boldly confronts those who endeavour to dissever the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; it expels from the congregation of the holy rites those who presume to affirm that the Godhead of the Only-begotten is passible; and opposes those who imagine a mixture or confusion in respect of the two natures of Christ. It also ejects such as fondly fancy that the form of a servant which He assumed from our own nature, was of a heavenly or any other substance; and it anathematises those who fable a resolution into one, at their union, of two previous natures of the Lord. Following, accordingly, the holy fathers, we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we all with one voice declare him to be at the same time perfect in Godhead, and perfect in manhood, very God, and at the same time very man, consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, being consubstantial with the Father as respects his Godhead, and at the same time con substantial with ourselves as respects his manhood; resembling us in all things, independently of sin; begotten, before the ages, of the Father, according to his Godhead, but born, in the last of the days, of Mary, the virgin and mother of God, for our sakes and for our salvation; being one and the same Jesus Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, without separation, inasmuch as the difference of the natures is in no way annulled by their union, but the peculiar essence of each nature is rather preserved, and conspires in one person and one subsistence, not as though he were parted or severed into two persons, but is one and the same Son, Only-begotten, Divine Word, Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets declared concerning Him, and Christ himself has fully instructed us, and the symbol of the fathers has conveyed to us. Since, then, these matters have been defined by us with all accuracy and diligence, the holy and universal synod has determined that no one shall be at liberty to put forth another faith, whether in writing, or by framing, or devising, or teaching it to others. And that those who shall presume to frame, or publish, or teach another faith, or to communicate another symbol to those who are disposed to turn to the knowledge of the truth from heathenism or Judaism, or any other sect—that they, if they be bishops or clerks, shall suffer deprivation, the bishops of their episcopal, the clerks of their clerical office; and if monks or laics, shall be anathematised.” After the reading of the formula, the emperor Marcian visited Chalcedon, and attended the synod, and, having delivered an harangue, again took his departure. Juvenalis also and Maximus arranged on mutual terms the matters relating to their own provinces, and Theodoret and Ibas were reinstated. Other matters were also mooted; an account of which, as I have already said, is subjoined to this history. It was also determined that the see of New Rome, while ranking second to that of Old Rome, should take precedence of all others.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.5.1
§ 2.5.1 In addition to these transactions, Dioscorus is sentenced to reside at Gangra in Paphlagonia, and Proterius is appointed to the see of Alexandria by a general vote of the synod. On his taking possession of his see, a very great and intolerable tumult arose among the people, who were roused into a storm against conflicting opinions; for some, as is likely in such cases, desired the restoration of Dioscorus, while others resolutely upheld Proterius, so as to give rise to many irremediable mischiefs. Thus Priscus, the rhetorician, recounts, that he arrived at Alexandria from the Thebaid, and that he saw the populace advancing in a mass against the magistrates: that when the troops attempted to repress the tumult, they proceeded to assail them with stones, and put them to flight, and on their taking refuge in the old temple of Serapis, carried the place by assault, and committed them alive to the flames: that the emperor, when informed of these events, despatched two thousand newly levied troops, who made so favourable a passage, as to reach Alexandria on the sixth day; and that thence resulted still more alarming consequences, from the license of the soldiery towards the wives and daughters of the Alexandrians: that, subsequently, the people, being assembled in the hippodrome, entreated Floras, who was the military commandant, as well as the civil governor, with such urgency as to procure terms for themselves, in the distribution of provisions, of which he had deprived them, as well as the privileges of the baths and spectacles, and all others from which, on account of their turbulence, they had been debarred: that, at his suggestion, Floras presented himself to the people, and pledged himself to that effect, and by this means stopped the sedition for a time. Nor did even the wilderness in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem preserve its tranquillity, unvisited by this commotion. For there arrived in Palestine some of the monks who had been present at the council, but were disposed to harbour designs in opposition to it; and by lamenting the betrayal of the faith, exerted themselves to fan into a flame the monastic body. And when Juvenalis, after obtaining restitution to his see, had been compelled to return to the imperial city, by the violence of the party who claimed the right to supersede and anathematise in their own province, those who, as we have already mentioned, were opposed to the acts of the council of Chalcedon, assembled in the church of the Resurrection, and appointed Theodosius, who had especially caused confusion in the council, and been the first to bring a report of its proceedings, and respecting whom, at a subsequent period, the monks of Palestine alleged, in letters to Alcison, that having been convicted of malpractices in relation to his own bishop, he had been expelled from his monastery: and that at Alexandria he had impugned the conduct of Dioscorus, and, after having been severely scourged as a seditious person, had been conveyed round the city on a camel, as is usual with malefactors. To him many of the cities of Palestine made application, with a view to the ordination of bishops. Among these was Peter the Iberian; to whom was committed the episcopal helm of the city called Majumas, in the neighbourhood of Gaza. On being informed of these proceedings, Marcian, in the first place, commands Theodosius to be conveyed near his own person, and sends Juvenalis to rectify the past, with an injunction that all who had been ordained by Theodosius should be ejected. Many sad occurrences followed the arrival of Juvenalis, while either party indulged in whatever proceedings their anger suggested. Such was the device of the envious and God-hating demon in the change of a single letter, that, while in reality the one expression was completely inductive of the notion of the other, still with the generality the discrepancy between them was held to be considerable, and the ideas conveyed by them to be clearly in diametric opposition, and exclusive of each other: whereas he who confesses Christ in two natures, clearly affirms Him to be from two; inasmuch as by confessing Christ at once in Godhead and manhood, he asserts His consistence from Godhead and manhood; and, on the other hand, the position of one who affirms His origin from two natures, is completely inclusive of His existence in two, inasmuch as he who affirms Christ to be from Godhead and manhood, confesses His existence in Godhead and manhood, since there is no conversion of the flesh into Godhead, nor a transition of the Godhead into flesh, from which substances arises the ineffable union. So that in this case by the expression, “from two natures,” is aptly suggested the thought of the expression, “in two,” and conversely; nor can there be a severance of the terms, this being an instance where a representation of the whole is afforded, not merely by its origin from component parts, but, as a further and distinct means, by its existence in them. Yet, nevertheless, persons have so taken up the idea of the marked distinction of the terms, either from a habit of thought respecting the glory of God, or by the inclination forestalling the judgment, as to be reckless of death in any shape, rather than acknowledge the real state of the case; and hence arose the occurrences which I have described. Such then was the state of these matters.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.6.1
§ 2.6.1 About the same time there was also a drought in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia: and, from want of ordinary necessaries, the inhabitants had recourse to unwholesome food, which further gave rise to pestilence. The change of food caused disease; excessive inflammation produced a swelling of the body, followed by loss of sight, and attended with a cough, and death took place on the third day. For a time no relief could be devised for the pestilence; but all-preserving Providence vouchsafed to the survivors a remedy for the famine, by raining down food in the unproductive year, in the same way as what was termed manna upon the Israelites; and, during the succeeding year, by willing that the fruits of the earth should be matured spontaneously. The spread of these calamities included also Palestine and innumerable other districts, making, as it were, a circuit of the earth.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.7.1
§ 2.7.1 During the progress of these events in the East, Aetius meets with a miserable end at Old Rome, and Valentinian, the emperor of the West, is slain, together with Heraclius, by some of the guards of Aetius, at the instigation of Maximus, who afterwards assumed the sovereignty, and who conspired against them because Valentinian had violated his wife. This Maximus forces Eudoxia, the wife of Valentinian, into a marriage with himself; and she, justly regarding the transaction as an outrage and altogether monstrous, determined to set, as the saying is, all upon a cast, on account of the wrong she had suffered both in the person of her husband and the infringement of her liberty: for a woman, jealous of her chastity, is unscrupulous and implacable if she has suffered defilement, especially by one through whose means she has been deprived of her husband. Accordingly, she sends to Genseric, in Africa, and by considerable presents, as well as by holding out confident expectations of the future, induces him to make a sudden descent upon the Roman empire, with a promise of betraying every thing into his hands. This was accordingly done, and Rome captured. But Genseric, barbarian-like and fickle, did not maintain his fidelity even to her; but, after firing the city and making an indiscriminate pillage, he retired, taking with him Eudoxia and her two daughters, and returned to Africa. The elder daughter, Eudocia, he espouses to his own son, Huneric; but the younger, Placidia, he subsequently sends, together with her mother Eudoxia, with a royal escort to Byzantium, with the view of pacifying Marcian, who was exasperated both by the burning of Rome and the outrage upon the royal ladies. Placidia, in obedience to Marcian, consents to marry Olybrius, a distinguished member of the senate, who had come to Constantinople on the capture of Rome. After Maximus, Avitus was emperor of the Romans for eight months; and on his decease by starvation, Majorian for more than a year: and after he had been treacherously murdered by Ricimer, master of the Roman armies, Severus for three years.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.8.55
§ 2.8.55 During the reign of Severus at Rome, Marcian exchanges his earthly sovereignty by a removal to a happier state, having reigned only seven years, but leaving behind him a truly royal monument in the memories of mankind. On learning this event, the people of Alexandria renewed their feud against Proterius with still greater exasperation and excessive heat: for the populace in general are an inflammable material, and allow very trivial pretexts to foment the flame of commotion, and not in the least degree that of Alexandria, which presumes on its numbers, chiefly an obscure and promiscuous rabble, and vaunts forth its impulses with excessive audacity. Accordingly, it is said that every one who is so disposed may, by employing any casual circumstance as a means of excitement, inspire the city with a frenzy of sedition, and hurry the populace in whatever direction and against whomsoever he chooses. Their general humour, however, is even of a sportive kind, as Herodotus records to have been the case with Amasis. Such, then, is the character of this people; who were, however, in all other respects by no means contemptible. The people of Alexandria, accordingly, taking advantage of the prolonged absence of Dionysius, commander of the legions, in Upper. Egypt, decree the elevation to the highest priestly grade, of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, who had formerly followed the monastic life, but had subsequently been admitted among the presbyters of the church of Alexandria; and, conducting him to the great church, styled that of Caesar, elect him their bishop, though Proterius was still alive and discharged the functions of his office. There were present at the election, Eusebius, president of the church of Pelusium, and Peter the Iberian, bishop of the town of Majumas, according to the account given of the transaction by the writer of the life of Peter, who also says that Proterius was not killed by the populace, but by one of the soldiers. When Dionysius, on account of the urgency of these disorders, had occupied the city with the utmost dispatch, and was taking prompt measures to quench the towering conflagration of the sedition, some of the Alexandrians, at the instigation of Timotheus, according to the written report made to Leo, despatch Proterius when he appeared, by thrusting a sword through his bowels, after he had fled for refuge to the holy baptistery. Suspending the body by a cord, they displayed it to the public in the quarter called Tetrapylum, jeering and vociferating that the victim was Proterius; and, after dragging it through the whole city, committed it to the flames; not even refraining themselves from tasting his intestines, like beasts of prey, according to the account of the entire transaction contained in the petition addressed by the Egyptian bishops and the whole clergy of Alexandria to Leo, who, as has been said, was invested with the imperial power on the death of Marcian. It was couched in the following terms:—"To the pious, Christ -loving, and divinely-appointed, the victorious and trophy-holding Augustus Leo, the petition of all the bishops of your Egyptian diocese,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.8.57
§ 2.8.57 and the clergy of your most dignified and holy church of Alexandria. Having been granted, by divine grace, a boon to mankind, as such you cease not to exercise, next to God, a daily providence of the common weal, Augustus, most sacred of all emperors." After some other matters, the petition proceeds: “And while undisturbed peace was prevailing among the orthodox people of our country and Alexandria, Timotheus, immediately after the holy synod at Chalcedon, being at that time a presbyter, severed himself from the Catholic church and faith, together with only four or five bishops and a few monks, of those who, as well as himself, were infected with the heretical errors of Apollinaris and his followers; on account of which opinions they were then deposed by Proterius, of divine memory, and the general synod of Egypt, and duly experienced the motion of the imperial will, in the sentence of banishment.” And afterwards it proceeds: “And having watched the opportunity afforded by the departure from this world to God of the emperor Marcian, of sacred memory, assuming then in blasphemous terms a bold tone of independence, and shamelessly anathematising the holy and general synod at Chalcedon, while he drew after him a mercenary and disorderly multitude, and assailed the divine canons and ecclesiastical order, the commonwealth and the laws, he intruded himself upon the holy church of God, which at that time was possessed of a pastor and teacher in the person of our most holy father and archbishop, Proterius, duly performing the ordinary rites, and offering up to Christ, the Saviour of us all, supplications in behalf of your pious sovereignty and your Christ -loving court.” And presently it proceeds: “And after the interval of only one day, while Proterius, beloved of God, was occupying, as usual, the episcopal residence, Timotheus, taking with him the two bishops who had been justly deposed, and the clergy who, as we have said, were condemned to banishment with them, as if he had received rightful ordination at the hands of the two, though not one of the orthodox bishops of the whole Egyptian diocese was present, as is customary on occasion of the ordinations of the bishop of the church of Alexandria —he possesses himself, as he presumed, of the archiepiscopal see, though manifestly guilty of an adulterous outrage on the church, as already having her rightful spouse in one who was performing the divine offices in her, and canonically occupied his proper throne.” And further on: “The blessed man could do nothing else than give place to wrath, according to what is written, and take refuge in the venerable baptistery from the assault of those who were pursuing him to death, a place which especially inspires awe even into barbarians and savages, though ignorant of its dignity, and the grace which flows from it. Notwithstanding, however, those who were eager to carry into execution the design which Timotheus had from the first conceived, and who could not endure that his life should be protected by those undefiled precincts, neither reverenced the dignity of the place, nor yet the season (for it was the solemnity of the saving paschal feast), nor were awe-struck at the priestly office which mediates between God and man; but put the blameless man to death, cruelly butchering him with six others. They then drew forth his body, covered with wounds,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.8.59
§ 2.8.59 and having dragged it in horrid procession with unfeeling mockery through almost every part of the city, ruthlessly loaded the senseless corpse with indignity, so far as to tear it limb from limb, and not even abstain from tasting, like beasts of prey, the ilesh of him whom but just before they were supposed to have as a mediator between God and man. They then committed what remained of the body to the flames, and scattered the ashes to the winds, exceeding the utmost ferocity of wild beasts. Of all these transactions Timotheus was the guilty cause, and the skilful builder of the scheme of mischief.” Zacharias, however, while treating at length of these events, is of opinion that the greater part of the circumstances thus detailed actually occurred, but through the fault of Proterius, by his instigation of serious disturbances in the city, and that these outrages were committed, not by the populace, but by some of the soldiery; grounding his opinion on a letter addressed by Timotheus to Leo. In consequence, however, of these proceedings, Stilas is sent out by the emperor to chastise them.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.9.1
§ 2.9.1 Leo also addresses circular letters of inquiry to the bishops throughout the empire and the most distinguished monastics, relating to the synod at Chalcedon and the ordination of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, accompanying them with copies of the petitions which had been presented to him on the part both of Proterius and Timotheus. The circular letters were couched in the following terms:— A copy of the sacred epistle of the most pious emperor Leo to Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, to the metropolitans throughout the whole world, and the other bishops. “The emperor Caesar Leo, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, to the bishop Anatolius. It has ever been a subject of prayer to my piety, that all the orthodox and most holy churches, and, indeed, the cities throughout the Roman dominion, should enjoy perfect tranquillity, and that nothing should befall them to disturb their settled serenity. The events, however, which have lately happened at Alexandria, we are assured, are known to your holiness: but that you may be more fully informed respecting the entire transaction, and the cause of so much tumult and confusion, we have forwarded to your sanctity copies of the petitions which the most reverent bishops and clergy of the before-mentioned city, and of the Egyptian diocese, presented to our piety against Timotheus, at the imperial city of Constantine; and, in addition, copies of the petitions presented to our serenity, at our sacred court, by persons from Alexandria on behalf of Timotheus; so that your holiness will be able distinctly to learn what have been the proceedings of the before-mentioned Timotheus, whom the people of Alexandria and their dignitaries, senators, and ship-masters request for their bishop, and what relates to the other transactions, as intimated by the tenor of the petitions, as well as regarding the synod at Chalcedon, to which these parties by no means assent, according as the matters are set forth by the petitions appended. Your reverence will accordingly forthwith cause to assemble to you all the orthodox holy bishops who are now resident in the imperial city, as also the most reverent clergy; and, after carefully investigating and testing every circumstance, considering that Alexandria is at present disturbed, and that we are most solicitous for its settlement and tranquillity, declare your opinion respecting the before-mentioned Timotheus and the synod at Chalcedon, without any fear of man, and apart from all favour or dislike; setting before your eyes only the fear of the Almighty, inasmuch as ye know that ye shall give account of this matter to His pure Godhead. This we enjoin, in order that, being perfectly informed by your letters, we may be able to frame the fitting issue on the entire matter.” The emperor wrote also in similar terms to the other bishops, and, as I have said, to the most distinguished among those who at that period were practising the endurance of the bare and immaterial mode of life. Among these was Simeon, who first conceived the station on the pillar, and of whom I have made mention in the former part of the history; as well as Baradatus and Jacob, the Syrians.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.10.1
§ 2.10.1 Accordingly, in the first instance, Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, both wrote in defence of the synod at Chalcedon, and declared the ordination of Timotheus to be null, as having been irregularly performed. This epistle the emperor Leo dispatches to Timotheus, president of the church of Alexandria; Diomedes, the silentiary, executing the imperial commission: and Timotheus wrote in rejoinder, excepting to the synod at Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo. Of these documents copies are preserved in the collection called the Circulars: but I have omitted them, to avoid encumbering the matter on hand with too great a number. The bishops, too, of the other cities, expressed their adherence to the determinations framed at Chalcedon, and unanimously condemned the ordination of Timotheus. Amphilochius alone, bishop of Side, wrote an epistle, loudly reprobating the ordination of Timotheus, but also rejecting the synod at Chalcedon. Zacharias the rhetorician has also treated of these transactions, and has inserted the epistle itself of Amphilochius in his work. Simeon, too, of holy memory, wrote two epistles on the occasion; namely, to the emperor Leo, and to Basilius, bishop of Antioch. The latter, as being brief, I insert in this my history, as follows: “To my lord, the most religious and holy servant of God, the archbishop Basilius, the sinful and humble Simeon wishes health in the Lord. Well may we now say, my lord: Blessed be God, who has not rejected our prayer, nor withdrawn his mercy from us sinners. For, on the receipt of the letters of your worthiness, I admired the zeal and piety of our sovereign, beloved of God, which he manifested and still manifests towards the holy fathers and their unshaken faith. And this gift is not from ourselves, as says the holy apostle, but from God, who, through your prayers, bestowed on him this readiness of mind.” And presently he proceeds: “On this account, I also, though mean and worthless, the refuse of the monks, have conveyed to his majesty my judgment respecting the creed of the six hundred and thirty holy fathers assembled at Chalcedon, firmly resolving to abide by the faith then revealed by the Holy Spirit: for if, in the midst of two or three who are gathered in His name, the Saviour is present, how could it be otherwise, than that the Holy Spirit should be throughout in the midst of so many and so distinguished holy fathers?” And afterwards he proceeds: “Wherefore be stout and courageous in the cause of true piety, as was also Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, in behalf of the children of Israel. I beg you to salute from me all the reverent clergy who are under your holiness, and the blessed and most faithful laity.”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.11.1
§ 2.11.1 On these grounds Timotheus is sentenced to banishment, and Gangra is in his case also named as the place of exile. The Alexandrians then elect another Timotheus, variously surnamed Basilicus and Salofacialus. Anatolius dies, and Gennadius succeeds him in the see of the imperial city. His successor is Acacius, who had been master of the Orphan Hospital in that city.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.12.1
§ 2.12.1 During the second year of the reign of Leo, an extraordinary shock and concussion of the earth took place at Antioch, preceded by certain excesses of the populace, which reached the extreme of frenzy, and surpassed the ferocity of beasts, forming, as it were, a prelude to such a calamity. This grievous visitation occurred in the five hundred and sixth year of the free prerogatives of the city, about the fourth hour of the night, on the fourteenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, which the Romans call September, on the eve of the Lord's day, in the eleventh cycle of the indiction; and was the sixth on record after a lapse of three hundred and forty-seven years, since the earthquake under Trajan; for that occurred when the city was in the hundred and fifty-ninth year of its independence; but this, which happened in the time of Leo, in the five hundred and sixth, according to the most diligent authorities. This earthquake threw down nearly all the houses of the New City, which was very populous, and contained not a single vacant or altogether unoccupied spot, but had been highly embellished by the rival liberality of the emperors. Of the structures composing the palace, the first and second were thrown down: the rest, however, remained standing, together with the adjoining baths, which, having been previously useless, were now rendered serviceable to the necessities of the city, arising from the damage of the others. It also levelled the porticoes in front of the palace and the adjacent Tetrapylum, as well as the towers of the Hippodrome, which flanked the entrances, and some of the porticoes adjoining them. In the Old City, the porticoes and dwellings entirely escaped the overthrow; but it shattered a small portion of the baths of Trajan, Severus, and Hadrian, and also laid in ruins some parts of the quarter of houses named Ostracine, together with the porticoes, and levelled what was called the Nymphaeum. All these circumstances have been minutely detailed by John the rhetorician. He says, that a thousand talents of gold were remitted to the city from the tributes by the emperor; and, besides, to individual citizens, the imposts of the houses destroyed: and that he also took measures for the restoration both of them and of the public buildings.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.13.1
§ 2.13.1 5 A similar, or even more terrible calamity, befell Constantinople, which took its rise from the quarter of the city bordering on the sea, and named Bosporium. The account is, that about dusk-hour, a demon of destruction in the form of a woman, or in reality a poor woman incited by a demon, for the story is told in both ways, carried a light into the market for the purpose of buying pickled victuals, and then, having set down the light, stole away. Catching some tow, it raised a great flame, and in a moment set the apartment on fire. The conflagration, thus begun, soon consumed every thing within its reach, and afterwards continuing to spread for four days, not only over the more combustible materials, but buildings of stone, notwithstanding every effort to check it, at last destroyed the whole heart of the city from north to south, a space of five stadia in width, and fourteen in length; throughout which it left no building standing, either public or private, nor pillars nor arches of stone; but the hardest substances were as completely consumed as if they had been combustible. The ruin, at its northern extremity, which is where the docks are situated, extended from the Bosporium to the old holy place of Apollo; at the southern, from the Harbour of Julian as far as the houses near the oratory of the church of Homonoia; and in the centre of the city, from the Forum of Constantine to the Agora of Tauros, as it is called: a pitiable and loathsome spectacle; for all the most conspicuous ornaments of the city, and whatever had been embellished with unrivalled magnificence, or adapted to public or private utility, had been swept together into huge heaps and impassable mounds, formed of various substances, whose former features were now so blended in one confused mass, that not even those who lived on the spot could recognise the different portions, and the place to which each had belonged.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.14.1
§ 2.14.1 About the same time, when the Scythian war was gathering against the Eastern Romans, an earthquake visited Thrace, the Hellespont, Ionia, and the islands called Cyclades; so severe as to cause a universal overthrow in Cnidus and Cos. Priscus also records the occurrence of excessive rains about Constantinople and Bithynia, which descended like torrents for three or four days; when hills were swept down to the plains, and villages carried away by the deluge: islands also were formed in the lake Boane, not far from Nicomedia, by the masses of rubbish brought down by the waters. This evil, however, was subsequent to the former.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.15.1
§ 2.15.1 Leo bestows his daughter Ariadne on Zeno, who from his infancy had been called Aricmesius, but on his marriage assumed the former name, derived from an individual who had attained great distinction among the Isaurians. The origin of the advancement of this Zeno, and the reason why he was preferred by Leo before all others, have been set forth by Eustathius the Syrian.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.16.1
§ 2.16.1 In compliance with an embassy from the Western Romans, Anthemius is sent out as emperor of Rome; to whom the late emperor Marcian had betrothed his own daughter. Basiliscus, brother to the emperor's wife Verina, is also sent out against Genseric, in command of a body of chosen troops: which transactions have been treated of with great exactness by Priscus the rhetorician; and how Leo, in repayment, as it were, for his own advancement, treacherously procures the death of Aspar, who had been the means of investing him with the sovereignty, and also of his sons, Ardaburius and Patricius; on the latter of whom he had previously bestowed the title of Caesar, in order to conciliate Aspar. After the slaughter of Anthemius, in the fifth year of his reign, Olybrius is declared emperor by Ricimer; and after him appointment is made of Glycerius. Nepos possesses himself of the supreme power for five years, by the expulsion of Glycerius, whom he appoints to the bishopric of Salona, a city of Dalmatia. He is himself driven from power by Orestes, as was subsequently Romulus, surnamed Augustulus, the son of the latter, who was the last emperor of Rome, at an interval of thirteen hundred and three years from the reign of Romulus. Odoacer next sways the affairs of the Romans, declining the imperial title, but assuming that of king.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.17.1
§ 2.17.1 About the same time the emperor Leo, at Byzantium, departs his sovereignty, after having swayed it for seventeen years, and appointed to the empire Leo, the infant son of his daughter Ariadne and Zeno. Zeno then assumes the purple, being aided by the favour of Verina, the wife of Leo, towards her son-in-law. On the death of the child, which shortly followed, Zeno continued in sole possession of the sovereignty. The transactions which originated with him, or were directed against him, and whatever else befell him, the sequel shall detail, with the aid of the Superior Power. The proceedings of the synod at Chalcedon are here given in a compendious form.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.68
§ 2.18.68 Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, and Boniface, a presbyter, filled the place of Leo, archpriest of the elder Rome; there being present Anatolius president of the church of Constantinople, Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria, Maximus of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and with them their associate bishops; on whom attended also those who held the highest rank in the most excellent senate. To the latter the representatives of Leo alleged, that Dioscorus ought not to be seated with themselves, for such were their instructions from Leo; and that if this should be allowed, they would retire from the church. In reply to the question of the senators, what were the charges against Dioscorus, they stated, that he ought himself to render an account of his own decision, since he had unduly assumed the character of a judge, without being authorised by the bishop of Rome. After this statement had been made, and Dioscorus stood in the midst, according to a decision of the senate, Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, demanded, in the following words, that the petition should be read which he had presented to the sovereign power: “I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged; Flavian the bishop was murdered, and together with myself unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition be read.” On its being so ruled, the petition was read, couched in the following terms: “The petition of Eusebius, the very humble bishop of Dorylaeum, in behalf of himself and the sainted Flavian, formerly bishop of Constantinople. It is the aim of your majesty to exercise a providential care of all your subjects, and stretch forth a protecting hand to all who are suffering wrong, and to those especially who are invested with the priesthood; for by this means service is rendered to God, from whom you have re ceived the bestowal of supremacy and power over all regions under the sun. Inasmuch, then, as the Christian faith and we have suffered many outrages at the hands of Dioscorus, the most reverent bishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, we address ourselves to your piety in pursuance of our rights. The circumstances of the case are as follow:—At the synod lately held at the metropolitan city of the Ephesians — would that it had never met, nor the world been thereby filled with mischiefs and tumult—the excellent Dioscorus, regarding neither the principle of justice nor the fear of God, sharing also in the opinions and feelings of the visionary and heretical Eutyches, though unsuspected by the multitude of being such as he afterwards shewed himself, took occasion of the charge advanced by me against his fellow in doctrine, Eutyches, and the decision given by the sainted bishop Flavian, and having gathered a disorderly rabble, and procured an overbearing influence by bribes, made havoc as far as lay in his power, of the pious religion of the orthodox, and established the erroneous doctrine of Eutyches the monk, which had from the first been repudiated by the holy fathers. Since, then, his aggressions against the Christian faith and us are of no trifling magnitude, we beseech and supplicate your majesty to issue your commands to the same most reverent bishop Dioscorus, to defend himself against our allegations; namely, when the record of the acts which Dioscorus procured against us, shall be read before the holy synod; on the ground of which we are able to shew, that he is estranged from the orthodox faith, that he strengthened a heresy utterly impious, that he wrongfully deposed and has cruelly outraged us. And this we will do on the issuing of your divine and revered mandates to the holy and universal synod of the bishops, highly beloved of God, to the effect, that they should give a formal hearing to the matters which concern both us and the before-mentioned Dioscorus, and refer all the transactions to the decision of your piety, as shall seem fit to your immortal supremacy. If we obtain this our request, we shall ever pray for your everlasting rule, most divine sovereigns.” At the joint request of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the transactions of the second synod of Ephesus were publicly read; from which it appeared that the epistle of Leo had not obtained a reading, and that, too, when mention of the subject had been twice started. Dioscorus, being called upon to state the reason of this, said expressly that he had twice proposed that it should be done; and he then required that Juvenalis, bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, bishop of Caesarea, metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, should explain the circumstances, since they shared the presidency with himself. Juvenalis accordingly said, that the reading of a sacred rescript, having precedency, had, at his decision, been interposed, and that no one had subsequently mentioned the epistle.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.70
§ 2.18.70 Thalassius said that he had not opposed the reading, nor had he sufficient authority to enable him singly to signify that it should proceed. The reading of the transactions was then proceeded with; and on some of the bishops excepting to certain passages as forgeries, Stephen, bishop of Ephesus, being asked which of his notaries were copyists in this place, named Julian, afterwards bishop of Lebedus, and Crispinus; but said that the notaries of Dioscorus would not allow them to act, but seized their fingers, so that they were in danger of most grievous treatment. He also affirmed, that on one and the same day he subscribed to the deposition of Flavian. To this statement, Acacius, bishop of Ariarathia, added, that they had all subscribed a blank paper by force and compulsion, being beset with innumerable evils, and surrounded by soldiers with deadly weapons. Again, on the reading of another expression, Theodore, bishop of Claudiopolis, said that no one had uttered the words. And as the reading was thus proceeding, on the occurrence of a passage to the effect that Eutyches expressed his disapproval of those who affirmed that the flesh of our God and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had descended from heaven, the acts testify that Eusebius, upon this, asserted that Eutyches had discarded indeed the term “from heaven,” but had not proceeded to say from whence; and that Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, then urged him with the demand, “Tell us from whence;” but that further than this they were not allowed to press the question. The acts then shew:—that Basil, bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, said,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.71
§ 2.18.71 “I worship our one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only Divine Word, manifested after the incarnation and union in two natures;”—that the Egyptians clamoured against this, “Let no one part the indivisible One; it is not proper to call the one Son two;” and that the Orientals exclaimed, “Anathema to him that parts! anathema to him that divides!”—that Eutyches was asked, whether he affirmed two natures in Christ; to which he replied, that he held Christ to have been from two natures before the union, but that after the union there was only one;—that Basil said, that unless he maintained two natures without severance and without confusion after the union, he maintained a confusion and commixture; but, notwithstanding, if he would add the terms “incarnate,” and “invested with humanity,” and should understand the incarnation and the assumption of humanity in the same sense as Cyril, he affirmed the same thing as themselves; for the Godhead derived from the Father was one thing, and humanity from His mother was another. On the parties being asked why they had subscribed the deposition of Flavian, the acts shew that the Orientals exclaimed, “We have all erred; we all intreat pardon.” Again, as the reading proceeded, they shew that the bishops were asked why, when Eusebius wished to enter the council, they did not allow him. To this Dioscorus replied, that Elpidius presented a commonitorium, and solemnly affirmed that the emperor Theodosius had given command that Eusebius should not be admitted. The acts shew that Juvenalis also gave the same answer. Thalassius, however, said that authority in the matter did not rest with himself. These replies were disallowed by the magistrates, on the ground that such excuses were insufficient when the faith was at issue: upon which Dioscorus recriminated; “In what respect does the presence of Theodoret at this time accord with the observance of the canons?”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.72
§ 2.18.72 The senators rejoined, that Theodoret had been admitted in the character of an accuser; but Dioscorus signified, that he was sitting in the position of a bishop. The senators again said, that Eusebius and Theodoret occupied the position of accusers, as Dioscorus himself that of an accused person. The entire transactions of the second synod at Ephesus having been accordingly read, and, in like manner, the sentence against Flavian and Eusebius, as far as the place where Hilary had declared a protest, the Oriental bishops and their party exclaimed, “Anathema to Dioscorus: Christ has at this moment deposed Dioscorus. Flavian was deposed by Dioscorus. Holy Lord, do thou avenge him! Orthodox sovereign, do thou avenge him! Many be the years of Leo! Many be the years of the patriarch!” When the sequel of the document had been read, shewing that all the assembled bishops had assented to the deposition of Flavian, the most illustrious magistrates ruled as follows: “Concerning the orthodox and catholic faith, we are clearly of opinion that a more accurate investigation should be made in a more complete assemblage of the synod to-morrow. But since it appears that Flavian, of pious memory, and Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Dorylaeum, were not in error concerning the faith, but were unjustly deposed, both from the examination of the acts and decrees, and from the present confession of those who presided in the synod, that themselves were in error, and the deposition was null; it seems to us, according to the good pleasure of God, to be just, with the approval of our most divine and pious lord, that Dioscorus, the most reverent bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem; Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basil, the most reverent bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria, should be subjected to the same penalty, by being deprived, through this holy synod, in accordance; with the canons, of the episcopal dignity; with a reference of whatever is consequent, to the imperial supremacy.” On this the Orientals exclaimed, “This is a just decision;” and the Illyrian bishops, “We were all in error; let us all be deemed deserving of pardon.” When the Orientals had again exclaimed, “This is a just verdict: Christ has deposed the murderer: Christ has avenged the martyrs!” the senators ruled to the effect, that each of the assembled bishops should severally put forth his own formulary of faith, under the assurance that the belief of the most divine emperor was in accordance with the exposition of the three hundred fathers at Nicaea, and of the hundred and fifty at Constantinople; and with the epistles of the holy fathers, Gregory, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, and Ambrose, as well as the two of Cyril, which were made public in the first synod at Ephesus; inasmuch as upon these grounds Leo, the most reverent bishop of the Elder Rome, had deposed Eutyches. In this manner was closed the present meeting of the council. At the next, composed of the most holy bishops alone, Eusebius presented libelli in behalf of himself and Flavian, in which he objected to Dioscorus, that he held the same opinions as Eutyches, and had deprived themselves of the priesthood. He further charged him with inserting in the transactions expressions which were not uttered in the synod, and having procured their subscription to a blank paper.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.74
§ 2.18.74 He petitioned that the entire acts of the second synod at Ephesus should be annulled by vote of those who were now assembled; that themselves should retain their priesthood; and that foul tenet be anathematised. After the reading of this document, he also required that his adversary should be present. When this had been ruled in the affirmative, Aetius, archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, stated that he had proceeded to Dioscorus, as also to the others; but that he said he was not permitted by the persons on guard to appear. It was then decided that Dioscorus should be sought in front of the place of meeting; and, on his not being found, Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, ruled that he ought to be summoned, and be present before the synod. This course having been adopted, the delegates, on their return, said that he had replied: “I am under restraint. Let these say whether they leave me free to proceed thither;” and to their intimation that they were deputed to himself, and not to the civil powers, his answer was stated to be: “I am ready to proceed to the holy and universal synod, but I am prevented.” To this statement Himerius added, that the Assistant of the Master of the Sacred Offices had met them on their return, in company with whom the bishops had again visited Dioscorus, and that he had taken some notes of what then passed. These were then read, and set forth the precise words of Dioscorus, as follows: “Upon calm reflection, and due consideration of my interest, I thus reply. Whereas, at the former meeting of the synod, the most illustrious magistrates ruled upon many several points, and I am now summoned to a second, having for its object a modification of the preceding matters; I pray that the most illustrious magistrates who attended on the former occasion, and the sacred senate, should do so on the present also,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.75
§ 2.18.75 in order that the same points may be again debated.” The acts shew that Acacius then replied in the following words: “The great and holy synod, in requiring the presence of your holiness, has not in view a modification of what was transacted in the presence of the most illustrious magistrates and the sacred senate; but it has deputed us merely that you should have a place in the meeting, and that your holiness should not be wanting to it.” Dioscorus replied, according to the acts, “You have just told me that Eusebius had presented libelli. I pray that the matters touching myself may be again sifted in the presence of the magistrates and the senate.” Then follow other similar matters. Afterwards, persons were again sent with a commission to urge Dioscorus to appear; who, on their return, said that they had taken notes of his words. From these it appears that he said: “I have already signified to your piety, both that I am suffering from sickness, and that I demand that the most illustrious magistrates and the sacred senate should also on the present occasion attend the investigation of the matters at issue. Since, however, my sickness has increased, on this ground I am withholding my attendance.” Cecropius, then, as appears from the acts, intimated to Dioscorus, that but a short time before he had made no mention of sickness, and, accordingly, he ought to satisfy the requisitions of the canons. To whom Dioscorus rejoined: “I have said once for all, that the magistrates ought to be present.” Then Rufinus, bishop of Samosata, told him that the matters mooted were under canonical regulation, and that on his appearance he would be at liberty to make whatever statements he chose. To the enquiry of Dioscorus, whether Juvenalis, Thalassius, and Eustathius were present, he replied that this was nothing to the purpose. The acts shew that Dioscorus said in answer, that he prayed the Christ -loving emperor to the effect that the magistrates should be present, and also those who had acted as judges in conjunction with himself. To this the deputies rejoined, that Eusebius accused him only, and there was accordingly no occasion that all should be present. Dioscorus replied, that the others who had acted with him ought to be present, for the suit of Eusebius did not affect himself individually, but rested in fact upon a judgment in which they had all united. When the deputies still insisted upon this point, Dioscorus summarily replied: “What I have said, I have said once for all; and I have now nothing further to say.”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.77
§ 2.18.77 Upon this report, Eusebius stated that his charge was against Dioscorus only, and against no other person; and he required that he should be summoned a third time. Aetius then, in continuance, informed them that certain persons from Alexandria, professing to be clerks, together with several laymen, had lately presented libelli against Dioscorus, and, standing outside, were now invoking the synod. When, accordingly, in the first place Theodoras, a deacon of the holy church at Alexandria, had presented libelli, and afterwards Ischyrion, a deacon, Athanasius, a presbyter, and nephew of Cyril, and also Sophronius, in which they charged Dioscorus with blasphemies, offences against the person, and violent seizures of money; a third summons was issued urging him to attend. Those who were accordingly selected for this service, on their return, reported Dioscorus to have said: “I have already sufficiently informed your piety on this point, and cannot add any thing further.” Since Dioscorus had persisted in the same reply, while the delegates continued to press him, the bishop Paschasinus said: “At length, after being summoned a third time, Dioscorus has not appeared:” and he then asked what treatment he deserved. To this, when the bishops had replied that he had rendered himself obnoxious to the canons, and Proterius, bishop of Smyrna, had observed, that when Flavian had been murdered, no suitable measures had been taken with respect to him; the representatives of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, made a declaration as follows: — —"The aggressions committed by Dioscorus, lately bishop of the great city Alexandria, in violation of canonical order and the constitution of the church, have been clearly proved by the investigations at the former meeting, and the proceedings of to-day. For, not to mention the mass of his offences, he did, on his own authority, uncanonically admit to communion his partisan Eutyches, after having been canonically deprived by his own bishop, namely, our sainted father and archbishop Flavian; and this before he sat in council with the other bishops at Ephesus. To them, indeed, the holy see granted pardon for the transactions of which they were not the deliberate authors, and they have hitherto continued obedient to the most holy archbishop Leo, and the body of the holy and universal synod; on which account he also admitted them into communion with him, as being his fellows in faith. Whereas Dioscorus has continued to maintain a haughty carriage, on account of those very circumstances over which he ought to have bewailed, and humbled himself to the earth. Moreover, he did not even allow the epistle to be read which the blessed pope Leo had addressed to Flavian, of holy memory; and that too, notwithstanding he was repeatedly exhorted thereto by the bearers, and had promised with an oath to that effect. The result of the epistle not being rend, has been to fill the most holy churches throughout the world with scandals and mischief. Notwithstanding, however, such presumption, it was our purpose to deal mercifully with him as regards his past impiety, as we had done with the other bishops, although they had not held an equal judicial authority with him. But inasmuch as he has, by his subsequent conduct, overshot his former iniquity, and has presumed to pronounce excommunication against Leo, the most holy and religious archbishop of great Rome; since, moreover, on the presentation of a paper full of grievous charges against him to the holy and great synod, he refused to appear, though once, twice, and thrice canonically summoned by the bishops, pricked no doubt by his own conscience; and since he has unlawfully given reception to those who had been duly deposed by different synods; he has thus, by variously trampling upon the laws of the church, given his own verdict against himself. Wherefore Leo, the most blessed and holy archbishop of the great and elder Rome, has, by the agency of ourselves and the present synod, in conjunction with the thrice-blessed and all honoured Peter, who is the rock and basis of the Catholic church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.79
§ 2.18.79 deprived him of the episcopal dignity, and severed him from every priestly function. Accordingly, this holy and great synod decrees the provisions of the canons on the aforesaid Dioscorus." After the ratification of this proceeding by Anatolius and Maximus, and by the other bishops, with the exception of those who had been deposed together with Dioscorus by the senate, a relation of the matter was addressed to Marcian by the synod, and the instrument of deposition was transmitted to Dioscorus, to the following effect: “On account of contempt of the sacred canons, and thy contumacy regarding this holy and universal synod, inasmuch as, in addition to the other offences of which thou hast been convicted, thou didst not appear, even when summoned the third time by this great and holy synod, according to the sacred canons, in order to reply to the charges made against thee; know then that thou hast been deposed from thy bishoprick, on the thirteenth day of this present month, October, by the holy and universal synod, and deprived of all ecclesiastical rank.” After a letter had been written to the bishops of the most holy church at Alexandria on this subject, and an edict had been framed against Dioscorus, the proceedings of this meeting were closed. After the business of the preceding meeting had terminated in this manner, the members of the synod, again assembling, replied to the inquiry of the magistrates, who desired to be informed respecting the orthodox doctrine, that there was no need that any further formulary should be framed, now that the matter relating to Eutyches had been brought to a close, and had received a conclusive determination at the hands of the Roman bishop, with the further accordance of all parties. After the bishops had with one voice exclaimed, that they all held the same language, and the magistrates had ruled that each patriarch, selecting one or two persons of his own diocese, should come forward into the midst of the council in order to a declaration of their several opinions; Florentius, bishop of Sardis, prayed a respite, so that they might approach the truth with due deliberation: and Cecropius, bishop of Sebastopolis, spoke as follows. “The faith has been well set forth by the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, and has been confirmed by the holy fathers, Athanasius, Cyril, Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and again, on the present occasion, by the most holy Leo. We accordingly require that the words both of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers and of the most holy Leo be now read.” At the conclusion of the reading the whole synod exclaimed, “This is the faith of the orthodox; thus we all believe; thus does the Pope Leo believe; thus did Cyril believe; thus has the Pope expounded.” Another interlocution was then issued, that the form set forth by the hundred and fifty fathers should also be read: which was accordingly done; and the members of the synod exclaimed, “This is the faith of all; this is the faith of the orthodox; thus do we all believe!” Then Aetius, the archdeacon, said that he held in his hand the epistle of the divine Cyril to Nestorius, which all who were assembled at Ephesus had ratified by their individual subscriptions; as also another epistle of the same Cyril addressed to John of Antioch, which had itself also been confirmed. These he earnestly prayed might be read. Agreeably with an interlocution on the point, both were then read; a portion of the former being precisely as follows.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.81
§ 2.18.81 “ Cyril to our most reverent fellow minister Nestorius. Certain persons, as I am informed, treat my rebuke with levity in the presence of your holiness, and that, too, repeatedly, taking especial occasion for that purpose of the meetings of the authorities; perhaps also with the idea of gratifying your own ears.” Afterwards it proceeds. “The declaration, then, of the holy and great synod was this: that the only begotten Son, begotten naturally of God the Father, very God of very God, light of light, by whose agency the Father made all things, descended, was incarnate, assumed humanity, suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven. This declaration we, too, ought to follow, carefully considering what is signified by the expression, that the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity. For we do not affirm that the nature of the Word by undergoing a change became flesh, nor yet was even converted into a complete human being, consisting of soul and body; but this we rather maintain, that the Word, by uniting personally with himself flesh, animated by a rational soul, became man in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, and bore the title of the Son of Man, not in respect of mere will or pleasure, nor even, as it were, in an assumption of person merely; and, further, that the natures which conspired to the true unity, were different, but from both is one Christ and Son; not as though the difference of the natures had been done away for the sake of the union, but they had rather consummated for us the one Lord and Christ and Son, from both the Godhead and the manhood, by their ineffable and mysterious coalition for unity.” And presently the epistle proceeds. “But since, for our sakes and for our salvation, having personally united humanity with himself, he came forth from a woman; in this respect he is said also to have been born carnally. For he was not born in the first instance an ordinary man of the holy Virgin, and then the Word descended upon him: but the Word, having been united from the very womb, is said to have undergone a carnal nativity, as it were, by an assumption of the nativity of his own flesh. In this manner we say that He suffered and rose again; not as though the Word of God had endured, as regards his own nature, stripes or piercings of nails, or the other wounds, for the Deity is impassible, as being incorporeal. Since, however, his own body underwent these circumstances, Himself is said, on the other hand, to have suffered them on our behalf, inasmuch as the impassible being was in the suffering body.” The greater part of the other epistle has been inserted in the preceding portion of this history. It contains, however, a passage to the following effect, which John, bishop of Antioch wrote, and Cyril entirely approved. “We confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because from her the Divine Word was incarnate and assumed humanity, and from the very conception united with himself the temple which was derived from her. With respect, however, to the evangelical and apostolical language concerning our Lord, we know that the expressions of the divinely inspired men are sometimes comprehensive, as in respect of a single person; sometimes distinctive, as in respect of two natures; and that they deliver such as are of divine import, in reference to the Godhead of Christ, and those which are humble, in reference to His manhood.” Cyril then subjoins the following words:—"On reading these your sacred expressions, we find that we ourselves hold the same opinion: for there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. We accordingly glorify God, the Saviour of all, rejoicing mutually, because both our churches and yours hold a faith which is in accordance with the inspired scriptures, and the tradition of our holy fathers." After the reading of these epistles, the members of the synod exclaimed in these words:
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.83
§ 2.18.83 “Thus do we all believe; thus does the Pope Leo believe. Anathema to him that divides and to him that confounds! This is the faith of Leo the archbishop. Thus does Leo believe. Thus do Leo and Anatolius believe. Thus do we all believe. As Cyril believed, so do we. Eternal be the memory of Cyril! Agreeably with the epistles of Cyril do we also think. Thus did we believe; thus do we now believe. Leo the archbishop thus thinks, thus believes, thus has written.” An interlocution having been given to that effect, the epistle of Leo was also read, in a translation, and is inserted in the acts; the bishops at its conclusion exclaiming, “This is the faith of the fathers: this is the faith of the Apostles. Thus do we all believe: thus do the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has uttered these words through Leo. Thus have the Apostles taught. Leo has taught truly and piously: thus has Cyril taught. The teaching of Leo and Cyril is the same. Anathema to him who does not thus believe! This is the true faith. Thus do the orthodox think. This is the faith of the fathers. Why was not this read at Ephesus? This did Dioscorus withhold.” It is contained in the acts that, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed some hesitation, after the following passage of the epistle had been read: “In order to the discharge of the debt of our natural state, the divine nature was united to the passible, that one and the same person, the man Christ Jesus, being the mediator between God and man, might be enabled from the one part to die, but incapable of decease from the other, such being the process adapted to our cure;”—that upon this Aetius, archdeacon of the most holy church of Constantinople, produced a passage from Cyril to the following purport: “Since, however, His own body by the grace of God, as says the Apostle Paul, tasted death for every man, Himself is said to have suffered the death on our behalf; not that he experienced death to the extent of his own nature, for it would be madness to say or think this, but because, as I said before, his flesh tasted death.” Again, when the bishops of Illyria and Palestine had expressed their hesitation at the following passage of the epistle of Leo:—"For there operates in each form its peculiar property, in union with what belongs to the other; the Word working that which pertains to the Word, and the body discharging that which pertains to the body; and the one shines forth by the miracles, the other was subjected to the insults;" upon this the said Aetius read a passage of Cyril as follows:—"The rest of the expressions are especially appropriate to deity; others, again, are equally suited to manhood; and some hold, as it were, an intermediate place, presenting the Son of God as being God and man at the same time." Afterwards, when the same bishops hesitated at another part of the epistle of Leo, which is as follows:—"Although in our Lord Jesus Christ there is altogether one person, of God and man, yet the one part from which was derived to the other a community of ignominy, is distinct from that from which proceeded a community of glory; for from us was derived the manhood, which is inferior to the Father, and from the Father the Godhead, which partakes equality with the Father;" Theodoret said, to adjust the point, that the blessed Cyril had also expressed himself thus:—
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.85
§ 2.18.85 “That He both became man, and at the same time did not lay aside His proper nature; for the latter continued as before, though dwelling in what was different from it; namely, the divine nature in conjunction with humanity.” Afterwards, when the illustrious magistrates asked whether any one still hesitated, all replied that they no longer entertained any doubt. Atticus, bishop of Nicopolis, then begged a respite of a few days, in order that a formulary might be framed of the matters which were approved by God and the holy fathers. He also prayed that they might have the epistle which was addressed by Cyril to Nestorius, in which he exhorts him to assent to his twelve chapters. All expressed their concurrence in these requests; and when the magistrates had ruled that a respite of five days should be allowed, in order to their assembling with Anatolius, president of Constantinople, all the bishops signified their approval, saying, “Thus do we believe, thus do we all believe. Not one of us hesitates. We have all subscribed.” Upon this it was ruled as follows:—"There is no necessity that you should all assemble; since, however, it is reasonable that the minds of those who have hesitated should be confirmed, let the most reverent bishop Anatolius select from among the subscribers whomsoever he may deem proper for the information of those who have doubted." Upon this the members of the synod proceeded to exclaim, “We intreat for the fathers. The fathers to the synod. Those who accord with Leo to the synod. Our words to the emperor. Our prayers to the orthodox sovereign. Our prayers to Augusta. We have all erred. Let indulgence be granted to all.” Upon this, those who belonged to the church of Constantinople cried out, “But few are exclaiming. The synod is not speaking.” Then the Orientals shouted, “The Egyptian to exile!” And the Illyrians, “We entreat compassion upon all;” and again the Orientals, “The Egyptian to exile!” While the Illyrians persisted in their prayer, the Constantinopolitan clergy shouted, “ Dioscorus to exile! The Egyptian to exile! The heretic to exile!” and again the Illyrians and their party, “We have all erred. Grant indulgence to all. Dioscorus to the synod! Dioscorus to the churches!” After further proceedings of the same kind, the business of this meeting was brought to a close. At the next meeting, when the senators had ruled that the forms which had been already enacted should be read, Constantine, the secretary, read from a paper, as follows: “Concerning the orthodox and catholic faith, we are agreed that a more exact inquiry should take place before a fuller assembly of the council, at its next meeting. But inasmuch as it has been shewn, from examination of the acts and decrees, and from the oral testimony of the presidents of that synod, who admit that themselves were in error, and the deposition was void, that Flavian, of pious memory, and the most reverent bishop Eusebius, were convicted of no error concerning the faith, and were wrongfully deposed, it seems to us, according to God's good pleasure, to be a just proceeding, if approved by our most divine and pious sovereign, that Dioscorus, the most reverent bishop of Alexandria; Juvenalis, the most reverent bishop of Jerusalem;
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.87
§ 2.18.87 Thalassius, the most reverent bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia; Eusebius, the most reverent bishop of Ancyra; Eustathius, the most reverent bishop of Berytus; and Basilius, the most reverent bishop of Seleucia, in Isauria; who exercised sway and precedency in that synod; should be subjected to the selfsame penalty, by suffering at the hands of the holy synod deprivation of their episcopal dignity, according to the canons; whatever is consequent hereupon, being submitted to the cognizance of the emperor's sacred supremacy.” After several other readings, the assembled bishops, being asked whether the letters of Leo accorded with the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who met at Nicaea, and that of the hundred and fifty in the imperial city, Anatolius, president of Constantinople, and all who were present, replied, that the epistle of Leo accorded with the before-mentioned fathers; and he further subscribed the epistle. At this stage of the proceedings the members of the synod exclaimed: “We all concur: we all approve: we all believe alike: we all hold the same sentiments: thus do we all believe. The fathers to the synod! the subscribers to the synod! Many be the years of the emperor! Many be the years of Augusta! The fathers to the synod: those who agree with us in faith, to the synod! Many be the years of the emperor! Those who agree with us in opinion, to the synod! Many be the years of the emperor! We have all subscribed. As Leo thinks, so do we.” An interlocution was then pronounced to the following effect. “We have referred these matters to our most sacred and pious lord, and are now waiting the answer of his piety. But your reverence will give account to God concerning Dioscorus, who has been deposed by you without the knowledge of our most sacred sovereign and ourselves, and concerning the five for whom you are now making entreaty, and concerning all the acts of the synod.” They then expressed their approval, saying, “God has deposed Dioscorus; Dioscorus has been justly deposed. Christ has deposed Dioscorus.” Afterwards, on the presentation of a response from Marcian, leaving the case of those who had been deposed to the decision of the bishops, as the interlocution of the magistrates had set forth; they made entreaty in the following words. “We pray that they may be admitted:—our fellows in doctrine, to the synod: our fellows in opinion, to the synod: the subscribers to the epistle of Leo, to the synod.” They were accordingly, by an interlocution to that effect, numbered with the members of the synod. Then were read the petitions presented from the Egyptian diocese to the emperor Marcian; which, in addition to other matters, contain the following. “We agree in opinion with what the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicaea, and the blessed Athanasius, and the sainted Cyril have set forth anathematising every heresy, both those of Arius, of Eunomius, of Manes, of Nestorius, and that of those who say, that the flesh of our Lord was derived from heaven and not from the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, in like manner with ourselves, with the exception of sin.” Upon this, the whole synod exclaimed: “Why have they not anathematised the doctrine of Eutyches? Let them subscribe the epistle of Leo, anathematising Eutyches and his doctrines. Let them concur with the epistle of Leo. They intend to jeer us, and be gone.” In reply, the bishops from Egypt stated, that the Egyptian bishops were numerous,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.89
§ 2.18.89 and that they themselves could not assume to represent those who were absent: and they prayed the synod to await their archbishop, that they might be guided by his judgment, as usage required: for if they should do any thing before the appointment of their head, the whole diocese would assail them. After many intreaties on this subject, which were stoutly resisted by the synod, it was ruled, that a respite should be granted to the bishops from Egypt, until their archbishop should be ordained. Then petitions were presented from certain monks; the purport of which was, that they should not be compelled to subscribe certain papers, before the synod which the emperor hud summoned should have assembled, and its determinations be made known. After these had been read, Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, stated that Barsumas, one of the persons present, had been the murderer of Flavian, for he had exclaimed “Slay him!” and, though not a party to the petition, had improperly obtained admission. Upon this all the bishops exclaimed: “Barsumas has desolated all Syria; he has let loose upon us a thousand monks.” After an interlocution, to the effect that the assembled monks should await the determination of the synod, they demanded that the libelli which they had drawn up, should be read; one requisition therein contained being, that Dioscorus and the bishops of his party should be present in the synod. In reply to which all the bishops exclaimed: “Anathema to Dioscorus. Christ has deposed Dioscorus! Cast out such persons. Away with outrage; away with violence from the synod! Our words to the emperor! Away with outrage; away with infamy from the synod!” After a repetition of these exclamations, it was ruled that the remainder of the libelli should be read: wherein it was affirmed, that the deposition of Dioscorus was improper; that, when a matter of faith was before the council, he ought to share in its deliberations, and that, if this were not granted, they would shake their garments from the communion of the assembled bishops. In reference to these expressions, Aetius, the archdeacon, read a canon against those who separate themselves. Again, when, at the questions of the most holy bishops, the monks manifested disagreement, and afterwards at an interrogation put by Aetius in the name of the synod, some anathematised Nestorius and Eutyches, while others declined; it was ruled by the magistrates, that the petitions of Faustus and the other monks should be read: which prayed the emperor no longer to sanction the monks who had lately opposed the orthodox doctrines. Whereupon Dorotheus, a monk, termed Eutyches orthodox: in reply to whom various doctrinal points were started by the magistrates. At the fifth meeting, the magistrates ruled that the determinations relating to the faith should be published; and Asclepiades, a deacon of Constantinople, read a formulary, which it was resolved should not be inserted in the acts. Some dissented from it, but the majority approved it: and on the utterance of counter exclamations, the magistrates said, that Dioscorus affirmed that he had deposed Flavian on his asserting two natures, whereas the formulary contained the expression “from two natures.” To this Anatolius replied, that Dioscorus had not been deposed on a point of faith, but because he had excommunicated Leo, and, after having been thrice summoned, did not appear. The magistrates then required that the substance of the epistle of Leo should be inserted in the formulary; but since the bishops objected, and maintained that no other formulary could be framed, inasmuch as a complete one already existed, a relation was made to the emperor; who commanded that six of the Oriental bishops,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.91
§ 2.18.91 three from Pontus, three from Asia, three from Thrace, and three from Illyria, should, together with Anatolius and the vicars of Rome, assemble in the sanctuary of the martyr, and rightly frame the rule of faith, or put forth each his several declaration of faith; or be assured that the synod must be held in the West. On this, being required to state whether they followed Dioscorus when affirming that Christ was from two natures; or Leo, that there were two natures in Christ; they exclaimed that they agreed with Leo, and that those who contradicted, were Eutychians. The magistrates then said, that, in accordance with the language of Leo, a clause should be added, to the effect that there were two natures united in Christ, without change, or severance, or confusion; and they entered the sanctuary of the holy martyr Euphemia, in company with Anatolius and the vicars of Leo, as well as Maximus of Antioch, Juvenalis of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and others; and on their return, the formulary of faith was read, as follows. “Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,” and so forth, as it has been inserted in a previous part of the history. When all had exclaimed, “This is the faith of the fathers: let the metropolitans at once subscribe! This is the faith of the Apostles: by this are we all guided: thus do we all think!” the magistrates ruled, that the formulary, thus framed by the fathers and approved by all, should be referred to the imperial supremacy. At the sixth meeting Marcian was present, and harangued the bishops on the subject of unanimity. At the command of the emperor, the formulary was read by Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, and all subscribed it. The emperor then asked, whether the formulary had been composed with the approbation of all: upon which all declared their confirmation of it by expressions of approval. Again the emperor twice addressed them, and all applauded. At the emperor's suggestion certain canons were enacted, and metropolitan rank was conferred upon Chalcedon. The emperor further commanded the bishops to remain three or four days; that each one should move the synod on whatever matters he might choose, in the presence of the magistrates; and such as were judged proper, should take effect. The meeting was then closed. Another was held, at which canons were enacted; and at the next, Juvenalis and Maximus came to an agreement that Antioch should have for its province the two Phoenicias and Arabia; and Jerusalem, the three Palestines; which was ratified by an interlocution of the magistrates and bishops. At the ninth meeting, the case of Theodoret was mooted. He anathematised Nestorius, saying, “Anathema to Nestorius, and to him who does not affirm the holy Virgin Mary to be Mother of God, and to him who divides into two Sons the one Son, the only begotten! I have also subscribed the formulary of faith and the epistle of Leo.” Upon this he was restored to his see, by an interlocution of all parties. At another meeting, the case of Ibas was discussed; and the judgment was read which had been passed upon him by Photius, bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius of Berytus; but the vote was deferred to the next meeting. At the eleventh meeting, when the majority of the bishops had voted that Ibas should be restored to his episcopal rank, others, in rejoinder, said that his accusers were waiting outside, and required that they should be admitted. The proceedings in his case were then read; but when the magistrates ruled, that the transactions at Ephesus respecting Ibas should also be read,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:2.18.93
§ 2.18.93 the bishops replied, that all the proceedings in the second synod at Ephesus were null, with the exception of the ordination of Maximus of Antioch. On this point, they further requested the emperor to decree that nothing should be valid which had been transacted at Ephesus subsequently to the first synod, over which the sainted Cyril, president of Alexandria, had presided. It was judged right that Ibas should retain his bishopric. At the next meeting, the case of Bassianus was inquired into, and it was judged fit that he should be removed and Stephen substituted: which measures were formally voted at the following meeting. At the thirteenth, the case was investigated of Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea, who had a dispute about their respective cities. A fourteenth was also held, at which the case of Sabinianus was investigated. Finally, it was decided that the see of Constantinople should rank next after that of Rome.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.1.1
§ 3.1.1 THE THIRD BOOK. Zeno, on becoming, by the death of his son, sole emperor, as if entertaining an idea that his power was incomplete without an unrestrained pursuit of every pleasure that presented itself, so far abandoned himself from the first to the solicitations of desire, as to hesitate at nothing of ail that is unseemly and illicit; but so thorough was his habitude in such things, that he esteemed it grovelling to practise them in concealment and privacy; but to do it openly, and as it were, in a conspicuous spot, truly royal and suited to none but an emperor: a notion base and servile; for the emperor is known, not by the circumstances of ordinary sway over others, but by those wherein he rules and sways himself, in guarding against the admission in his own person of whatever is indecorous; and being thus unconquered by loose indulgence, so as to be a living image of virtue for imitation and the instruction of his subjects. But he who lays himself open to the pleasures of sense, is unwittingly becoming a base slave, an unransomed captive, continually passing, like worthless slaves, from the hands of one master to another; inasmuch as pleasures are an unnumbered train of mistresses, linked in endless succession; while the present enjoyment, so far from being lasting, is only the kindler and prelude to another, until a man either banishes the rabble rule of pleasures, becoming thus a sovereign instead of a victim of tyranny; or, continuing a slave to the last, receives the portion of the infernal world.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.2.1
§ 3.2.1 In such a manner, then, had Zeno, from the commencement of his reign, depraved his course of life: while, however, his subjects, both in the East and the West, were greatly distressed; in the one quarter, by the general devastations of the Scenite barbarians; and in Thrace, by the inroads of the Huns, formerly known by the name of Massagetae, who crossed the Ister without opposition: while Zeno himself, in barbarian fashion, was making violent seizure on whatever escaped them.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.3.1
§ 3.3.1 But on the insurrection of Basiliscus, the brother of Verina----for the disposition of his nearest connexions was hostile, from the universal disgust at his most disgraceful life----he was utterly wanting in courage: for vice is craven and desponding, sufficiently indicating its unmanly spirit by submission to pleasures. Zeno fled with precipitation, and surrendered so great a sovereignty to Basiliscus without a struggle. He was also blockaded in his native district, Isauria, having with him his wife Ariadne, who had subsequently fled from her mother, and those parties who still continued loyal to him. Basiliscus, having thus acquired the Roman diadem, and bestowed on his son Marcus the title of Caesar, adopted measures opposed to those of Zeno and his predecessors.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.4.100
§ 3.4.100 At the instigation of an embassy of certain Alexandrians, Basiliscus summons Timotheus Aelurus from his exile, in the eighteenth year of his banishment; at which time Acacius held the episcopate of Constantinople. On his arrival at the imperial city, Timotheus persuades Basiliscus to address circular letters to the bishops in every quarter, and to anathematise the transactions at Chalcedon and the tome of Leo. They were to this effect. THE CIRCULAR LETTER OF BASILISCUS. “The emperor Caesar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, and Marcus, the most illustrious Caesar, to Timotheus, archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, most reverent and beloved of God. It has ever been our pleasure, that whatever laws have been decreed in behalf of the true and apostolic faith, by those our pious predecessors who have maintained the true service of the blessed and undecaying and life-giving Trinity, should never be inoperative; but we are rather disposed to enounce them as of our own enactment. We, preferring piety and zeal in the cause of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ who created and has made us glorious, before all diligence in human affairs, and being further convinced that unity among the flocks of Christ is the preservation of ourselves and our subjects, the stout foundation and unshaken bulwark of our empire; being by these considerations moved with godly zeal, and offering to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ the unity of the Holy Church as the first fruits of our reign, ordain that the basis and settlement of human felicity, namely, the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who were assembled, in concert with the Holy Spirit, at Nicaea, into which both ourselves and all our believing predecessors were baptised; that this alone should have reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy churches of God,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.4.102
§ 3.4.102 as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient for the utter destruction of every heresy, and for the complete unity of the holy churches of God; without prejudice, notwithstanding, to the force of the acts of the hundred and fifty holy fathers assembled in this imperial city, in confirmation of the sacred symbol itself, and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost; as well as of all that were passed in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently favoured his opinions. But the proceedings which have disturbed the unity and order of the holy churches of God, and the peace of the whole world, that is to say, the so-called tome of Leo, and all things said and done at Chalcedon in innovation upon the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, whether by way of definition of faith, or setting forth of symbols, or of interpretation, or instruction, or discourse; we ordain that these shall be anathematised both here and every where by the most holy bishops in every church, and shall be committed to the flames whenever they shall be found, inasmuch as it was so enjoined respecting all heretical doctrines by our predecessors, of pious and blessed memory, Constantine, and Theodosius the younger; and that, having thus been rendered null, they shall be utterly expelled from the one and only catholic and apostolic orthodox church, as superseding the everlasting and saving definitions of the three hundred and eighteen fathers, and those of the blessed fathers who, by the Holy Spirit, made their decision at Ephesus; that no one, in short, either of the priesthood or laity, shall be allowed to deviate from that most sacred constitution of the holy symbol; and that, together with all the innovations upon the sacred symbol which were enacted at Chalcedon,
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.4.103
§ 3.4.103 there be also anathematised the heresy of those who do not confess, that the only begotten Son of God was truly incarnate, and made man of the Holy Spirit and of the holy and ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, but, according to their strange conceit, either from heaven, or in mere phantasy and seeming: and, in short, every heresy, and whatever other innovation, in respect either of thought or language, has been devised in violation of the sacred symbol in any manner or at any time or place. And, inasmuch as it is the special task of kingly providence to furnish to their subjects, with forecasting deliberation, abundant means of security, not only for the present but for future time, we ordain that the most holy bishops in every place shall subscribe to this our sacred circular epistle when exhibited to them, as a distinct declaration that they are indeed ruled by the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers alone----which the hundred and fifty holy fathers confirmed; as it was also defined by the most holy fathers, who, subsequently, assembled in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians, that the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers ought to be the only rule---- while they anathematise every stumbling-block enacted at Chalcedon to the faith of the orthodox people, and utterly eject them from the churches, as an impediment to the general happiness and our own. Those, moreover, who, after the issuing of these our sacred letters, which we trust to have been uttered in accordance with the will of God, in an endeavour to accomplish that unity which all desire for the holy churches of God, shall attempt to bring forward or so much as to name the innovation upon the faith which was enacted at Chalcedon, either in discourse or instruction or writing, in whatever manner, place, or time; with respect to those persons, as being the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the whole of our subjects, and enemies to God and our safety, we command (in accordance with the laws ordained by our predecessor, Theodosius, of blessed and sacred memory, against such sort of evil designs, which laws are subjoined to this our sacred circular) that, if bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laics, that they be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation, and the severest penalties: for so the holy and homoousian Trinity, the Creator and Vivifier of the universe, which has ever been adored by our piety, receiving at the present time service at our hands in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol, find being thereby rendered favourable and gracious to our souls and to all our subjects, shall ever aid us in the exercise of our sway, and preserve the peace of the world.”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.5.1
§ 3.5.1 According to Zacharias, the rhetorician, Timotheus, who, as I said, was just returned from banishment, agrees to these circular letters; as does also Peter, president of the church of Antioch, surnamed the Fuller, who also attended Timotheus at the imperial city. After these proceedings, they also determined that Paul should occupy the archiepiscopal throne of the church of Ephesus. This author also says, that Anastasius, the successor of Juvenalis as president of Jerusalem, subscribes the circular, and very many others; so that those who repudiated the tome of Leo and the synod of Chalcedon, amounted to about five hundred: and also that a written petition was addressed to Basiliscus by the Asiatic bishops, assembled at Ephesus, a part of which is couched in the following terms: “To our entirely pious and Christ -loving lords, Basiliscus and Marcus, ever victorious emperors.” Presently it proceeds: “Whenever the faith has been hated and assailed, you, all pious and Christ -loving sovereigns, have made it manifest throughout that you were equally assailed.” And further on: “A certain fearful retribution of judgment and fury of divine fire and the just wrath of your serenity shall suddenly involve the adversaries, those who endeavour with vauntful assault to battle down the mighty God and your sovereignty fortified by the faith; who also in various ways have not spared our humble selves, but have continually slandered and belied us, as having subscribed to your sacred and apostolic circular letters by compulsion and violence, which we, in fact, subscribed with all joy and readiness.” And further on: “Let it therefore be your pleasure, that nothing be put forward otherwise than as accords with your sacred circular, being assured that, as we have before said, the whole world will be turned upside down, and the evils which have proceeded from the synod at Chalcedon will be found trifling in comparison, notwithstanding the innumerable slaughters which they have caused, and the blood of the orthodox which they have unjustly and lawlessly shed.” And further on: “We conjure your piety, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, to maintain the just and canonical and ecclesiastical condemnation and deposition which has been inflicted on them, and especially on him who has been on many points convicted of having unduly exercised the episcopate of the imperial city.” The same Zacharias also writes as follows: “On the issuing of the imperial circulars, those in the capital who were infected with the phantasy of Eutyches, and followed the monastic rule, believing themselves to have chanced on a prize in the person of Timotheus, and hoping by the circulars to catch their own profit, flock to him with all speed, and again retire, as if convinced by Timotheus that the ”Word of God is consubstantial with ourselves as to flesh, and consubstantial with the Father as respects the Godhead."
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.6.1
§ 3.6.1 The same author says, that Timotheus, setting out from the imperial city, visited Ephesus, and there enthroned Paul as archpriest; who had already been ordained, according to the more ancient custom, by the bishops of the province, but had been ejected from his see: and he also restored to Ephesus the dignity of the patriarchate, of which the synod at Chalcedon had deprived it, as I have already mentioned. Proceeding thence, he arrives at Alexandria, and uniformly required all who approached him to anathematise the synod at Chalcedon. Accordingly, there abandon him, as has been recorded by the same Zacharius, many of his party, and among them Theodotus, one of the bishops ordained at Joppa by Theodosius, who had, by means of certain persons, become bishop of Jerusalem, at the time when Juvenalis betook himself to Byzantium.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.7.1
§ 3.7.1 This author also says, that Acacius, president of the church of Constantinople, in consequence of these proceedings, stirred up the monastic body and the populace of the imperial city, on the plea that Basiliscus was a heretic: and that the latter repudiated the circular, and issued a constitution to the effect, that transactions precipitated by overbearing influence were utterly null; and also sent forth a counter circular in recommendation of the synod at Chalcedon. This counter circular, as he terms it, he has, however, omitted, having written the whole work under passionate feelings. It is as follows: ---- THE COUNTER CIRCULAR OF BASILISCUS. “We, the emperors, Caesars, Basiliscus and Marcus, thus ordain: that the apostolic and orthodox faith, which has held sway in the catholic churches from the very first, both until the beginning and during the continuance of our reign, and ought to sway in all coming time, into which also we were baptised, and in which we believe; that this alone continue to sway uninjured and unshaken, and ever prevail throughout the catholic and apostolic churches of the orthodox; and that no question tending otherwise be a subject of debate. On this account we also enjoin, that all acts during our reign, whether circular letters or others, or any thing whatever relating to faith or ecclesiastical constitution, be null; while we at the same time anathematise Nestorius, Eutyches, and every other heresy, with all who hold like sentiments; and that no synod or other debate be held on this subject, but that the present form remain unimpaired and unshaken. Also, that the provinces, the ordination to which was possessed by the see of this imperial and glorious city, be restored to the most reverent and holy patriarch and archbishop Acacius, the present bishops, highly beloved of God, retaining their respective sees; provided that no prejudice thence arise after their demise to the right of ordination belonging to the illustrious see of this imperial and glorious city. That this our sacred ordinance has the force of a sacred constitution is a matter of doubt to none.” Such was the course of these transactions.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.8.1
§ 3.8.1 But Zeno, having seen in a vision the holy and much tried proto-martyr Thecla encouraging him and promising him restoration to power, after winning over the besiegers by bribes, marches on Byzantium and expels Basiliscus, who had now held the supreme power for two years, and, on his taking refuge in a holy precinct, surrenders him to his enemies. Zeno, in consequence, dedicated to the proto-martyr Thecla a very extensive sanctuary, of singular stateliness and beauty, at Seleucia, which is situated near the borders of Isauria, and embellished it with very many and royal offerings, which have been preserved to our times. Basiliscus is, accordingly, conveyed to Cappadocia, in order to his death, and is slain with his wife and children at the station named Acusus. Zeno enacts a law in abrogation of what Basiliscus the tyrant had constituted by his circulars, and Peter, surnamed the Fuller, is ejected from the church of the Antiochenes, and Paul from that of the Ephesians.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.9.1
§ 3.9.1 The bishops of Asia, to sooth Acacius, address to him a deprecatory plea, and implore his pardon in a repentant memorial, wherein they alleged, that they had subscribed the circular by compulsion and not voluntarily; and they affirmed with an oath that the case was really thus, and that they had settled their faith, and still maintained it in accordance with the synod at Chalcedon. The purport of the document is as follows. An epistle or petition sent from the bishops of Asia, to Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. “To Acacius, the most holy and pious patriarch of the church in the imperial city of Constantine, the New Rome.” And it afterwards proceeds: “We have been duly visited by the person who will also act as our representative.” And shortly after: “By these letters we acquaint you that we subscribed, not designedly but of necessity, having agreed to these matters with letters and words, not with the heart. For, by your acceptable prayers and the will of the higher Power, we hold the faith as we have received it from the three hundred and eighteen lights of the world, and the hundred and fifty holy fathers; and, moreover, we assent to the terms which were piously and rightly framed at Chalcedon by the holy fathers there assembled.” Whether Zacharias has slandered these persons, or they themselves lied in asserting that they were unwilling to subscribe, I am not able to say.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.10.1
§ 3.10.1 Next to Peter, Stephen succeeds to the see of Antioch, whom the sons of the Antiochenes dispatched with reeds sharpened like lances, as is recorded by John the Rhetorician. After Stephen, Calandion is entrusted with the helm of that see, and he wrought upon those who approached him, to anathematise Timotheus, and, at the same time, the circular of Basiliscus.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.11.1
§ 3.11.1 It was the intention of Zeno to eject Timotheus from the church of Alexandria; but, on being informed by certain persons that he was already aged, and had almost reached the common resting-place of all men, he abandoned his purpose. And, in fact, Timotheus shortly after paid the debt of nature. Upon this the Alexandrian bishops elect, on their own authority, Peter, surnamed Mongus; the announcement of which proceeding exasperated Zeno, who judged him to have incurred the penalty of death, and he recalls Timotheus, the successor of Proterius, while residing, on account of a popular tumult, at Canopus. Thus Timotheus obtained, by the commands of the emperor, possession of his rightful see.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.12.1
§ 3.12.1 By the advice of certain persons, John, a presbyter, who held the office of steward of the venerable temple of the holy forerunner and baptist John, visits the imperial city, in order to negotiate permission for the inhabitants of Alexandria to elect as president of their church a person of their own choice, if it should happen that their bishop should depart out of the world. According to Zacharias, he was detected by the emperor in the endeavour to compass his own appointment to the bishopric, and was allowed to return home, under an oath that he would never aspire to the see of Alexandria. The emperor too issues a precept, to the effect that, after the death of Timotheus, that person should be bishop whom the clergy and people might elect. On the death of Timotheus, which took place shortly after, John, by the employment of money, as the same Zacharias writes, and in disregard of his sworn pledge to the emperor, procures his own nomination as bishop of the Alexandrians. The emperor, on being informed of these circumstances, commands his expulsion, and, at the suggestion of certain persons, addresses an allocution to the Alexandrians, which he named Henoticon, directing, at the same time, that the see of Alexandria should be restored to Peter, with a stipulation, that he should subscribe this document and admit to communion the party of Proterius.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.13.1
§ 3.13.1 Of this measure of arrangement, framed according to the advice of Acacius, bishop of the imperial city, Pergainius is the bearer, who had been appointed procurator of Egypt. Finding, on his arrival at Alexandria, that John had fled, he addresses himself to Peter, and urges him to receive the allocution of Zeno, and also to admit the separatists. He, accordingly, receives and subscribes the before-mentioned allocution, with a promise also to admit to communion the members of the opposite party. Accordingly, on occasion of a general festival at Alexandria and the universal acceptance of the so-called Henoticon of Zeno, Peter admits the partizans of Proterius; and, on delivering in the church an address to the people, he reads the allocution of Zeno, as follows.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.14.1
§ 3.14.1 THE HENOTICON “THE emperor Caesar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever worshipful Augustus, to the most reverent bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible defence of our sovereignty is the only right and true faith, which, through divine inspiration, the three hundred holy fathers assembled at Nicaea set forth, and the hundred and fifty holy fathers, who in like manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every means of prayer, of zealous pains and of laws, that the holy Catholic and apostolic church in every place may be multiplied, the uncorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity with respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who was incarnate and born of Mary, the Holy Virgin, and Mother of God, approves and readily accepts our concordant glorification and service, the power of our enemies will be crushed and swept away, and peace with its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and whatever is beneficial to man, will be liberally bestowed. Since, then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver both of ourselves and the Roman weal, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits, and other venerable persons, imploring us with tears that unity should be procured for the churches, and the limbs should be knit together, which the enemy of all good has of old time been eagerly bent upon severing, under a consciousness that defeat will befall him whenever he assails the body while in an entire condition. For since it happens, that of the unnumbered generations which during the lapse of so many years time has withdrawn from life, some have departed, deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man, without having partaken in the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been perpetrated; and not only the earth, but the very air has been defiled by a multitude of blood-sheddings; that this state of things might be transformed into good, who would not pray? For this reason, we were anxious that you should be informed, that we and the churches in every quarter neither have held, nor do we or shall we hold, nor are we aware of persons who hold, any other symbol or lesson or definition of faith or creed than the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers, which the aforesaid hundred and fifty holy fathers confirmed; and if any person does hold such, we deem him an alien: for we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty, and on their reception of this alone are all the people baptised when desirous of the saving illumination: which symbol all the holy fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who further passed sentence of deposition on the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments: which Nestorius we also anathematise, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to those above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of the holy Catholic church of the Alexandrians. We moreover confess, that the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly assumed manhood, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is con-substantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and con-substantial with ourselves as respects the manhood; that He, having descended, and become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, is one and not two; for we affirm that both his miracles, and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh, are those of a single person: for we do in no degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion, or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as his truly sinless incarnation from the Mother of God did not produce an addition of a son, because the Trinity continued a Trinity even when one member of the Trinity, the God Word, became incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither the holy orthodox churches of God in all parts, nor the priests, highly beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the before-mentioned holy lesson, we have united ourselves thereto without hesitation. And these things we write not as setting forth a new form of faith, but for your assurance: and every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematise; and specially the before-mentioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the church, and in her enjoy the same communion with us, according to the aforesaid one and only definition of the faith, namely, that of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers. For your all holy mother, the church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your loved voice, so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw towards yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty.” When this had been read, all the Alexandrians united themselves to the holy catholic and apostolic church.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.15.1
§ 3.15.1 John, however, of whom we have made mention before, having fled from Alexandria, arrives at the ancient Rome, and there causes great stir, by saying that he had been banished from his rightful see for upholding the doctrines of Leo and the council at Chalcedon, and had been superseded by another person, who was their opponent. Upon this Simplicius, bishop of the elder Rome, writes in alarm to Zeno; who in reply charges John with perjury, and alleges that for this reason and no other he had been ejected from his bishopric.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.16.1
§ 3.16.1 Calandion, president of Antioch, writing to the emperor Zeno, and to Acacius, president of Constantinople, terms Peter an adulterer, saying that, when he was at Alexandria, he had anathematised the council at Chalcedon. He is afterwards condemned to exile at Oasis, on a supposition of having supported Illus, Leontius, and Pamprepius, in their usurpation against Zeno; and Peter the Fuller, the predecessor of Calandion and Stephen, as I have mentioned, recovered his own see. The latter also subscribed the Henoticon of Zeno, and addressed synodical letters to Peter, bishop of Alexandria. Acacius, president of Constantinople, also entered into communion with him. Martyrius, too, bishop of Jerusalem, addressed synodical letters to Peter. Subsequently, certain persons withdrew from communion with Peter, who, in consequence, thenceforward openly anathematised the synod at Chalcedon. The news of this circumstance greatly troubled Acacius, and induced him to send persons to gain information on the subject; when Peter, to convince them that he had not so acted, drew up memorials, in which certain persons said, from their own knowledge, that Peter had not done any thing of the kind.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.17.1
§ 3.17.1 This Peter never abided by one opinion, being a double dealer, a waverer, and a time-server, now anathematising the synod at Chalcedon, at another time recanting, and admitting it with entire assent. Accordingly, the same Peter wrote an epistle to Acacius, president of Constantinople, in the following words: “The most high God will repay your holiness for the many labours and toils wherewith, during the lapse of time, you have guarded the form of faith of the holy fathers, which you have confirmed by unceasingly proclaiming it; in which form when we found the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers to be embraced, we were disposed to accord with it; that symbol in which we believed at baptism, and still believe; which also the hundred and fifty holy fathers, who assembled at Constantinople, confirmed. Accordingly, while increasing in your endeavours to guide all aright, you have united the holy church of God, by convincing us by the most powerful proofs that nothing at variance with this was enacted in the holy and general synod held at Chalcedon, but that it accorded with the acts of the holy fathers at Nicaea, and confirmed them. Thus, having discovered no novelty therein, we have of our own free motion accorded our assent and belief. But we are informed that certain monks, envying our brotherly union, have conveyed certain slanders to your holy ears, which have with some difficulty succeeded in embittering the feelings of your holiness. And, in the first place, it is alleged that we have removed to another place the remains of our sainted father, the blessed archbishop Timotheus, a thing abhorrent to religion and law: and they have further shifted their ground to another charge, in itself incoherent and worse than the former; for how could we possibly have anathematised the synod at Chalcedon, which we had previously confirmed by according to it our belief? But the malignant temper and fickleness of our people are notorious, and cannot but be known to your piety, as well as of those monks who are disposed to innovation; who, in conspiracy with certain ill-designing persons that have broken loose from the church, are endeavouring to draw away the people. Through your prayers we have also devised a discourse of a directly healing tendency, and in no way impugning the synod at Chalcedon, well knowing that its transactions contain no novelty; and, further, for the satisfaction of guileless persons, we have procured those who had united themselves to us, to affirm this point. This mischief, then, by much exertion, I have readily checked: but I make known to your holiness, that even still the monks who are ever sowing the tares, are not at rest, associating also with themselves, as instruments, persons who were never the inmates of monasteries; but they travel about disseminating various rumours to our disadvantage, and, while they do not allow that we act canonically and in a manner suitable to the holy catholic church of God, but are habituating our people to govern rather than obey us, they are bent on doing whatever is unbecoming the service of God. We doubt not, however, that your holiness will inform the most sacred master of the world of all these circumstances, and provide that a formulary shall be put forth by his serenity, embracing the necessary matters relating to such a peace of the church as becomes both God and the emperor; so as to lead all to repose on its provisions.”
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.18.1
§ 3.18.1 John, who had fled to Rome, was urgent on Felix, the successor of Simplicius in that see, respecting the proceedings of Peter, and recommends, according to Zacharias, that an instrument of deposition should be sent to Acacius from Felix, on the ground of his communion with Peter: which, however, as being un-canonical, Acacius did not admit, as the same Zacharias writes, on its presentation by certain members of the monastery of the Acoemets, as they are called. Such is the account given by Zacharias; but he appears to me to have been altogether ignorant of the real transactions, and to have reported merely an imperfect hearsay. I now proceed to give a precise account of the proceedings. On the presentation of libelli to Felix by John against Acacius, on the score of irregular communion with Peter, and other uncanonical proceedings, the bishops Vitalis and Misenus are sent by Felix to the emperor Zeno, with a requisition that the authority of the synod at Chalcedon should be maintained, that Peter should be ejected as a heretic, and that Acacius should be sent to Felix to answer for himself to the charges brought against him by John, of whom we have made frequent mention.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.19.1
§ 3.19.1 Before, however, they reached the imperial city, Cyril, the superior of the Acoemets, writes to Felix, blaming his tardiness, when so grievous offences were being committed against the right faith; and Felix writes to Misenus and his associates, that they should take no measures until they had conferred with Cyril, and learnt from him what was best to be done.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.20.1
§ 3.20.1 Further commonitories were also addressed to them by Felix; as also letters to Zeno, concerning both the synod at Chalcedon, and the persecution which Huneric was carrying on in Africa. He also wrote an epistle to Acacius. Zeno wrote in answer, that the concern with which John had filled him, was groundless; because, having sworn that he would in no way endeavour to insinuate himself into the see of Alexandria, and having subsequently violated these terms and disregarded his oath, he had been guilty of the extreme of sacrilege: that Peter had not been appointed without being tested, but had with his own hand subscribed his reception of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers who met at Nicaea, which the holy synod at Chalcedon also followed. Part of the epistle is in these precise words: “You ought to be assured that our piety, and the before-mentioned most holy Peter, and all the most holy churches, receive and revere the most holy synod at Chalcedon, which agreed with the faith of the Nicene synod.” In the transactions are also contained epistles from the before-mentioned Cyril, and other archimandrites of the imperial city, and from bishops and clergy of the Egyptian province, addressed to Felix against Peter, as being a heretic, and against those who communicated with him. The members of the monastery of the Acoemets who came to Felix, further averred against Misenus and his party, that before their arrival at Byzantium, the; name of Peter had been read secretly in the sacred diptychs, and since that time without any concealment, and that they had in this way communicated with him. The epistle also of the Egyptians affirmed the same things respecting Peter; and that John, being orthodox, had been rightfully ordained: that Peter was ordained by two bishops only, maintainers of similar errors with himself: that since the flight of John every species of severity had been inflicted on the orthodox: that all these circumstances had been made known to Acacius by persons who had visited the imperial city; and that they were convinced that he was in all things acting in union with Peter.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.21.1
§ 3.21.1 This stir was further increased by Simeon, an Acoemet, who had been dispatched to Rome by Cyril. He expressly charged Misenus and Vitalis with holding communion with the heretics, by distinctly uttering the name of Peter in the reading of the sacred diptychs; and affirmed that many simple persons had, on this ground, been beguiled by the heretics, who said that Peter was admitted to the communion even of the Roman see: and, further, in reply to various interrogatories, Simeon said that Misenus and his party had declined to have communication with any orthodox person, either in person or by letter, or to sift any of the presumptuous attempts upon the right faith. There was also brought forward Silvanus, a presbyter, who had been in company with Misenus and Vitalis at Constantinople, and he confirmed the statement of the monks. There was read, too, a letter from Acacius to Simplicius, to the effect that Peter had been long ago deposed and had become a child of night. On these grounds Misenus and Vitalis were removed from the priesthood and severed from the holy communion, when a unanimous vote was passed by the synod, in the following terms: “The church of the Romans does not admit Peter, the heretic, who has also been long ago condemned by the holy see, excommunicated, and anathematised. To whom, if there were no other objection, this is sufficient, namely, that having been ordained by heretics, he could not have authority over the orthodox.” The decree also contains what follows: “The mere circumstance shews Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, to have incurred very great responsibility, because, writing to Simplicius and having termed Peter a heretic, he has nevertheless made no such declaration to the emperor: which was his duty, if he were loyal to him. He is, however, more partial to the emperor than to the faith.” Let me now return to the order of events. There is extant an epistle from Acacius to the Egyptian bishops, the clergy, monks, and the people in general, by which he endeavours to heal the existing schism: on which subject he also wrote to Peter, bishop of Alexandria.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.22.1
§ 3.22.1 While the schism at Alexandria was thus at its height, Peter, having again anathematised the tome of Leo, the transactions at Chalcedon, and those who refused to admit the writings of Dioscorus and Timotheus, induced some of the bishops and archimandrites to communicate with him, and failing to prevail upon the others, ejected most of them from their monasteries. On account of these proceedings, Nephalius visited the imperial city, and reported them to Zeno; who, in great vexation, despatches Cosmas, one of his officers, charged to load Peter with menaces, for the enforcement of unity, on the score of his having caused a serious dissension by his harshness. Cosmas returns to the imperial city without accomplishing the object of his mission, having merely restored those who had been ejected, to their monasteries. Subsequently, Arsenius is sent out by the emperor as governor of Egypt and commander of the forces. Arriving at Alexandria in company with Nephalius, he negociated with a view to unity; but failing to induce persons to acquiesce in his measures, he sends some of them to the imperial city, where, accordingly, many discussions took place in the presence of Zeno: but with no practical result, because the emperor altogether declined agreement with the synod at Chalcedon.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.23.1
§ 3.23.1 At this juncture Acacius departed on the common journey of all men, and is succeeded by Fravitas. On his addressing synodical letters to Peter of Alexandria, the latter replies with a repetition of the former matters respecting the synod at Chalcedon. On the demise of Fravitas, after an episcopate of only four months, Euphemius was ordained as his successor, and is the recipient of the letters of Peter addressed to Fravitas. On discovering the anathema against the transactions at Chalcedon, his feelings were greatly roused, and he broke off from communion with Peter. Both epistles are extant, namely, from Fravitas to Peter, and from Peter to Fravitas; but I pass them over on account of their length. When, in consequence, Euphemius and Peter were upon the point of coming to open hostility, and summoning synods against each other, these proceedings were prevented by the death of the latter. He is succeeded by Athanasius, who attempted to unite the dissidents; but without success, since the parties were ranged under differences of opinion. Subsequently, when dispatching synodical letters to Palladius, the successor of Peter in the bishopric of Antioch, he took a similar course respecting the synod at Chalcedon; as did also John, his successor in the see of Alexandria. On the death of Palladius, and the succession of Flavian to the see of Antioch, Solomon, a presbyter of that church, is sent to Alexandria, as the bearer of synodical letters, with the request of an answer from John to Flavian. John is succeeded in the see of Alexandria by another of the same name. Such was the progress of these events down to a certain period of the reign of Anastasius: who had himself ejected Euphemius. I have been compelled thus to detail them continuously, for the sake of perspicuity and a ready comprehension of the whole.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.24.1
§ 3.24.1 Zeno, at the instigation of Illus, puts to death Armatus, a kinsman of the empress Verina. When Armatus had been sent against him by Basiliscus, Zeno had succeeded, by bribes, in converting him from a foe into an ally, and had bestowed on his son Basiliscus the rank of Caesar at Nicaea: but on his return to Constantinople, he procures the assassination of Armatus, and makes his son a priest instead of Caesar. The latter was afterwards raised to the episcopal dignity.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.25.1
§ 3.25.1 Theodoric also, a Scythian, raised an insurrection, and having collected his forces in Thrace, marched against Zeno. After ravaging every place in his march as far as the mouth of the Pontus, he was near taking the imperial city, when some of his most intimate companions were secretly induced to enter into a plot against his life. When, however, he had learnt the disaffection of his followers, he commenced a retreat, and was very soon afterwards numbered with the departed, by a kind of death which I will mention, and which happened thus. A spear, with its thong prepared for immediate use, had been suspended before his tent in barbaric fashion. He had ordered a horse to be brought to him for the purpose of exercise, and being in the habit of not having any one to assist him in mounting, vaulted into his seat. The horse, a mettlesome and ungovernable animal, reared before Theodoric was fairly mounted, so that, in the contest, neither daring to rein back the horse, lest it should come down upon him, nor yet having gained a firm seat, he was whirled round in all directions, and dashed against the point of the spear, which thus struck him obliquely, and wounded his side. He was then conveyed to his couch, and after surviving a few days, died of the wound.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.26.1
§ 3.26.1 Subsequently Marcian had a rupture with Zeno, and attempted to dispute the empire with him. He was the son of Anthemius who had formerly reigned at Rome, and was allied to Leo, the preceding emperor, having married his younger daughter Leontia. After a severe battle around the palace, in which many fell on both sides, Marcian repulsed his opponents, and would have become master of the palace, had he not let slip the critical moment, by putting off the operation to the morrow. For the critical season is swift of flight: when it is close upon one, it may be secured; but should it once have escaped the grasp, it soars aloft and laughs at its pursuers, not deigning to place itself again within their reach. And hence no doubt it is, that statuaries and painters, while they figure it with a lock hanging down in front, represent the head as closely shaven behind; thus skilfully symbolising, that when it comes up from behind one, it may perhaps be held fast by the flowing forelock, but fairly escapes when it has once got the start, from the absence of any thing by which the pursuer might grasp it. And this was what befel Marcian, when he had lost the moment favourable to his success, and was unable to find it afterwards. For the next day he was betrayed by his own followers, and being completely deserted, fled to the sacred precinct of the divine Apostles; whence he was dragged away by force, and transported to Caesarea in Cappadocia. Having there joined the society of certain monks, he was afterwards detected in meditating an escape; and being removed by the emperor to Tarsus in Cilicia, he was shorn, and ordained a presbyter: of all which particulars an elegant narrative has been given by Eustathius the Syrian.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.27.1
§ 3.27.1 The same writer states that Zeno also devised innumerable machinations against his mother-in-law Verina, and afterwards sent her away to Cilicia; and that subsequently, on the assumption of sovereign power by Illus, she removed to what is called the castle of Papirius; where she died. Eustathius also narrates with great ability the story of Illus: how he escaped Zeno's plots against him, and how Zeno gave up to capital punishment the man who had been commissioned to murder Illus, rewarding him with the loss of his head for his failure in the attempt. He also appointed Illus commander of the forces of the East, thinking thus to conceal his real designs: but he, having gained over as partizans Leontius, Marstis, a man of reputaion, and Pamprepius, proceeded to the east. The same Eustathius then mentions the proclamation of Leontius as emperor, which took place at Tarsus in Cilicia; and how these persons reaped the fruits of their assumption of power, when Theodoric, a man of Gothic extraction, but illustrious among the Romans, had been sent out against them, with a force composed both of native and foreign troops. The same author ably depicts the fate of those who were miserably put to death by Zeno in return for their loyalty to him; and how Theodoric, becoming aware of the evil designs of Zeno, withdrew to the elder Rome. Some, however, say that this was done at the suggestion of Zeno. Having there defeated Odoacer, he made himself master of Rome, and assumed the title of king.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.28.1
§ 3.28.1 John the rhetorician writes, that in the time of Zeno, Mammianus from an artizan became a person of note and a member of the senate; and that he built in the suburb of Daphne what is called the Antiphorus, on a site previously planted with vines and suitable for cultivation, directly opposite the public baths; where there is also the brazen statue inscribed, “Mammianus the friend of the city.” He also states that he built within the city, two basilicas, singularly beautiful in their design, and embellished with brilliant stone-work; and that, as an intervening structure to the two, he raised a Tetrapylum, exquisitely finished both in its columns and its brazen work. The basilicas I have identified, retaining, together with their name, some trace of their former beauty, in the stones from Procomiesus, which form the pavement, but nothing remarkable in their architecture: for, in consequence of the calamities which had befallen them, they had lately been rebuilt, without receiving any thing in the way of ornament. Of the Tetrapylum I was not able to detect the slightest vestige.
urn:cts:greekLit:tlg2733.tlg001:3.29.1
§ 3.29.1 On the decease of Zeno, by epilepsy, without issue, after a reign of seventeen years, Longinus his brother, having raised himself to considerable power, hoped to secure the sovereignty, but was, notwithstanding, disappointed of his expectation. For Ariadne bestows the diadem on Anastasius, a person who had not yet attained senatorian rank, but belonged to the corps of the Silentiaries. Eustathius writes, that two hundred and seven years elapsed from the beginning of the reign of Diocletian to the death of Zeno and the nomination of Anastasius: five hundred and fifty-two years and seven months from the time that Augustus obtained the supreme power; eight hundred and thirty-two years and seven months from the reign of Alexander the Macedonian; one thousand and fifty-two years and seven months from the reign of Romulus; one thousand six hundred and eighty-six years and seven months from the taking of Troy. This Anastasius, being a native of Epidamnus, now called Dyrrachium, both succeeds to the sovereignty of Zeno and espouses his wife Ariadne. In the first place, he dismisses to his native country Longinus, the brother of Zeno, who held the post of Master of the Offices, formerly termed commander of the household troops; and afterwards, many other Isaurians at their own request.

Via ToposText (topostext.org), a project of the Aikaterini Laskaridis Foundation created by Brady Kiesling. Translated by Edward Walford (1823-1897). Composed ca. 594 CE. Licence: public domain. Source.