1. The emperor Marcian, for the reasons recounted above, ordered that the bishops, summoned to a general synod, should assemble at Chalcedon and gather in the basilica of the holy martyr Euphemia in the suburbs outside the city. It took its beginning on the eighth day before the Ides of October in the year 451, and was concluded on the Kalends of November. The writers, as I have noted among others by Cardinal Baronius, do not agree in determining either the number of the Fathers or of the sessions. Marcellinus, in his Chronicle, relates that six hundred and thirty bishops were present, with whom the deacon Liberatus and Photius concur. Nicephorus prefers that the number of those who took part in the ecumenical Council of Nicaea was doubled, namely that there were six hundred and thirty-six. Saint
Leo indeed, who was recently informed by his own legates returning from the East and from copies of the Acts, writing to the bishops of the Gauls, says: 'A synod of nearly six hundred of our brothers and fellow-bishops, having been assembled.' Considering all this, the same Baronius judges that nearly half the number of bishops was withdrawn from the copies of the Acts which survive, since in the first session of that same synod only three hundred and forty bishops are found subscribed. But we shall treat of this difficulty in the session concerning Antioch, approving the observations of Stephen Baluze. Equally uncertain appears the number of sessions, for the determining of which there are various and differing opinions of the writers.
Baronius judges that the number of sessions ought also to be inferred from the number of days during which that holy assembly lasted. Since therefore from the eighth day before the Ides of October up to the Kalends of November twelve days intervened, and one may judge that the Fathers met on each single day, it must accordingly be believed that twelve sessions or sittings were held. Liberatus, in the place cited, counts fifteen sessions; but in the Greek and Latin copies sixteen are contained, although many things are had in the Latin which are wanting in the Greek, and conversely.
But if we attend carefully to all the matters that were treated in that synod, we are forced to confess that in one and the same session several sessions were held, as will be established when we discuss the cases of Photius of Tyre and Domnus of Antioch. 2. The writers of ecclesiastical history who have gone before us most diligently reviewed each of the matters contained in those Acts; which to perform at present we forbear, lest what has long since been done by others should again be done.
Especially since the authors more than once praised, namely Baronius, Christian Lupus, Father Natalis Alexander, Stephen Baluze, and Jean David, each according to the aim of writing which he had taken up, have described the same Acts and have thoroughly examined various incidental questions, from some of which we have abstained, judging them not to pertain to our subject. Since therefore there are three things which, as we said in the foregoing, regard the wishes of the great pontiff, and which were at length faithfully committed to execution in that synod, I shall indicate them singly. First, then, it pertained to the cause of the faith, concerning which, in the synod's beginnings, the matter began to be thoroughly handled.
For Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, in obedience to Leo's instructions, requested that Dioscorus should withdraw from the synod; for he was to be admitted only among the accused, not among the judges. And although this petition seemed harsh, nevertheless, in order to check certain movements of dissension stirred up among the Easterners, and to forestall the delays which are wont to arise from canonical citations, the judges directed that he should sit in the midst as one to be judged. Then, leave having been received from Eusebius of Dorylaeum to accuse Dioscorus, he charged him as guilty both of injured faith and of sacrilegious homicide, on account of the death inflicted upon Flavian.
And, when the libel of accusation presented to the emperor Marcian had been read, Dioscorus strove to dissolve the charges by saying that Flavian had been lawfully condemned in a synod assembled by the authority of the emperor Theodosius. But what was contained in the robber-Acts was inquired into by the reading of them. Wherefore, when in reading those same Acts they had come to the constitution of Theodosius, by which it had been provided that Theodoret should not take part in the preceding robber-council of Ephesus, the judges asked that Theodoret be brought into the council. Concerning whose case we forbear to discuss here, since in what follows we must refute Quesnel's dissertation.
Meanwhile the bishops who had fought for the side of Dioscorus and Eutyches now confessed that, compelled by fear of the soldiers, they had deposed orthodox bishops, and, driven by the goads of conscience, they cried out: 'We have all sinned, we all ask pardon.' And, the reading of the Acts of the pseudo-synod being continued, Dioscorus was accused of having forbidden that the dogmatic letter of Saint Leo, sent to the synod as the rule of faith, should be read. And, that the violence done to Saint Flavian and the orthodox bishops might more fully be made known, all the Acts of the Council of Constantinople were reviewed, in which the matter of Eutyches' condemnation had been transacted.
From this reading the legates of the Apostolic See proved Flavian to be truly catholic, but Eutyches to be an impious heretic. But Dioscorus himself, no longer able to restrain the wickedness of his evil faith, dared in his interruptions to maintain that Flavian had rightly been condemned because he had said that after the union there are two natures in Christ; whose contrary opinion he dared the more stubbornly to defend before the Fathers. Afterward, however, many other things were read, concerning which Baronius speaks summarily, and which we ourselves shall indicate on occasion of the Exercises that follow. At length the definition of the faith was deferred to the following session, which was celebrated on the sixth day before the Ides of October. 3.
In this session, moreover, the Nicene Creed was recited, with which all the Fathers testified that the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, and Leo the Roman pontiff in his letter, were in harmony. And following up this letter of Leo with marvelous praises, they acclaimed: 'This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the apostles; we all so believe, the orthodox so believe; anathema to him who does not so believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo: the apostles so taught; Leo taught piously and truly; Cyril so taught; Leo and Cyril taught alike.' But who does not understand that, by these solemn and universal acclamations of the Fathers,
with just judgment and diligent zeal, honor was conferred upon the Apostolic See and upon holy Leo, whose rights and prerogatives Dioscorus in the preceding synod had ruined and abolished? For with one voice they venerated Leo as the successor of Peter, the sincere guardian of the catholic faith, the supreme interpreter of the sacred Scriptures, in order, namely, to wipe away that stain of disgrace which, to the supreme dishonor of the Apostolic See, Leo himself and his legates had suffered and been branded with in the robber-council of Ephesus. And since for this crime Dioscorus had to undergo the deserved penalties, in the following third session his condemnation was pronounced. To this session the bishops alone, without the secular magistrates, were present.
Dioscorus too was absent from the synod, but was held under military guard. And although in the first session his crimes had become sufficiently known to all, nevertheless, to preserve the form and order of canon law, the libel of his accuser Eusebius of Dorylaeum was again read; and, lest they should pronounce sentence against an absent man, once, again, and a third time they urged him by canonical citations to come to the synod. Dioscorus interposed various kinds of excuses, either that he was detained by illness, or that it had been provided for him to attend the synod only while the secular judges were absent. This last excuse Cecropius, bishop of Sebaste, sent to summon him, utterly nullified, saying:
'When certain regular, that is, ecclesiastical matters are examined according to the canons, neither judges nor any laymen ought to take part.' But while these things were being transacted, and the Fathers of the synod awaited Dioscorus' answers within the prescribed terms, four libels were read—of Theodore, of Ischyrion, deacons of Alexandria, of Athanasius the presbyter, and of Sophronius the Alexandrian, a Christian man. For they bear this heading or inscription: 'To the most holy and most blessed universal patriarch of great Rome, Leo, and to the holy universal synod of Chalcedon.'
These libels, inscribed to Leo the supreme pontiff, Quesnel did not place among the Works of Leo, nor in the synopsis of the Chalcedonian Acts did he indicate even that they bore Leo's name; although he had formed the plan of adorning his edition with all the documents written by the holy supreme pontiff himself, and those of others addressed to him. Such libels exist in Greek and Latin in volume IV, which we have emended according to the reading of the Vatican codices, and we shall see to it that they come to light among the Works of Saint Leo the Great in the following volume. 4.
In these libels, moreover, were described and attested the most grievous misdeeds of Dioscorus, the sum of which we deem it superfluous to indicate at present, since they have become known to learned men and can be surveyed by anyone. Since therefore Dioscorus, summoned a third time to the synod, had refused to obey, and John, bishop of Germanicia, had been unable to move him, saying: 'The crimes of priests are a common disgrace. If therefore your holiness knows that you suffer calumny from some, the holy synod is not far off; trouble yourself to convict the lie'—wherefore, since nothing remained for his defense, the papal legates, acting in Leo's person, pronounced upon him the sentence of condemnation.
This sentence we here forbear to subjoin, lest, contrary to our purposed plan, our Exercises grow too greatly. But those who desire to understand whether all the rights of the Apostolic See were restored and preserved in that judgment, just as Saint Leo had wished after the robber-council of Ephesus, will easily be able to survey the whole series, order, and decrees of that session in the compilers of the councils, volume IV, third session. This sentence of deposition and degradation, then, passed by the papal legates against Dioscorus, the rest of the Fathers ratified by unanimous consent, who afterward wrote synodal letters to the emperors Valentinian and Marcian, and to the Augusta Pulcheria, concerning the things that had just been established.
The decree of this condemnation was also made public, which was signified to Dioscorus himself and also to the Alexandrian clergy. 5. In the following session, which was the fourth, the case of the bishops who with Dioscorus had played the chief parts in the robber-council of Ephesus was recalled to examination. That these too had presided in the synod by the mandate of the emperor Theodosius, Dioscorus himself attested, contending that he shared a common cause with Domnus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eustathius of Berytus, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil, bishop of Seleucia. But because these Saint
Leo had ordered to be received into communion, and that the canonical penalties should be relaxed for them, if they showed themselves penitent, and if in their sees other catholic bishops had not already been substituted, as we have already seen from the preceding letters and from the commonitory given to the legates; therefore, when they had approved the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed, the decrees of Ephesus and the letter of Saint pontiff Leo, pronouncing anathema upon those who held the contrary, they were ordered to enter the synod from which they had been repelled, and, ecclesiastical peace being obtained, they were joined to catholic fellowship. But that Domnus of Antioch was not present we shall explain in a particular dissertation.
The Egyptian bishops too were admitted, whom the papal legates ordered to pronounce anathema upon Eutyches and to subscribe to the letter of Saint Leo. Both they at first declined to do, awaiting the election of the new Alexandrian prelate, whom they pledged they would follow in subscribing. But, the synod insisting that they condemn Eutyches, they at length consented. Yet when they were still pressed to subscribe to the letters of Saint Leo, they utterly refused; and, prostrating themselves, they asked that it might please the holy synod that an Alexandrian bishop be first elected. To their supplications the synod assented, yet with this caution interposed, that they should not depart from Chalcedon, but await the election of the new bishop.
The most eminent Cardinal Baronius, and also Stephen Baluze, noted that the Greek copies of the Chalcedonian Acts contain the aforesaid sessions distributed otherwise. But that this is to be attributed to the notaries of the bishops, we affirm in the dissertation which we have composed on behalf of Domnus of Antioch. 6. In the fifth session, an inquiry was begun concerning the constitution of the faith to be held by all as a firm rule. For Carosus, Dorotheus, and other Eutychian archimandrites had given a libel to the emperor Marcian, that it might be permitted to them to dispute about matters of faith with the catholics. When these had entered the synod and presented the libel to the Fathers, they were found to hold supplications on behalf of Dioscorus.
They professed in it that they embraced only the Nicene faith, and admitted no exposition of it. They added moreover that they would rather lead their life apart, separated from the communion of the others, than suffer anything new to be brought in upon the faith. Thus indeed (says Baronius) those hypocrites, after the manner of Eutyches and Dioscorus, under the feigned cloak of the Nicene faith were fostering a new heresy. Against their libel another was set, presented to the synod by the catholic archimandrites, and meanwhile a span of time was given to the heretics for coming to their senses, and for subscribing to the catholic faith against Eutyches. Among these was a certain archimandrite named Maximus, who was said to be the teacher of Eutyches.
But the crafty manner of acting of the heretical archimandrites wearied the synod and stirred up tumults among the Fathers. For Paschasinus and the other papal legates wished that, for the destruction and condemnation of the Eutychian heresy, the letter of Saint Leo should be admitted by all as the token of the faith. But on the contrary Anatolius of Constantinople, who secretly until then in part adhered to Dioscorus and the Eutychian faction, opposed in many ways. For first he set before the Fathers, as to be approved, a certain definition of the faith recited by Asclepiades, a deacon of Constantinople, which, as favoring the bands of heretics, the vicars of the Apostolic See, with some of the Eastern bishops, repudiated, nor permitted to be inserted into the synodal Acts.
Secondly, he contended that nothing new ought to be added to the ancient sanctions of the faith, so that, besides the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed and the decrees of Ephesus established against Nestorius and his followers, no definition ought to be admitted for proscribing the Eutychian dogma. Thirdly, he affirmed that Dioscorus had not been condemned and deprived of his episcopate on account of injured faith, but because he excommunicated Domnus, archbishop Leo, and was summoned a third time, and therefore was condemned. This crafty manner of acting of Anatolius, Paschasinus and the other papal vicars thoroughly understood. And therefore, lest any approach should remain for the Eutychians of interpreting the Creed of the faith otherwise, to the preceding Nicene,
Constantinopolitan, and Ephesine decrees added: 'The letter of the most blessed and most holy archbishop Leo, prelate of the great and elder city of Rome, which was written to the archbishop Flavian of holy memory, for the destroying of the evil understanding of Eutyches, he fittingly adapted, as agreeing both with the confession of the great Peter and as being a certain common pillar existing against those who think perversely, for the confirmation of right dogmas,' etc. The definition of the faith, then, being recited in full, they decreed that it must be made known to the emperor Marcian by the sentence of the judges, as Facundus of Hermiane and the deacon Liberatus have it, so that the bishops might thereupon with unanimous consent subscribe to it in the following session. 7.
On the eighth day before the Kalends of November, then, the sixth session was celebrated, and, as is made known from the copies of the Acts, all the bishops subscribed to the synodal definition. And there, with the emperor Marcian and the Augusta Pulcheria and other noble men, ministers of the imperial court, arriving, Marcian himself addressed the Fathers of the synod in a few words. This address being concluded, Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, recited what had hitherto been transacted, together with the subscriptions of all the bishops. Wherefore, when the synod was asked by the emperor whether the definition now read out had been brought forth according to the exposition of all the holy bishops, all cried out: 'We all so believe, one faith, one will,' etc.; and the Fathers, turning
toward the emperor, said: 'To Marcian the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David. The years of David to the emperor!' To the Augusta likewise they wished many years, and addressing both, they added: 'Lights of the world, O Lord, do thou preserve them'; and with many other true and just praises they adorned them both. The affairs of faith being thus disposed and confirmed, the emperor, for the honor of the clerical service and of the monastic life, proposed to the synod certain chapters to be determined by canonical statutes: 'Judging it seemly (he said) that these be formed by you in regular manner through a synod, rather than be sanctioned by our law.' But the bishops, wearied on account of their many labors, once and again begged the emperor as suppliants to dismiss them:
but Marcian himself, turning toward the synod, said: 'You are indeed much wearied with the journey, bearing the labor. Nevertheless, hold on yet three or four days, and in the presence of our most magnificent judges, raise whatever matters you will, to obtain fitting solace.' He at length added: 'Let none of you depart before the perfected terms on all matters are brought forth by the holy council.' Thus far, with that brevity which I could, I have summarily described the first six sessions of the Chalcedonian synod; from which there can be no doubt that the wishes of Saint
Leo the Great's wishes remained fulfilled with happy success, and that the rights of the Apostolic See, most basely already long since violated and abolished by the faction of Dioscorus and the Eutychians in the preceding synod of Ephesus, were restored by the solemn and universal judgment of the whole Church. But the rest of the things that follow, since they pertain to the particular cases of certain bishops, we shall explain in the following Exercises.