Therefore, after nothing was proved by the notaries concerning the falsity of the proceedings, Eutyches petitioned Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, to inquire into what had been done concerning him and to examine the case. He was therefore urging before the emperor that a universal synod be held, so that the judgment of Flavian might be tested. Dioscorus accordingly wrote to the emperor Theodosius that it was fitting another general synod be held, and Eutyches persuaded him that it should be done. The emperor consented, and sending a sacred rescript to Dioscorus in Alexandria, he commanded that, together with ten metropolitan bishops, he himself should choose others whom he wished, and come to Ephesus, and, with the universal council gathered, discuss the case of Eutyches:
commanding that Barsumas the archimandrite take part in the council, and act on behalf of all the monks who were accusing the Eastern bishops. But he forbade Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, to be present at the council, and ordered him to remain in his own city. For already Eutyches had banished into exile, into many lodging-places, Ibas, bishop of Edessa, that he might not be present at the synod, through his own son Chrysaphius, whom I mentioned above. And the general council is held at Ephesus, to which there came Flavian indeed and Eutyches, as those to be judged, Juvenal and Thalassius, and all those metropolitan bishops with their councils, and the judges of the council of Constantinople who had judged Eutyches.
But Dioscorus had with him the strongest soldiers of the state, together with the monks of Barsumas. And as those bishops were seated in the basilica of Mary the Mother of God, the legates of the Roman Church, holding the place of Pope Leo, were not allowed to sit alongside, because precedence was not given to their holy see; moreover also, because the letter written by Pope Leo to Flavian concerning the condemnation of Eutyches had not been read, and his letter had been concealed, which had been directed through the aforesaid legates to the synod itself, and its beginning is: 'The religious faith of the most merciful prince,' etc. And when Flavian was being judged by the synod on account of the condemnation of Eutyches, Dioscorus ordered that the document which Eutyches carried in his own hand be taken up and recited.
And as it was being recited, Dioscorus rose, and standing on the footstool of his seat, said to the council: 'The faith of Eutyches is most excellent and agrees with the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, and Eutyches believes rightly, brothers.' Then the synod, by Dioscorus's command, condemned Ibas of Edessa as absent, while many bishops did not know what had been done concerning him. And, having summoned him a third time as a contemner and one not appearing before the holy council, it condemned him in absence. Now it was being shouted that testimony against him was being given by his adversaries, as though he had said: 'I do not envy Christ for having been made God, since if I wish, I too become so,' and as though he had said: 'Today Christ has been made God;'
and other things of this sort, and on account of the letter directed by Ibas to Maris. Again the synod, with Dioscorus as its author, condemned Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, in absence, who had not even departed from his own city, on account of those things which he had written against the twelve anathemas of Cyril, and on account of the letter sent by him to clerics and monks and laymen against the synod of Ephesus before the peace of the Church. To these the said synod also condemned Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, because he had said that Christ was 'of two perfect natures.' And along with him it likewise condemned Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, as though wrongly condemning Eutyches, and because he had said that Christ was 'acknowledged in two natures.'
Wherefore certain venerable bishops, rising up, clasped the knees of Dioscorus, and begged that the innocent Flavian not be condemned; yet they could not plead for long, out of fear of the soldiers and monks standing by with swords and clubs. He also deposed Sabinianus, bishop of Perrhe; and after all the rest, Domnus of Antioch as well, who had hung back from the deposition of the orthodox, because he had become a partaker with Dioscorus in the deposition of the orthodox and the acquittal of Eutyches. Now he was deposed by the guile of Dioscorus in this way. After he had consented to Dioscorus in all things, when the letters were laid in the midst which Domnus of Antioch had written to Dioscorus himself against the twelve chapters of Cyril, on the ground that they were obscure, Dioscorus condemned him as sick and absent on that day.
Therefore, as the synod decreed these things and restored to Eutyches the dignity of the priesthood and the headship of his ministry, Flavian indeed and Eusebius were committed to custody. Moreover, those holding the place of Pope Leo contradicted everything that had been done; but Flavian, when the sentence had been pronounced against him, through Leo's legates appealed to the Apostolic See by a written document, and that synod had this for its conclusion. When therefore all these evils had been perpetrated by Dioscorus, Flavian, beaten and afflicted with many injuries, departed to the Lord from the pain of his wounds; and in his place was ordained Anatolius the deacon, who at Constantinople had been the apocrisiarius of Dioscorus;
and in place of Domnus of Antioch Maximus was ordained, and in place of Ibas Nonnus, and in place of Sabinianus Athanasius; but in place of Theodoret and Eusebius no one was ordained. When therefore that council was dissolved and the bishops had returned to their own sees, a schism arose among them such as had never happened before. The Egyptian, Thracian, and Palestinian bishops followed Dioscorus; the Eastern, Pontic, and Asian bishops followed Flavian of holy memory; which schism remained until the death of the emperor Theodosius. But for one seeking to know more fully the brigandages of Dioscorus perpetrated in that very synod, the whole thing becomes most fully known to the reader from the first session of the Council of Chalcedon, in which the acts of the council of Ephesus (not even to be named) were read and inserted into the proceedings;
for we received these things, recently translated at Alexandria from Greek into Latin. Furthermore, the legates of the Apostolic See, fleeing from that very council, reported to Pope Leo the iniquities of Dioscorus: how Dioscorus had acted in that synod by force rather than justice, in which, fear having been instilled, the bishops subscribed to the acquittal of Eutyches and the deposition of the orthodox bishops who would not receive the heresy, and how they had contradicted all his acts. Following them, Theodoret the bishop intimated to the pope how great evils he had endured from the snares of Dioscorus, asking that such a case be quickly aided by another assembly of bishops, lest the heretical dogmas of Eutyches, confirmed by Dioscorus, should remain.
But the most valiant Leo, hearing the suggestion of his legates and receiving the complaints of Theodoret, by his letters to the emperor Theodosius and the Augusta Pulcheria asked that a general council be held within Italy, and that the error of faith brought about by the violence of Dioscorus be abolished. And the Roman pontiff, prostrate on his knees before the emperor Valentinian and Eudoxia his wife, at the memorial of blessed Peter, together with many bishops, besought them to exhort the emperor Theodosius that another synod be held, to review those things which had been wrongly done and perpetrated by Dioscorus in the condemnation of bishop Flavian and the deposition of the orthodox.
To them, as they wrote and petitioned, the emperor Theodosius wrote back that Flavian, being guilty of a harmful novelty, had received the debt of death he deserved, so that thereby all peace and concord might reign in the Church, the author of the strife having been removed from human affairs by sacred judgment. But that those who had been deposed had been unworthy of the priesthood, and that those who were judged worthy had been received by the synod. These things concerning Flavian [were written by] Theodosius, son of the emperor Arcadius, grandson of the emperor Theodosius the Elder, in whose times all these scandals are known to have occurred. 'Concerning the second Ephesine synod.'] It was held in the year 449, by the command of Theodosius, by the power of Chrysaphius, by the artifices of Eutyches, by the ambition of Dioscorus.
Chrysaphius had almost bewitched Theodosius, Eutyches Chrysaphius, Dioscorus Eutyches; Chrysaphius had blinded the emperor's mind with hatred of Flavian and envy of Pulcheria. To Chrysaphius, Eutyches, when received as his sponsor at baptism, had given occasion for exercising his enmities, under the appearance of vindicating piety. Dioscorus, relying on such great resources, hoped that he would recover the lost primacy of the Eastern Church. The womanly jealousy of Eudoxia against Pulcheria also aided this machination; for, if there is any credit to be given to Nicephorus, book 14, chapter 47, Chrysaphius, to play her part in this tragedy, 'roused the Augusta Eudoxia, by saying among many other things especially those things that had happened to her bitterly at the hands of Pulcheria.'
To this synod there came, together with the legates of the Apostolic See, three hundred and sixty bishops, if we believe the little epitome of the history of the Eutychianists, which Father Sirmond published. It was ecumenical, since the Eastern Church was present through its four patriarchs, and the Western through the legates of the Apostolic See. It was begun on the eighth of the Ides of August, which was a Monday. It had three sessions, the acts of which were re-read in the Council of Chalcedon; afterward it was rejected by the whole Church, and branded with the infamous name of brigandage. 'That the judgment be tested.'] That is, that it be called to examination. 'Dioscorus therefore wrote.'] Nicephorus, in the place just cited, illuminates Liberatus's obscure narrative, whether by his own conjecture or by another's tradition:
'The beginning of its celebration was such: this Chrysaphius had great authority with the emperor, and because he held the consecration of Flavian less pleasing and approved, on account of a preconceived opinion, he suggested to the emperor that he signify to the patriarch that, in token of the favor of his election and consecration, he should send him the gift of the Indiction. The holy Flavian sent pure loaves. But Chrysaphius said that a gift of gold ought rather to be sent as a blessing; to whom the patriarch replied that he had no abundance of such things, unless perhaps he were to use for this purpose the sacred votive offerings of the temple;'
'and that Chrysaphius himself knew very well that the sacred vessels of the Church were consecrated to God and to the poor. And from this offense took its occasion, when the Augusta Pulcheria had taken no notice of the matter. Chrysaphius, stirred up by envy on account of this, set every rope in motion to thrust the patriarch down from his see.' 'With ten metropolitans.'] The words of the sacred imperial rescript to Dioscorus are these:
'Therefore let your holiness, having taken with you ten most reverend metropolitan bishops who dwell under your diocese, and likewise ten other holy bishops adorned in speech and life.' But since this very sacred rescript was directed in the same terms to the other patriarchs also, indeed even to the Autocephali, a question arises how the words cited can be brought into accord with the truth, since there were at that time only six provinces in the Egyptian diocese, and therefore no metropolitans properly so called; the patriarch of Jerusalem at that time had no metropolitans under his jurisdiction; the patriarch of Antioch, and also of Constantinople, had more than ten.
The difficulty grows worse from this, that the epitome just cited relates that three hundred and sixty bishops assembled, while in the acts nevertheless only one hundred and thirty-three are numbered, counting indeed those who were present through proxies; for how, in whatever way the words are vexed, can either that number or this be made up out of the bishops mentioned in the sacred rescript? The knot will be untied in the life of Theodoret. 'Commanding Barsumas.'] Leontius makes mention of a certain Barsumas in book 3 against the Eutychians:
'That disciple of yours was Barsumas, who governed Persia wickedly by your impious dogmas, and, the distinction in the conduct of life being abolished, brought in a law that no one of the clergy, much less a layman, should abstain from an unlawful bed, nor from polygamies, that is, many marriages; for he reckoned drunkenness and revels to be gifts of God.' Although the dates do not conflict, so as to prevent one and the same man from being thought to be Barsumas, whether the one named by Liberatus or the one named by Leontius, nevertheless the sect seems to be at variance; for the one mentioned by Liberatus adhered to Eutyches, the one by Leontius to Theodore of Mopsuestia—that is, each was a defender of the heresy of the other.
But that worthless fellow, whoever he was, could change his faith according to the time, and could even unite with Eutyches in dogma and with Theodore in morals. Furthermore, three charges were brought against Barsumas in the fourth session of the Council of Chalcedon. The first, that he had come into the assembly with other monks, although his name had not been inscribed in the petition of prayers offered by the monks to the emperor. The second, that he had killed Flavian in the robber-synod, shouting that he must be put to death. The last, that he had led a band of a thousand monks against the bishops of the East; on account of which it was cried out by all together:
'Cast the murderer Barsumas outside, the murderer to the arenas, anathema to Barsumas, Barsumas into exile!' 'To act on behalf of all the monks.'] The agitation of the monks against the bishops of the East arose already from the very beginning of the peace made between the Churches. For men ardent in zeal for the faith thought this peace feigned, whence Cyril found it necessary to admonish Maximus not to persist in abstaining from communion with John his bishop, but rather to use prudent dispensation for the time. On this matter Cyril's letter to Maximus, Acacius of Melitene, and Lampo is to be consulted; and it is to be observed that Cyril did not shrink from the suspicion of the monks concerning John himself and the other bishops of the East; for from there come these words:
'I have written to him (John), but worse things prevail,' and afterward, 'as the teacher wills, so he thinks,' etc. 'But Theodoret.'] It was not then for the first time that the emperor ordered him to confine himself in his own city; for he had given that command some years before. 'For already Eutyches had banished Ibas into exile.'] He had dared this through Chrysaphius, although Ibas seemed to have been acquitted at Tyre and Berytus; Liberatus alone expressly mentions this exile, although certain words of Ibas in session 9 of the Council of Chalcedon might be drawn to it. But this whole exile, which, if it occurred at all, happened in the year 448, near the end or the beginning of the following one, is greatly suspect to me. 'With the monks of Barsumas.'
The Fathers in the Council of Chalcedon complain that a thousand were brought in—so great were the evils that religion could persuade. 'In the basilica of the Mother of God.'] Where eighteen years before the Fathers of the catholic council had sat. 'The legates of the Roman Church.'] In the common editions they are called deacons, but by an evident fault, both from the words that follow, 'through the aforesaid legates,' and because of the legates only one, Hilarus, was a deacon, for Julian was a bishop, and Renatus was a presbyter. 'They were not allowed to sit alongside.'] A difficult passage, for whether the legates be said not to have taken part in the council, or to have taken part indeed but not to have sat after Dioscorus, the acts contradict it:
it is therefore credible that they did sit after Dioscorus, but first protested both the injury done to the Apostolic See by Theodosius, and the presidency contrary to the canons accepted by Dioscorus, which the emperor had committed to him, and the force offered to them by both: whence in the Council of Chalcedon, session 1, the legates of the Apostolic See, since they would not endure to sit with the Fathers while Dioscorus was present, accused him of having arrogated to himself the authority of presiding, 'and of holding a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which was never permitted, never done.' Note that 'authority' is put for 'presidency.' 'I do not envy Christ for having been made God.'] Concerning this impious opinion it has been disputed abundantly in the second part of the works of M.
Mercator, and it has been shown to be that of Paul of Samosata, and the first origin of Pelagianism concerning the powers of free will. Furthermore, there is the consolatory epistle 133 of Theodoret to Ibas, in the common calamity of their deposition. 'On account of the letter.'] From which were excerpted those things which we have both received from M. Mercator, and which are contained in synod 5, collation 5—unless, however, Theodoret sent several letters at the same time to Constantinople on the same subject: but the chief reason why Theodoret was condemned, both in this synod,
and in synod 5, were two works, one against the chapters of Cyril, the other against the Ephesine synod, which is its title; mention of it is indeed made in synod 5, but its fragments are partly found in Mercator, which we have published, partly scattered here and there, which we have gathered together. 'He also deposed Sabinianus.'] He is written 'Savinianus' in the common editions; we have restored 'Sabinianus' from the epistle 126 of Theodoret addressed to him: that is a consolatory letter in the common misfortune of both. 'Who had hung back from the deposition of the orthodox.'] An obscure passage, whether the reading is to be emended or retained:
if it is to be emended, it may seem that the word 'returning' (remeantem) should be substituted, so that it be a Gallic-like African expression, by which of a man repenting of a deed we say 'il est revenu de cela' (he has come back from that). But this emendation does not very well agree with what follows, in which Domnus is related to have been condemned sick. I think therefore that the reading is to be retained, as the genuine reading of Liberatus, but of one deceived by some unlearned or careless interpreter, who, when he had found in the Greek text 'becoming infirm' (infirmantem), rendered it just as if it were 'remaining' (remanentem). This opinion is favored both by the history itself and by the consequent sentence, 'he condemned him as sick and absent on that day.'
若要更正，則似乎當以「返回」（remeantem）一詞替代，好使它成為一個類似高盧語的非洲表達，我們藉此形容一個對某行為悔改的人，說「他從那事上回過頭來」（法語 il est revenu de cela）。但這更正與隨後的記載不甚相合，那記載說多姆努斯在患病時被定罪。因此我認為當保留原讀法，以其為利貝拉圖斯的真實讀法，只是他被某個無學或粗心的譯者所誤導，那譯者在希臘文本中見到「變得衰弱」（infirmantem），卻將其譯得彷彿是「留下」（remanentem）。歷史本身與隨後的句子都支持這見解，那句子說「他在那日定了他患病缺席之罪。」
'Against the twelve chapters of Cyril.'] Unless my conjecture deceives me, Domnus wrote to Dioscorus concerning the chapters of Cyril after receiving Theodoret's letter, which is the 112th, and in writing tried to persuade that they were not to be sanctioned as a rule of faith, for the reason that they were obscure. The ground of the conjecture is that Theodoret has something similar and many other things concerning the chapters. But we have spoken copiously about these very matters in the notes to the second part of the works of M. Mercator. 'Flavian departed to the Lord.'] He was not slain in the synod itself, since he was committed to custody after his deposition, but on the way by which he was going into exile; for thus the often-praised epitome:
'Flavian is led into exile, and at Epipa, which is a city of Lydia, he died, either by a death that supervened or by one that was inflicted.' Concerning the place of exile, Marcellinus Comes agrees in his Chronicle. See Baronius in the later notes to the Martyrology. 'A schism was made.'] Why the Egyptians and Palestinians adhered to Dioscorus, and to Juvenal who followed Dioscorus, is clear; the Thracians were drawn over to the same side by Anatolius, who from being the apocrisiarius of Dioscorus became bishop of Constantinople, and thus primate of Thrace; on Flavian's side stood the Pontic and Asian bishops, on account of Flavian himself; the Eastern bishops on account of their own deposed head Domnus, together with the three famous bishops Theodoret, Ibas, and Sabinianus, but chiefly on account of the cause of the twelve chapters.
'The legates of the Apostolic See fleeing.'] Hilarus the deacon relates that he fled, writing to Pulcheria, and Leo the Great also relates it; concerning the presbyter Renatus, Theodoret is a witness in epistle 116. But it is strange what is reported concerning Renatus in the epitome of the Eutychianists, namely that he did not reach Ephesus, but was forestalled by death on the island of Delos; how then, after the council was dissolved, did Theodoret write to him! What became of bishop Julian is not certain: there are those who interpret the silence of Leo the Great, Theodoret, and others in the worse sense. 'Following them, Theodoret.'] Not on the road, but in opinion and writings, as is clear from epistles 113, 116, etc.;
for he sent two chorepiscopi and an exarch of the monks, to convey his letters to the supreme pontiff and to promote his cause at Rome. 'But Valentinian and Eudoxia.'] He omitted Galla Placidia, the mother of Valentinian, who together with her son and daughter-in-law both visited saint Peter, and heard Leo's prayers, and wrote to Theodosius, and received a reply; part 1 of the Council of Chalcedon, chapters 26 and 30. 'Prostrate on his knees.'] The source from which Liberatus drew this lies hidden; for it is neither from earlier other writers, nor from the letters of Valentinian, Galla Placidia, and Eudoxia to Theodosius; for in these there is indeed mention of prayers poured out by Leo almost with tears, but there is no mention of an unbecoming kneeling.
'Theodosius wrote back.'] Liberatus interpolated this whole response of Theodosius; for in the letters of Theodosius there is no mention at all of the death of Flavian. 'These things concerning Flavian [were written by] Theodosius,' etc.] To what end did he mention Theodosius the Great, when he was speaking of Theodosius the Younger, unless to recall easily to the mind of the learned reader what John of Antioch wrote to Theodosius the Younger concerning the zeal of Theodosius the Great toward Theodore of Mopsuestia:
'For Theodore—when we say whom, we mean a man illustrious in the episcopate, who held his office to the end, and for nearly fifty years valiantly resisted all heresies, and in the expositions which he made in all the Eastern Churches, and by which he is shown to have been greatly approved in the royal city—was judged a heretic by no one, neither of the greater nor of the like; on the contrary, he was always held in admiration by all the priests, on account of the grace of doctrine that was in him, and possessed a higher honor of glory, and that not only from the priests, but from your most sacred grandfather, thrice-blessed, we say, and taking up the scepters of empire from God, and transmitting them to us, Theodosius:'
'who, having become filled with a desire for the sight of the man, was a hearer of his teaching in his church, that great emperor; nor did he think that he had ever met another such teacher, exceedingly admiring his doctrine, and delighted and astonished by his conversation—at that time he whom now some despise, as though taking it upon themselves to approve and reprove the departed teachers whom they will.' Facundus, book 2, chapter 2.