many, and nearly all, writers have supposed. Nevertheless, various things can make trouble for Christian Lupus and weaken his opinion. For in the first place, as regards the imperial rescript by which Dioscorus is read to have been constituted president of the synod, it is difficult to interpret it otherwise than its words sound. For it has: 'For this cause we have judged it necessary to use these sacred letters to your reverence, through which we make manifest to your beatitude and to the whole holy synod that we, following the rules of the Fathers, grant authority and primacy to your beatitude — not only as regards you on account of Theodoret, but also all the others who belong to the assembled holy synod.'
These words indeed—when read together with the preceding causal clause—Rusticus the deacon, the ancient translator of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, understood as stirring up and provoking an open schism against the divine Roman See; which he indicated by the following annotation upon those last words, adding: 'Openly against the Roman See.' 11. Nor do we think it can prove anything that in the same imperial decree we come upon the names of Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and of Thalassius, primate of Caesarea in Cappadocia, such that we might conjecture that by the force of the same decree the primacy had been attributed to these men also by the emperor.
For the emperor there merely indicated that he was persuaded that these two bishops would be of one mind and one action with Dioscorus himself; but concerning any primacy conferred upon them and any authority of presiding he keeps deep silence. Let us therefore transcribe the words that follow: 'Knowing more diligently that both the most reverend archbishop of Jerusalem, Juvenal, and the most blessed archbishop Thalassius, and every such fervent lover and zealous defender of the orthodox faith, will be in agreement with thy holiness, who art radiant through the grace of God in honor of life and in the catholic faith.' It is therefore evident that no faculty whatever was granted to the archbishops Juvenal and Thalassius.
Otherwise, anyone whatever who had held a place in that synod, and who had attached himself by his own consent to the partisanship and party of Dioscorus, could have assumed to himself the authority of president, and adjudged it to himself, on the strength of those words: 'and every such fervent lover . . . will be in agreement with thy holiness'; which indeed Christian Lupus neither grants nor could have granted. There remains the difficulty whether Theodosius wrote in the same tenor either to Juvenal or to St. Leo the pope. The subscription adduced by Lupus on Juvenal's behalf wavers. For Labbé believed it should be read 'at the same time' (eodem tempore). Although Stephen Baluze judged that the former reading ought to be retained, as it stands in the manuscripts written by hand. He adds: 'The Romans have it: It was written in the same tenor also to Juvenal,' etc.
The Royal Edition has: 'At the same time it was also written.' Therefore the same Baluze concludes: 'No one fails to see that it is a printer's error, nor do I see why it was retained by Labbé.' In this variety of manuscript codices and of printed editions, what certain conclusion we can draw I do not see. Therefore I do not think one should firmly insist upon an annotation of this kind, especially since it lies hidden by whom and by what authority it was appended to the Acts of the councils. Moreover, granting still that the reading adopted by Christian Lupus be genuine, and called into doubt by no one—what then? Cannot those words, 'it was written in the same tenor also to Juvenal,' be expounded without any forced interpretation as meaning that it was written to Juvenal that he should adhere with unanimous consent to Dioscorus?
In this case the letter directed to Juvenal of Jerusalem corresponds exactly to the imperial decree of Theodosius given to Dioscorus, in which mention is made only that Juvenal and Thalassius would be in agreement, in that synod, with the holiness of Dioscorus, who is radiant by the grace of God in the honor of life and in the catholic faith—no regard whatever being had to the authority and primacy which Dioscorus alone had extorted with the utmost injustice. But the words by which Dioscorus, wishing to clear himself of the crimes perpetrated in the Ephesine synod, boldly answered the Chalcedonian Fathers, can rather carry weight in Lupus's favor:
'Your clemency has learned that our most sacred emperor entrusted the judgment not to me alone, but also gave the authority of the synod to the most blessed Juvenal and the most holy Thalassius. We therefore have judged the things that have been judged. The whole synod consented with us. Why then are these things extended to me alone, when the authority was equally bestowed and shared, and the whole synod, as I said, consented to the things judged by us?' 12.
These last words, which Lupus omitted to note, if they had not been put forth deceitfully and for the purpose of enlisting accomplices for himself in his crimes, would supply an argument for judging that Dioscorus had not arrogantly assumed to himself the authority over the synod from the emperor's decree as president-primate, but that it had been given equally to Juvenal and Thalassius as well. Yet what could be deduced in favor of our cause, if in that decree no mention whatever is had of Leo the supreme pontiff, to whom, considering all rights and the custom of preceding councils, it pertained to preside over the synod?
I do not see, therefore, how Theodosius can be fully cleared of that mark of blame by which, hemmed in by his ministers, he of his own accord lent a hand to infringing the rights of the apostolic See. Now at last the difficulty returns, whether Theodosius wrote in the same tenor to St. Leo. Two things indeed occur to be considered, which seem to support Lupus's opinion. The one, which has already been discussed and unfolded by us in this chapter, in treating of St. Leo's letter to the Ephesine synod. The other is the testimony of Julius of Puteoli, brought forward by Lupus himself. As regards the first, only very grave conjectures present themselves. For up to now no letters of Theodosius to Leo concerning the convoked Ephesine synod have been found by the learned:
—such that we might establish with certainty that these were of the same tenor as the decrees directed to Dioscorus. This one thing only is ascertained: that St. Leo never suspected that the prerogative of the primacy and the right of presiding over the synod ought to be adjudged to him by the powerlessness of others. Otherwise Theodosius would never have invoked the authority of the apostolic See which he employed, nor would he have exposed his legates to so many and such great labors and dangers, nor would he perchance have given place and time to factious men, being most well aware that those same times cannot always run their course. Such and so great was the strength the holy pontiff held in his virtue, that he could in no way be overcome by any worldly power whatsoever;
—especially when there was question of the rights and prerogatives of the apostolic See, which he did not permit anyone to wound even slightly, as we could illustrate with countless examples drawn from his life. The utterance of Julius, bishop of Puteoli, would indeed accomplish much. It would carry authority and weight toward clearing and washing away the mark of schism with which the emperor Theodosius is branded by very many writers. But what the tenor of Theodosius's letters may have been is hitherto unknown.
Therefore those who are wont to seek a knot in a bulrush, and who strive either to make the emperor guilty of violated ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or to reform and utterly cast down the authority of the Roman pontiffs in the convoking and holding of councils, if other more evident arguments were not at hand, will reply: Those words, 'in the same tenor,' fall only upon the convocation of the council, so that holy Leo was summoned by the emperor on equal terms as Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Thalassius;
—but that they by no means refer to the primate and president of the synod, which prerogative was committed uniquely to Dioscorus, as both the cited decree and the series of synodal acts make plain. If it were thus objected to me, I would nonetheless not think that the opinion of Christian Lupus should be cast into a corner. For it attains greater strength and force from the protest of Hilary the deacon, likewise legate of the apostolic See, if that most learned man had brought it forward whole, as we have deemed it necessary to do—as indeed learned men, who cling to no party, will judge. 13. Hilary, then, the Roman deacon, with Florentius bishop of Lydia interpreting for him, said:
'The most glorious and most Christian emperors, holding charity and affection toward the catholic faith, sending venerable letters, besought the most blessed bishop Leo, prelate of the apostolic See, that he should be present at this venerable and holy council—whose piety it might have pleased, if in this matter any likeness were maintained. For your holiness can better recognize that neither in the holy synod of Nicaea, nor in that of Ephesus, nor in any other such holy council, was the pope of the perpetual most holy See present.'
Here perhaps Hilary alludes to what the holy pontiff wrote to the emperor Theodosius and to the empress Pulcheria, recounting the causes which hindered him from setting out beyond Italy to hold the council. Then Hilary added: 'For which reason, following the custom of this practice, he has directed us. He, the most holy one, not doubting that he is here present in you—whom especially he knows to do all things that pertain to the sincerity of the catholic faith and to the reverence due to St. Peter the apostle—who also through us has directed letters fitting for a council of the holy Fathers, which you are to receive and read.'
This most weighty address of Hilary, and his most just demand, resting upon the rights of the apostolic See, ought neither to have been despised nor rejected by Dioscorus; since Hilary had borne witness that the holy pontiff was present at the council through his legates, and had demanded that this be acknowledged by the Fathers, and that his dogmatic letter be received and read. But then Dioscorus, the reins of his intemperance loosed, set himself up as an ambitious judge of all things to be transacted; relying on the protection of the imperial ministers and the guard of an armed cohort, he boldly commanded: 'Let the things be received that have been written to this holy and universal synod by our most holy brother and fellow-bishop Leo.'
He prevented their being read out, and in place of these letters the imperial letters were rendered, which John the presbyter and chief of the notaries held ready in his hands; and these, by the command of Juvenal, were read and inserted into the records of the faith. These things indeed, to confess sincerely, portend that Dioscorus had set himself up as president of the synod by a violent invasion, as Christian Lupus indicated. Yet I do not know whether they altogether exclude a delegation of the prince. Still, Rusticus, the ancient translator of the Acts of Chalcedon, seems to support Lupus, who, noting this manner of Dioscorus's acting, annotated in the margin: 'The prevarication of Dioscorus, that the letter of the pope should be received by the synod, and not read out.' These things indeed, as—
—as equity demanded, it behooved us to write, both to expound more fully the opinion of Christian Lupus, and to settle or illustrate certain obscure and entangled questions stirred up by the same Lupus on the occasion of his opinion; yet by no means departing from the supreme zeal of the holy pontiff Leo, who employed all the stronger means so that in the convoked synod all things might be conducted to the very summits of justice. 14. But after Dioscorus had seized all arbitrary power in the synod, what good remained to be hoped for by Leo and by the whole catholic Church?
What protection remained for Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who behold Elpidius present at the synod with armed companies of soldiers, by the emperor's command, having already received the faculty of casting into chains whomever should oppose the will of the president? I confess indeed that this faculty was granted to Elpidius against the disturbers of concord. But by what reasoning could Flavian and Eusebius, and others who were bravely and deservedly contending for the catholic faith and for the rights of the apostolic See, be in concord and of equal mind with those who, under a show of honesty, wished to overthrow the faith of the incarnation and to oppress the defenders of catholic doctrine? 'The bishops who had previously condemned Eutyches are forbidden (Quesnel observes) to pronounce sentence;
—nay rather, they are commanded to await the judgment concerning their own judgment upon Eutyches. Letters were moreover sent by the Augustus to the proconsul of the province, to the magistrates and commanders of the army, that they should put the decrees of the council into execution. Finally, to the synod itself, where he assails Flavian as turbulent and as one contriving novelties in religion, but addresses Eutyches honorably, as an upright man and a holder-fast of the truth.' These things concerning the beginnings of that synod Quesnel recounted briefly, departing somewhat in describing them from Baronius and others, who with a more orderly method describe this tragic history; which, however, we make it our study to relate only summarily, lest we should seem to do over what has been done by others.
Among, then, the other injuries which Flavian was first compelled to undergo, one was this: that, when there had assembled in that synod Domnus of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Stephen of Ephesus, and others, Flavian himself was by no means permitted to sit after the bishop of Antioch, but after Juvenal. And when one hundred and thirty bishops had assembled in the basilica of Mary the Mother of God, it was ordered by Dioscorus that the letters of the emperor addressed to himself be read; and the legates of the apostolic See—namely Julius bishop of Puteoli, Renatus presbyter of the title of St. Clement, and Hilary the deacon—instructed the synod concerning their legation, likewise producing the letters which the most holy Leo the Great had directed both to the synod and to Flavian.
Letters of this kind were indeed received (as we saw a little before), but by no means read. And although the pontifical legates had repeatedly insisted that they be read, and Dioscorus had promised this under oath, nevertheless he chose rather to become guilty of perjury, to violate the rights of the apostolic Church, and to stir up scandal throughout the whole world, than to permit that they be recited. 15. In place of these letters, therefore, he preferred that the emperor's letter be read; and when the suggestion was heard by which it was demanded that the cause of the faith be treated, Dioscorus rejected the petition, saying it had been decreed by the emperor that there be treated the controversies arisen at Constantinople between Flavian and Eutyches.
The notaries who were taking down the Acts, by command of the same Alexandrian bishop, added that the bishop assented to Dioscorus, and acclaimed that nothing concerning the faith was to be done or innovated. But this foul falsehood was exposed in the Council of Chalcedon, in the first session. Nay more, it was added that the notaries of Dioscorus made an assault upon the notaries of Stephen bishop of Ephesus; and that what had recently been written down was erased, and great violence was applied, so that they snatched away their tablets, and the fingers of those resisting were almost crushed by these same men.
Therefore, in order that Dioscorus might carry into execution what he had devised in his mind, at the suggestion of the count Elpidius, Eutyches—the bishops approving—was ordered to enter and plead his cause, that he might announce what he held concerning the faith. He, using his accustomed cunning, blandly appealed to the Fathers of the synod as if they were witnesses of his faith, first commending himself to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He confessed that he had a booklet of faith ready in his hands, which he offered to the holy synod. In it he asserted that from boyhood he had resolved to live in silence, and to pass his life even to decrepit old age, far from all disturbances;
—but then he contended that he had been surrounded by the most grievous perils of those lying in wait for him, because he had not acquiesced in holding, according to the definition of your former council assembled at Ephesus, anything beyond that faith which was set forth at Nicaea by the holy Fathers. As a testimony of his sincere faith, Eutyches subjoined the Nicene Creed, to which, pretending to allude, he afterward said: 'Thus from the beginning, receiving it from my forefathers, have I believed; and in this faith I was both born, and immediately consecrated to God, and his own mercy received me; in this faith I was baptized and sealed, that I have lived in it thus far and choose to die in it.' He confessed that he likewise accepted the things which had been established by the Ephesine synod according to St. —
—Cyril's doctrine had established, adding at last an anathema against Manichaeus, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, and all heretics down to Simon Magus, and against those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ descended from heaven. After these things he relates how Eusebius of Dorylaeum, wishing to drive him from his peace, had impleaded him as a heretic in the synod of Constantinople under Flavian, inserting in his pleadings no specification of heresy. Wherefore he subjoins that, the bishop of Constantinople commanding, he was compelled to make satisfaction to the accusation.
'Which bishop nevertheless (Flavian, namely) dwelt in many things with my accuser, and was almost inseparable from him, thinking that I, as I was wont, always continued in the monastery. Of which matter I was made more certain by a great man, a Silentiary, whom the emperor himself had delegated to me, that I should not expose myself to the peril of a threatened welfare; who replied that my presence (he said) was for the rest superfluous, since already before the discussion, by the hatreds and rivalries of private persons, I had been as it were condemned by a conspiracy.' He then relates that he came to the trial to make satisfaction—
—exhibiting a confession of faith plainly consonant with the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers, afterward confirmed by the Ephesine synod, which neither the Fathers of the council of Constantinople under Flavian deigned to receive, nor permitted to be recited. But a tumult of the secretaries having arisen, and many clamors supervening, by which his mind was disturbed, as also by the interlocutions of the judges, which he affirmed he held in writing, it was still demanded of him that he should add something else to the Nicene and Ephesine decrees.
'I (behold the greatest cunning of Eutyches), fearing to transgress the definition put forth by the holy synod which by God's will is here assembled, and the things which were defined by the holy Fathers who convened at Nicaea, kept asking to make it known to your holy council, that they should acquiesce in those things which were approved by you, being ready to remain in them.' But that nothing concerning a general council, to which he might appeal, was demonstrated in the earlier chapters, we judge. Nor on that account shall we linger over refuting this falsehood.
Yet he made this falsehood graver by a subsequent calumny, saying that a conspiracy had been formed against him and brought to its conclusion, because, against me, a sentence written long beforehand, as it seemed to him, was read out as a condemnation. He adds that his profession of faith was afterward changed in the series of the records, while no word was made of my appeal to your holiness, O most reverend and distinguished bishop Flavian, nor any blushing at my hairs grown grey in battles against heretics and in the confession of piety. His own merits, by which he here thought himself distinguished in fighting against the Nestorians, Eutyches here especially exaggerates, that he may gradually win for himself the favor of the judges and their commiseration.
But he framed a still worse calumny against Flavian, fabricating that the holy bishop had unjustly assumed to himself alone the right of judging concerning matters of faith, and had reserved nothing of so great a judgment to your holiness; and, the tenor of the sentence being made public which the same Flavian had pronounced against him, and which after the appeal he had affixed in various oratories and memorials of the saints, '(he says) I read the sentence brought against me. And he anathematized me and those who came together to me and conversed with me, making them aliens from holy communion, not awaiting the judgment of your holiness.' Finally, after such a series and heap of so many and so great falsehoods, he addresses the Fathers of the Ephesine council with these words:
'I now therefore beseech your holiness, consider the calumny contrived against me, and the factions, and the disturbance everywhere brought upon the holy Churches from this cause, and from this the scandal befalling very many. . . . For I from the beginning sought the judgment of your blessedness, and again, I call to witness before Jesus Christ.' 16. 'Who, pray,' writes the most eminent cardinal Baronius, 'reading these things, and not knowing that it is Eutyches, would not suppose that some one of the most holy Fathers, the chief defenders of the orthodox faith, is speaking?'
'Or who, knowing that these things are said by Eutyches, but not knowing what preceded or what followed, would not at once join him with the standard-bearers of the catholic faith—the Athanasiuses, the Gregories, the Basils, and the Chrysostoms?' Yet how grievously Flavian's mind was moved by these things—he who had heard himself impeached as a calumniator, and a conspirator against another's innocence, and was being traduced as a disturber of ecclesiastical peace in the full synod, by a lying heretical man—let the reader, I pray, ponder with himself.
By these afflictions Flavian, believing to be relieved without sorrow of soul, found himself made more bitter, when, namely, the booklet of Eutyches having been recited, he asked that place be given to the accuser, and that Eusebius of Dorylaeum be bidden to enter; and he was not heard, but rebuffed, and Eusebius was forbidden to be admitted into the assembly of the bishops. This new crime was afterward objected to Dioscorus in the council of Chalcedon, who cast the baseness of this deed upon the count Elpidius, and Elpidius upon the emperor thus commanding—that Eusebius and Flavian were to be held not as accusers, nor as vindicators of what had previously been done in the synod of Constantinople, but only as defendants, to be judged with no defense admitted.
Hence Dioscorus at once proposed that the acts of the council of Constantinople against Eutyches should be read; and although Julius, legate of the apostolic See, had opposed this, protesting that he would permit those Acts to be read only if first the dogmatic letter of St. Leo were read, as Hilary the deacon likewise attested—nevertheless the demand of the pontifical legates was rejected, because Eutyches, boldly coming forward, maliciously proclaimed them as hostile and suspect to himself, because they had stayed with Flavian, and had dined with the same man. The Constantinopolitan Acts were therefore read, and when it came to the writings of St. —
—Cyril's writings, Eustathius bishop of Berytus suggested that, according to the opinion of Cyril, one ought not to speak of two natures in Christ after the incarnation, but only of one, according to the opinion of Athanasius. The Eutychians acclaimed the cause as won. For Eustathius the bishop did not grasp the mind of those two Fathers, who indiscriminately sometimes use 'nature' for hypostasis and person—which we have taught and demonstrated, in our scholastic Exercitations, to have been most especially common to the Greek writers before the Antiochene schism. Meanwhile the rest of the bishops, either driven by fear of threats or corrupted by promises, did not dare openly to profess and expound the faith of the catholic Church;
—but when it came to that final part of the Acts, in which Eusebius of Dorylaeum had impleaded Eutyches to confess that after the union of the Word with flesh there are two natures mutually distinct in Christ, the patrons and abettors of Eutyches more audaciously cried out: 'Away with him, burn Eusebius, let that man burn alive, let him be cut in two; as he has divided, let him be divided.' 17. To this brigand-like form of judging Dioscorus sought to give some feigned color of canonical judgment. And therefore he questions the synod: 'Is this saying tolerable to you, to speak of two natures after the union?' The synod answered: 'Anathema to him who shall say it.' But that these things were said by those who fawned upon Dioscorus, Baronius asserts.
And the same most learned writer of the Annals borrows his foundations from the testimony of those Fathers who were present at this synod, and afterward retracted the whole cause in the council of Chalcedon. And he appeals especially to Basil of Seleucia the bishop, who through the blessed John the bishop had asked Dioscorus to amend his interlocution, and added: 'For you imposed upon us a great necessity then, both from those who were outside and from your own tongue. Soldiers with arms were rushing into the church, the monks who were with Barsumas were pressing in, and those who were called Parabolani, and another great multitude.'
These things, which we describe concerning the force and fear then tyrannically inflicted upon the Fathers through Dioscorus, the rest who were present at the Ephesine council attested in the synod of Chalcedon. Only the legates of the apostolic See could by no fear and violence be moved to obey the will of Dioscorus, or even slightly to depart from the instructions and the memorandum which they had received from the holy pontiff Leo. 'They protested loudly, they cried out,' says Baronius, 'and publicly attested that those Acts had no force whatever, which were extorted by violence alone and tyranny; and that no prejudice could be done to the catholic faith, the formula of which, sent from the See of Peter to the synod, the wicked Dioscorus had not even allowed to be read.'
Concerning the apostolic See's authority being injured, above all, St. Leo afterward gravely complained in his letter to the emperor Theodosius, of which we shall speak in its proper place. But the bishops themselves too were compelled to suffer violence on every side. For if they professed that there are two natures in Christ the Lord after the union, they were proclaimed as Nestorians to be put to death: 'Condemnation was threatened against us (they say), the menaces of exile were leveled, soldiers stood by with clubs and swords. We feared the swords and clubs. Where there are clubs and swords, what kind of synod is it?' Forty-two bishops were ordered to be silent, who could have brought forth even one word, and only fifteen who favored Eutyches were permitted to speak.