For the followers of Nestorius, seeing that his blasphemous books could not be brought forth in public—because, the Ephesine synod having anathematized them, they had been condemned, and it had also been forbidden by imperial law that anyone should dare to read or defend them—then began to circulate the volumes of Diodore of Tarsus and of Theodore bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, and of other bishops who had composed books against Eunomius and Apollinaris, the asserters of one nature, showing two natures in Christ in one person (which Nestorius had not said in this way); and desiring to deceive all the most simple folk, they kept saying that Nestorius had not held novelties, but had followed the doctrine of the ancient Fathers:
and they exerted themselves to such a degree of zeal that they maliciously translated those very volumes into the language of the Syrians, and of the Armenians and Persians. But when Acacius of Melitene and Rabbula bishop of the city of Edessa learned of these things—concerning whom Ibas, his successor, says in his letter: «He whose presumption presumes all things presumed openly to anathematize him in his own church» (namely, speaking above of Theodore of Mopsuestia)—they wrote to the bishops of Armenia, that they should not receive the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as those of a heretic and author of the Nestorian dogma, the bishops of Cilicia accusing Rabbula and Acacius of having done this not out of charity, but out of rivalry and contention.
Therefore the venerable bishops of Armenia gathered together, and sent two presbyters, Leontius and Aberius, to Proclus bishop of Constantinople, according to custom, with their petitions and a single volume of Theodore of Mopsuestia, wishing to know whether the doctrine of Theodore, or that of Rabbula and Acacius, should be proved true. And so Proclus, receiving the petitions of the Armenian bishops and that volume of Theodore, examining both rather carefully, wrote and dispatched to the Armenians a tome, in which he set down—to destroy the cunning of the Nestorians, who introduce two persons in Christ—«one of the Trinity made incarnate»; and this he also sent to John of Antioch by Theodore his deacon, containing below the chapters put forth by the heretics;
requesting of him, for the sake of preserving the common faith, that with his council he should receive and subscribe to it. But John, and the bishops gathered together with him, reading the tome and praising its composition, subscribed to it, and transmitted it to Proclus. This tome the synod of Chalcedon also—through its report which it directed to the emperor Marcian, in order to prove that the faith is established not only by synodal acts but also by letters—received and confirmed among the letters of the holy Fathers. The same Proclus also wrote a letter to John himself, to whom he had directed his tome, in which he says:
«But when we again call God passible, that is, Christ, we confess that he did not suffer in respect of what he is, but in respect of what he became, that is, in his own flesh; and so preaching, we shall in no way be deceived, since indeed we confess that one of the Trinity was crucified according to the flesh, and we by no means blaspheme the divinity as passible (Fac., book I, chap. 1, from which the passage has been corrected).» But a certain deacon Basil, taking the tome of Proclus which he had written to the Armenians, came to Alexandria, and joining the petitions of the Armenians to his own petitions, presented them to Cyril, the prelate of that same city.
Moved by these, as rumors report, Cyril wrote four books—three against Diodore and Theodore as authors of the Nestorian dogma, and another book on the Incarnation—in which are contained the uncorrupted testimonies of the ancient Fathers, that is, of Felix the Roman pope, of Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, and of Gregory surnamed the Wonderworker. And although in these books the sayings of Theodore published against the Arians are praised, they nevertheless maintain that he was the teacher of Nestorius. Against these the defenders of catholic truth thus replied to the Acephali:
«Those books are not Cyril's, because the testimonies which he is said to have set down in them against the dead he did not use against the living Nestorius—neither in the synod, nor in any of his letters»; whence they say «that Cyril neither dictated nor published those books.» And so the deacon Basil, coming to Constantinople, composed petitions and presented them to archbishop Proclus, joining all the things which he had previously offered to archbishop Cyril. But Proclus had already dispatched his tome to the Armenians, in which tome he makes no mention of any reproof of Theodore. Learning this, Basil wrote a little book, in which he taught that the books of Theodore are to be shunned, like the blasphemies of Arius and Eunomius:
which indeed appears to prudent men to have been written by him inappropriately, since Arius and Eunomius preached one degenerate substance of the Father in Christ, whereas Theodore, on the contrary—as they themselves accuse—taught two natures in Christ. After these things, however, taking the occasion, certain monks from Armenia, followers of Apollinaris, two or three (as John of Antioch reports in his letter), arose, carrying excerpted chapters, as they said, from the books of Theodore of Mopsuestia, or of other holy Fathers who at that time, as we have said, had written against Apollinaris; and entering the royal city and defiling the hearing of many, they threw everything into confusion by their cunning.
Then, going about the cities of the whole East and all the monasteries, they cried out that these things must be condemned along with their authors, accusing them of having been written in a Nestorian sense. «For if Nestorius was justly condemned, let these too be condemned,» they said, «along with their authors.» And they did these things, wishing to establish the things that belong to Apollinaris, who did not set forth Christ as consubstantial with us through one nature. Using the patronage of certain persons, they terrified with threats the clergy, the people, and the monks who pursued a quiet life.
Then John of Antioch, having gathered a synod, dictated three letters on behalf of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and one he directed to the emperor Theodosius, another to Cyril of Alexandria, and a third to Proclus bishop of Constantinople, praising Theodore in them and setting forth his wisdom. To these things, moreover, the emperor, directing a sacred rescript to John, judged that those detractors of Theodore were acting against their own salvation. But Cyril, in his rescript, preferring Theodore, passed such a judgment on his accusers, that they were held by a doctrine contrary to the truth, interposing concerning the creed offered to him in council on account of the Tessarescaedecatites by Charisius the presbyter.
Nonetheless Proclus too, writing back to John himself through Maximus his deacon, inquired whose those chapters were which were said to be Theodore's. And John, in excuse for him, said that he did not know. Nevertheless, the synod of Chalcedon, through its report directed to the emperor Marcian, received and confirmed two letters of the aforesaid John—that is, the first and the third, containing the praises of Theodore of Mopsuestia—together with the tome of Proclus which he directed to the Armenians, and other letters of the holy Fathers. These things, then, being laid to rest and settled, when Cyril died in the thirty-second year of his episcopate, Dioscorus was ordained bishop of Alexandria, who was indeed the archdeacon of the same Cyril, and who had neither wife nor children:
of whom report relates that he had the greater love of his fellow-citizens, inasmuch as, oppressing the heirs of Cyril and by many calumnies taking away money from them, he gave it without interest to the bakers and innkeepers of the city, that they might furnish the purest bread and the most precious wine to the people at a cheaper price. And when John the archbishop had died, Domnus was ordained archbishop of the Antiochene Church. And when Proclus too had died, Flavian obtained the see of the Church of Constantinople. At that very time certain presbyters and deacons accused Ibas, bishop of Edessa, in their petitions to archbishop Domnus, as a Nestorian, because, addressing the clergy, he had said:
«I do not envy Christ that he was made God, since if I will, I too may be made so»; and when these men had gone up to Antioch, Ibas excommunicated them; but, the feast of the Lenten Ascension supervening, they were ordered by Domnus to be released from excommunication, on this condition: that they not leave Antioch, otherwise they would be deposed from their order. But certain of them, despising the precepts of archbishop Domnus, set out for the imperial court and obtained sacred rescripts to the bishops Photius, Eustathius, and Uranius, that they might be heard at Berytus: and there were with them Eulogius a deacon of Constantinople, and Damascius a notable man, tribune and notary:
and when it had been recognized that those clerics had proceeded to Constantinople, they were condemned by Domnus and his council. And after these things Ibas presented himself at the hearing at Berytus: and when the accusers, as the acts show, had been able to prove nothing against him, there arrived a report and a petition of the Edessene clergy, demanding the presence of their bishop for the Church, in which they invoked upon themselves all the punishments of horrible Gehenna, if they should remember any such thing said in that treatise concerning which Ibas was accused, and had not made it manifest to the judges. Wherefore the judges caused the accusers themselves, with their bishop, to communicate in the sacristy, and at the same time dismissed them as reconciled. Chapter ten.] It is divided into three parts;
for it treats of the case of Diodore and Theodore, of the death of three patriarchs, and of the judgment of Ibas of Edessa: the first part, and likewise the last, are treated far better by Facundus. Observe first that all that is narrated in this chapter concerning the books of Diodore and Theodore happened in that interval of time which is between the emperor's decree concerning the burning of the books of Nestorius, and the death of John of Antioch; the former was given in the year 435 on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of March, in the third indiction; the latter occurred in the year 441: next, that a history of this kind is exceedingly entangled on account of the disturbed order of time, which must be restored from the mutual letters of Cyril, John, and Proclus;
finally, that Baronius warns the reader not to allow himself to be deceived by Liberatus when he relates things which he had received from some Nestorian—concerning which warning more afterward. By imperial law.] It was sanctioned under Theodosius for the fifteenth time and him who had been named consul, on the third day before the Nones of August, that is, in the year 435; it is found in the latest collection of the councils, in part 3 of the council of Ephesus; and in the Theodosian Code, On Heretics, law 66. Then began the books of Diodore.] There is no slight suspicion that this whole affair was carried out at least by the work or counsel of Theodoret; we set forth the grounds of suspicion in the dissertation on the faith of Theodoret:
let this one suffice for the present: that Cyril writes to Acacius of Melitene and to Valerian of Iconium that Theodoret, when he disapproved of the peace entered into between the Churches, boasted that the faith of the Easterners was the same as the faith of Nestorius, and that both did not differ from the faith of the Fathers. And of other bishops.] Of Athanasius, of both the Gregories, of Basil, of Amphilochius, and of Theophilus, as is gathered both from the first letter of Cyril to Acacius of Melitene, and from the synodical letter of John to Cyril, and from Cyril's reply to John, part 3 of the council of Ephesus. Those very volumes.] Just as Ibas translated these so-called volumes into the Syriac language, so Eulalius the friend of Theodoret translated them into Armenian, and Maris into Persian. (Proclus, in his letter
to John of Antioch, and in the fifth synod, session 6.) Certainly even now the works of Diodore and Theodore are held among the Syrians, as we learn from the catalogue of books written in the Syriac language which Hebedjesu compiled under Julius III, which Abraham Echellensis brought to light at Rome in the year 1653. Acacius and Rabbula.] Who and how great Acacius of Melitene was, is clear from the acts of the council of Ephesus; concerning Rabbula, Theodore the Lector relates something remarkable in his collectanea: «Rabbula,» he says, «bishop of Edessa, was blind; but Andrew of Samosata accused him as having written against the twelve chapters of Theodoret.» These things are explained in our dissertations on Theodoret:
and they contain—if only they be read, as is fitting—many things conducive to history, which escaped Valesius, otherwise a diligent editor of Theodoret. In his letter.] It is inserted into the Acts, both of the council of Chalcedon, action 10, and of the fifth synod, session 6. It is also found in Facundus, book VI, chapter 3, everywhere without a preface, everywhere of a different version. To the bishops of Cilicia.] Friends of Theodoret, and disciples of Theodore who had died eight years before; to these is addressed the eighty-fourth letter of Theodoret. Out of rivalry.] That Rabbula was opposed to Ibas, and Acacius to Theodoret, both for the cause of the common faith and for private reasons, is clear from the history of the time. For the Edessene Church too was rent into the parties of Rabbula and Ibas;
and Theodoret at Chalcedon had inveighed wonderfully much against Acacius, since the one was discharging the legation of a schismatic synod, the other that of the catholic one. Therefore the venerable bishops of Armenia gathered together.] Baronius is of the opinion that a certain notable council was assembled in Armenia, in which, the catholic faith being established and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia being examined, and impious things found in them at variance with the path of orthodox faith, lest they alone should seem to have condemned them, but the whole Eastern Church, they directed a legation from the synod to Proclus bishop of Constantinople to carry this out,» etc. But I do not see how these things agree with the words of Liberatus:
«They sent two presbyters, Leontius and Aberius, to Proclus bishop of Constantinople, according to custom, with their petitions, and one volume of Theodore of Mopsuestia, wishing to know whether the doctrine of Theodore, or that of Rabbula and Acacius, should be proved true.» For if the Armenians had condemned Theodore, after a careful examination of the case, why were they inquiring which faith was superior, that of Theodore or of Acacius? If they wished their opinion to be approved by the whole Eastern Church, why did they direct a legation neither to the Antiochene, nor to the Alexandrian, nor to the other autocephalous primates? According to custom.] What custom? Of sending two presbyters and not one with a deacon?
or of reporting to the bishop of Constantinople concerning matters transacted in a council as to the definition of faith? or of questioning the prelate of the greatest see concerning the faith? For it was customary, when a matter was referred from a lower synod to the prelate of the diocese, to send two presbyters as legates; it was also customary to refer to the same prelate concerning matters of greater moment; and likewise, in the Eastern Church, to sanction no definition in provincial synods on a question of faith, but to consult the prelate of the whole diocese: for this cause was reckoned to be one of the greater ones, which therefore pertain to the greater one.
The volume of Theodore.] The volume did not contain any whole work, but only certain excerpts, as is clear both from what follows—«containing below the chapters put forth by the heretics»—and from the refutation made by Cyril, the fragments of which are in the fifth synod. He wrote a tome to the Armenians.] In the common editions it is read as sent «in the consulship of the most pious emperors Theodosius for the fifteenth time and Valentinian for the fourth»: this note of time may deservedly seem suspect, not only because, except in the case of the supreme pontiffs, a date is scarcely ever appended to the letters of bishops;
but far more because, between the emperor's decree given in the month of August of the year 435 and the dispatch of the tome by Proclus to the Armenians, those things happened which can scarcely, or scarcely even, be comprehended within the interval of time, even if the tome be said to have been sent toward the end of December: for first, after the decree was put into execution and the books of Nestorius were snatched from the hands of all, excerpts were made from the books of Diodore, Theodore, and others, which, scattered abroad, might patch up the loss the Nestorians had suffered. Next, these were translated into the Armenian, Syriac, and Persian language. Afterward, when Acacius and Rabbula had learned that they had been sent to the Armenians, they admonished them about guarding against the error that covered itself with great names:
then the Cilician bishops on that account calumniate Acacius and Rabbula before the Armenians. At length the Armenians are convened by a tractoria from the primate into a council, they assemble at the lawful time, and from there send to Proclus two presbyters with petitions and the volume of Theodore. Finally, Proclus examines both the petitions and the volume rather carefully, and writes a tome on which scarcely anything more elaborate exists on that subject. On account of these and many other things, someone might be of the opinion that the note of time must either be altogether expunged as spurious, or be corrected thus: «given after the consulship of the most pious,» etc.; for it is not unheard of for acts to be dated after the consulship of the most noble consuls, especially if they were emperors; for thus the Ephesine acts are inscribed:
«After the consulship of our lords ever august, namely Flavius Theodosius for the thirteenth time, and Valentinian for the third»—although Bassus and Antiochus were everywhere known by name as holding the ordinary magistracy, as is clear from the letters of pope Celestine and from several laws of the Theodosian Code. One of the Trinity thus born.] If by these words there is not an allusion to a certain futile subtlety of the ancients, by which they denied that «one of the Trinity» could be said, nor that any substantive could be joined to that numeral adjective «one» without peril to the faith—for thus they raved: If «one of the Trinity» is said, and «God» is subjoined, tritheism is introduced; if «Father,» many fathers;
if «Son,» many sons, etc., since «one» is the beginning of number, and «one God» can never be said unless one goes on—for it is permissible thereafter to say «a second God,» etc.—if, I say, these words do not allude to what we have just mentioned, then without doubt it is a corruption, with «incarnate» put for «suffering» or «crucified»; for neither did Nestorius himself ever deny that the Word is one of the three divine persons, or that he was made incarnate; nor indeed was the question ever raised whether one of the three persons was made incarnate, but whether one of the Trinity suffered and was crucified, as is gathered from the following words of Liberatus concerning Proclus.
Through the deacon Theodore.] And likewise also through Maximus, also a deacon, as is understood from the mutual letters of Proclus and John. The composition.] The words of the synodical letter: 'Now what gave us delight was not the beauty of the composition alone, nor the multitude of arguments handled against either side of our opponents, but rather the very carefulness together with the piety concerning the sacred doctrines.' That the faith is established not only by the proceedings, but also by the letters.] That is, not only by the canons themselves, which are inserted into the proceedings, but also by the letters given out from the synod by the prelates of the major sees the faith is established. Moreover Proclus directed his own tome to the Armenians from his own synod.
But this they were eager to prove, namely to assert the decisive force of Leo's letter to Flavian, by the example of Proclus's letter, in which perhaps they favored the bishop of New Rome more than was fair, as if he were endowed with authority to define equal to that of the pontiff of Old Rome. That He did not suffer in respect of what He is.] Observe the ingenuity of the man defending the Three Chapters; for he himself observes the words which tell in favor of Theodore and Theodoret: he had noted a saying of Proclus, that formerly indeed One of the Trinity was incarnate, but now that Christ did not suffer in respect of what He is, but in respect of what He became. But the deacon Basil.] Who he was and of what Church he belonged, it is difficult to know:
what he had in mind, and that he stood forth as the forerunner of the riotous monks, is clear from what follows: he attempted, that is, to bring it about that Theodore should be condemned by name, just as Arius and Eunomius were, not because he had vomited forth the same blasphemies which Liberatus wrongly understood, but because they were equals in an unequal matter. This deacon was indignant, that is to say, that excerpts had been condemned by Proclus with the author's name passed over in silence, whereas Arius and Eunomius had been named by name by him. As rumors report.] He agrees with his fellow-countryman Facundus, book III, chapter 3, and elsewhere here and there, who denied, or doubted, that those very books were written by Cyril:
although that whole class of deniers, whether of Asiatics or of Africans, is not of such great authority that it should detract credence from a general council, and indeed from Cyril himself who acknowledged the work. It was in the interest of those defending the Three Chapters to remove from themselves the odium of having defended Theodore, whom Cyril had condemned. Cyril wrote four books.] Of these four books, three, which were against Diodore and Theodore, have for the most part perished; the fourth, on the Incarnation, is found in the fourth volume of Cyril's works, part 1 of the Greek edition. It was composed in the manner of a dialogue, and indeed with such learning that scarcely any other work of Cyril on that subject exists more excellent, or even equal.
In which are contained.] In the book on the Incarnation no testimonies of any Father are adduced; whether in the others any were adduced, no one can know for certain, since nothing of them except fragments has come down to us: it is nevertheless strange that the three earlier books were rejected by the Constantinopolitan collators, on the grounds that in them were praised Fathers whom in other works against Nestorius, and at the very Council of Ephesus, Cyril had not praised:
for of the three who are cited, one was Felix, whose testimony was brought forward in the first session of the Council of Ephesus; then in the first book on the Right Faith addressed to the empresses, which is commonly attributed to Cyril, the testimony of Antiochus, Chrysostom, Vitalius, Ammon and Severian is employed, of whom there is no mention in the Council of Ephesus: finally, some cause may have arisen why Dionysius and the Wonderworker should be called as witnesses, for instance if they had been praised by the defenders of Diodore and Theodore: for that more of the Fathers were praised is clear from Liberatus himself, indeed even from the better witness Cyril. Of Felix.] Although he is summoned as a witness by Cyril, yet it is not certain that the letter from which the passage is taken is genuine. Leontius reports that it was forged by the Apollinarists.
Of Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians.] In the printed codices the word 'the Areopagite' had been added, but it had to be expunged, on the very testimony of Dionysius of Corinth, who, as is found in Eusebius, in his letter to the Athenians, mentions the Areopagite Dionysius, the first bishop of the Athenians, as having lived in an age greater than his own: I for my part would not draw out that entangled cord of contention concerning the Dionysii with anyone, being content to venerate Dionysius the martyr, the parent of my faith; from whatever quarter he at last came to Paris, he was certainly sent by God to consecrate the head of the Gallic empire: but of how great a name Dionysius of Corinth was, who flourished about the year 175, and what he wrote for the edification of the Churches, I refer to Eusebius in the place just cited. Of Gregory the Wonderworker.
] From what book at last were attributed to the Wonderworker the twelve chapters of anathematisms, which Henricus Canisius published in Latin and Greek, book III of the Ancient Readings; from there it may seem to someone that some testimony was taken by Cyril against Diodore and Theodore who divided Christ: for in favor of the unity four chapters tell openly, the third, the fifth, the sixth, the eighth. But these twelve chapters were falsely ascribed to Gregory, nor do they seem to have been written except after the heresy of the Incorrupticolae had arisen, as the fourth chapter indicates, if only the explanation appended be accepted.
It is therefore better to suppose that Cyril, if indeed he used the testimony of the Wonderworker, himself received it from the Confession of Faith, whether the one which is said to have been revealed, or the one which, although both, as the work now stands edited by Gerard Vossius, is suspect (for Leontius attributes this one to Apollinaris, and Bellarmine and others attribute that one to an uncertain author): for the Confession of Gregory the Wonderworker, which Gregory of Nyssa mentions in the Life of the Wonderworker, contained things which are not reported in the one which Vossius published: see Bellarmine, book on Ecclesiastical Writers, at the year of Christ 233. Let the sayings be praised against the Arians.] In bad faith is Cyril's opinion reported; for thus it stands in the fifth synod, session 5:
'There were therefore written by the good Theodore against the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians twenty books or more, and also others interpreting the evangelical and apostolic books, labors which someone would not wish to disparage, but rather would honor with discreet study, if there were in them rectitude of doctrine.' These words are not those of one approving the books written by Theodore, but of one accusing them on account of heresy. Published against the Arians.] That these were burned by the arts of the Arians is clear from the catalogue of Hebediesu. The defenders of Catholic truth.] Whose leader was Hypatius of Ephesus in the conference held at Constantinople, concerning which in the notes to the preceding chapter. The followers of Apollinaris.] Baronius calls this into doubt, at the year 435, number.
9, and he thinks that the monks, with Liberatus deceived by the narration of some Nestorian, suffered a calumny: but he does not prove his opinion, although it was necessary, since it seems possible to be wrested even from this, that Apollinaris's opinion had grown strong in Armenia, and especially in the monasteries; hence the question of the Armenians, doubting and addressing Proclus as to which opinion should be preferred, that of one nature or of two. They say that those men neither dictated Cyril.] Cyril protests in his letter to Acacius of Melitene; for when he had said that it was written to him by John of Antioch concerning the books of Diodore and Theodore, as if they contained nothing which could not by a kindly interpretation be taken in a catholic sense:
'I indeed,' he says, 'have neither ceased rebuking the things which they wrote, nor will I cease: but since it was fitting that contradictions also should be written down against them, having inspected the books of Theodore and Diodore, which they wrote not concerning the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten, but rather against the Incarnation, I set down some of their chapters, and in what way I could I contradicted them, declaring everywhere that their sect is full of abomination.' Two or three.] In the printed books, 'two or three,' with no sense at all, since indeed the numeral words cannot be referred to the chapters;
for it is certain that chapters far more than two or three were excerpted from Theodore's books, since indeed they are the very ones which, either in greater number in the fifth synod, or fewer by Mercator, are reported and are censured by Cyril. In his letter.] It was addressed to St. Cyril, and is found among his works in volume V, copied from book VIII of Facundus of Hermiane, most worthy of reading for history. Those entering the royal city.] What if those errors corrupted Eutyches himself? Someone might quite probably conjecture this. For from there the following may be easily understood, namely how, using the patronage of certain persons, they terrified the clerics with threats, etc.;
for that patronage was without doubt that of Chrysaphius, whom Eutyches had taken up from the sacred font on account of his reputation for sanctity, and who on account of the emperor's favor could do anything: add that the opinion of one nature was attributed to Cyril by the courtiers, who understood it but little, yet adhered to Cyril, as is clear from Cyril's memorandum to Eulogius. By his rescript.] These very words once, when I was writing notes on the second part of the works of Marius Mercator, imprudently led me astray, so that I believed that Cyril in his response to John of Antioch made mention of the creed written by Theodore, whereas in fact he does this only in his second letter to Acacius of Melitene.
These and other things brought it about that afterwards, repenting of my credulity, I more diligently inquired into the words and the Punic faith of Liberatus; he himself therefore, if by the name 'rescript' he understood one single letter by which Cyril replied to John, was slipping in memory; for Cyril pursued three matters in three letters, each in its own: the opinion concerning Theodore, in the letter to John; the judgment concerning the monks, in the letter to the Fathers of the monks, which is the exposition of the Council of Nicaea; the memory of the creed, in the letter to Acacius of Melitene. Concerning the creed presented to him in the council.] Marius Mercator alone refuted that creed in a special work, but we have set forth the history concerning its author, against Facundus and many others, in the notes to the latter part of M.
Mercator, from which (as also from other things), some person—whose name I think should be deliberately kept silent—profited for the worse, as much as he himself became puffed up. On account of the Tessarescaedecatitae.] In the common editions it was 'Tessera decadas factas,' etc. We have come, with history showing the way, to the true reading: for the creed in question was proposed by emissaries of two presbyters of Anastasius—who was a minister of Nestorian impiety against the Mother of God—to the Tessarescaedecatitae who were abjuring their heresy, to be subscribed. Read the sixth session of the Council of Ephesus. Cyril having died.] No small change of affairs took place, when three patriarchs in the East had departed this life. Cyril died in the year 444, John of Antioch in 441, Proclus in 447;
Dioscorus succeeded Cyril, Domnus succeeded John, Flavian succeeded Proclus. The heirs of Cyril.] Baronius bids that clerics be deterred by this example from squandering ecclesiastical goods upon their kinsmen, who, as happens, grow rich on the patrimony of the poor and live luxuriously upon Christ: woe to the wicked age! Ibas bishop of Edessa.] Concerning Ibas, whose case was one of the three famous Chapters, receive this. He was at Ephesus when the council was held, as he testifies in his letter to Maris: he was not yet bishop, for he makes mention of the bishop then holding the see of Edessa. He succeeded Rabbula either at the beginning of the year 436, or toward the end of the preceding year; for not before, since Rabbula in the year
435 was still alive, and was writing to the Armenians and to Cyril, after Theodore's excerpts had been scattered abroad; and not later, because in the year 436, toward the end, or at the beginning of the following year, Proclus in his letter to John mentions Ibas as bishop of Edessa. He received letters from Theodoret in the year 441, concerning Coelestiacus of Carthage. In the year 446, before Domnus of Antioch, successor of John, he was accused by four of his own clerics, not only of heresy, but also of ordinations made in disorderly fashion and of plundering the goods of the Church. With Domnus conniving, the emperor being appealed to, in the year 447, ordered that the trial be conducted at Tyre: it was begun at Tyre in the year 448, in the month of February, completed at Beirut in the same year in the month of September; the matter was settled amicably.
But since the clerics would not rest, he was again accused, in the Ephesine Robber-Council in the year 449, in the month of August, while he was absent, and was deposed. Toward the end of the year he received consoling letters from Theodoret, a sharer in the same lot. In the year 450, he offers petitions of complaint to the emperor Marcian. In the year 451, he is restored to his see by the Council of Chalcedon, in session 10. Of the Ascension], not of, that is, the resurrection or ascension from the tomb, nor likewise of the ascension into heaven, from Theodoret, letter 87.