簡史 第 16 章

But when he had died, since Marcian had attained the summit of empire, in response to that petition of the pope and the Roman princes, he ordered a universal council to be assembled at Nicaea: where, six hundred and thirty bishops having come together and being seated, the legates of Pope Leo asked Marcian to lend his own presence to the council, otherwise, in his absence, they themselves would not attend the council; and so the emperor ordered the synod to be transferred to Chalcedon, so that, coming to the council from nearby, he might fulfill their petition. But some of the bishops were afraid lest a tumult should arise from the Eutychians from nearby Constantinople; but as the emperor promised that no one would dare to attempt any such thing, the synod sat at Chalcedon.

Therefore, when the things done in the second Ephesine synod had been examined in the presence of the sacred senate, and of Constantine and Beronicianus the secretaries, and of the whole universal council, together with the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius and the presbyter Bonifacius, holding the place of Leo the Roman pope, and Anatolius of Constantinople, with Dioscorus and all the metropolitan bishops present, so that the deposition and death of Flavian might be inquired into, and the deposition of the orthodox bishops who were deposed for the faith. And in the first session indeed, while Beronicianus was reciting the acts of the nefarious second Ephesine council, in which were contained the proceedings concerning Eutyches done at Constantinople, there were also read the acts of the first Ephesine synod, in which Nestorius was condemned by Cyril, and they were inserted into the proceedings:

and when all had been duly discussed, the bishops crying out: 'Anathema to Nestorius; anathema to Eutyches; anathema to him who divides; anathema to him who confounds!'—the iniquity of Dioscorus concerning the death of Flavian and concerning the deposition of the orthodox bishops was unsealed and made manifest. And so, the first assembly being dissolved, in the second session, with the judges interposing their decision that the faith should be treated and confirmed with the deliberation of all the bishops, two letters of Cyril were read, which are contained in the acts done at Constantinople in the council of Flavian (as we have said). There was also read the Tome of Pope Leo directed to the said Flavian against the dogma of Eutyches.

And when the Illyrian and Palestinian holy bishops were in doubt about certain places in it, Theodoret the bishop and Aetius the archdeacon of Constantinople showed, from his sayings and letters, that Cyril had written similar things. And as the Egyptian and Illyrian bishops cried out: 'We have all sinned, we all ask pardon,' a delay of five days was granted, so that with all deliberation the faith might be treated and confirmed.

And so, when the second session had been concluded, in the third session likewise Eusebius bishop of Dorylaeum presented petitions in the council-chamber against Dioscorus, and he complained to the synod about the deposition of himself and of Flavian of pious memory, and about the same Dioscorus's assent to the doctrine of Eutyches, asking that Dioscorus be summoned by them and be convicted by them on these charges. But the question arose whether Dioscorus would come; and when he was not found, bishops were sent to him — Constantine of Bostra, Aulicus of Zela, and Acacius of Ariarathia, together with Himerius, lector and notary — to summon him in writing to present himself before the council. To them Dioscorus replied: 「I am under guard; if they permit me to come down, let the magistriani say so;

for I am ready to come, but I am prevented.」 These things Dioscorus committed to writing for the council; but an assistant of the master of offices arrived and gave him leave to present himself freely before the council. Again there were sent to him the bishops Pergamius, Cecropius, and Rufinus, to summon him a second time in writing, that he should not disdain to come to the council, but rather give satisfaction to the council concerning the things alleged by Eusebius. But he answered them: 「Let the judges and senators decide these matters; I, being weighed down by sickness, cannot come to the council.」 And a third time he was summoned to the council through the bishops Francion, Julian, and John, together with Palladius the notary, that they might convey to the council in his own words, set down in writing, what Dioscorus would reply;

but in this third summons, since Dioscorus deferred coming with an inept reply, the council pronounced against him the sentence of condemnation, which was sent to the pious emperor, the bishops subscribing to it. Dioscorus was deposed from his bishopric in the seventh year of his ordination. To the Alexandrian clergy the council gave instruction that they should no longer reckon him to be bishop, but should know without doubt that he had been cast down from his rank. And since some thought that Dioscorus might recover his bishopric, an edict was issued, and it was made manifest to all that Dioscorus had been irrecoverably stripped of his honour.

But in the fourth session, while the judges interposed their opinion, it was determined that these bishops should be subject to a sentence similar to that by which Dioscorus had been judged: Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius of Ancyra in Galatia, Eustathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia in Isauria — who held the power and were the leaders at the time of the 'Robber Synod' of Ephesus — so that they should become aliens from their bishoprics. And after these things a delay of five days was granted, so that each bishop might set down in writing what he believed, and that bishop Anatolius might choose definite and suitable bishops to discuss the matter, and the rule of faith might be deliberated and confirmed:

and the faith of the Council of Nicaea was confirmed, and of Constantinople, and of the First of Ephesus, and the letter of Pope Leo, which is acknowledged to have been subscribed by all. Again, when the judges interposed concerning the bishops Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius, Basil, and Eustathius, asking what seemed good to the council, the whole council cried out: 「God has deposed Dioscorus; God has deposed the murderer.」 And when the council interceded on their behalf, because they had consented in subscribing to the above-mentioned letter of Pope Leo, and lest a greater schism should again arise, they were ordered to remain in the council. After these things twelve Egyptian bishops presented petitions of faith — with mockery.

But when the council judged that they should anathematize Eutyches and subscribe to the letter (the 'tome') of Pope Leo, they said that they could not do this until an Alexandrian bishop should be ordained, so that with his command they might fulfil this without peril to themselves, and that on account of the great number of the Egyptian bishops they could not do it alone. And it was decreed that, sureties being given by them and an oath being sworn, they should await the ordination of the Alexandrian bishop, and then consent and subscribe to all the synodal institutions. This same arrangement was made in the council for certain archimandrites and monks who likewise excused themselves, that they should receive a postponement.

And so, when the fourth session had been carried through, this was done in the fifth session: as the bishops and judges deliberated that the faith should be confirmed, from the treatise of Anatolius bishop of Constantinople and of all the metropolitan bishops a symbol of the faith was dictated, together with a definition, and it was confirmed by all. And when Aetius the archdeacon read it, the whole synod acclaimed: 「This is the faith of the Fathers, of Cyril and of Leo! Many years to the emperors!」 And again by acclamation they asked that it should at once be subscribed without delay by all the metropolitans and the whole council. But this was interrupted by the judges, that it should first be read to the prince; and when this was done, the synod was dissolved.

But in the sixth session the emperor Marcian came to the council with the judges and the sacred senate and made a speech of address before the council; among other things he said that he had entered the synod 「to confirm the faith, not to display power, after the example of Constantine; and therefore, all wickedness and avarice being cast out and the errors of certain persons cut away, let the things ordained by you be observed forever.」 And when the definition of the faith had been recited, it was subscribed by the whole council without any hesitation and by all. In the seventh session also three causes were transacted, on account of which three of its actions are reckoned.

The first is that in which were confirmed the agreements reached between Maximus of Antioch and Juvenal of Jerusalem, namely that the two Phoenicias and Arabia should be subject to the see of Antioch, while the three provinces of Palestine should be subject to that of Jerusalem. Another action also was held, in which Theodoret bishop of Cyrrhus, whom Dioscorus had expelled, was judged orthodox and worthy of his see. The third action is that in which the case of Ibas bishop of Edessa — who likewise had been deposed from his bishopric by the violence of Dioscorus — is read to have been examined, the final sentence being deferred to another day.

But in the eighth session, by the tenth action, this same case was concluded, where there were also reviewed the acts transacted before Photius and Eustathius and Uranius at Tyre and Berytus, in which are contained also those things which had been done before the emperor Theodosius concerning his affair. Moreover, the acts previously held before Domnus bishop of Antioch, and likewise the letter of Ibas himself written to Mari the Persian, are shown in the same action to have been pronounced orthodox: from its tenor Ibas was judged worthy to receive his bishopric and his own Church. In which action this also is found decreed, that what had been gathered under Dioscorus at Ephesus should not be called a council, and that it should be sought from the emperor that he himself should sanction this by law.

In the ninth session also an action was held, in which Bassianus, who had been ordained bishop for the city of the Evazenses and had pressed upon the Church of Ephesus, and Stephen, who had himself also been wrongly ordained and had expelled the aforesaid Bassianus from Ephesus, were both judged to be removed, and that another should be ordained for that Church. But because there was a divergent opinion among some, the conclusion of the case was deferred to the following action. In the tenth session, then, this same case was concluded, and by the concordant sentence of all, both were judged to be removed. There was another case, containing the dispute of Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea over the city of Basilinopolis — which of them should ordain the bishop there;

and it was forbidden that the bishop of Nicaea should ever presume to do this. In the eleventh session two actions were held: the first, in which Sabinianus was restored to the Church of the Pareni as bishop, whom Dioscorus had expelled and had caused Athanasius to be put in his place; this Sabinianus, on account of the charges brought against him, had previously been condemned by Domnus of Antioch, since, though often summoned to judgment, he did not appear and renounced his bishopric. And another action, in which, after the departure of the judges and the senators and the legates of the apostolic see, ecclesiastical rules were established, and certain privileges assigned to the Church of Constantinople, Anatolius bishop of that same city usurping this for himself, taking the opportunity from the condemnation of Dioscorus.

When the legates of Pope Leo learned of this on another day (which is the last and twelfth day of the council), they petitioned that they might again convene at the council together with the judges; and when they asked the council what had been ordained the day before, the acts being read, they learned what Anatolius, with the council's consent, had done and obtained. And though they contradicted his presumption, that contradiction was not accepted by the judges and all the bishops; and although the apostolic see contradicts it even to this day, what was confirmed by the synod nevertheless remains in force, under the emperor's patronage, in whatever manner. [On the Council of Chalcedon.] When Theodosius had died in the year 450, on the 29th day of July, Marcian took the empire on the 23rd of August;

and after about nine months, in the following year, on the 17th of May, he gave notice that a council was to be held at Nicaea on the first of September; but afterwards he transferred it from Nicaea to Chalcedon, letters being issued on the 22nd of September. The council therefore was begun, and the first session held, on the 8th of October, which was a Monday; the second on the 10th; the third on the 13th; the fourth on the 17th; the fifth on the 22nd; the sixth on the 25th; the seventh on the 26th; the eighth on the 27th; the ninth on the 29th; the tenth on the 30th; the eleventh on the 31st; the twelfth on the 1st of November, on which an end was made of the council.

[On gathering at Nicaea.] When Dioscorus had arrived at Nicaea with his Egyptians, and saw — partly through conscience, partly as his declining years showed — that his affairs were almost beyond hope, he dared this deed: that, if he could not look out for himself, he might at least perish more notoriously amid the shaking of the whole Church. He pronounced a sentence of excommunication against the prelate of the apostolic see. For in his madness he hoped, by right as it were, that through his legates Leo should not preside, hindered as he was by ecclesiastical bonds, and that thus either Anatolius of Constantinople or Maximus of Antioch should preside — both of whom would repay the favour to the author of their dignity.

[On the six hundred and thirty bishops who attended.] The opinion of all is not one concerning the number of the Fathers: it was indeed a vast number, wherefore Epiphanius of Tyre rightly called the synod 'great' (Act of the fifth Council of Constantinople under Menna); Facundus, in book II, chapter 6, called it 'most numerous.' Cecropius of Sebastopolis asserted twelve hundred; Nicephorus, book XV, chapter 26, six hundred and thirty-six; Seleucus of Amasea, six hundred and thirty; Lucentius the legate of Leo, six hundred; the synodal report to the pontiff, and the sanction of the emperor Marcian to Palladius the praetorian prefect, five hundred and twenty. The little summary of the Eutychianists says five hundred and more;

I myself would rather adhere to this last opinion, since it rests on greater authority, namely that of the synodal report, were it not that one might popularly incline to the opinion of Liberatus. Evagrius of Epiphania, in book II, chapter 1, relates something remarkable about Zacharias the rhetor, namely that he, led by a certain bias of mind, narrated that Nestorius too was summoned to the council; which narrative Evagrius himself refutes in these words: 「But that the matter was by no means so can be proved by this argument: that Nestorius was utterly forbidden the council by anathema; which Eustathius bishop of Berytus also plainly declares in the letters which he gave both to John the bishop and to another John the presbyter concerning the matters debated in that council;

for thus he writes: 'Thither came those who diligently seek out the remnants of Nestorius, and against the council they began to cry out thus: Why is anathema pronounced against holy men? — so that the emperor, taking it gravely and bitterly, ordered his attendants to drive them far from there.' How then Nestorius, who had departed from this life, could have been summoned, I for my part cannot say.」 [And as they sat.] Liberatus seems to suggest that the transfer of the synod was made after the legates had taken their seats with the Fathers; but it is established that the matter was otherwise, from the very sanction of the transfer, in the first part of the Council of Chalcedon, chapter 42. [Before the sacred senate.] Under the name of senate Liberatus comprehends the judges, eighteen in all;

for Eulogius must be struck out, whose name crept into the fourth action. Of these eighteen, ten favoured Theodoret, from whom we know he had received letters — and from some of them not just one; it is therefore no wonder that Theodoret was so readily admitted to the assembly before his case had been examined, while others of the same lot — Eusebius, Ibas, Sabinianus — were not treated alike. Nor does it avail to plead that he had been restored by the apostolic see, for he too had been absolved as present in the Roman council, as had Eusebius — who nevertheless did not sit in the first three actions.

[And to Lucentius.] He was bishop of Asculum, and, as is gathered from chapter 2 of this Breviarium, the author of the Chronicles which the common opinion attributes to Prosper — as we have shown in our notes on Marius Mercator. [The acts of the First Synod of Ephesus were also read.] Either Liberatus speaks confusedly, or he is mistaken; for the acts of the First Synod of Ephesus were not read, except insofar as they had been inserted into the acts of the Second of Ephesus; whence Aetius requested in the second action that two synodical letters of Cyril be read, which had not been read at Ephesus in the Second synod. [Secretarium.] That word is put for an assembly or session, for in the codex 'secretarium' is taken for the place in which the judges sit; whence the transfer of the word from the place to the assembly itself.

[Two letters of Cyril were read.] See, whosoever you are who are zealous for ecclesiastical matters, what we have at length elucidated concerning these letters of Cyril in dissertation 2 on the second part of the works of Marius Mercator. [From his sayings and letters.] Concerning the testimonies of the Fathers appended to the letter of Leo, it is worth while to read what we noted in the preface to the scholia of Cyril in the second part of the works of Marius Mercator; for it is wonderful how much they illustrate matters otherwise most obscure. [In the third session.] In it the case of Dioscorus was transacted, which, since it pertained wholly to the bishops, the judges did not attend, however much Dioscorus had demanded it. [Bishops were sent.] Observe the custom of summoning patriarchs by means of three bishops.

[In the sixth session.] In it the synod reached its end, as regards that part which pertains to the faith. [It is shown to have been pronounced orthodox.] All the defenders of the Three Chapters contended for this, on account of these words of Paschasinus. On this matter Facundus of Hermiane is to be consulted, books VI and VII. Also to be consulted is the letter to the bishops of Istria in the name of Pope Pelagius II, written by Gregory the Great, then a deacon. [And certain privileges were assigned, etc.] Rightly he adds: 「Anatolius bishop of that same city usurping this for himself, taking the opportunity from the condemnation of Dioscorus.」 For he usurped an undue presidency, with no one objecting; for who would have dared, in that state of affairs? Certainly not the legates of the apostolic see, who were absent;

not the Alexandrian bishop, for there was none; not the Egyptians, who scarcely dared to open their mouths because of the synod's hostile disposition toward them; not Maximus of Antioch, whose affairs were not yet most firmly established; nor the court or the senate, to whom it was pleasing to make New Rome either equal to the old, or at least nearly its match. Nor indeed is there any reason why anyone should plead that the authority of Constantinople was introduced by custom or sanctioned by the decree of the Second Synod; for the decree composed at Constantinople the Roman Church had not yet received, and it is established by fact that resistance was offered to the Constantinopolitans when they claimed jurisdiction for themselves — both in the affair of Chrysostom against the Asian bishops,

and in the affair of Sisinnius ordaining Proclus, whom the people of Cyzicus repulsed, having set Dalmatius over their own see.