57. Cardinal Orsi (38) very justly remarks, that if Theodoret never was so unfortunate as to oppose for some time St. Cyril, the great defender of the Faith, against Nestorius, his name, at the present day, would be venerated like the venerable names of St. Basil, St. Chrystostom, and St. Gregory, whose equal, perhaps, he was both in virtue and learning. He was born in Antioch (39), about the end of the fourth century. After the death of his parents, who were both rich and noble, he sold all his property, and gave it to the poor, reserving nothing for himself. He retired to the solitude of a monastery, and spent the greater part of the day in prayer, and the remainder in the study of literature, both sacred and profane. His master, unfortunately, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, of whose errors we have already spoken (n. 48), but he did not infect his disciple with them. He was forced from his solitude, and against his will made Bishop of Cyrus, a small, but very populous See, with eight hundred churches. The desire of assisting the many poor souls in his diocese infected with heresy, overcame his attachment to his solitude, and his repugnance to accept of any dignity, so he gave up his whole soul to the discharge of his pastoral duties, nourishing the piety of his people, and combating the heresies which infected part of his diocese; and he succeeded in rescuing eight villages from the darkness of the heresy of Marcion.

two

58. On reading the anathematisms of St. Cyril (40), he wrote against them, and in no measured terms, and appeared rather to favour Nestorius than St. Cyril, who laboured to convince him of his mistake. Although he appeared to recognize only one Christ alone, and called the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, still, his arguments would lead us to believe, that he divided Christ into and persons, gave Mary the title of Mother of God, in the sense of Nestorius, that is, mother of him who was the temple of God. St. Cyril, withal, justified him, and said, that though his mode of expressing himself was rash, that they agreed in Faith, and he therefore writes (41), that he did not wish to fall out with Theodoret, as long as he confessed that God was not separated from human nature, and that Christ was not separated from the Divinity, but was both God and man. On the other hand, Theodoret (42), being in Antioch when the letters of Pope St. Celestine and St. Cyril were received, joined with John, Patriarch of Antioch, and wrote to Nestorius, that he should not disturb the Church, by denying to Mary the title of the Mother of God, because, said he, that cannot be denied without corrupting the truth of the Incarnation of the Word. It cannot be doubted, but that Theodoret was somewhat reprehensible in his writings against the anathematisms of

(38) Orsi, t. 12, l. 28, n. 49. (39) Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 4, n. 28; Orsi, loc. cit. n. 50. (40) Orsi, l. 28, n. 62. (41) St. Cyril, Apol. cap. (42) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 66

& seq.

St. Cyril, and the Cabal of Ephesus, and in his defence of Theodore and Nestorius, and those productions were condemned in the second Council of Constantinople; but we should not forget, that he erred, not in holding the doctrines of Nestorius, but in believing that St. Cyril was an upholder of the doctrines of Apollinares; so that when he read (43) St. Cyril's letter to Acacius of Berea, in which the saint clears himself from the imputation of being a favourer of the doctrines of Apollinares, and professes, that he firmly believes that the body of Christ was animated by a reasoning soul, and expresses his detestation of the confusion of the two natures, and declares that he holds the nature of the Word to be impassable, but that Christ suffered according to the flesh; he at once, thinking that St. Cyril had now forsaken the doctrine of Apollinares (44), and no longer believed in the confusion of the two natures, felt quite happy, and said, that St. Cyril now followed the pure doctrine of the Fathers, and wrote him a loving letter, because, as he said, he now recognized in the Incarnation of the Word, one Son alone, and one Christ alone, with the distinction of the two natures; St. Cyril cordially answered him, and this was the commencement of a friendly correspondence between them (45). 59. Theodoret next wrote his work Eranistes (the Beggar), against the Eutychians (46), and, on that account, through the calumnies of Eutyches, he was first confined by the Emperor to his Diocese of Cyrus, and was afterwards deposed by Dioscorus, in the Cabal of Ephesus, but he appealed from this sentence to St. Leo, and subsequently retired to his old monastery, near Apamea (47). He was afterwards recalled from exile, by Marcian (48), and St. Leo declared him innocent, and reinstated him in the See of Cyrus (49). Finally, in the Council of Chalcedon, after publicly anathematizing Nestorius, and all who did not call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and divided Jesus Christ into two Sons, he was received by all the Fathers, and declared worthy of being restored to his See (50). It is supposed that he lived to the year 458, and that, towards the end of his life, he composed the treatise on Heretical Fables (51).

60. We now come back to the impious Synod of Ephesus. The majority of the bishops having now subscribed the condemnation. of St. Flavian, the few, who refused to lend themselves to this iniquity, were sent into banishment by Dioscorus. These few

confessors alone, and Hilary, the Pope's Legate, were the only members who had the courage to protest, and declared that a cabal like that would never be approved of by the Pope, or be received, as it undermined the Apostles' Creed, and that they never would,

(43) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 12. (46) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 10 & (48) Orsi, t. 14, l. 33, n. 3. (51) Orsi, ibid. n. 20.

(44) Orsi, n. 13.

(45) Orsi, t. 13, l. 30, n. 67. 11. (47) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 68 & seq. ad 85. (49) Orsi, ibid. n. 20. (50) Orsi, ibid. n. 70.

through terror, give up the Faith they professed (52). Dioscorus, in the meanwhile, having now closed the meeting, returned in joy and triumph to Alexandria, and to such a pitch did his arrogance then arrive, that he solemnly published a sentence of excommunication against St. Leo, and partly by cajolery, and partly by terror, obliged about ten bishops, who returned with him to Egypt, to subscribe to it, though they did it weeping, and lamenting the horrible impiety they were called on to perform (53). Orsi (54) says, on the authority of the statement made to the Council of Chalcedon by Theodore, a deacon of Alexandria, that Dioscorus was guilty of this act of madness in Nice, beyond the bounds of Egypt (55).

61. When St. Leo heard of these atrocious proceedings, he wrote to Theodosius, explaining to him the deplorable state to which religion was reduced by Dioscorus, but all in vain, for the Emperor, gained over by his courtiers, in favour of Eutyches, and regardless of the prayer of the Pope, and the sage advices of the Princess Pulcheria, instead of punishing the efforts the Eutychians were making, re-established Eutyches himself in all his honours, condemned the memory of St. Flavian, and approved of all that was done in Ephesus (56). He, therefore, wrote to St. Leo, that as the Council of Ephesus had examined everything according to the rules of justice and of the Faith, and as those unworthy of the dignity of the priesthood were deprived of it, so those who were worthy were re-established in the grade they before held (57). Such was the answer of Theodosius; but God, who always watches over his flock, though he sometimes appears to sleep, soon after removed this prince out of the world, in the year 450, the 59th of his age; previous to his death, however, as Orsi remarks (58), he listened to the remonstrances of his holy sister, and gave several proofs of his sorrow for having favoured Eutyches. As he died without issue he left the Empire to his sister, Št. Pulcheria, whose piety and wisdom soon healed the disorders caused by the weakness of her brother, in allowing himself to be governed by his courtiers. Though no one could be found more worthy to govern the Empire alone than she was, still her subjects were anxious that she should marry, and give them a new Emperor. She was, however, now advanced in years, and besides, had made a vow of perpetual virginity; anxious, therefore, to please her subjects, and at the same time remain faithful to her promises to God, she gave her hand to the Senator Marcian, of whose probity and regard for herself, personally, she was perfectly convinced, and who, she well knew, was better qualified than any other to govern the Empire; and his subsequent conduct proved, that her opinion of his good

(52) Orsi, t. 14, l. 13, n. 61. (54) Orsi, t. 14, l. 32, n. 97. (56) Hermant, t. 1, c. 157.

(58) Hermant, t. 1, c. 157; Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 41. (55) Libel. Theo. æt. Con. Chal. v. Fleury, l. cit. (57) Orsi, l. 32, n. 90. (58) Orsi, loc. cit. n. 101.

ness was not unfounded. In the beginning of his career, this great man was only a private soldier, but his wisdom and prudence elevated him to the senatorial rank (59).

SEC. II. THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON.

62. A Council is assembled in Chalcedon, under the Emperor Marcian and the Pope St. Leo. 63. The cause of Dioscorus is tried in the first Session. 64. He is condemned. 65. Articles of Faith defined, in opposition to the Eutychian Heresy, according to the Letter of St. Leo. 66. Privileges granted by the Council to the Patriarch of Constantinople. 67. Refused by St. Leo. 68. Eutyches and Dioscorus die in their obstinacy. 69. Theodosius, Head of the Eutychians in Jerusalem. 70. His Cruelty. 71. Death of St. Pulcheria and of Marcian. 72. Timothy Eleurus intruded into the See of Alexandria. 73. Martyrdom of St. Proterius, the true Bishop. 74. Leo succeeds Marcian in the Empire. 75. Eleurus is expelled from the See of Alexandria, and Timothy Salofacialus is elected. 76. Zeno is made Emperor; he puts Basiliscus 77. St. Simon Stilites. 78. His happy Death. 79. Peter the Stammerer intruded into the See of Alexandria.

to Death. Eleurus commits Suicide.

62. MARCIAN was proclaimed Emperor on the 24th of August, in the year 450, and on assuming the imperial power, recognizing in his elevation the work of God, he at once began to advance His glory, and try every means to banish heresy from his dominions. With that intention he wrote two letters to Pope Leo, praying him to convoke a Council, and preside at it in person, or, at all events, to send his Legates, and strive to give peace to the Church. St. Pulcheria wrote to St. Leo likewise, and informed him of the translation of the body of St. Flavian to Constantinople, and also that Anatolius, the Patriarch of that city, had already subscribed the letter he (the Pope) had sent to St. Flavian, against the heresy of Eutyches; that all who had been banished were now recalled; and she prayed him to do what was in his power to have the Council celebrated (1). The Pope was highly delighted that what he sought for so anxiously, during the reign of Theodosius, was now in his power, but he requested that the Council should be put off for a time, for the Huns, under Attila, overran Italy, and the bishops could not, with safety, proceed to the place of meeting. The barbarians were soon after defeated by the Franks, and St. Leo now set about convening the Council, and at once sent as his Legates to Constantinople, Pascasinus, Bishop of Lillibeum, in Sicily; Julian, of Cos; Lucentius, of Ascoli; and Basil, and Boniface, priests of the Roman Church (2). The Emperor, at first, was desirous that the Council should be held in Nice, but for just reasons he was satisfied afterwards that it should be transferred to Chalcedon. This Council was celebrated, in the year 451, in the great Church of St. Euphemia, Virgin and Martyr; and St. Leo (3) says, it was attended by six hundred bishops; but Liberatus and Marcellinus (4) tell us the

(59) Hermant, t. 1, c. 158. (1) Fleury, t. 4, l. 27, n. 48, in fin. (2) Orsi, t. 14, 1. 35, n. 28 & 29. (3) St. Leo, Epis. 52. (4) Lib. Brev. c. 13, & Mar. in Chron.

number was six hundred and thirty; and Nicephorus (5) raises it to six hundred and thirty-six.

63. The first matter the Council deliberated on in the first Session, held on the 8th of October, 451, was the examination of the conduct of the impious Dioscorus. He went to the Synod with the hope that his party would be still all-powerful through the bishops who subscribed the acts of the Cabal of Ephesus, but Pascasinus, standing up, said that Dioscorus should not take his seat in the Council, but should present himself as a criminal, to be judged: and seeing him then seated among the bishops, he called on the judges and the Senate to have him expelled, otherwise he and his colleagues would leave the Council. The imperial ministers demanded from the Legate his reasons for calling for the expulsion of Dioscorus, and then Lucentius, another of the Legates, answered that he had dared to summon a Synod, without the authority of the Apostolic See, which never was lawful, nor ever before done (6). Dioscorus then took his seat in the middle of the church, and Eusebius, of Dorileum, likewise, as his accuser, on account of the sentence pronounced against himself and against St. Flavian, and he demanded that the Acts of the Council of Ephesus should be read. The letter of the Emperor for the convocation of the Council was first read, and Theodoret, on account of his writings against St. Cyril, was at first prevented from taking his place among the Fathers; but as St. Leo and the Emperor Marcian had re-established him in his See, he was introduced as one of the members. His enemies, however, immediately began tumultuously to oppose his admission, so the imperial officers ordered him to sit also in the middle as an accuser, but without prejudice to his rights, and he was afterwards re-established in his See by the Council itself, after anathematizing the errors of Nestorius, and subscribing the definition of Faith, and the Epistle of the Pope, St. Leo (7). The Acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus were next read, and the Profession of Faith of St. Flavian, and the imperial judges asked the Council if it was Catholic. The Legates answered in the affirmative, as it coincided with the letter of St. Leo. Many of the bishops then, who sat with Dioscorus's party, went over to the other side, but he, though left alone almost, as only a few Egyptian bishops held on to him, still persevered in maintaining the Eutychian errors, and asserting that after the union of the Divinity with the humanity of Christ we should not say those were two natures, but only one in the Incarnate Word. When the reading of the Acts was finished, the imperial minister declared that the innocence of St. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorileum was fully established, and that those bishops who had caused them to be deposed should undergo the same sentence themselves; and thus the first Synod was concluded (8).

(5) Vide Nat. Alex. t. 10, c. 4, a. 13, s. 17. (6) Acta, Con. Chal. L. 23, n. 45, 47 & 70. (8) Orsi, ibil. m. 49.

(7) Orsi,