V.

CENT. œcumenical council. The legates of Leo, who, in his famous letter to Flavianus, had already conPART II. demned the Eutychian doctrine, presided in this grand and crowded assembly. Dioscorus was condemned, deposed, and banished into Paphlagonia, the acts of the council of Ephesus were annulled, the epistle of Leo received as a rule of faith [e]; Eutyches, who had been already sent into banishment, and deprived of his sacerdotal dignity by the emperor, was now condemned, though absent; and the following doctrine, which is at this time almost generally received, was inculcated upon Christians as the object of faith, viz. "That in "Christ two distinct natures were united in one 'person, and that without any change, mixture, "or confusion."

Warm con

tests succeed the

Chalcedon.

66

XVI. The remedy applied by this council, to heal the wounds of a torn and divided church, council of proved really worse than the disease. For a great number of Ŏriental and Egyptian doctors, though of various characters and different opinions in other respects, united in opposing, with the utmost vehemence, the council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo, which it had adopted as a rule of faith, and were unanimous in maintaining an unity of nature, as well as of person, in Jesus Christ. Hence arose deplorable discords and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried

to

the emperor, who, on account of the irruption of the Hunns into Illyricum, was unwilling to go far from Constantinople, might assist at it in person.

[e] This was the Letter which Leo had written to Flavianus, after having been informed by him of what had passed in the council of Constantinople. In this epistle, Leo approves of the decisions of that council, declares the doctrine of Eutyches heretical and impious, explains, with great appearance of perspicuity, the doctrine of the Catholic church upon this perplexed subject; so that this letter was esteemed a masterpiece both of logic and eloquence, and was constantly read, during the Advent, in the western churches.

V.

to the most excessive and incredible lengths. CENT. Upon the death of the emperor Marcian, the PART II. populace assembled tumultuously in Egypt, massacred Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus, and substituted in his place Timotheus Elurus, who was a zealous defender of the Eutychian doctrine of one incarnate nature in Christ. This latter, indeed, was deposed and banished by the emperor Leo; but, upon his death, was restored by Basilicus both to his liberty and episcopal dignity. After the death of lurus, the defenders of the council of Chalcedon chose in his place, Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, while the partisans of the Eutychian doctrine of the one nature, elected schismatically Peter Moggus to the same dignity. An edict of the emperor Zeno obliged the latter to yield. The triumph, however, of the Chalcedonians, on this occasion was but transitory; for, upon the death of Timotheus, John Talaia, whom they had chosen in his place, was removed by the same emperor [f] and Moggus, or Mongus, by an imperial edict, and the favour of Acaicus, bishop of Constantinople, was, in the year 482, raised to the see of Alexandria.

Armenia,

XVII. The abbot Barsumas (whom the reader Contests in must be careful not to confound with Barsumas Syria and of Nisibis, the famous promoter of the Nestorian doctrines) having been condemned by the council of Chalcedon [g], brought the Eutychian opinions into Syria, and, by the ministry of his disciple

[f] See Liberati Breviarium, cap. xvi, xvii, xviii. Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. viii. lib. iii. cap. iii. Lequien, Oriens Christianus, tom. ii. p. 410.

[g] The Barsumas, here mentioned, was he who assisted the bishop of Alexandria (Dioscorus) and the soldiers, in beating Flavianus to death in the council of Ephesus, and to shun whose fury, the orthodox bishops were forced to creep into holes, and hide themselves under benches, in that pious assembly.

CENT. ciple Samuel, spread them amongst the ArmeV. nians about the year 460. This doctrine, howPART II. ever, as it was commonly explained, had something so harsh and shocking in it, that the Syrians were easily engaged to abandon it by the exhortations of Xenaias, otherwise called Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, and the famous Peter Fullo. These doctors rejected the opinion, attributed to Eutyches, that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by the divine [h], and modified matters so as to form the following hypothesis; "That in "the Son of God there was one nature, which, notwithstanding its unity, was double and compounded." This notion was not less repugnant to the decisions of the council of Chalcedon than the Eutychian doctrine, and was therefore stedfastly opposed by those who acknowledged the authority of that council [i].

The troubles excited

66

66

XVIII. Peter, surnamed Fullo, from the trade by Peter of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic the Fuller. state, had usurped the see of Antioch, and, after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was fixed in it, at last, A. D. 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople [k]. This troublesome and con

tentious

[h] Eutyches never affirmed what is here attributed to him; he maintained simply, that the two natures, which existed in Christ before his incarnation, became one after it, by the hypostatical union. This miserable dispute about words was nourished by the contending parties having no clear ideas of the terms person and nature; as also by an invincible ignorance of the subject in dispute.

[i] Jo. Sim. Assemanni Biblioth. Orient. Vat. tom. ii. p. 1 -10. See also the Dissertation of this author, De Monophysitis, which is prefixed to this volume.

[k] Valesii Dissertatio de Pet. Fullone, et de Synodis ad versus eum collectis, which is added to the third volume of the Scriptor. Hist. Ecclesiast. p. 173.

V. PART II.

tentious man excited new discords in the church, CENT. and seemed ambitious of forming a new sect under the name of Theopaschites []; for to the words, O God most holy, &c. in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Trisagium, he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, who hast suffered for us upon the cross. His design in this was manifestly to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Felix the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition to the hymn abovementioned in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified: and hence those who approved of his addition were called Theopaschites. The consequence of this dispute was, that the western Christians rejected the addition inserted by Fullo, which they judged relative to the whole Trinity; while the Orientals used it constantly after this period, and that without giving the least offence, because they applied it to Christ alone [m].

ticon of

Zeno.

XIX. To put an end to this controversy, The Heno which had produced the most unhappy divisions, both in church and state, the emperor Zeno, by the advice of Acacius bishop of Constantinople, published, A. D. 482, the famous Henoticon, or Decree of union, which was designed to reconcile the contending parties. This decree repeated and confirmed all that had been enacted in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon,

VOL. II.

G

This word expresses the enormous error of those frantic doctors, who imagined that the Godhead suffered in and with Christ.

[m] See Norris, Lib. de uno ex Trinitate carne passo, tom. iii. opp. Diss. i. cap. iii. 782. Assemanni Biblioth. Orient, Vatican. tom. i. p. 518. tom. ii. p. 36, 180.

PART II.

CENT. cedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and EutyV. chians, without making any particular mention of the council of Chalcedon [n]. For Acacius had persuaded the emperor, that the present opposition was not carried on against the decrees that had passed in the council of Chalcedon, but against the council itself; with respect to which, therefore, an entire silence was undoubtedly prudent in a proposal, which instead of reviving, was designed to put an end to all disputes, and to reconcile the most jarring principles.

Produces

new con

tests among

chians.

In the mean time, Mongus and Fullo, who filled the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and headed the sect of the Monophysites [0], subscribed this Decree of union, which was also approved by Acacius of Constantinople, and by all those of the two contending parties who were at all remarkable for their candour and moderation. But there were on all sides violent and obstinate bigots, who opposed, with vigour, these pacific measures, and complained of the Henoticon as injurious to the honour and authority of the most holy council of Chalcedon [p]. Hence arose new contests and new divisions, not less deplorable than those which the Decree of union was designed to

suppress.

XX. A considerable body of the Monophysites, or Eutychians, looked upon the conduct of the Euty- Mongus, who had subscribed the decree, as highly criminal, and consequently formed themselves into a new faction, under the title of Acephali, i. e. headless, because, by the submission of Mongus,

[n] Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. xiv. Liberati Breviarium Hist. cap. xviii.

[o] This word expresses the doctrine of those who be lieved, that in Christ there was but one nature, and is, in most respects, the same with the term Eutychians.

[P] See Facundus Hermian. Defens. trium Capitulor. lib. xii. cap. iv.