The Second Synod of Ephesus (449) - Acts, Perry 1881 — page 5 — Council of Ephesus II 449

”

(Now) as regards these Bishops who, when once as- sembled together, overwhelmed me with torments, and indignities, and dangers well-nigh exposing me to death, I forgive them, I am silent about them, I pray for them who thus behaved. For, of what use (need) can human vindictiveness be to Christians,— to those, to whose honour nothing so much redounds as to suffer for Christ’s sake ?

‘| Now I ask only one request—one that is suitable and appropriate for your Holy Synod to grant and befitting and proper for me to receive. And what is that ?—(that you) maintain and uphold The Faith of the Holy Fathers, Which (Faith) these men and many more, through their instrumentality, have, in my opinion wanted to deprave, and that you will not allow any Novelty, contrariant to It,to be introduced into It. Loose my tongue for the confession of The Truth, which they, referred to above, out of envy at my peacefulness, have gagged ; and open my mouth for the exposition of Divine Truth (God’s Words), seeing that it is a misfortune that I should be doomed to silence, and that my voice on behalf of Orthodoxy be extinguished (suppressed). If the Holy Fathers were jealoust for the Lord, according to what is

In l. 12, if eS is by the scribe meant for --S¢, the passage had better be rendered thus: ‘ For this reason I beg and supplicate that you would investigate the conduct of those who assembled some time since.”

written ; Take unto you now, more so than they did in old time (formerly), the armour of Gop, and transfixT manfully, with the (spear) lancet of the Spirit, the yoke (or the neck) of these false Shepherds, I mean, of those malicious and fierce (devouring) wolves who, under the mask of Shepherd, have cor- rupted the Flocks, in their unwariness, of the Good Shepherd. Effectually smite them who have intro- duced strange Doctrine into the Church and have contaminated the Elect and Precious Race ; and spare not those who have hewn in pieces many Churches, withtheswordof Impiety, like Agag.{ — Be like unto Elyah, who, though alone, contended (made war) against so many Priests of Baal and was crowned (victorious) over them by the sentence of fire from Heaven. || Do you, who are so great and worthy an assembly, and a mighty body of Priests, and a holy Battalion—you whose war is against two or scarcely more than two, that have sprung from two; armed, too, with tongues of Fire and of

{| Perhaps we may translate this sentence thus—‘ T'ransfix manfully, “ with the sword of the Spirit, the couple (Domnus and Theodoret) of “these false Shepherds.” The Syriac word for couple means neck lite- rally, but my friend Martin says it can signify soc (plough-share) et p/aine ou champ labouré (field worked in). But this appears to me not to har- monise with the metaphor used.

ti) the same. word. for (“hewn iin) pieces,” inp.) 133, I ro, is used in I Sam., xv, 33, in Syriac O. T, to which reference is made.

1 Kings, xviii, 19-40. In I. 24, CSS: Ory) Sosa Zt was ‘ pronounced victorious by the heavenly sentence of fire that fell upon them.”

122

But this appears to me not to har- monise with the metaphor used. ti) the same. word. for (“hewn iin) pieces,” inp. ) 133, I ro, is used in I Sam. , xv, 33, in Syriac O. T, to which reference is made. 1 Kings, xviii, 19-40. In I. 24, CSS: Ory) Sosa Zt was ‘ pronounced victorious by the heavenly sentence of fire that fell upon them. ”

the Holy Spirit which came down from Heaven— do you burn those who have dared to mix strange fires and error, those who hold the Doctrine of Nestorius and who give licence, though an unsound one, to like-thinkers with him. Burn him who surreptitiously concealed letters, (Synodical) that treated of matters relating to The Faith, of the Church of Alexandria and the (Presiding) head of this Holy Synod, when the bearers of them had been sent to him; and although the guardians of them reminded him that it was only right and proper for him to read them out in the Church, (yet) he refused to do this, but demurred, through attachment to the Impious Irenzeus; and reluctantly did he, after compulsion by the Imperial Authority, consecrate an- other in his (Irenzeus’s)+ place by the Imposition of hands, so that the Vine of Sodom might perpetually sprout and many drink of the deadly wine which these artful Cultivators manipulate for the destruc- tion (of mankind).

However, the anger of God did not wait long ; for, beholding them who, having so drunk, became undone and lost, He commanded that there should take place (this) your Assembly who are true Cultivators, so that, when you apply the true

See Acts, ti, and 2 Kings, i, 5-12. In p. 134, 1. 6, -me—wasd het erd cia apes], We may render thus—(Yes, burn) those who are taken up with the Doctrine of Nestorius, and inspire a false confidence in those who think like them. It is clear from this that Irenzus was consecrated Bishop by the

energy of love, you may accomplish the work of purification for Him, Who has put you in trust, not only when you cut off branches, but also when you utterly remove from the very root all this death-clad vine, by the exercise of the power entrusted to you by the Lord “to root out” and to “set free.” For, by this means, you “build up and plant” trustfulness in believing Nations (Peoples).

With this intent you have been convoked by Gop to be a company (battalion) of The Hory Sprrir.—The Body of the Church has need of the help (hand) of the Lord, because of having been sorely devoured by evil (the wicked).

For this purpose have you all been gathered together in this place: (viz.) in order that you may establish One “ Glorious Church, having neither spot “nor blemish.”

Thus you will, for a second time, deliver and purify It by the power of The Truth, whereby you will present It to the whole earth under Heaven, not as disgraced and calumniated by Heretics, but as One invested with the Heavenly and Apostolic Glory—the Doctrine of the Alone True Religion.4

123

) in order that you may establish One “ Glorious Church, having neither spot “nor blemish. ”

Jeremiah, i, 10. This is what should have been the object of the great Eutychian and other parties connected with the Council. t Cicatrix, scar. See Ephesians, Chap. v, 27. q Or, “as still reviled.” 4 Literally, “The Doctrine of The Religion in one (only) Form.” DD

upon The Faith, made by those mentioned above ; and, if your Holy Synod command it, we can at once produce (some of) them, although we could not possibly trouble many of them to come hither in consequence of the great distance (length of time).

We have, likewise, a Volume written by Theodoret against the first Holy CGicumenical Synod held in this place, and against a former Treatise com- posed by the Blessed Cyril: and, with it, another Book, also, which he (Theodoret) wrote against him afresh, after he had communicated with the Blessed

Dioscorvs, the Bishop of Alexandria, said :— Let Pelagius, the Presbyter, produce the Volume,

and the Book lately written by Theodoret, that he has offered to show.

Copy of a Letter to the Monks against the God- fearing Bishop Cyril and against the Holy and Cicumenical Synod of Ephesust :—

When I survey the present condition (order) of the Church, and the tempest that has (so) lately risen upon the pure Bark, and the fierce storms of © the winds, and the violence of the waves, and the profound darkness; and, along with these, the

See Vol. I, p. 320, and Appendix H in this Vol. See the end of this celebrated Letter.

124

quarrels, also, of those on board, and the contentions of persons appointed to serve as Priests,t and the insobriety of the Pilots—in fine, (when I survey) the entire blackness of the calamity, I am reminded of the Lamentations of Jeremiah, and with him I exclaim—‘“ My inside pains me, and my heart’s ‘affections try me, and my soul is dissolved with “my heart, and I eagerly implore and desire, by the “means of the tears of my eyes, to drive away the “magnitude of grief.”{ For, whilst it is befitting and proper that, in this cruel winter, the crew (sailors) should be watchful and contend with the storm, and that they should be anxious for the safety of the Ship, and that the sailors should desist from conten- tions with each other, and, by prayer and by skill, aim at averting the evil (misfortunes), and the passen- gers sit peacefully, quarrelling neither with each other nor with the sailors, but should supplicate the Lord of the sea to change, by His will, the sad state of affairs, none of these things, forsooth, is anybody willing to do; but, as if it were a battle in the night, we throw one another into confusion and, leaving our adver- saries, we both turn all these weapons against ourselves and kill our own comrades as if they were the foes in (actual) antagonism with us, whilst parties standing in our very neighbourhood laugh at (the

In p. 137 of Syriac Text, 1. 1, the word 20259 those who are sailing, the passengers, not the crew, as we learn from |. 15, where it occurs with ¢a>d\a, which future verb is used at Matthew, xx, 21.

mode of) our warfare, and are delighted at our misfortunes, and rejoice as they witness our ruination of one another (our mutual destruction).

Now, the cause of these misfortunes are persons who have striven to deprave The True and Apostolic Fairu and have dared to add to the Doctrines of the Gospel any teaching whatsoevert antagonistic to It, and have received those Impious Chapters, with the Anathematismns, of Cyril,t which they sent to the Im- perial City after having confirmed them, as they supposed, by their own subscriptions.

These (Chapters and Anathematisms) have mani- festly sprung from the bitter root of Apollinarius. They are, moreover, participative of the Blasphemies of Ariusand Eunomius.|| Further, whoever chooses to investigate the matter with accuracy will perceive that they are not far removed from the Impiety of Valentinus, and Manes, and Marcion.

For; in the 1st Chapter, he (Cyril) repudiates the INCARNATION, Which took place for our sake, by teaching that GOD did not assume Human Narurg, but was changed into Flesh, affirming that the IN- CARNATION of our Repremer existed only in Literally, so» | pal is whatever it be, in |. 4, but (OM ga| or COT pal is their hand.

125

This is the great Heresiarch who denied that Jesus Christ is “ God of God, Very Gop of Very Gop, &c.,”? and was condemned at the Council of Nica in 325 a.p., and Eunomius, made Bishop of Cizycum in 360 4.D., was a great supporter of Arianism.

notions, however, are the offspring of the Impiety of Marcion, and Manes, and Valentinus.

But in the 2nd Chapter and the 3rd, as if forget- ting what he put at the beginning, he introduces an Hypostatic (Personal) Union and a Concursus, con- stituting a Physical Union ; teaching by these terms a commixture and a con-fusion of the Divine Nature and of the Likeness of a Servant.t

But in the 4th Chapter he rejects the distinction of the terms of the Gospel and of the Apostles, and does not suffer us to take those terms according to the teaching of the Orthodox Fathers, and apply to His Nature those which are proper to GOD, but (he wants) that we should attach to the Human Nature, assumed by Him, those of a humble kind, and that are spoken by Christ in a human way.‘

Hence, then, persons of a sound way of thinking become able to (trace) discern the Relationship of the Impiety.t For, Arius and Eunomius, in speak- ing of the Only-Begotten Son of GOD, as a In p. 139, l. 1, possibly the right reading 1s, ies a servant, slave. But the word |, occurs again in line 14, and is effectum, a thing made. « A fusion of the Divine Nature and of the Form of a Slave. This, “then, has its origin in the Heresy of Apollinarius.”

{ Or, perhaps,—‘ According to the teaching of the Orthodox “ Fathers, he does not allow us to take those terms and to apply those “ concerning His Nature which are proper to God, and to attach to the «Human Nature assumed by Him those of a humble kind and that are “ spoken in a human way.”

“creature” and as “ that which once was not” and as “a thing made,” dared to apply to the Divinity of Christ those mean, humble, properties belonging to Humanity and spoken of as (proper to) Man, making thereby a diversity of Essence and a Dis- similarity.

Besides, to be brief, he (Cyril) affirms of the DIVINITY of Christ,—Impassible and Im- mutable — that IT both suffered and was cru- cified and died, (which is) a doctrine that-surpasses even the folly of Arius and of Eunomius. For, they who venture to call the Maker and Framer of the Universe a Creature never proceeded to such a height of Impiety (as that).

He (Cyril), likewise, blasphemes against the Hoty Guost, when he affirms that He does not proceed really from the Farunr, according to the word of our Lord, but that He derives His Essence from the Son.

126

For, they who venture to call the Maker and Framer of the Universe a Creature never proceeded to such a height of Impiety (as that). He (Cyril), likewise, blasphemes against the Hoty Guost, when he affirms that He does not proceed really from the Farunr, according to the word of our Lord, but that He derives His Essence from the Son.

Now this is fruit, produced from the seed of Apollinarius, whilst it also approaches the evil work of Marcion.

Sucu are Egyptian products—in truth, the more evil offspringe—of an evil Sire.

Now those, whose businesst is exercised in the healing of the soul, ought either to have rendered

See Appendix K. Perhaps better—“ those humble expressions, ‘and which were spoken by Christ in a human way.” “Those,” that is, the Chief Pastors of the Church who are the soul- healers, or, rather, the under Physicians or Healers of men’s souls who act with authority from the Chief Physician and Healer,

these things abortive when conceived, or, when brought forth, to have destroyed them, because they corrupt and (bring) a deadly poison into our Na- ture. (Instead of that, however,) they keep nur- turing them and deeming them worthy of immense solicitude, to their own injury and to that of those who are induced to give ear to them. But, so far as we are concerned, we do our endeavour to pre- serve the Inheritance of the Fathers intact, and The Faith we have received (inviolate), with which (Faith) we do baptize and have been baptized and which we do keep spotless and pure; and we con- fess our Lord Jesus is PERFECT GOD and PER- FECT MAN,t+ of a reasonable Soul and Body subsisting: Who, as to His Divinity, was begotten of The Father before the Worlds; but, in the latter times, the Same was, as regards His Humanity, for us and for our Salvation, born of the Virgin Mary —-Co-essential with the Father as to His Diviv- iry, and Con-substantial with us as to His Humanity. For, a Union took place{ of the Two Natures.

For this reason we acknowledge One Curist, One Son, One Lorn; for, we do not dissolve the Union, but we believe the Union was made

The Metaphor adopted in the first clause is continued, and the word @a 550/18 Pa., from [> 5, nutrivit, educavit. “They with great power “ bring them up and deem them worthy of great care..

t Took place is the rendering of the Syriac equivalent to q¢yvopar, factus sum, in the third person.

without confusion, being assured (of this) by the Lord, Who said to the Jews:—“ Destroy this Temple “and the third day I will raise It up again.” But, if commixture had taken place, and confusion, and One Nature formed out of those two, then it had been fitting and proper for him to have said:—“ Dis- “solve Me, and the third day I will rise again.”

127

without confusion, being assured (of this) by the Lord, Who said to the Jews:—“ Destroy this Temple “and the third day I will raise It up again. ” But, if commixture had taken place, and confusion, and One Nature formed out of those two, then it had been fitting and proper for him to have said:—“ Dis- “solve Me, and the third day I will rise again. ”

But now, in order to show that the One is GOD by Nature and that the Other is the Temple, and that the two constitute Onz Christ, He said:—“ Dissolve “this Temple, and the third day I will raise It up “again;’ clearly indicating that it is not GOD, but the Temple that was subject to dissolution, and that the Nature of the One was compatible with dissolution ; but, as to the Other, (it was) His Power that raised up what was dissoluble. So, we confess Christ to be GOD and Man, following (therein) the Divine Scriptures. For, that our Lord Jesus Christ is GOD, the Blessed Evangelist St. John pro- claims (thus) :—“In the beginning was The Word, ‘and The Word was with GOD, and The Word was “GOD. He was in the beginning with GOD. All “was made by Him, and without Him was not any- “thing made.”t And again:—‘ He is the True “ Light, enlightening every man that cometh into the “world.”{ But the Lord Himself manifestly teaches (this), when he says :—“ Whosoever sees Me, sees

“ One;” and :-—“ IT aminThe Father and The Father “isin Me.’t And the Blessed Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, said :—‘ Who is the Brightness of “His Glory and the Image (Impress) of His ‘“‘ Being (Essence), and Who upholds all things by “the power of His Word.”{ And in that to the Philippians (he said) :—‘“ Let this mind be “in you which was, also, that of Jesus Christ Who, although He was the Form of GOD, “ (yet) He did not think it robbery to be the counter- “part of (equal with) GOD ; but emptied (divested) “ Himself, taking the Form of a Servant.”|| And, in that to the Romans, he said:—‘ Whose are the “ Fathers, of whom, according to the Flesh, is Christ, “Who is over all, the Blessed GOD.”§ Also, in that to Titus:—“ Hoping for the announcement of “the Blessed Revelation of the Great GOD and our

128

”|| And, in that to the Romans, he said:—‘ Whose are the “ Fathers, of whom, according to the Flesh, is Christ, “Who is over all, the Blessed GOD. ”§ Also, in that to Titus:—“ Hoping for the announcement of “the Blessed Revelation of the Great GOD and our

t Heb., i, 3. Bishop Andrews, I think, translates this verse in the Greek N. T., thus :—‘ The brightness of His Father's glory, the very “character of His substance, the Heire of all things, by Whom Hee ‘‘ made the world.” Brightness, splendour, effulgence of His Father’s Glory, as a ray is of the Sun, helps to explain the description—Light of Light—in the Nicene Creed; and the Image of His Essence, or the Impress or character of His Being, destroys the Anomzan notion of Eunomius and his Co-thinkers who denied the Likeness of the Second Person to the First of The Trinity, as well as His Consubstantiality. Bishop Wordsworth, in his Greek N. T., at p. 380, points out that in this passage the Apostle declares the co-eternity and consubstantiality of the Son. (ot Phila, 5,6, 7, 10 1san IN. d, — pre-existent in the form or condition of God.

§ Rom., ix, 5. Bp. Wordsworth, at p. 247 of his N. T., shows that this passage distinctly asserts our Lord’s Jncarnation, His Existence from Everlasting, His Supremacy, His Divinity, and His claim to be called The Blessed One, and provides “a safeguard, not only against So- “cinianism and Anianism, but also against Nestorianism, by declaring “that God and Man are One Christ.”

“ Saviour Jesus Christ.” Isaiah, too, exclaims: —“ A Child is born to us and a Son is given to us, —‘ He Whose power is upon His shoulder; and His “Name shall be called the Messenger of the Great “Covenant, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the “Mighty GOD, the Powerful Ovz, the Prince of “ Peace, the Father of the future world.”t And elsewhere he said: —“ After Thee shall they walk— “they who are bound with chains: and unto Thee “shall they pray, because GOD is in Thee and there “ig no GOD beside Thee ; for, Thou art truly GOD “and we knew it not,—GOD the Redeemer of “ Israel.”} But the Name of Immanuel signifies GOD and Man;; for, it is explained, according to the Doctrine of the Gospel, as ‘““ GOD with us,”|| that is, GOD in Man, GOD in our Nature.

Also, Jeremiah, the Divine prophet, proclaims it, when he says:—‘“‘He is our GOD, and no others are to “be regarded in comparison with Him. He hath dis- “ covered all the way of knowledge and hath deliv- “ered it to Jacob His Servant and to Israel His “Beloved. Afterwards was He seen upon the ‘earth and held converse with the sons of men.”§

And thousands of other expressions any one may cull from the Divine Evangelists, and from the Wri- tings of the Apostles, and from the Prophecies of

$ Isaiah, xlv, 13. The variations, great and small, between such passages as this, or rather their translation from Syriac into English, and the English Version of the Bible will be observed.

129

Afterwards was He seen upon the ‘earth and held converse with the sons of men. ”§

And thousands of other expressions any one may cull from the Divine Evangelists, and from the Wri- tings of the Apostles, and from the Prophecies of

$ Isaiah, xlv, 13. The variations, great and small, between such passages as this, or rather their translation from Syriac into English, and the English Version of the Bible will be observed.

the Prophets, proving that our Lord Jesus is VERY GOD. But that He is, also, named Man after the INCARNATION, the Lord Himself teaches, when discoursing with the Jews, and exclaiming—“ Why “do ye want to kill Me—a Man Who hath spoken to “you true things ?” And the Blessed Paul, in the first Letter to the Corinthians, (teaches it), when he says:—“ Since through man (came) death, through “man also came the Resurrection of the Dead.”t And, in showing concerning Whom he is speaking, he explains what has been spoken, after this manner: —‘ Asin Adam all men are dead, so in Christ all “of them live.”{ In writing to Timothy, also, he said:—‘“There is only Onn GO D-—Onz Mediator, also, “of GOD and Men—The MAN Christ Jesus.”|| In the Acts of the Apostles, also, when he is address- ing the Athenians, (Paul says):—-“ GOD, then, having “ over-looked the times of ignorance, now commands “us all, in every quarter, to repent, since He. has “appointed a time when He will judge the world “in righteousness by That Man Whom He hath “appointed, affording good faith thereof to all men “in that He hath raised Him from the Dead.’§ The Blessed Peter, too, in preaching to the Jews, said:—‘‘ Men of Israel! hear these words: Jesus of “Nazareth, a Man that appeared (is revealed) from “GOD among you by signs, and wonders, and powers “which GOD wrought by Him.”

And the Prophet Isaiah, predicting the sufferings of Christ, Whom a little before he had named GOD— Him he calls a man, thus speaking:—“ A Man Who “is one of stripe and knows how to bear sickness, “Who bears our sins and hath suffered for our gales:

But many other similar expressions to these testi- monies I should continue to cull from the Divine Writings, and insert the min this letter, were I not‘ persuaded of your Piety, that your mode of life in this world consists in meditation on the Divine Scriptures, like the man who, by the Psalmist, is designated “ Blessed.”

Leaving, then, to your industry the collecting of the proofs, I pass on to my subject (to that which is set before me).

We confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be Very GOD and Very May, not dividing the ONE (Christ) into two Persons, but we believe that the Two Natures are united without confusion.

By that means are we easily able to refute the many vain Blasphemies of the Heretics ; for, mani- fold and varied is the error of those who have opposed The Truth, as we, also, forthwith (now) show. For, Marcion, and Valentinus, and Manes deny that GOD The Word took the Nature of Man- hood; nor do they believe that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin, but that GOD The

130

Isaiah, liti, 3. q Jiterally— had not been persuaded of “the piety that is in you, that its mode of life in this world consists in ‘ meditation in the Divine Scriptures.”

Word was born in the manner (Form) of the semblance of Man and appeared as Man in Phantasy rather than in reality. [ | But Sabellius, the Libyan, and Photinus, and Mar- cellus of Galatia, and Paul of Samosata, affirm that a mere man was born of the Virgin, since they evidently deny that Christ is, also, GOD before the worlds. Arius and Eunomius, likewise, contend that GOD The Word took body only from the Virgin, but Apollinarius, also, addsto the body an irra- tional soul, just as if the INCARNATION of GOD The Word took place for beings destitute, rather than for those possessed, of reason ; but the Doctrine of the Apostle teaches us that PERFECT MAN was assumed by PERFECT GOD. For, this sen- tence reveals it —(viz.,) “He Who is the Form of GOD “assumed the Form of a Servant,”+ because Form or figure is here substituted for Nature and Essence. That sentence indicates, then, that, whilst he had the Nature of Gop, He took the Nature of a Servant. Therefore, when speaking of the Prime Inventors of Impiety—Marcion, and Manes, and Valentinus— we are anxious to prove, from the Divine Scriptures,

According to Migne’s Patrologie Cursus, a paragraph, contained in the original Letter of Theodoret, must be omitted by the Scribe here. It is this :—

that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only GOD, but Man also. On the other hand, when we would refute the Impiety of Sabellius, and Marcellus, and Pho- tinus, and of Paul, should we not have recourse to the testimony of the Scriptures to show that our Lord Christ is not Man only, but GOD before the worlds and Co-essential (Consubstantial) with the Father ?

131

It is this :—

As regards, again, the Doctrine of Arius, and Kunomius, and Apollinarius on the subject of the IN- CARNATION, we prove It to the uninitiated (ig- norant) to be imperfect, by showing, by the words of the Holy Ghost, that a Perfect Nature was assumed by The Word. For, that He took a reasonable soul our Lord Himself teaches, where He says:—‘“ Now “is My Soul troubled !” and in what He said: —“ 0, “My Father! deliver Me from this hour, but to “this hour have I come forthis. . . . My Soul “is sorrowful, even unto death ;’+ and in another place:—“ I have the power of laying down My Soul, “and I have the power of taking It again. No man “taketh It away from Me.”t The Angel, too, said to Joseph:—“ Take the Lad and His Mother “and go into the land of Israel; for, they are dead “who sought the Soul of the Lad.”|| And the Evangelist, likewise, said:—‘“ And Jesus continued “to increase in stature and wisdom, and in favour “with GOD and man.”§ Now, THAT did not in-

crease in stature and wisdom Which is perfect at all times, but That Human Nature which took being in time, and increased, and came to perfection. And, therefore, all those properties of Humanity in reality appertain to our Lord Jesus Christ-—I mean hunger, thirst, and fatigue, and sleep, and sweating, and prayer, and want of knowledge, and fear, and all similar things—things such as we speak of as spe- cially appertaining to ourselves, to which, on GOD The Word accepting them, He appropriated to Him- self, when purchasing our Redemption; but the giving ability to the lame to walk again, the raising of the dead, and the multiplication of bread, and the changing water into wine, and all those other won- derful works we believe to be works proper to the power of GOD, so that This Same Christ our Lord could, I affirm, suffer and dissolve (those) sufferings: He could, in truth, suffer, and in that which was visible (to us) : and He could in truth dissolve these sufferings by That Divinity, Which, in a manner ineffable, dwelt in Him.

Now, this, also, the narrative of the Holy Evan- gelists distinctly declares: for, we learn from them that, when He was lain in the crib, whilst confined in swaddling clothes, by the star He was announced, by the Maji worshipped, and glorified by the Angels. It is with reason that we make a distinction (be- tween these things, some from others): His being‘ The Infant, and the swaddling clothes, and the

meanness of the bed, and all the (circumstances of) poverty—these we have as things proper to His HU- MANITY : whilst the journeying of the Maji, and the guidance of the star, and the Choir of the Angels proclaim the DIVINITY of Him, “ Who hideth “ Himself.”

132

In the same way He flees into Egypt, and, by the flight, escapes the wrath of Herod ;+ for, He was Man. But it was as GOD that He shakes the Idolst of Egypt ; for, He was GOD.

Being circumcised he observes the Law, and offers the sacrifices of Purification ;|| for, from the root of Jesse§ did He spring, and He was under the Law as Man; but, afterwards dissolved the Law and gave the New Covenant : for, He was the Law- Maker, and, by His Prophets, had promised to give the Law.

He was baptised by John, and that argues His being one of us. But He was testified to, from Above, by the Father, and was manifested by the Holy Spirit, and that proclaims Him to be before the worlds. He hungered, but He also satisfied many thousands with five loaves of bread—this is a property of DIVINITY and that of HUMANITY. He thirsted and asked for water, but He was the Foun- tain of Life. The one, indeed, appertained to Human infirmity, but the other to Divine Power. He slept

in the ship, but He also quelled the storm of the sea—that belonged to a suffering nature, but this

to a creative and formative Power that bestowed upon every man his existence. He was wearied with exertion in walking, but He, also, caused the lame tobe swift of foot, and He raisedt the dead from the grave —this is, 1indeed, a Power above (over) the worlds, but that isl proper to our infirmity. He feared death, but he abolished{ (loosed) death—the one was an in- dication of mortality; the other of immortality, be- sides being an indication that He gives Life. ‘“ He “was crucified,”|| according to the Doctrine of the Blessed Paul, “through weakness, but He lives by “the power of GOD.” That term ‘‘weakness” should teach us that not He, Who is Omnipotent, and Incom- prehensible, and Invariable, and Immutable, was affixed (to the Cross) by nails, but That Nature Which, by the power of GOD, took being in life, ac- cording to the Doctrine of His Apostle. He died and was buried—two characteristics these of the Form of a Servant. “The gates of brass He “ crushed into pieces, and brake the bars of iron,”S and overthrew the Empire of Death, and, on the third day, caused the Temple (of His Body) to rise again —these are proofs of the Form of GOD, according to the teaching of our Lord when He said: “ Destroy this “Temple, and the third day I will raise It up again.”

Thus in Christ, by means of the Passion, we perceive, indeed, HUMANITY ; but, by means

4] In these lines, “is”? I prefer to ‘ was,” as also in the previous page, the expressions “ He is circumcised,” |. 11, and “a Law-Maker,” |. 15.

133

”

Thus in Christ, by means of the Passion, we perceive, indeed, HUMANITY ; but, by means

4] In these lines, “is”? I prefer to ‘ was,” as also in the previous page, the expressions “ He is circumcised,” |. 11, and “a Law-Maker,” |. 15.

of his wonderful works, we desery His DIVINITY (DEITY), not that we divide the Two NATURES into Two CHRISTS; but we discern. the Two NATURES to exist in ONE CHRIST, and are per- suaded, as well, that GOD The WORD was be- gotten of the Father, as that He, Who is our beginning, is derived from Abraham and David. For this reason, also, it is that the Blessed Paul said, in discoursing about Abraham :—“ He said not of “Thy seeds (descendants), as of many, but as of one, and of Thy seed (descendant) which is Christ.” And, in writing to Timothy, he said:—‘‘ Remember “that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, rose from “the dead, according to my Gospel.”t And, in writing to the Romans, he said:—“ Concerning His “ Son, Who was born of the seed of David according “to the flesh.”+ And again:—‘ Whose are the “Fathers, of whom is the Christ according to the “ flesh.” || And the Evangelist (says):— “The “Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ the Son “of David, the Son of Abraham.”’§ And the Blessed Peter, in the Acts:--‘A Prophet truly “(he said) was David; and, knowing that GOD “had sworn to him with oaths that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, He would “raise up Christ and cause Him to sit upon His

And GOD spake to Abraham:—“ In thy seed, in- “deed, shall all the nations of the Earth be “ blessed.”

And Isaiah (says):——“‘ There shall come forth a “ Rod out of the root of Jesse, and a Sucker shall “orow up out of his root, and the Spirit of GOD “shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of Wisdom and “ Understanding, the Spirit of Counsel and Might, “the Spirit of Knowledge and of the Fear of the “Lord. The Spirit of Godly Fear shall fill him.”t

“ There shall arise a Root of Jesse, and He that shall “stand fora Head to the Gentiles, and in Him shall “the Gentiles hope ; and His rest shall be glorious.” |

It is, therefore, evident from what has now been said that Christ, according to the flesh, is the Son of Adam and David, and that He is clothed with their nature; but that, by reason of His Divinity, He existed before the worlds, as the Son of GOD and The WORD, Who was, in a manner ineffable and beyond human ken, born of THE FATHER, and is Co-eternal with Him, as (His) Brightness, as (His) Image, and (as His) Word. For, as word is united with mind and brightness with light, from which it cannot be separated, so is The Only Begotten SON, also, (united) with HIS FATHER.

We, therefore, affirm of our Lord Jesus Christ that He is The Only Begotten of GOD, and

134

For, as word is united with mind and brightness with light, from which it cannot be separated, so is The Only Begotten SON, also, (united) with HIS FATHER. We, therefore, affirm of our Lord Jesus Christ that He is The Only Begotten of GOD, and

{ These words in the MS. are in red, as if the Notary in reading the Letter to the Synod had purposely omitted something. || Isaiah, xi, 10.

The First Begotten — The Only Begotten, as- suredly, before the INCARNATION and after the INCARNATION ; but The First Begotten after being born of the Virgin. or, to The Only Begotten The First Born] seems to be the contradistinction, because The Only Begotten is (so) named Who Alone is born of any substance (essence), and The First Born is He Who is the first of many brethren. Now, asregards GOD The WORD, Who Alone was born of the Father, the Holy Scrip- tures teach that The Only Begotten became, also, The - First Born when He took our nature of the Virgin and deemed them worthy of being called His brethren who believed in Him, so that the same (person) could be in reality The Only Begotten in that He was GOD, and The First Born in that He was Man.

It is thus that we, confessing the Two Natures, worship The ONE Christ and offer up the One Wor- ship to Him; for, we believe that the Union (of the Two Natures) was effected, by the Conception liself, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin: and, therefore, we speak of the Holy Virgin, as being both Mother of GOD and Mother of Man; for which reason, also, our Lord Jesus Christ is called, by the Divine Scriptures, GOD and Man: but does not (the name of) Immanuel, in this way, proclaim the Union (One-ness) of the Two Natures ?

If, then, we designate Christ GOD and Man, who is so stupid as to ery out against the term

‘Mother of Man” when put in juxtaposition with that of “ Mother of GOD?” For, if we assign two names to our Lord Jesus Christ, on Whose account the Virgin is honoured and is called Blessed among women, what person is there, of a proper state of mind, who would refuse to call the Virgin by the ap- pellatives of our Redeemer, seeing that it is on His account that She is honoured by Believers? for, not HE, Who (was born) of Her, is, for Her sake, wor- shipped; but She, on account of HIM Who is of Her, is exalted by most lofty appellations.

If, however, Christ is GOD only and received from the Virgin a Beginning of His Essence, from that circumstance the Virgin should be named and called the Mother of GOD only, since in that case she brought forth GOD only.

135

for, not HE, Who (was born) of Her, is, for Her sake, wor- shipped; but She, on account of HIM Who is of Her, is exalted by most lofty appellations. If, however, Christ is GOD only and received from the Virgin a Beginning of His Essence, from that circumstance the Virgin should be named and called the Mother of GOD only, since in that case she brought forth GOD only.

But, if Christ is both GOD and Man—and He was indeed ever that (the first); for, He had no begin- ning, since He is Co-eternal with His Father, whilst the other (Man), in the last days, He took from hu- man nature—a person, who would teach from these two, must weave appellatives for the Virgin, indica- ting which is proper and appropriate to the Nature, and which to the Union of the Two Natures. If, however, any person is desirous of giving utterance to panegyrics, and of spinning out encomial sentences, and pronouncing orations of Praise, and wants only to make use of magniloquent terms, not in disputa- tion, as we said, but in panegyrizing, let him, asto- nied, as is possible, at the magnitude of the Mystery,

call her whatever he likes, let him use the very highest, let him praise, let him wonder. For, many expressions, similar to these, have I found in Orthodox Doctors. Everywhere, however, let moderation be preferred; for, I highly regard the man who asserts moderation to be best, and that, although he may not be of our flock.

This is the Confession of the Church’s Faith. This is the Doctrine of The Faith of the Gospel and Apostles. For thiswe refuse not three times and many times, by the aid of the Grace of GOD, todie. These things we have been ready to teach even to those now in error; and frequently have we challenged them to discussion, being anxious to show them THE TRUTH, but they have not consented ; for, fearing their evident refutation, they have refused the contest. For, truly weak is (falsity) Error, and it is con- joined with Darkness, as it is said that:—“ Everyone “that doeth evil cometh not to the Light, lest his “deeds should be made manifest by the Light.”

I, therefore, pray your Holiness with all your soul to supplicate our Merciful Lord, and to exclaim to Him:—“O Lord! spare Thy people, and give not

136

”

In consequence, then, of our not inducing them, after having made great exertions for it, to acknow- ledge The Truth, we returned to our Churches sad- dened and gladdened—gladdened, inasmuch as we acted inerrantly, and saddened because of the cor- ruption of (some of) our members. I, therefore, pray your Holiness with all your soul to supplicate our Merciful Lord, and to exclaim to Him:—“O Lord! spare Thy people, and give not

“Thine Heritage to reproach.” ‘QO Lord! feed us “as (our) Shepherd lest we come at last to be ‘‘what we were at first, when we acknowledged “no Head and Thy Name was not invoked over “us. O Lord! behold us a scorn to our neigh- “bours, a derision, and a by-word to those that “are round about us;’t because depraved teachings have entered into Thine Inheritance and have polluted Thy Holy Temple; and the daughters of strangers rejoice over our calamities, because we are divided into many tongues—we who, here- tofore, have been of one tongue (language). O Lord! our GOD! grant us a tongue which we have lost through neglecting Thy commandments. O Lord! our GOD! take possession of us. O Lord! beside Thee we know no other—we call on Thy Name. Make of us two one, and dissolve the middle wall of partition, even the Impiety which has arisen. Gather us together, one by one, even The New Israel which is Thine. Build up Jerusalem and assemble (reunite) the dispersed of Israel. Let there be again only One Fold and let us all be fed of Thee; for, “Thou “ art the Good Shepherd,—He W ho laid down His life “for Hissheep.”t “Awake, why sleepest Thou, O “Lord? Arise and reject (cast off) us not for ever!”| “ Rebuke the winds of the sea, and give Peace to Thy “ Church, and the stilling of the waves.”§

{| Or, “the peace which, &c.,” ifthe right reading be the word (reac with \. for its object. Joel, ii, 17. t Psalms, xliv, 13, 143; Ixxix, 4.

These prayers and similar ones I beseech your Piety to utter to the GOD of All; for, since He is Good and Merciful, and ever desirous of granting the prayer of those who fear Him, He will hear your Petition, and disperse this darkness (now) imminent, which is even blacker than (that of) the Egyptian plague, and will bestow that Peace which from Him is so gracious, and will gather together the dispersed, and will receive the outcast.

Then, again shall be heard “the voice of Praise and Salvation” “in the dwelling of the Righteous.” Then, we, too, shall exclaim to Him—‘“ Thou hast made us “glad by reason of the days of our humiliation and “the years when we experienced these afilictions.””

You, likewise, having obtained your request, in praising Him, will say—‘“ Blessed is GOD Who hath “not disregarded our Prayer, nor (withheld) His “ Grace from us.”+

137

” Then, we, too, shall exclaim to Him—‘“ Thou hast made us “glad by reason of the days of our humiliation and “the years when we experienced these afilictions. ””

You, likewise, having obtained your request, in praising Him, will say—‘“ Blessed is GOD Who hath “not disregarded our Prayer, nor (withheld) His “ Grace from us. ”+

Compare this magnificent specimen of Catholic Theology with the celebrated Anathemas of S. Cyril, at p. 112, and the difference will appear, I think, infinitesimal, except on one point. But the fact of Theodoret’s having written against Cyril—the pregnant expression of the latter about there being only one Nature of our Incarnate Lord, with- out any explanation of it, would warrant both Theodoret and Bishop Ibas in writing against him—sufficed alone for his enemies to accuse and arraign him. 7See Appendix H, in Vols. I and II.

The book, presented by Pelagius, the Presbyter, bears upon it the following Title : —“ An Apology of “ Theodoret, Bishop, on behalf of Diodorus and “ Theodorus, Warriors for the (True) Religion.”

That alone suffices for his Deposition, for which the Great Emperor has already given orders, so that, if anything were said relative to Theodoret against his deposition, it would be possible for even Nestorius to find an abetter,

(b) Jouy, Presbyter and Prime-Notary, read (ex- tracts) from a Book (Treatise) of Theodoret :—

“ And what shall I say about the Athenians, (so) particularly addicted to the worship of Demons ? “The Divine Peter himself, when discoursing to “the Jews, did not designate our Lord Jesus Christ “ (as) GOD, whilst he even extended hist address “about Him in reference to His being MAN.”

‘The undue bias and readiness of the Synod to return a verdict unfavourable to the person at the bar is remarkable: for, no sooner does the Assessor say that the MS. of Pelagius bears this Inscription— “‘ Bishop Theodoret’s Apology of Diodore and Theodore, Champions “of God”—than the Assembly cried out :—‘ That is enough to get “« Theodoret deposed ; for, the Emperor has said that to refuse to depose “him would be to support Nestorius.” In this sentence, probably, allu- sion is made to the Imperial Document (8) above, p. 8. The pronoun in, MANSON, his word, p- 159, |. 3, shows that tise cannot mean The Divine Word (for He is not Peter’s Word)

but his discourse to the Jews. Literally :—dut even he also (Peter ) put forth bis word of Him (i,e., spake of Him) as of a man.

“ As regards the entire Deed (writing) of Arraign- “ment, he has filled it with expressions like these, “ (viz): ‘He (Christ) did not take (upon Himself) Man.’ “ «He did not (actually) become Man, but acted in “ the manner of Man.’ ‘ The Only Begotten suffered,’ “and ‘ He (The Only Begotten) tasted of death.’ ”

(dq) Again, from the same Treatise :— “Show, then, what there is against Diodorus. “ But you have nothing (to show). If, however, you “ stumble at the term PURPLE (Vestment) ;—for, “ this you signified in what follows, when you said “ that it is a proof of dissimilarity; and you carped “at the name of TEMPLE—’+

138

’ ”

“Therefore GOD The WORD is not a Lamb, but “as a Lamb1 (of sacrifice) he offered (sacrificed) the “ Nature which He had assumed, and is called ‘ the “ Lamb{ (of God) ; and that in consequence of the “ Union (of the Two Natures).”

These sentences, forming this second Extract, cited by, and now arrainged against, [heodoret, are excerpted from a work of S. Cyril named— De eo quod unus Christus contra Theodorum.” The words Purple and Temple were commonly used by Nestorius and his followers to describe the Body in which God The Word took habitation. Also, the Nestorians were accused of “corrupting the “ Divine Writings and of removing the Landmarks of the Holy Fa- “thers,” in order to attribute the Incarnation only to the Flesh; saying that the birth and death of Christ belong simply and merely to the Temple of God, &c.

q Or, better, perhaps—He offered (sacrificed) the Nature He had as- sumed as a Lamb (of sacrifice). Isaiah, lit, 7; 1 Peter, i, 19; &c.

“How, then, do you fail to perceive this, that “when you arraign Diodorus for having affirmed “that the Nature which was assumed was the Son “ of Grace, you implicate yourself (in the charge) ? “because you have blamed him for not having “ affirmed Him to be the Very Son of the Father, “ Who is the seed of David ; for, how is that Nature “which was derived from David truly the Son of “the GOD of All? For He, Who was begotten of “ Father before the worlds, owns this name.”

“Subsequently he exhibits a certain work (creed) “which was written by himself. And he arraigns it. “ But I have fallen in with the writings of the giant.t “This nowhere have I seen, and I have not considered “that it would be deserving of arraignment. How- “ever, I am of opinion‘ that, as regards this subject, “ people who are willing to examine the sense of what “ig written come to entertain the same sentiments. ‘For, so the writings of the Holy Gospels and Apos- “tles draw (lead on) to it every one who wishes for “ Hternal Life. There are, however, myriads of people “ who, while looking upon them in (different) various

q “But, as regards this, I am of opinion that those can understand “these views who wish to examine the sense of what is written. «, , all who wish for Eternal Life are led on to it by the writings,” &c.

139

There are, however, myriads of people “ who, while looking upon them in (different) various

“senses and diversely, run in an opposite direction, “and are drawn into the outer darkness. But not on “that account, however, do we blame the Holy Scrip- “tures—no!—but we do reprehend the idiotcy of “those who entertain false notions (will not think “with wisdom).{ In this way and at this place “ (passage) have we acted, showing what is the mean- “ing of those things which have been written with “just intent. The meaning, then, of the Treatise is “so and so.”

“ Further, it is only just and right to know, also, “about the Giconomy for our Redemption that GOD “consummated that Giconomy by our Lord Christ.”

“GOD he (Theodorus) here calls the GOD of “ All, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; and “ Christ (he calls) GOD The WORD, Who became “INCARNATE, The Only Begotten Son of God. “ For it is, by His means, that the GOD of All pur- “chased our Redemption. Thus, too, the Blessed

{| Or it may be rendered with Martin, whose note we subjoin, thus: —‘'T'he same have we done in this actual case. We show that all that ‘has been composed with a good intention. See here, then, what is his ‘idea (of Theodorus or Diodorus)? in this writing.(2) We must “know concerning the matter of our salvation that Gop has accom- “plished it through our Lord Christ.”(2) ‘The things that have been written” would be what was put into the {Sc.m, probably.

In p. 161, Martin considers that lines 2, 3, and 4 may bea quota- tion from Diodore or Theodore, and Hoffman as the quotation from the Creed, the {Sc.m, which is to be explained.

(a) The preceding and tho following are not without difficulty. One does not know of whom, and of what, therois a question here. However, as it isan extract froma work destined to defend 'Theodorus against 8. Cyril (Mansi, Conciliorum omnium amplix. Coll., IX, 239-255), one has a right to suppose, that it is a reply to the objections which Cyril raised against the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

(4) 1t is probably a citation from Theodore of Mopsuestia which §. Cyril had in. criminated,

“ Paul said that ‘God was in Christ, having recon- “ % does not here mean strictly ad- verse OY contrary to, but, rather, that ‘Theodoret held opinions deyond or outside of the authorized Creed.

The Hoty Sywyop said :— “That is a just sentence—cast out the Heretic. “We all declare for this—all of us agree to the

140

of your Sentence, as among those who have been ejected ; having henceforth no permission whatever, either to teach, or to address, or trouble the (inerrant) sound sheep of God, and being made to desist, too, from communicating in the Pure Mysteries. The Hoty Sywyop said :— “That is a just sentence—cast out the Heretic. “We all declare for this—all of us agree to the

Thus we see condemned by the Sentences of the Bishops, and by the unanimous vote, of the Synod, without a hearing even on that point of Doctrine in which we may reasonably consider him to be not faultless, a man of the purest and most innocent life, as well as possessed of the grandest virtues that can adorn humanity, a Bishop whose saintly memory, alone of all the Chiefs tried is ‘stainless, and whose deeds place him in the very van of the noblest representative personages that figure so dif- ferently during the frightfully disquieting and unhappy epoch of the fifth period of the Church.

In looking back upon this case of Theodoret, and on this Version of it, I would desire to make a few reflections. In the first place I must express a hope that some English Scholar, by means of Dr. W. Wright’s three-volumed Catalogue of the Syriac MSS. deposited in the British Museum—more rechercher and splendid than any Library in the world possesses—which Foreign Scholars so frequently visit, may, by carefully overhauling those MSS. one by one, be fortunate enough to dis- cover, not only many more treasures-trove, but the very treatise or treatises of Theodoret, in which the above, some of them very difficult, Extracts appear. And this is not chimerical or visionary. For, what may we not hope for after the discovery of the Epistles of S.

Clement of Rome by Bryennius,(a) Metropolitan of Serrhe, and the Syriac MS. of those same Epistles lately sold to the Syndics of the University of Cambridge (I tried hard myself to purchase the MS.) at the sale, at Paris, of the Library of the great Oriental Scholar Jules Mohl. Already has Dr. Martin printed some Syriac MSS. the contents of which are very germane to our subject. In a journal published at Leipzig very lately, he has given to the world “ Lettres de Jacques de Saroug aux moines du Couvant de “ Mar Bassus, et 2 Paul d’Edesse relevées et traduites.” And, from the correspondence between Jacob of Sarug and these Monks, which appears to have taken place not later than 473 A.D., that is, full eighty years before our great MS. (14,530) was written—for the Scribe says he wrote it in the Month of May, 553 (see the end of this translation) — and certainly not a quarter of a century after the Second Synod of Ephesus was held, I here subjoin an Extract, from the Zeitschrift alluded to, astranslated at page 225 :—

“lars have not been prepared.’’ (v) Le second membre de l’énumération est omis, xa (c) Cfr. a Timothés, iii, 16. (d) Aux Galates, iv, 4. (e) Psaume, ii, 6,

141

Soon after the above was put into type came (with “ Les facultes de « Théologie et les futures Universités Catholiques,” in which Dr. Martin as “Aumonier de l’Ecole Monge” will, I doubt not, distinguish himself very considerably) the Syriac Text, the French translation, &c., kindly des- patched to me by himself, from which I extract some more matter, so opportunely brought to light, in connection with Theodoret.

I will now add to the foregoing some indications that refer to a preferable and, some of them, far more exact rendering of the Syriac Text. That at p. 217 is the following :—

The Body of the Church has the need of the hand of the Lord—(the right reading, at I. 13, p. 135 of the Text, is {a3 {2—])—because it is sorely devoured by evil. For this purpose have you all been gath- ered together in this place: (viz.) in order that you may establish for CHRIST One Glorious Church, having neither spot nor blemish,(a) and that you may, having thus for a second time saved and purified It by the power of The Truth, present it to the whole earth under Heaven, not as reviled and calumniated by Heretics, but invested with the Heavenly and Apostolic Glory of the Doctrine of The Alone True Religion.

At page 218, it should be put thus, before the beginning of Theodoret’s Letter eeyean, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read :—

Copy of the Letter of Theodoret to the Monks (directed) against, &c.

Also, at foot of page 219, the reference is to the Prophecy of Jere- miah, chap. iv, verse 19; whilst, however, the long Citation itself, or ra- ther Citations, wold seem to be composed of a sort of cento of terse and laconic Jeremiads culled out of the writings of the Prophets.

(a) See Eph., v, 27 (the Church glorious); 8. John’s Rey., xxi, 2, 9 (the Church glo. rified), and xix, 7.

At p. 221, and |. 13, it would be better thus:—And he does not allow us to take these terms, and to apply those which are proper to God (the Divine predicates) to His Nature—to attach those which are of a humble kind and are spoken humanly (i.e., spoken of Christ as a human being) to the Human Nature assumed by Him. The words, by Christ, should be put thus—(of Christ).

At p. 222, |. 5:—-Stating the (their well-known) Diversity of Essence. ‘ Alienum paterne substantiz et dissimilem inde eum osten- “ dere festinantes,’”’ are the words of Garner of his “ Beati Theodoreti, Ep. Cyri Operum,” Tom. 5 (Opus postumum, 1684) in the Auctarium, p- 62.

— |. 21:—The noxious culture, or noisome toil (and soil), of Mar- cion. In (Garner it is “ maligne culturz,’”’ and “ Macedonius.”) Some suchexpression is wanted to correspond with the word “seed” and “fruit.”

142

‘ Alienum paterne substantiz et dissimilem inde eum osten- “ dere festinantes,’”’ are the words of Garner of his “ Beati Theodoreti, Ep. Cyri Operum,” Tom. 5 (Opus postumum, 1684) in the Auctarium, p- 62. — |. 21:—The noxious culture, or noisome toil (and soil), of Mar- cion. In (Garner it is “ maligne culturz,’”’ and “ Macedonius. ”) Some suchexpression is wanted to correspond with the word “seed” and “fruit. ”

At p. 223, l. g:—3; and The Faith, which we have received, with which we do baptize and have been baptized, we do keep spotless.

— |. 24:—for, on the one hand we do not dissolve the Union and we believe on the other hand

At p. 224, 1. 3:—For, if commixture aad con-fusion had taken place and One Nature was (had been) formed out of those two, then, &c.

— 1.14. Perhaps it would be better :—experienced the dissolution, but the Power of the other raised up what was dissolved.

At p. 230, |. 4, it should be, as in Migne, thus—(and of Paul).

At p. 231, 1. 8:—such things as we speak of as belonging to our original or, perhaps, first-fruit, which woid is used by S. Paul at Rom. xi, 16, in that sense. At p. 234, 1. 7, the same word occurs. In the Greek it is 7 am@apyy ajwr, corresponding to the Syriac.

At p. 236, the expressions povoyevys and mpwréroxos must be dis- tinguished, and the distinction finds expression in the terms—Only Begotten and First-Born. So translate thus—Now that God The Word was Alone Born (the Only Begotten) of the Father the Scriptures teach us. But the Only Begotten became, also, the First-Born.

— |. 6:—who asserted moderation to be best, which is an allusion, doubtless, to the well-known saying, uérpor derorov, of one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece.

To appreciate Theodoret’s Letter, and its Theological terminolgy, we must read the Original in Greek. For, it is impossible to convey in a translation the full meaning of those dogmatical expressions contained in it.

The refined terms and predicates belonging to dogmatic theology, TO @ctoy déypa, can most adequately if not only, be expressed by the delicate shades of ae attached to Greek words, such as aovyxire Or pent ws, avopmowos, évaois, ovo, pios, mpdowror, ETEPOVOLOS Hence it will be best to study them in the original letter Theodoret wrote, which is subjoined according to the ‘text as produced by Hoffmann, together with some of the Syriac words, corresponding to the Greek ones, indicated by anglicised characters.

(a) Kai otvoloy Kal? Evwow uciciy is, according to the Syriac text, to be construed with the preceding accusative, Thy Kal’ brdoTacw Evwotr, not with the following, kpaciy tia Kai obyxvow.

We left Domnus at p. 25. The Envoys, commissioned by the Council to urge his attendance on its sittings, reported that “hey had found him perfectly unable, through bodily debility, to join in the Council’s deliberations in person.

143

(a) Kai otvoloy Kal? Evwow uciciy is, according to the Syriac text, to be construed with the preceding accusative, Thy Kal’ brdoTacw Evwotr, not with the following, kpaciy tia Kai obyxvow. We left Domnus at p. 25. The Envoys, commissioned by the Council to urge his attendance on its sittings, reported that “hey had found him perfectly unable, through bodily debility, to join in the Council’s deliberations in person.

The President, at this stage of the proceedings, despatches Nota- ries who apprize him of all the transactions of the day, of which Domnus is made to say that he thoroughly approves. But these Netaries are apparently not commissioned to announce to Domnus that he himself is soon, or perhaps the next, to be tried at the bar of Justice. For, they are positively and per- fectly silent as to the approaching fact of the Chief Bishop of Christian Asia being for one moment the subject of this Gicu- menical Synod’s formal adjudications. The Acts, we say, give no instruction of his being at all, or in any way, apprized of this circumstance, and this is in the case of a Patriarch of the Church. Can anything be more contrary to all principles of justice and fair dealing? “It is of itself enough to justify “the Anathema which fourteen centuries have cast upon the “celebrated Cabal of Ephesus.”

Now when the Notaries, who had been despatched to Bishop Domnus, had read to him (an account of) what had been transacted,

I was wishful, had I enjoyed my usual health, to have assembled with your Piety and, together with your Holiness, to have heard all that was said rela- tive to Ibas, and Daniel, and Irenzeus, and Aquilinus, and Theodoret, but, in consequence of great bodily debility, [ was prevented from doing this.

It has, however, been thought right and just by your Piety that he, who in body has been disabled‘! from going, should (learn) be informed of those matters that are already on a fair way for justice, by your judgment, O holy (Fathers)! at the hands of those who have been despatched from your Holy Synod— the Venerable Notaries, Demetrian, Flavian, and Primus.

After having heard at one (and the same) time the whole of your holy commands and just decision concerning all of them (the accused) one by one, I

{ Better, perhaps— He who, on account of bodily sickness, could not come, should learn all that has been (already) accomplished in a right manner—or put in the right path—by your just judgment, O holy Fathers.”

In p. 171, |. 13, the Jud in the word mascz.2 1s a mistake of the Scribe, no doubt. In the next line the word ],ss>] is simul, at one time.

144

”

In p. 171, |. 13, the Jud in the word mascz. 2 1s a mistake of the Scribe, no doubt. In the next line the word ],ss>] is simul, at one time.

(can only) bestow great praise (on you), being brought to the same opinion as yourselves in all these mat- ters: and I pronounce the (same) decision with you, and I adhere to (join you in) the same com- mands as you, in regard of all those men who have been justly deposed (expelled) by you, whilst I differ from you in nothing and would make no alterations in what has been effected, but to all those transac- tions that have been apostolically conducted and accomplished by your Blessedness, I, with all readi- ness (possible) on my part, do give my confirmation and assent.

In]. 24, Qelaned. means, of course, in an Apostolic manner, or, rather, in accordance with “the Apostolic Canons.” ‘The Canons, “commonly called Avpostolical or Ecclesiastical,’ number at most 85, which were drawn up by the Church’s Synods held at the end of the Second and beginning of the Third Centuries, and added to afterwards, and collected, not all at once, but as they were made, some after others, and they were the Rule of Discipline, or the Code of Canons, oF THE Primitive Cuurcu, or, however, for the Eastern Part of It. (See Johnson’s Vade-Mecum, Vol. [I.) They are referred to ex- pressly by the Great Councils of Nicaea and of Constantinople: and the fifth and sixth Holy General Councils, says Sparrow, held 700 years, more or less, after Christ’s passion, ordained that, for the government of the Churches and a preventive against disorder, eighty-five Canons of the Apostles, which had been delivered to the Church by Clemens, the dis- ciple, companion, and perpetual follower of the Apostles themselves and the successor of Peter, should by the faithful be diligently observed.” He cites the Admonition of the Apostle at 2 Thess., ii, “ Stand fast, and hold by our traditions, whether (given) by word or letter.” See A Collection of Articles, Injunctions, Canons, &c., by Bishop Sparrow. Imprinted at London, 1675.

The spiritual power, or Discipline, of the Church, entrusted to Her by Her Divine Head, seems here to have received prac- tical illustration of what it was in the 5th century, to “bind”’ and to “loose,” and in the exercise of the Lesser Excommuni- cation called apopirpuos, separation or suspension; the greater being “the total separation, and anathema, the curse,” which was the greatest curse that could be laid upon men—zrayteAns apopiopos. The former mode of punishment consisted, says Bingham, “in excluding men from the participation of the Eucharist and prayers of the faithful, but did not expel them the Church; for, still they stay to hear the psalmody, and reading of the Scriptures, and the Sermons, and the prayers» of the catechumens and the penitents, and then depart with them, when that first service, called the service of the cate- chumens, was ended.” (Bk. XVI, Chap. xi, Sect. 7. See also Note at the end of the cause of Ibas, p. 145.)

145

” (Bk. XVI, Chap. xi, Sect. 7. See also Note at the end of the cause of Ibas, p. 145. )

Now four members of the Christian Church, of whom three were Deacons and the other a Reader, had been prohibited par- ticipation in the greatest privilege to membership, for some misdemeanour not named, by the exercise of the power of “binding” by no less a person than the Archbiskop cf that See that was soon to rise to be the second in Christendom— viz., that of the Royal City of Constantinople; and, using this (icumenical Tribunal as the Appellate Court in the last resort they prayed for the removal of the interdict or censure, under which they had been put by that Archbishop.

The Presiding Judge of the Council, doubtless, glad of a small opportunity of doing somewhat towards crushing the rising power of New Rome as wellas of defeating the influence of Old Rome at this Synod, over which he had shown his own power to be supreme, had no sort of hesitation in “loosing” those whom his Rival at Constantinople had “ bound.”

Then Theosebius, and Epiphanius, and Theophilus, Deacons, and Eudromanus, Reader, approached the Holy and Gicumenical Synod, and said :—

Flavian, formerly Bishop of Constantinople, put us under an Jnterdict from appearing here (at this Tribunal). We pray your Piety to release us from the (bond of) censure.

It is right and just that they should be received. Dioscorvs, Bishop of Alexandria, said :—

Well-known matters has Theosebius mentioned, with Epiphanius and Theophilus, Deacons, and Eudromanus, Reader; but they have not alluded to the cause of Inhibition. This God-fearing, Holy, and Cicumenical Synod, however, having a regard for The True Religion, has released them from their Interdict. Let, therefore, the persons named above be admitted to Communion, as formerly.

“We all say the same. We, all of us, give our “assent to this with one common voice (unani- “‘mously).”

It is probable that during this part of the Synod’s proceedings, or somewhere after the trial of Theodoret, another important one took place, that of the Deposition of Athanasius from the Bishopric of Perrha in Syria, and the Consecration of Sabinian to it, the discussion of which formed the 14th Session, and between which two Bishops Dijudication was effected by the Magistrates, of the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, a.p.

So, also, might have come on at this stage of the business the exami- nation of Candidian’s case, who was Bishop of Antioch, in Pisidia, referred to by Theodoret in one of his letters, and against whom several complaints were vainly submitted to this Council.

And the same may be said of Athenius whose name, it would seem, appears nowhere but in one of Theodoret’s Letters.

146

p. So, also, might have come on at this stage of the business the exami- nation of Candidian’s case, who was Bishop of Antioch, in Pisidia, referred to by Theodoret in one of his letters, and against whom several complaints were vainly submitted to this Council. And the same may be said of Athenius whose name, it would seem, appears nowhere but in one of Theodoret’s Letters.

But this, we repeat, is only a probability. The certainty of the matter could be ascertained from a discovery of the three lost leaves of the original MS., if those leaves contained information respecting the order of the Sessions and arrangement of the proceedings, and the absence of which marks the first of the Lacune remarked upon above, at foot of p. 27.

It will not be inappropriate or inopportune to offer in this place a few observations and references relative to the Bishops, Candidian, Athanasius and Athenius.

A graphic descriptiva of the proceedings at Ephesus, and some particulars not mentioned elsewhere, we read in one of the Letters of Theodoret, addressed to John of Germanicia.

De presenti rerum statu nihil sperare licet, Theodoret begins, defectionisque absolute initia hee esse arbitror ; and he goes on to complain, that even those who declare their abhorrence of the violent proceedings at Ephesus (uera@ Bias), now acquiesce in what was done there; while the promoters of it show more and more their insolence, actually affirming that no immovation was made in the dogma (undeulay yeyernoba rept TO Séypa Kawvorouiay), as if he, ‘Theodoret, had been expelled because of an immoral life (ob caedes et maleficia)! while even BaeBapo clearly see, that they expelled him as well as others on account of the Dogma. Kat yap roy ktiprov Aduvov, he continues, os Ta Kepadaa pr) deEdmervov Kablecdoy ot PEA- Tito, THEtpyua Tata KaAréTarTES Kal Eupérem TOVTOLS opodo0n noav- res (€y@ yao m'rav tas Kabéoers avéyrwv) Eve dé WS TIS aipéocws Kapyor amexynpvay Kat rors dArovs wratrws dia TH aTyY attic éSE- Baroy. For that it was not a question of the moral life and con- versation (9 mpaktixy apety): atta Bod Ta Tpaypatu. Kara yap Kuvdidiavov, Tov Meotdcov, AyBEAAous éme)urav Ties, MoLyeras avrod

a This Letter, bearing the number 125 in the MSS., left out by Sirmond in the collection of Theodoret’s Letters, but given in the Appendix to vol. iv., was numbered 147 by Garnerius, and stands under the same number in Migne, Series Grmeca, vol. Ixxxiii., col. 1409 ff.

b Candidianus is mentioned as member of the Synod, vol. i., 10, 22 (ii. 16, no, 24), and 99, 17 ff. (ii. 144 no. 19), speaking judgment against Ibas.

Heipav ot coperara. Let them therefore not cloke their godless- ness, which they have proved by tongues and fists (uy... Kpumré- Tesay Thy acéBevar, HY Ka Tats YAwTTaLS Kal TAs Yepotv EBeBarwoar).

Theodoret goes on to disavow the chapters, which they had so often rejected, and which they have accepted at Ephesus. But they change their minds according to the time, like the polypus, according to the colour of the rock it lives upon, and the chame- leon to the surrounding leaves ; and having formerly applauded

147

Kpumré- Tesay Thy acéBevar, HY Ka Tats YAwTTaLS Kal TAs Yepotv EBeBarwoar). Theodoret goes on to disavow the chapters, which they had so often rejected, and which they have accepted at Ephesus. But they change their minds according to the time, like the polypus, according to the colour of the rock it lives upon, and the chame- leon to the surrounding leaves ; and having formerly applauded

The moral weight of the argumentative power manifested by the great Hutychian intriguers in this deliberative assembly must have been, in the first session, whatever it may have been afterwards, infinitesimally small, whilst the physical power apper- taining to their position in the Nmpire they brought to bear upon its members in a terrific manner. The above words of Theodoret if used here as indicating instruments of Conveying terror inadequately describe the scene. ‘‘ When Dioscorus began to pro- nounce sentence against Flavian, Onesiphorus, Bishop of Iconium, rose with several others and seized his knees entreating him not to proceed, Dioscorus rose from his throne, and, standing on his footstool, aeclarecd, that although his tongue were to be cut out he could not say otherwise; and as the Bishops continued to entreat him, holding him by his knees, he cried out ‘ where are the Counts?’ which brought in the Proconsul, witha great number of soldiers, armed with swords and clubs, and bringing chains withthem. By this means the greater part of he Bishops were compelled to affix their signatures to a carte-blanche; being shut up in the church till evening, and prevented from taking either rest or refreshment, &c.’’ (Fromthe Oxford Fleury, p.310). Onthe carte-blanche referred to, it is thought was afterwards indited the long address to the Emperor, dis- covered in the magnificient MS, (No. Add. 12156,) in British Museum, of Timothy #lurus, reproduced in my Vol. 1, and translated in Vol. 2, in Appendix D.

We may add here, that according to Breviculus Hist. Hutych. (Labbe, t. 4 p. 1080, B) as given in the same page of the Oxford Fleury, it was three days after the sessionin which Flavian was deposed, that the President of the Synod managed to effect the deposition of Archbishop Domnus. ‘ Dioscorus produced some letters before the Council,— (these very interesting letters are also given in our M§, as will appear further on)—which Domnu® had written to him, charging St. Cyril’s 12 Articles with being obscure, and the Council were thus prevailed upon to depose him as suspected of Nestorianism, though he was absent and laid up with sickness’’ The session in which Flavian was deposed was the first, and the motive assigned to Dioscorus for deposing him, and using an artificein the accomplishing of his object, is that Domnus had retracted his forced subscription to the

« Athenios is not mentioned in the List of the Members, but two of the name of Athanasios, one Bishop of Opus in Achaia (i. 2, 143 ii. 17, 49Y, the other of Busiris (i. 12, 16; ii. 19, 99); whether one or which of those can be identified with the Athanasios mentioned by Theodoret, I cannct say—perhaps the latter,

148

nuov arooToAKyy ovouatovtes’ Tatrny avebeuariay), and the man whom they accused of Valentinianism and Apollinarism, as vexypopov Te ole UTrov TIS TLOTEWS Kat TOY TOUTOU TpoexvAty SOUVTO TOO wr’ Kae ouyyy wun eCyrour Kae TATE pa TVEUMATLKOV éxaXouv.2 Theodoret comforts himself with the righteous judgment of the Lord ; hopes to be forgiven, because of this endurance of injustice (dca rir adixiav) ; expects that the coming election of the Patriarch of the East will make the views of everyone apparent ; and asks for the prayer of John, that he might be able to stand against the plots of his enemies.

In the famous Letter Theodoret sent to the Bishop of Rom: Leo (numbered 113),> he gives the following account of the pro- ceedings atthe Synod (AMigne, 83 col. 1316 b),

In this letter also Theodoret acknowledges the superiority of the See of Rome and sounds the praises of 5S. Leo, and as to the celebrated Letter Leo wrote to S. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, which, rejected at Ephesus and ed at Chalcedon, has now pee the common heritage of the Church, Theodoret says he admires it as the very language of the Holy Ghost. He speaks of his labours for the Church during the 26 years of his Bishopric, and in the 800 Parishes of his diocese, and enumerates the several works he wrote in 20 years, from which to ascertain whether he had kept The Faith or not.

He asks the advice of Leo as to whether he ought to acquies? in his unjust deposition or not, awaiting his decision.

a We find these acclamations almost verbally in the Syriac text of the Acts : ep. vol. ii.. p. 126 f. note, a proof that Theodoret did read, as he says, the depo- sitions of the Synod.

Last, but by no means least, on the list of the arraigned stands the cause of Domnus II; and very singular does it ap- pear. Indeed, the whole position of this Bishop among his Fellows and members of this Council is perfectly unique. For, whereas he was Patriarch of the probably first formed See of Christendom, next after that of Jerusalem—seeing that he exercised Patriarchal Jurisdiction and occupied, in regular suc- cession from 8. Peter, the Overseership cf Antioch the Great Capital, it is no anachronism, nor incorrect, to speak of him and his as such—and Patriarch, too, of the then certainly Apostolic Throne that held the third rank, and therefore, in moral right

149

Bingham, who informs us (Book II, chap. xvii) that Patri- archal Power had come to its height about the time of the Councils of Epbesus and Chalcedon, when writing on the subject of Patriarchs and referring to Domnus, says :—‘ Next in order to the Metropolitans, or primates, were the pa- triarchs; or, as they were at first called, arckbishops and exarchs of the Diocese. For though now an Archbishop or a Metropolitan be generally taken for the same, to wit, the pri- mate of a single province; yet anciently the name Archbishop was a more extensive title, and scarcely given to any but those whose jurisdiction extended over a whole imperial diocese, as the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, &c. That this was so appears evidently from one of Justinian’s Novels, where, erecting the bishopric of Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchal See, he says, ‘ Our pleasure is that Justiniana shall not only be a Metropolitan, but an Archbishop ?’ Here the names are clearly distinguished, and an archbishop superior to a metro- politan. And hence it was that, after the setting up of patri- archal power, the name Archbishop was appropriated to the Patriarchs. Liberatus+ gives all the Patriarchs the title of Archbishops. So does the Council of Chalcedon frequently, speaking of all the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinoplet under the name of Archbishops also. These were otherwise called érapyo THs dcouKyoews, exarchs of the Diocese, to dis- tinguish them from érapyor trys emapyias, the exarchs of a single province, which were only metropolitans. Thus Dom- nus, Bishop of Antioch, is styled exarch of the eastern dio- cese,|| by the Councils of Antioch and Chalcedon.

150

and importance, able and entitled to claim the President’s chair, he was consigned to the least dignified, nay, to the lowest position of all, and, through the powerful influence of the ‘ Facinorosus Eutyches ” with the Emperor and the Court, “ Synodalis Presidentis apud Ephesum nvasor” was appointed; Equally unique, too, was afterwards his situation at Chalcedon in 451 a.p.; for, according to Christianus Lupus (1681), p. 827, Non solus Dioscorus Alexandrinus, sed etiam Juvenalis Hie- “rosolymitanus, Thalassius COsareensis in Cappadocia, Basilius Seleuciensis, et caetert, Primates, immo omnes La- “trocinali Judicio co-operati Episcopi, in retractatoria apud “ Chaleedonem Synodo fuerunt demutati in reos, compulsi ad “snorum operum rationes, et solemnem peenitentiam.” But Domnus took no such step and appears in no such character at Chalcedon. Again, all the other Victims to the violence of Eutychian partizanship, who were condemned and excommuni- cated at this Robber Council, repaired without delay to the Judges of the succeeding and superseding one for justice to be done to them, but Domnus alone not only put in no appear- ance but employed no representative at. Chalcedon; and these ame Judges awarded to these same Bishops the restored Dig- nity, Rank, and Authority attaching to their Office, whilst a doubt, or a half conviction, evidently hung over the judicial mind as to the innocence or criminality of the Bishop Domnus. Nor is his noble act of moral courage in retracting his coidem- nation of Flavian to be omitted from the category of facts that render him solitaire among the many, on which subject of re- traction Lupus writes thus, at p. 841:—“ Tnfelix Domnus, ut “suam pellem a Dioscori furore redimeret, condemnavit non “solum modo innocentissimum, sed insuper sibi amicissimum “ Antistitem. Manifesté contra conscientiam Divina atque “humana prevaricatus. Isto intento, Dioscorus larvam depo- “suit, resumpsit odia, et ipsum etiam Domnum, quod duode- “cem Cyrilli Capitula nuperrimé damnasset, degradavit. Ht “ejus in sedem intrusit, aut intrudi curavit Maximum, Diaco- “num et Archi-Mandritam, fidelem amicum 8. Cyrilli. . . . “Domni damnationem nequaquam propter damnata 8. Cyrilli “Capitula, sed propter adjutam 8S. Flaviani damnationem “ stabilivit atque ita hominem quasi de novo damnavit. Solus “hance causam retractavit ac definivit. Ht omnis Orientalis

THE FORMAL PROCESS OR INDICTMENT AGAINST DOMNUS CONSISTS OF 1. A Libel presented by Cyriacus, the Presbyter (172-177) 2. Various heads or counts of indictment by the same (177-180)

others written out by him (185-190) 5. The Petition of Heliodorus, Deacon, and Abraham

8. Some letters in a correspondence between the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria (inclusive) (201-229)