The Second Synod of Ephesus (449) - Acts, Perry 1881

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)

Now, as to these accusations against Domnus, besides invol- ving complaints about amicable relations with Bishops Theo- dcret, Irenzeus, and Ibas, the Libels pretend that the Patri- arch had manifested opposition to the Decrees of Theodosius II against Bishop Irenzeus, and had even courted the friend- ship of the Archbishop Flavian, besides recommending Theo- doret to him, so that Theodoret and Domnus were as representatives of that Archbishop in the Hast. He was, likewise, charged by them with having attempted to alter the Form of the Sacrament of Baptism, with having extorted frem the Priest Pelagius a Nestorian confession of Faith, and with having removed from the Church of Emesa Peter, who had been canonically elected, in order to give it to another Priest of doubtful morality but ofundoubted leaning and bias towards Nes- torianism. ‘They, moreover, affirmed that he had heenappointed Patriarch of Antioch through the good offices of a Pagan Queestor Isocacius, that the said Patriarch had consecrated persons to Bishoprics without observing the prescribed cere- monial, and that he had removed Bishop Alexander from the See of Antarados in order to put Paul in his place, besides other objectionable acts more or less plainly advanced.

As regards the very interesting and important correspon- dence between the Archbishops of Antioch and Alexandria, the Great Capitals, the letter of admonition, issuing from the latter to the former, complains of the tendencies shown by Domnus towards the enemies of the Orthodox Faith—ie., of the favour manifested towards Nestorianism,—naming in par- ticular Bishops Ireneus and Theodoret. The date of this Epistle will be found to be, as we shall see in the note in its place, between the issuing the Imperial Decree, whereby Trenzeus was removed from the Metropolitan City of Tyre, and the appointment to that City of Photius, on 9th of September, in the year 448.

Domnus replies by a circular Letter in which, unfortunately, occur two Lacune. He complains that his calumniators should have been attended to, and professes his faith in the General Councils, and adheres to the terms of peace negotiated by Bishop Paul of Emesa with 8. Cyril of Alexandria. Dom- nus urges him to put an end to false reports and rightly to inform the Faithful of Alexandria about those of the Hast. He sends a verbal message, through the envoys despatched to him by Dioscorus, in relation to the Bishopric of Tyre. This Epistle was probably written at the end of April or the begin- ning of May, 448 a.p., about which time Theodoret was preaching some of his eloquent Sermons at Antioch. It would naturally be shewn to Theodoret, as he was a principal party concerned in it, who, doubtless, forthwith then wrote on behalf of himself and his Colleagues to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

This Epistle was probably written at the end of April or the begin- ning of May, 448 a. p. , about which time Theodoret was preaching some of his eloquent Sermons at Antioch. It would naturally be shewn to Theodoret, as he was a principal party concerned in it, who, doubtless, forthwith then wrote on behalf of himself and his Colleagues to the Archbishop of Alexandria.

It was about this time, too, that the Archbishop of the Hast pronuonced Sentence at the Synod at Antioch in favour of Ibas, Bishop, and against the Clerks, of Edessa, which Sentence gave such mortal offence to the great Eutychian party as to determine them to aim a second blow in order to break down the power of the Orientals by issuing an Imperial Edict against Theodoret, as the first, directed against the Bishop of ‘l'yre, had not had the desired effect. See the speech of Samuel, p. 95.

All the time that Dioscorus was exchanging letters with Dom- nus, he seemed desirous of crushing all obstacles to the attain- ment of the victory of the League to which he lent himself so willingly and successfully. He sends a final communication to to the Archbishop of Antioch—we gather it from the latter’s

reply—in which he makes sundry complaints of well-intentioned parties, (the chief person is intimated in no enigmatical terms) by their preaching and teaching, having become disturbers of

the Peace, as well as impugners of the Faith, of the Church, &e.

In all probability, likewise, he added something relative to 8. Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius. At the conclusion he expresses a wish for his letter to be read, in their assemblies, to the Faithful.

Domnus rejoins, and steadfastly resolves to abide by the peace effected by Paul of Emesa, aud refuses to rake up old grievances. Hecomplains grievously of the conduct of certain monks connected with Alexandria. He had not openly read Dioscorus’s letter, as he wished, for fear of the consequences. He makes profession of his Orthodoxy [here occurs a hiatus in the MS. ].

These were the last two Letters that passed between the two Archbishops, and how distressing and painful the corre- spondence had become to Domnns appears from a very imvor- tant Letter, hitherto attributed to Theodoret, which he (Domnus) wrote to S. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople.

After viewing this last cause of the arraigned, Dr. Martin writes as follows:—“Thus was deposed Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, against all the laws of the Church and against all the forms of human justice. Knowing beforehand that he was condemned, he did not dream of protesting against the iniquity of which he was the victim. Strong in his inno- cence, he appealed to the Tribunal of God, and, disgusted with all terrestrial grandeur, he rejoined the Convent whose sweet

solitude the agitations of public life had often made him regret. After having been witness of all the horrors which fanaticism could commit by men clothed with a sacred charac- ter, he declined to occupy the world with his name and his complaints, and, burying himself before the time in the silence of the tomb, he wished to be dead to all below. If once again History speaks to us of him, some years later, it is because his succesor to the See of Antioch troubled the repose due to his memory, out of compassion for his misfortunes.”

The Venerable Presbyter Cyriacus has remitted Libels to your Holy and Cicumenical Synod, which I will read, if your Piety command it to be done.

JUVENAL, the Bishop of Jerusalem, said :— Let the Libels be received and read. (b) Jou, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, read-:—

To the Holy, and God-loving, Gicumenical, Synod, assembled by the Grace of God at Ephesus, the Metropolis, from Cyriacus the Presbyter.

We have learnt from your Holiness to receive those who glorify God, and to repudiate those who blaspheme Him.

This, therefore, we now pray of your Piety—that you would repress Blasphemy and uphold the Doc- trine of those who love at all times to glorify Christ.

Now the circumstances relating to the case in hand (we will) with all brevity (subjoin).

Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch, by strenuously advocatingt the Tenet of him, has, from the begin-

Or, “ Procedure directed against Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch.” The word used in the text is the usual Greek term Syrianized—viz., {gsarsaa0a. It is no easy matter to give a satisfactory translation of line 16 on p. 173. Martin suggests that there may be an allusion to the sentence of Domnus despatched to the Synod by the Notaries (comp. p. 264) and renders it—Domnus combat son propre sentiment,

ning, manifested the fruit of his partiality for Theo- doret, the Bishop of the city of Cyrus, in that he has continually lived with him, and he encouraged him so far as to assist his Impiety, openly, instead of re- vering God ; and, what is worse than all, whilst seated on the (Episcopal) Throne, he is continually clappingt his hands in Church at the Blasphemies (uttered by Theodoret) against the Lord of all, CHRIST. And, by fulsome praises, he has rendered him presuming and = arrogant in his Impiety-—whilst, by assigning him a house in the

At p 173, 1. 23, [Amy Se, which Castell renders Sedile (Sug- gestus, locus excelsior, wbi sacerdos ad aram stabat), doubtless implies, and refers to, the Bishop’s throne; and lag is colaphus, maxilla, and waar perculsit, tetendit, plausit manibus, Ps., xlvii, 2, and xcviii, 8. In his absence, or when at a distance, is the meaning of o ZO eset). Possibly ] 2; | may refer to J.itere formate, of the different kinds of which Bingham gives a description in Bk. II, chap. iv. Theodoret, in his letter to Dioscorus, who had, truly or not, complained of T'heodoret for dividing Christ into two Sons, says in his reply, justifying himself for what he did—‘I taught thirteen years under the Blessed John (of Antioch) who was so delighted with my discourses that he often rose up and clapped his hands.’? Public ap- plause of the Preacher in church and elsewhere was called xpdros by the Greeks, as we have seen at p. 44, note +. Sometimes it was done by the assembly, similarly to the Synodical acclamations, e.g., when Paul of Emesa, in delivering a Homily in the presence of Cyril of Alexandria, “used this expression, agreeing with Cyril’s Doctrine “that had been preached before— Mary the Mother of God hrought “ ¢forth Emmanuel’—the people immediatley cried out, ‘O Orthodox ««< Cyril, the gift of God, Thy Faith is the same; this is what we de- “ <sired to hear, if any man speak otherwise, let him be anathema.’ ”’ Sometimes they added other indications of their applause, as clapping of their hands, &c. Thus S. Jerome tells Vigilantius—“ The time was, when he himself had applauded him with his hands and feet, leaping by his side, and crying Orthodox, for his Sermon upon the Resurrection.” Many other instances of this xpdros are given by Bingham, Bk. XIV, chap. iv, sec. 27. It seems to us a strange custom, but we must remem-

Church, he causes his residence there instead of in his own City (Metropolis)—by calling him at all times “ Father” (when present), and when absent by bestowing on him “ The Blessing,” and by upholding and supporting him in Letters written to other persons.

Further, he (Domnus) was in Communion with the man, in consequence of whose false faith the Gracious Emperor had determined, by Royal Orders, that he should confine himself entirely within his own Cityt.

Also, at the time when it was resolved (by the Emperor) to depose that Irenzeus of Tyre from the Ministerial Function, this aforenamed Domnus did not eject Jrenzeus from his Communion. On the conrtary, he showed himself adverse to, by question-

Further, he (Domnus) was in Communion with the man, in consequence of whose false faith the Gracious Emperor had determined, by Royal Orders, that he should confine himself entirely within his own Cityt. Also, at the time when it was resolved (by the Emperor) to depose that Irenzeus of Tyre from the Ministerial Function, this aforenamed Domnus did not eject Jrenzeus from his Communion. On the conrtary, he showed himself adverse to, by question-

ber the force of habit, by which ra jy kaAa Kaa mepar Tat. S. Chry- sostom ‘“ probably, saw the system in its more outré forms (see the account given by Eusebius, E. H., VII, 30, of Paul of Samosata) and very frequently and strongly spoke against it,” &c. Fleury’s Eccle- siastical History, Oxford, p. 56, note. In his 83rd Letter Theodoret, refers to it himself, for which see Migne’s Cursus Completus.

Under the general term “the Church” here would be included various buildings, comprehending all the otkot or exedrae of it. Domnus would assign for heodoret’s residence part of the Pastophoria, which Bingham believes included the Diaconicitum and the gaxophylacium, or treasury, and the habitations of the Bishops and Clergy and Custodes Ecclesiae.—The word pastophorium is a name taken from the Septuagint translation of Ezek. L, 17, where it is used for the chambers in the inner Court of the Temple. Hence Bingham thinks that the Pastophoria of the Christian Church were places put to the same use as in the Jewish Temple, from which the name is borrowed (Bk. VIII, Chap. VII, Sect. 11).

This enforced interment was an act of very great injustice on the Emperor’s part, and filled mens’ minds with consternation ; ‘¢on ne luy put pas ne anmois, (says Tillemont) persuader qu’il fust heretique,

ing, the divine (royal) Commands that had been issued by the Christ-loving Emperor, inasmuch as he did not ratify the Deposition of Irenzeus, which had been decreed by the Emperor’s good pleasure.

And, as for Theodoret, it was at the instance of this man that he (Domnus) betook himself to the Impious Flavian for an aider and abetter.

Now, what subsequently (and consequently) hap- pened, even if we were not to speak of it, the facts clearly proclaim ; (viz.,) the agitation of the Churches —the commotion among the flocks—your troubles, O Holy Priests !—the turning upside down of the whole world together, which, according to the vulgar

Most probably an allusion is implied here to the Letter Domnus wrote to Flavian—given further on—in the month of Eloul (Sept.), 448.

custom, they thought took place, when the impious Flavian aforesaid despatched (information) of what he had done against The Faith at Constantinople, to those his two friends (Doctors) in the East, and, by their hands, to other persons, our enemies, there.

But all that the same Theodoret has ever done in opposition to The Faith, since the Great Synod (held there) previously to this present one, which confirmed that of Niceea—who is competent to relate ?

For, he nevert desisted assembling the followers of his own opinion, and confirming them in Impiety by his writings; and, in opposition to the legislative Determinations, of the Holy Fathers, he has advanced against The Faith novel and depraved statements, — some parts (extracts) of which statements are in our possession carefully preserved; and by another treatise of Theodoret, which proceeded from him previously to that Synod which on a former occasion assembled in this place, the Determination of all the Holy Fathers he presumed to sit in judgment upon, but who can describe the Profanity of those who are now so audacious in it, that the hearing of it alone suffices to defile the hearts of the Faithful ?

He alludes to the documents (Acts) of the Synod at Constanti- nople, in Nov., 448 a.p., being sent to the Eastern Bishops, according to the suggestion of Sabbas, Bishop of Paltus in Palestine, for signature. Domnus himself declared afterwards that he had received and signed them. Comp. Mansi, Concil. Tom. VI, 693, B. 836, A.

to affirm that it was obligatory (on our part) to bap- tize in a manner other than in conformity with the Holy Tradition (Doctrine) of our Redeemer.

When the Presbyter, however, who was near, and has now come into the Metropolis, in order to give information of these matters to your Holiness— when he showed him (a copy of) the book which contained the Decrees of the CCCXVIII Holy Fathers, and the Definition of the Holy Fathers who (on a former occasion) assembled here, that there was nothing whatever of that kind there which they enjoined, this great and wonderful Theodoret, snatching the book out of the hand of the Presby- ter, bade one of his own party throw it into the fire.

And there was a bath in the neighbourhood of the spot where the book was given to be committed to the flames. Now attentively consider, I beseech you, by the Holy and Everlasting Trinity, if what happened is not worthy of grief. For, as soon as the book fell into the fire, the flame suddenly elevated itself from thence, and consumed the caul- dron, liquifying the brass belonging to it with the the lead ; and the water was spilt all over the fire, —a (fit) representation of the Impiety of the man we have been mentioning, which, before God and man, will not be obliterated.

This circumstance, too, moved those who were present, at the time, to no little grief at it.

Now we entreat your Piety not to hesitate, by reason of the insignificance of the tale, but to at-

This circumstance, too, moved those who were present, at the time, to no little grief at it. Now we entreat your Piety not to hesitate, by reason of the insignificance of the tale, but to at-

tend to the wickedness of the act committed. Among our adversaries—I mean the heathen people, or Jews, or Heretics—has any man ever dared to perpetrate such a deed against the Church ? Now do you have mercy together with God, upon the East—no small part of the worldthat is submerged in wickedness—-and do you decree and decide in matters pertaining to God and having relation to

The Holy Faith impugned. , Cyriacus, Presbyter, present this Libel, having written 16 with my own hand, The Presbyter Cyriacus said :— I request, likewise, that these Heads (of Accusa- tion) be read.

Three days after they had seized the Venerable Presbyter Pelagius, and struck him, and dragged him along in order to exact of him, in writing, an impious Profession of Faith, during the time when Service was (proceeding) in the Church of Paul, and whilst Theodoret was expounding and saying that Thomas touched Him, Who was raised from the

dead, and worshipped Him Who caused Him to rise, the Bishop Domnus ascended (the Bema) after Him.

After having praised him (Theodoret)—for, that he made a practice of doing (in the Church)—and spoken a good deal about him, he uttered, likewise , the following :—‘‘ He (God) spoke to the ‘ Blessed Peter—‘ Arise, Peter,! slay and eat,’ and “ nobody commits a sin in repeating to thee, Theodoret ! “<¢ Arise, slay, and eat.’ ”

Again, when the Bishop Domnus was giving Expositions (Homiletica])—it was the Wednesday of the Week which is the Great Week, during the course of hist catechizing—and was preparing those who, after three days, had to draw nigh to be bap- tized ; after having spoken a little, he added the following. Raising his left hand high, and with his right pointing to it, he went on and expressed him- self in this way :—“ Likeness and likeness. The “likeness of God was not changed into the likeness of “a servant, and the likeness of a servant was not “changed into the likeness of God{. This did eat: “that did not eat. This was wearied: that was not “wearied. Thisdidsleep: that did notsleep. This

te oe pee 07.75 ds 25, |2era2;Sc5, “during the course of his cate- chizing on the Thursday of the Great Week (ueyaAn terapty) when preparing to offer for Baptism those who were baptized three days after.” This seems to prove that, on Easter Eve, or the day of the Burial of our Lord, the Sacrament of Baptism was administered in the Primitive Church, the other solemn times appointed by the Church for that purpose being Pentecost, Whitsuntide, and the Epiphany.

did walk: that did not walk.” And (he added) yet :—“ For me to say these things to you it is not “orievous, whilst for you it is safe. The property “of the (likeness) Nature of God is that He is “ Un-variable,—- Unchangeable,—I ncomprehensible

did walk: that did not walk. ” And (he added) yet :—“ For me to say these things to you it is not “orievous, whilst for you it is safe. The property “of the (likeness) Nature of God is that He is “ Un-variable,—- Unchangeable,—I ncomprehensible

“— Tnvisible, — Intangible—Impassable, — Un- “knowable. But the property of the form (nature, “likeness) of a Servant is that - is variable,—

And after a second short interval he yet said :— “Do not confuse the duality of the Natures,” “whilst those impious Nestorians,. Pepirius, and “ Kutyches, and Theosebius, cried out against Him “and demanded that he should say so.”

Also, when an Edict of the Gracious Sovereigns was affixed at Antioch against the impious Nesto- rius, and against [renzeus who received the Imposi- tion of hands (in Ordination) from Domnus, although he was a man who had had two wives, and for twelve years did not communicate with the Holy Church of God, (viz.,) from the time when Nestorius was ex- iled until he became Bishop,—on that day (we say) when he was giving Expositions in the Church, and whilst the Copiatie and the Lecticari and other Nes-

torians were vociferating —“ Cast out the Edict !” —Domnus, in the course of his Exposition, said :— “TL accept your zeal, by which you, like Naboth, “ will not hesitate to contend for the inheritance of “your Fathers. Fear not. ‘The billows of the sea “are they, and they shall be dissolved in foam.”

Again, too, in the Pascal Week, as he was deliv- ering a Homily on the Resurrection, when he came to our Lord (His Resurrection), he said :—‘“ The “ Man died, but God The Word raised Him from “the dead.”

And again, in the Church (Martyrium)t+ of the Holy Stephen, he said this—(viz.,) “I admire the “patience of the Holy Martyr Stephen who, when “he was being stoned, prayed for those who were “ doing it, being made like unto our Lord Christ ; “for, although the persons were different, yet the “orace was the-same.”

Tbas never said that. This man is a teacher of “him (Ibas). Anathema to the Blasphemer ! “ Anatheina to Domnus! Ibas never said that.” (d) The Presbyter Crrtacus said :—

I request that this letter be, likewise, read. Evsrsius, Bishop of Ancyra, said :—

To the Holy and God-loving Lord our Brother and fellow-Minister Flavian, Domnus sends greeting in our LORD.

We have been of late braving the brunt of many storms, O man, who art in every respect a lover of God ! and are now appealing to the Governor of the Ark to direct the tempest that is come upon us.t

In p. 181, from ;2sI, inl. 15, to a) in]. 22, the whole passage is omitted in the Letter as given by Migne, as well as the words corre- sponding to the sentence— so worthy in all points of the Doctrine of “the Church,” or, very literally, “which is not deficient (wanting) in “any of all those points appropriate to the Doctrine of the Church.”’

t

In p. 181, from ;2sI, inl. 15, to a) in]. 22, the whole passage is omitted in the Letter as given by Migne, as well as the words corre- sponding to the sentence— so worthy in all points of the Doctrine of “the Church,” or, very literally, “which is not deficient (wanting) in “any of all those points appropriate to the Doctrine of the Church. ”’

Again, after the word. KO Jal, in 1. 2, at p. 184, to end, i.e., to lSany, the Syriac Letter altogether differs from that in Migne, which concludes as given below. But the chief, and most interesting, difference appears in the last sentence of, or rather the post-script appended to, the Syriac Letter, which letter must have been written in the month of September, 448 A.D., as that month had not elapsed. ‘The month AS is Sep- tember, or, rather, part of August and September.

t I somewhat differ from Martin in the rendering of the first part of the

What, however, has now become imminent over us through (a man’s) daring, in my estimation, bafiles all description. For, at the time when we calculated that we had in my Lord, the God-loving Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, a helper and fellow-worker against all who conspired in antagonism to The Faith of the Apostles, we sent, as. a matter of obligation, one of the Venerable Presbyters that are with us— an honoured man, distinguished in The Faith and for wisdom —with two Synodical letters, informing His Piety that, to the articles of the (covenant) Agreement drawn up in the days of Cyril of Blessed memoryt, we held ourselves bound in all propriety and rectitude to assent, as well as to his letter so worthy in all points of the Doctrine of the Church : and as regards the letter of that Blessed man whose memory lives amung the Faithful, Athanasius, which he wrote to the Blessed Epictetus, that also we re- ceived with (all) welcome, but, above all, we ac- cepted and assented to The Faith, as defined at Niczea in Bithynia by those Holy and very Blessed Fathers (who assembled there).

Governor of the Ark is translation of the reading in the MS. tjasay but this is perhaps an old mistake (though it gives a very good meaning ) for Sas 9 of the Universe, as the Original has in this place tov mavrds.

t+ The agreement of Cyril and Paul of Emesa, in the year 443, A.D.

Governor of the Ark is translation of the reading in the MS. tjasay but this is perhaps an old mistake (though it gives a very good meaning ) for Sas 9 of the Universe, as the Original has in this place tov mavrds. t+ The agreement of Cyril and Paul of Emesa, in the year 443, A. D.

to hold to it (the agreement), to subscribe to it. But one of ours, one of those who think differently from us and have caused these troubles, hurried (to Alexandria) and led into error several parties well- known there. By raising calumnies against us, he succeeded in exciting cries in the Church without end against the God-loving Oriental Bishops. My Lord the pious Bishop Dioscorus, acting excellently, imposed silence upon them promising to write to us aud to send Venerable Presbyters to us who should inform us of the talk of which we were the object. This is what he did, but he wrote letters which he ought never to have addressed to us, as one who knows the Word of God—‘“ Lend not ear to vain rumours.’t For, he gave credence to all that was said against us, as he might have a night to do, if he had discussed everything to the bottom and had long recognized the justice of the accu- sations. Here is the injustice of which Dioscorus has been guilty towards us ; but we, who have suf- fered this injury, replied to him boldly, although in friendly terms. We assured his Piety that all these rumours were destitute of foundation, and that none of the God-loving Oriental Bishops held opmions contrariant to Apostolic Doctrine. Moreover, the Venerable Presbyters whom he sent were ~ con- vinced by examination into the facts. But as to him,

without going any further into the matter, and giving ear to all those who calumniate us, he did a thing which we could not have believed, had not the entire Church (assembly) of the Faithful been a witness of it. For, yielding to the counsels of those who anathematised us, he rose (from his seat) and pro nounced his adhesion to their cries. Still further, he despatched to the Royal City, as we learnt, cer- tain Bishops who depend upon him, to excite, as he hoped, fresh troubles against us.

We, however, prior to every (other) consideration, have our Defender in the all-seeing ONE, since it is for the Doctrines of GOD that we are contending.

And in thesecond place we now make appeal, also» to your Holiness and urge you to contend and fight for The Faith (so violently assailed) and on behalf of the Canons (so grievously) trampled upon.

For, when in the Royal City the Holy and very Blessed Fathers of the Church were assembled, they confirmed, with one consent, and justified the ar- rangements of those who assembled at Niceea con- cerning the Governors of Diocceses (Provinces), assigning to each Governor that (province) which appertained to him, and repudiating as contrary to all order (the idea) that any one Governor should infringe upon the others, but that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over the Egyptians only. Thus, each Governor has to ad

The decision here alluded to of the Council of Nicwa is to be found in its sixth Canon, and that of the Synod of Constantinople in its second. It seems to be worth while to give the original Greek of both in full, because of their importance and the many questions which have been raised about them.

Héfilé gives an interpretation of this Canon in the first volume of his great work on th Councils of the Church (French edition, 1869, pp. 378—393), and in the course of it he quotes (on p. 885) the above passage of this Letter of Domnus, then still supposed to be one of Theodoret’s. In J. Johnson’s The Clergy- -man’s Vade-mecum, containing the Canonical Codes of the Primitive and Universal Church (London, 1723, third edition), occurs the following English translation (Vol. IL, p. 48) :—

“ Let Ancient Customs prevail (as for Instance), those in Lyypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis: That the Bishop of Alexandria have Power over all these, since the same is customary for the Bishop ot Rome. Likewise in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the Pri- vileges be secured to the Churches. This is manifest as anything at all, that if any be made a Bishop, without consent of his Me- tropolitan, this great Synod has determin’d that such a one ought not to be Bishop. If any two or three out of Affectation of Dispute do contradict the Suffrage of the Generality, when duly pass’d according to Ecclesiastical Canon, let the Votes of the Majority prevail.”

(Dioscorus), as events prove, refused to conform to these decisions, and (exceeding) violating them, ob- trudes on our notice the Throne of the Blessed Mark, and that, whilst he knows evidently that the great city of Antioch possesses the Throne of Peter, who was, too, the teacher of Blessed Mark and of all the first

Com pare Heéfélé, Op. eit. Vol. I., 202—204, and Johnson’s Vade- mecum I1., 124s. where the following translation of this Canon is given :—

“Let not Bishops go out of their Diocese to Churches out of their Bounds ; but let the Bishop of Alewandria, according to the Canon, administer the affairs of Egypt, and the Bishops of the East the Affairs of the Hast only, with a Salvo to the ancient Pri- vileges of the Church of Antioch, mention’d in the Nicene Canons. Let the Bishops ot the Asian Diocese administer the dszan Affairs only, and they of Pontus the Pontic, and they of Thrace the Thracian. And \ct not Bishops go out of their Dioceses to Ordi- nation, or any Administrations, uuless they be invited. And by the aforesaid Canon, concerning Dioceses being observed, ’tis evident that the Provincial Synod will have the Management of every Province, as was decreed at Mice. ‘The Churches amongst the Barbarians must be govern’d according to the Customs which prevail’d with their Ancestors.”’

And \ct not Bishops go out of their Dioceses to Ordi- nation, or any Administrations, uuless they be invited. And by the aforesaid Canon, concerning Dioceses being observed, ’tis evident that the Provincial Synod will have the Management of every Province, as was decreed at Mice. ‘The Churches amongst the Barbarians must be govern’d according to the Customs which prevail’d with their Ancestors. ”’

Bishop Pearson says that He built His Church upon one to show the Unity, and upon many to show the Universality, of It. St. Cyprian says that upon one He builds His Church ; and, though he gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says—“ As my Father hath sent Me so “send I you,” yet, in order to manifest unity, He has, by His own au- thority, so placed the source of the same unity as to begin from one. Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of power and honour; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before us as one. . . - Let no one deceive the Brotherhood by falsehood, no one corrupt the

Apostles together, as well as their (head) leader. As for ourselves we are assured indeed of the exalted character of this Apostolic Throne, but we know also and measure ourselves; for, we have learnt fromabove to practice the Apostolic humility.

We supplicate your Holiness, then, that you would not allow the Holy Canons to be (with impunity) trampled upon, but readily to contend for The Faith, since in This is our hope of Salvation, as likewise you yourself are persuaded ; and through It (alone) can we hope to be thought worthy of Mercy and Grace, and look forward to tstand before the dread Judgement-seat of God and our Redeemer, our Lord Jesus Christ. Be induced, my Lord who art holy in every way, [to afford us help and to pray on our behalf. |

truth of our faith by a faithless treachery. The Episcopate is one, of which a part is held by each without a division of the whole. (De Unit. Eccl., c. iv.) In the great Synod at Constantinople in 553 A.D. it is said that the Grace of the Holy Ghost was abundantly given to every single Apostle, so that he needed not the advice of an- other in what was to be done, yet they did not like to decide on the point in question, . . . before every one of them had supported his sen- tence with Scriptural Authority. S. John Damascenus calls all the Apostles “The twelve-corded Lyre of the Holy Ghost. But neither “ Peter alone is this Lyre, nor Andrew, but all the Apostles together. “If anyone declares Peter to be this Lyre, he is a Liar.” §. Chryso- stom says—‘ Paul went to Jerusalem to see Peter. Is there anything “more humble than this soul? He did not need Peter, but was his “equal. Still he goes to him, as if he were his superior and senior.”’ And again— He shows himself equal to the other Apostles, but he “does not compare himself with the others, but with the first of them, “ showing thereby that every one of them had the same dignity. (On Gal., i, 11, and ti, 3). The above is from a long catena of Latin and Greek authors to the same effectas given in Overbeck’s Orthodox Review, Romans xiv, 10. + Jude ii.

J and those who are with me desire to offer much salutation to you and all the Brethren with you.

Further, let your Charity take notice that to Tyre the Metropolis was assigned a Bishop on the 9th of Eloul (September) now instant ; (viz.) the Venerable Presbyter Photius.

+ Jude ii. J and those who are with me desire to offer much salutation to you and all the Brethren with you. Further, let your Charity take notice that to Tyre the Metropolis was assigned a Bishop on the 9th of Eloul (September) now instant ; (viz. ) the Venerable Presbyter Photius.

This passage is the Postscript, referred to in note on p. 298, of this celebrated Epistle, of which the immediately preceding paragraph is in all probability the termination. It is one of those passages in the MS. num- bered 14,530 in the British Museum, which enable us to correet what has passed as matter of history, and which will justify an attempt at a Dissertation on the subject of the corrections which our previous information must receive about the Second Synod of Ephesus from these newly dis- covered Acts contained in the MS. alluded to, as well as about other historical points. At the quaternian Centenary of the University ot Tubingen in the Kingdom of Wiirtemberg to be commemorated in August next (1877), such a theme is formally to be proposed as a Prize Essay by the distinguished Professor—all honor to that University for the honor shown to Divinity—who has just been elected by the Deans of all the Faculties to be the Rector of the University and Pre- siding Genius of the University proceedings and has ordered the medal to be struck shall bear the proud inscription—quintuMm sECULUM SUPERIORIBUS CLARIUS suRGIT—for the Jubilee year.

Historians have recorded much about various characters who occupied the See of Constantinople, but it is remarkable how little history gives us of S. Flavian. One of the chief objects of the Second Synod of Ephesus was to settle the controversy between him and Eutyches. The Orientals anathematized the one in their writings in which the other, however, is hardly mentioned. How strange to us appear events ! “There is Eutyches who founds monophysism and the monophysists anathematize him! Ibas, Theodoret, and Flavian contend against Eutyches, and the memory of the first two is perpetuated from age to age to be an object of horror and malediction, while that of the third is completely effaced and disappears in eternal oblivion! Of Flavian not a word is there in Philoxéne of Maboug, in Severus of Antioch, in John Sabas, &c. The tomb has swallowed him whole. The Holy Martyr is dead for ever to the Christians of Asia.”

Pray, then, I beseech you, that Apostolic Peace in the Holy Churches may everywhere abound and extend.

Pray, my Lord—a lover of God in truth—that we may have health in our Lord.

Note that on p. 304, at I. 1, Leader”? (Coryphaeus) ends the passage referred to at p. 170, that the brackets in 1, 15 and 16 should be removed, and note marks and + interchanged. Also, at note} on p. 299, the date should be 433, a.p.

Pray, my Lord—a lover of God in truth—that we may have health in our Lord. Note that on p. 304, at I. 1, Leader”? (Coryphaeus) ends the passage referred to at p. 170, that the brackets in 1, 15 and 16 should be removed, and note marks and + interchanged. Also, at note} on p. 299, the date should be 433, a. p.

“ He, who calumniates thee (Dioscorus!), is a Here- “ tie —He who calumniates thee, is a calumniator of “the Synod—He who calumniates thee, is a calumni- “ator of Cyril—He who calumniates thee, is a “blasphemer of God.— We did not know all that. —To “the Bishops long life—to the Emperors long life—to “the Holy Synod long life—Through thee God has ‘‘spoken—the Holy Spirit has spoken in thee. “Speak, my Lord! it becomes you—speak, my Lord! “and Christ will speak. Cutaway this root—Be full “of zeal for the Lord, Orthodox Teacher! and cut (off) “this root, Orthodox Teacher ! the posterity of Nes- “torius shall not continue. Always victorious, the “ Christ will be victor--the victorious Cross will “ always be victor—To the Emperors long life—to “the Patriarchs long life-— Victorious is The Faith of “the Emperors—Victorious is The Faith of the “‘Orthodox—~Those who remain silent are Heretics— “ Cut off this root-—Let the root have its quietus— “By your endeavours The Faith stands sure and ““ stedfast.”

Very valuable is this little sentence, since it shows that there were some Members of the Synod who were far from agreeing with its pro- ceedings. ‘Terrified, no doubt, by the terrible scene in connection with the first Session when Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, was so mercilessly handled by the President ; conscious of the injustice as well as violence of the Eutychian leaguers, &c., they remained taciturn rather than be participators in other men’s atrocious deeds, and preferred to submit to be branded as Heretical to the charge of depraving That Deposit which the whole Church of Christ had received, by a right Tradition, from the Apostles themselves.

I have, likewise, other Libels against the God- fearing Bishop Domnus, which are presented to your Synod, as well as a Confession of Faith, from the Venerable Pelagius, Presbyter of Antioch ; and I bring this circumstance (now) to your knowledge.

Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, said :— Let them, likewise, be read and deposited among the Acts (Documentary).

TO THE Holy, Great, Gicumenical Synod which, by the grace of God and the God-fearing zeal of the Gracious and Christ-loving Emperors, is here assembled, the Petition and Complaint of Mayr- cellus, Presbyter and Monk”, and of the Brethren that are with me.

A heavy storm has overtaken the Holy Churches in the East, O Holy (Fathers!) and from a small spark a great fire has been interminably kindling ; and little by little the evil, insinuating itself into the Churches, has introduced there a pernicious malady. For, those Heads of the Church,t who adhere to the

Ifthe printed text p. 186, 1. 2 5490 gives the correct reading, we must translate with Abbe Martin :—“ complaint of Pelagius Presbyter, and of my monastery and etc.” ; but, probably, we must read Lea, as in the Subscription p. 189, l. 27. ;

For, those Heads of the Church,t who adhere to the

Ifthe printed text p. 186, 1. 2 5490 gives the correct reading, we must translate with Abbe Martin :—“ complaint of Pelagius Presbyter, and of my monastery and etc. ” ; but, probably, we must read Lea, as in the Subscription p. 189, l. 27. ;

t At p. 186, I. 9 the word [amug Principes Ecclesiae, ie. Episcopi, Princes of the Church, to distinguish them from secular Princes, apply- ing to them that prophecy of Isaiah, Ix, 17, which, according to Jerome’s

Doctrines of the false Faith of Nestorius, persecute the Orthodox Doctors and vex the peoples catholically minded by preaching among them the opinions of that Beast.

Now, the source of all these calamities and the cause of the ruin in the East is the Venerable Dom- nus, the Bishop of Antioch, who consecrated them, and Theodoret, who is full of all Impiety, receiving such from him (Domnus), as it were, by a sort of tradition, and who has, like some ferocious swine, dispersed the sheep of Christ.

translation, is: ‘I will make thy Princes peace, and thy Bishops right- eousness.” In the Greek writers they are styled apyovres éxkAyotor (Bingham).

Tn “ Domnus, who ordained them” (the Nestorian-minded Heads of the Church or Bishops by Consecration), Abbé Martin thinks, there is undoubtedly an implied allusion to the ordination of Irenaeus of ‘Tyre. That fact, affirmed more clearly elsewhere, would tend to show that the Epistle 110, attributed to Theodoret is, in reality, that of Domnus. This opinion which occurred to him immediately on reading the I1oth Epistle of Theodoret, he thinks capable of irrefragable proof, and he shows it to be correct in the following manner.

The author of the Letter, after having spoken of the ordination of Irenaeus by himself, although the latter was a Bigamist, adds : Quod vero ad digamiam attinet, majorum vestigiis inhaesimus. Nam et beatae sanctaeque memoriae Alexander, qui apostolicam hanc sedem rexit, una cum sanctissime Acacio Beroeae episcopo, beatae memoriae Diogenem digamum ordinavit, etc.

It is very evident that the Author of the Letter speaks first of his pre- decessor in this See, secondly of his See as an Apostolical one, thirdly of Alexander as one of his predecessors. Now all this is applicable to the Bishop of Antioch and not at all to the Bishop of Cyrus. Alexander of Antioch was contemporary with Acacius of Beroea and was living at the commencement of the fifth century, [vie-siécle in Martin, le brigandage p- 145, note 4 is a misprint]. What seems strange, is, that authors, in borrowing details from the letter attributed to Theodoret, should not have perceived that the letter ought to be ascribed to Domnus. (Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 408, 31-32, 441, 71.-—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a [Histoire eccl., xiv, 802, au mot Acace, 813, au mot Alexandre d’ Antioche, et pages 174, 224-225; xv, 265, 868.—Dom Ceillier,

What seems strange, is, that authors, in borrowing details from the letter attributed to Theodoret, should not have perceived that the letter ought to be ascribed to Domnus. (Baronius, Annales, ad ann. 408, 31-32, 441, 71. -—Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir a [Histoire eccl. , xiv, 802, au mot Acace, 813, au mot Alexandre d’ Antioche, et pages 174, 224-225; xv, 265, 868. —Dom Ceillier,

However, not for ever will God, whom these men (persecute) vex, extend His patience ; for, moving by Divine zeal our Gracious and Christ-loving Emperor, He has assembled in this place this your Holy, and (Ecumenical Synod, in order to reduce the tempest to a calm: and He has lopped off the holders of the Doctrines of Nestorius, in order that you might lopp off branches belonging to him, and at once administer consolation to the wearied Churches of the East, and restore peace to the Orthodox Doctors (so) persecuted, the Holy Spirit granting assistance to your Piety (for that purpose).

Moreover, the Venerable Bishop Domnus upset the Church of Emesa and handed over its property (possessions) to the Treasury (of the Mother-Church). For, whilst the God-loving Bishops of Phcenicia Li- banensis (secunda)t+ were, according to the Canons,

Emesa (the modern Homs), reckoned the Metropolis of Phcenicia Secunda, in the Wositia of Hierocles, is situated near the river Orontes. Here Constantine built a splendid Church, renowned for its beauty, in rivalry perhaps to the magnificent Temple of the Sun, the youthful Priest of which, Bassian, was raised to the imperial purple by the Roman Le- gionaries in Syria A.D. 218, which under the name of Heliogabalus he wore for less than four years. No doubt, in this same Church, the Ordination took place, which is here spoken of as so irregular and dis- orderly. The great Mosk of Homsis built on the site of this Church, about which see Rey. G. Williams’ introduction to Neale’s Patriarchate of Antioch, p. xxii ff.—At Homs Husseyin Pasha was defeated by Ibrahim Pasha in 1832. The expression [aOoIDas? ja:c22 laama] seems to me to include no and, as Hoffmann supposes—Pheenicia (prima) and (Pheenicia )

The great Mosk of Homsis built on the site of this Church, about which see Rey. G. Williams’ introduction to Neale’s Patriarchate of Antioch, p. xxii ff. —At Homs Husseyin Pasha was defeated by Ibrahim Pasha in 1832. The expression [aOoIDas? ja:c22 laama] seems to me to include no and, as Hoffmann supposes—Pheenicia (prima) and (Pheenicia )

imposing hands (in Ordination) on the God-fearing Bishop Peter, a certain Uranius, a man of corrupt life, who had been several times publicly reprimanded for his dissolute habits, ventured to seize the Throne of the Church aforesaid in violation of the Canons, —no prayer at the time being made or invocation for Divine Grace— Jews and Pagans and Mimics having helped him for that purpose and placed simply the Holy Gospel on his head, while the God-fearing Bishops of the Province suffered violence. But, after having escaped thence, they despatched while on their way an Inhibition in writing to the whole Clergy (of the Diocese), forbidding them to communicate with Uranius or to regard him as their Bishop ; and they adjudged and assigned a punishment for the case of his affecting to act the Bishop. Likewise, they wrote to Valerius, Bishop of Laodicea, who is a Nestorian, to caution him against commanicating with him (Uranius), and, since he did not comply, they noti- fied the same thing to the Clergy, and addressed an Inhibition to the Laity, of the city (of Laodicea). Matters having, then, eventuated in this way, all the Monasteries of those parts and many of the Clergy and Laity withdrew fromUranius; whereupon this man without delay repaired to Theodoret and forced his Brother, while yet a lad, to receive Im- position of hands from himself for the Diaconate.

Libanensis (secunda). His reasons, however, for removing the and are quite correct ; compare his note 287, and Le Quien II, 834, the Wocitia, of Hierocles, ed. Parthey 715,5, 717, I.

He, likewise, wasted the Church’s Treasure. Sub- sequently, he betook himself to the God-fearing Dom- nus, the Bishop of Antioch who, overcome by the witchery, so to speak,of Theodoret, imagined he could make a Bishop of a man so despicable, by means of mere Letters, whereby the Monasteries of the East felt scandalized, being well aware of the corrupt bringings up (education) of the man.

Parthey 715,5, 717, I. He, likewise, wasted the Church’s Treasure. Sub- sequently, he betook himself to the God-fearing Dom- nus, the Bishop of Antioch who, overcome by the witchery, so to speak,of Theodoret, imagined he could make a Bishop of a man so despicable, by means of mere Letters, whereby the Monasteries of the East felt scandalized, being well aware of the corrupt bringings up (education) of the man.

I also, therefore, having before my eyes the fear of God, and witnessing the ruin of this Church and the violation of the Canons of the Blessed Fathers,—I have left, at the age you see me, my Monastery with my Brethren and hastened (to fall) at the feet of your Sanctity, all the Orthodox Monks, who arevery nume- rous, supplicating your Piety, through my means and mediation, to order the Letters of the Province to be read, whose Metropolitan, now here present, (viz) the God-fearing Theodorus of Damascus, will be able in person to confirm what he has written or what we have said, whereby your Piety will beable to ascertain to how great an extent the Venerable Bishops Dom- nus and Theodoret have trampled under foot the Canons, and will effectually rid the flock of Christ of the Nestorian Uranius who, we may add, subscribed to the unlawful Deposition of the God-fearing Presbyter and Archimandrite Eutyches, although he was not a Bishop. Further, he (Uranius) imposed hands, as one and as if intent, on injury, creating con- fusion and trouble in the Churches ; and he handed

a Reader of the same Church, to the Curial Author- ity, in consequence of his assenting to the Letters written against him by the Bishops of the Province.

Further, not long ago he (Domnus) located the Venerable Timothy in the city of Arcai, in another Province, who ought to have been ordained by our Holy Father Juvenal, Bishop of Psalton (Salton) in Palestine, whom (Timothy), in violation of all Canon- ical Order, the God-fearing Domnus translated to Arcai, having given orders for Uranius to do nothing more than to lay hands on him (in Ordination).

I, Marcellus, Presbyter and Monk, present these Libels to the Holy, Great, and CGicumenical Synod, which, by the Grace of God andthe God-fearing zeal of our Clement and Christ-loving Emperors, is assemble at Ephesus the Metropolis.

Arcai was, it seems,in Palaestina Prima, and Psalton nowhere. "The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, formed out of that of Antioch, had three Provinces, says Bingham, assigned for the limits of its jurisdiction— Palaestina, Prima, Secunda, Tertia, but it never had quite fifty Bishops at the same time. In 451 a.p., Juvenal and Maximus agreed as a settlement of a long dispute that “5. Peter’s See of Antioch should have the two Pheenicias and Arabia”? and “the Holy Resurrection of Christ the three Palestines.” | Assemanus says :—“avulsis ab eadem (Hierosolym.) Metropoli nonnullis Arabiae Ecclestis, quae tertiam Palaestinam constituerunt, Petra urbs, Bostrenae quondam subjecta, Metropoliticis juribus ornata est, quum id Maximus Antiochenus Juvenali Hierosolymitano permisisset, ut liquet ex his Liberati Diaconi verbis in Brevario cap. 13, Septimo Secretario (loquitur de Con. Chalced.) ives actae sunt causae propter quod tres eus com- putantur actiones. Prima est, qua Sirmata sunt, qude convenerunt inter Maximum Antiochenum, et Juvenalem Hierosolymitanum Episcopos, ut duae Pheniciae et Arabia dependerent Sedi Antiochenae ; Hierosolymitanae vero tres Palaestinae provinciae, quarum primae metropolis Caesareea, secundae Scythopolis, tertiae Petra. (T'om. til, pt. 2, p. 594.)

(6) THE PETITION AND COMPLAINT OF THE DEACON HELIODORUS, AND OF THE MONKS, SIMON AND ABRAHAM AND GERONTIUS.

All peace and tranquillity did the Churches of God in the Eastern parts enjoy in the days of John of pious Memory and of those Blessed Fathers who preceded him. But lo! as soon as the God-fearing Domnus had, by the contrivance of the Pagan Iso- cacius and of others attached to theatricals, become Bishop, without any election (or any meeting) of Bishops who, according to custom, should assemble (at Antioch) for his Consecrationt—as soon as he had been made such, contrary to all Laws and Canons, at the 10th hour of the day{—for, there was neither any assembly for (Divine) Service (held) on bis account, nor Communion in the Mysteries, from Every Bishop, by the laws and customs of the Church, had to be ordained in his own Church in the presence of his own people, the Metro- politan or Primate and the Bishops of the Province meeting there for his Election and Ordination. St. Augustine, of Hippo, is an instance of this almost universally acknowledged rule.

t In lL. 17 ofp. 190 [iw ;MS2 (not |aJ as printed) at the 10th hour i.e. 4 p-m., an uncanonical hour ; for, Ordination usually took place at the time of the Oblation at the Morning Service, when the Ordained either celebrated or partook of the Eucharist, whether of Bishops, Priests or Deacons. This was one of the irregularities against this ancient rule of the Church, urged against Novatian.

t In lL. 17 ofp. 190 [iw ;MS2 (not |aJ as printed) at the 10th hour i. e. 4 p-m. , an uncanonical hour ; for, Ordination usually took place at the time of the Oblation at the Morning Service, when the Ordained either celebrated or partook of the Eucharist, whether of Bishops, Priests or Deacons. This was one of the irregularities against this ancient rule of the Church, urged against Novatian.

which circumstance, also, irregular proceedings can be proved—(ever since, we say) all has become (and is still) full of trouble and confusion. For, pre- cisely because he began in this way, did he (Domnus) -upset the Churches of the East, by delivering them over, through treachery, to Theodoret the Blasphe- mer, Nestorian, and Oppressor, in conjunction with whom he put up a number of Nestorian Bishops of the same sentiments as himself. What, how- ever, constitutes the chief mischief is this ;—thatto the prejudice of the Faithful, he made Pompeianus Bishop of Emesa and Uranius (Bishop) of it after him, as well as Paul Bishop of Antaradus, by mere Letters, and without any Invocation for Divine Grace ; shewing thereby that the Imposition of hands on himself (in Ordination) was (attained) for his abolishing with impunity the Canons of the Ta- therst. Further, as regards the God-fearing Bishop Alexander, who can be (favourably) testified to for rectitude of conduct and for conversation and for Or- thodoxy, which fact, we opine, he (Domnus) himself would not call in question—although he was

At p. 190, |. 26, the original Syriac Noun, derived from the Verb (signifying deglutivit, devoravit, absumpsit), may designate a devowrer of food and drink, or of men. The term iniquus absorbet justum i.e. oppressit, indicative of the signification of the same verb, gives the third appellative to Theodoret.

f “The Canons of the Fathers.” This refers probably to “ the Book of Canons,” very frequently quoted in the Council at Chalcedon, in 451 A.D. and composed of the Canons of the Primitive Church, containing the Apostolical Canons, and the Code of the Universal Church i.e. the Ni- caene, Ancyran, Neo-Caesarean, Gangran, Antiochean, Laodicean and Constantinopolitan, Canons, to which were afterwards added those of Ephesus and Chalcedon ; making in all 207 Canons.

examined, selected, and ad-judged by our Father S. Cyril, and by the Pious Proelus, and by the Holy Synod assembled by them at Constantinople, for the purpose of occupying (the See of) Antaradus, as also the Letters despatched by them to the God- fearing Domnus certify, and (although) he had been received by them and communicated with them at Alexandria, at Ephesus, and at Constantinople, and the Blessed Cyril had addressed him as a Fellow- Minister,—(notwithstanding all this) he (Domnus) ejected him from Antaradus, because he does not hold the opinions of Nestorius, and in consequence of his having resorted, in a time of trouble, to the Blessed Cyril; and he presented, through Letters, Antaradus to Paul as recompence for having gone to the Oasis to Nestorius, and for having preached his Impieties in the Church, disturbing and agitating the Faithful there.

Refusing, moreover, to yield in this matter to the Blessed Bishops and to the Synod that assembled with them, on having learned that the Very Blessed Cyril had departed to the Lord, he seized the God- fearmg Alexander in the Bishop’s Hallt+, (Court) when Theodoret and Pompeianus, originators of all these violent proceedings, were present with him, and ex-

This was no doubt a ctvodos évdyuovca, similar to the one held in Noy. 448, a.p. at Constantinople, at which Eutyches was condemned. This might be the Secretarium or Diaconicium magnum without the Church, which was reckoned one of its exedrae. The consistory or tribunal was here, and it was large enough to hold a provincial and sometimes general Council. (Bingham).

torted from him a Document, which Theodoret had drawn up, (to the effect) that he (Alexander) would act (only) as a Presbyter and would not exercise the Power of the Episcopate. Then, completing all these violent proceedings, Domnus compelled Alex- ander to add, that he would not carry his complaints to the Holy Synod or to our Christ-loving Emperor, nor ever enter the house of the latter.

Now, this man labouring under these restrictive burdens is unable to get to your Holiness by reason of the document which was extorted from him con- trary to (all) Law, and in consequence of the punish- ment which, contrary to all Justice, has been inflicted upon hin.

It is for this reason, then, that we in our own per- sons, moved by zeal and wishful that the Districts of Aradus and Antaradus in conjunction with the Churches of the East should have pity bestowed up- on them, have hastened to come as supplicants, fall- ing at the feet of your Great, Holy, and Gicumenical Synod, in order to proffer this information, touching the God-fearing Domnus and regarding the way in which he has brought ruin upon the Cities through reposing confidence in Theodoret ; and we entreat your Holiness to order, that what we have presented in writing as proof of our (oral) statements should be read, and also to order that Paul, the Nestorian and Blasphemer, who journied as far as the Oasis, be removed from Antaradus and Aradus, and the God- loving Alexander be reinstituted thereunto, who for

seven years has been detained at Antioch And (we further entreat you) to make null and void the docu- ment, which, contrary to Order, was extorted from him, so that he may occupy again these places (as his own) in the same manner as heretofore. For, he (Alexander) is acceptable to all the people living at those places, as (the documentary proof of) their Elec- tion of him, addressed to the Blessed Proclus, attests ; a copy of whichhe (Proclus) despatched tothe Bishop Domnus, as wellas to the then Bishop of the Metro- polis, Tyre. It is in consequence of this that people without end have not, up to the present time, communicated with, but have even suffered persecu- tion from, Paul as a Nestorian.

Finally, those sentiments, relating to the same Venerable Alexander, which were decided upon (pro- nounced) in an appropriate and canonical way by the Very Blessed Cyril and the Pius Proclus, as well as by the Synod that was assembled by their means, should be confirmed by your Holiness.

I, Helodorus, Deacon and (we) Simon, Abraham and Gerontius, Monks, have presented this Libel,

after having subscribed it by the hands (means) of the Venerable John.

‘This and other acts of Proclus, referred to in this instrument, are in keeping with his fidelity to the Regimen and Discipline, as his first great Sermon on the Theotokos preached in the presence of his Patriarch, (afterwards pronounced the Arch-heretic Nestorius), and other instances of his title to a great Doctor in Divinity, were in keeping} with his fidelity to The Faith and Doctrine, of the Catholic Church of Christ.

To my Lord, the Holy and God-loving Archbishop Domnus, and to the God-loving (men) Domnus, Theoctistus,Gerontius, Sabbas, Theodoret, Julianus and Julianus, Damianus of Sidon, Eustathius of Aegea, Meletius, the Presbyter Pelagius (sends) greeting in our Lordt.

Because some of those, who are continually in fa- miliar intercourse with me, have appeared to your Holiness to entertain and affirm Doctrines contrariant to (those of) the Church-—for, they contend that GOD Tue Worp became Flesh by change, and that the Flesh of our Lord was changed into the Nature of the Diviniry, and they aim at proving that the Diviniry and the Humanity of our LORD CHRIST constitute One only Nature—Your Holi- ness, moved by this consideration, has made me come, demanding of me some apology (explanation) relative to these False Doctrines. Moreover, some God-fear- ing men, Presbyters, have informed your Holiness, that I called the Doctors of the Church Jews.

In consequence of this, I have drawn up this Book of Confession of Faith in order that, by means of it, I might make confession inconformity with the Doctrine

® Or “ Profession.” See 2 Tim., vi, 13. + As Hoffman remarks, this address does not seem to be quite complete or correct.

Moreover, some God-fear- ing men, Presbyters, have informed your Holiness, that I called the Doctors of the Church Jews. In consequence of this, I have drawn up this Book of Confession of Faith in order that, by means of it, I might make confession inconformity with the Doctrine

® Or “ Profession. ” See 2 Tim. , vi, 13. + As Hoffman remarks, this address does not seem to be quite complete or correct.

of the Holy Fathers,—that Ong indeed is the SON of GOD, Who became IncarnatE—GOD The Worp —just as GOD the FATHER is Ong, and the HOLY GHOST Owner. I, furthermore, confess the Divinity of Him, Who became Incarnate, as well as His Humaniry, and that, after the Union, they (the Dr- vinitry and the Humanity) remained without confusion—not that GOD The Worp by (any) change whatsoever became Flesh, nor that the Flesh was changed into the Naturs of DEITY—, but (I con- fess) that, after His Resurrection, our Lord’s Flesh was not subject to suffering or corruption ordeath, but was made glorious in the Glory of the Diviniry as being the Bovy of GOD The Worp. Notwithstanding, it abides within the properties (limits) of that (Hu- man) Nature and preserves also the (appearance) impress of the Humaniry according to that voice of the Holy Angels viz. “ Assuredly this Jesus, Who hasbeen taken up from youinto Heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven.” In the same way He, our Lord, said to (His) Disciples after His Resurrectiont :—‘“ Touch me and perceive that a Spirit has not Flesh and Bones, as ye see that I have.”

I anathematize, therefore, those who affirm that there is One Nature (only) of the Divinity of CHRIST and of His Humaniry, and those also who attribute suffering to the Divine Narurg, .and Luke xxiv., 39.—See Matthew xxiv, 30, and Daniel vii, 13. Acts i, 11.—See John xx, 20 and 27.

do not confess the Properties of the Two Natures — viz., that of Impassibility of the DIVINITY and that of Passibility of the HUMANITY.

I thus confess One Only SON—the same to be GOD before the world, (but become also) Man in these last days—Son of GOD, even the FATHER, in His capacity as GOD, and Son of David in his capacity as MAN, Who is certainly designated the Son of David according to the Flesh, but the Son of GOD as tothe DIVINITY, Who was born of the Virgin Mary as to the Flesh. So, further, I call the Holy Virginthe MotherofGOD ; because, in the conception, GOD The Worp united to Him The NATU RE, which was assumed by Him, that is, PERFECT MAN.

Thus I believe, thus I confess ; but those, who hold opinions contrary to these sentiments and speak of these Two NATURES of our LORD CHRIST as One NATURE, which (Natures) were possessed (by Him) without confusion, I anathematize and pro- nounce strangers to (the True) Religion.

If, however, I am proved, after this Confession written in this book, to hold opinions other than this, or to speak differently in discussion, or to teach (differently) in private—since your Holiness has com- manded that we must be content with the instructions given in the Church without aay disputations—I confess that I ought to be removed from the Dignity of the Priesthood, to be anathematized as an Heretic, and to be handed over to the Laws.

Now, that by my own free will I have written this, and not under compulsion, I take Oath by the Holy Trinity and by the Clemency of the Victorious Lords of the World.

You have listened to those documents that have been read. It is (now) befitting, that the Venerable John, Presbyter and Proto-Notary, should also in- form us whether he has anything else in his hands.

Some time ago (or last year), there came to Alex- andria a certain Monk, Theodosius by name, who attracted with him other Monks as well. He said a good deal against Theodoret, who was Bishop of Cyrus, andagainst the God-fearmg Bishop Domnus of Antioch.

After the great Council of Chalcedon, this Monk Theodosius went to Jerusalem, and so excited the monks there against their Bishop Juvenal (who had subscribed to the Coun- cil), that they would not receive him any more on his return, but raised Theodosius himself to the Episcopal Throne. But with the help of the Emperor Marcian, (several letters written by him and by the Empress Pulcheria, on this matter, to the Monks, Nuns, and other inhabitants of Jerusalem, and Sinai and Palestine ; are given in Mansi’s Tom. V.) Juvenal was reinstated by the army of the Comes Dorotheus ; and Theodosius had to flee. A minute account of this, with some interesting anecdotes, (a blind Samaritan restored to sight, by ap- plying the blood of the killed Monophysites ; a zealous Monk throw- ing a basket full of dust and ashes on the head of Juvenal; an apparation of Christ to Petrus [berius, whom Theodosius had made Bishop of Gaza; etc.) is to be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Zacharias Bishop of Meletina in Armenia. Already Assemanus had given some extracts of this work from an incomplete Vatican Manuscript, in Tom. I] of the Bibl. Orient. p. 54-62, esp. p. 55: and A. Mai printed the whole with a Latin translation in 1838, (Vol. x, Script. Vet. Nova Collectio). But as late as 1870, J, Pp. N. LAND published from a more

He, also, produced papers containing Homilies and Exclamations made at Antioch. And, after there had been (consequent on the recital of these papers) much agitation at Alexandria, and all these Monks had gone and appeared (stood) before the Holy, God- loving Dioscorus, our Archbishop, and when, though with difficulty, the Monasteries were kept in order by the skilful management of him, their Chief, it seemed good to his Blessedness to write to the God-fearing Domuus, the Bishop of Antioch.

He wrote a first letter and despatched it by the hands of Clerics. The God-fearing Bishop, above- mentioned, made reply to it, when he wrote a second letter, and he (Domnus) rephed to that also. Now we hold all these letters (in our hands) and notify the fact, in order that you may give what orders you please (on the subject).

complete MS. of the British Museum(Add. 17202), the whole of the work of Zacharias Rhetor in the third Volume of his Anecdota Syriaca. Book iti, Ch. 3—1otreatsof Theodosius. Chap. 9 informsus, that, after his flight, Theodosius wandered about in the dress of a soldier, confirming the Monophysites, till he was recognised somewhere near Sidon, and was taken up and shut up ina small room of a cloister, where he had many discussions with his opponents, the Eutychians, who wished to consider him as one of their party, as well as with the Adherents of the Council of Chalcedon, who tried to win him over to their side. ‘Towards the end of his life he was troubled by reason of the Heresy of John Rhetor of Alexandria, who published several writings under the name of ‘Theodosius and his friend Petrus of Gaza. On p. 342-345 of the book quoted, Land prints, from another MS. ofthe Brit. Mus. (12174,) another account of the last days of the “ Bishop, Confessor, and Martyr, Theodosius,” which is also (probably) by Zacharias, who seems to be connected with Theodosius and his friends, not only through their common belief, but still closer as a native of Gaza. There are, however, some slight differences between these two accounts. According to the latter, Theodosius went first to Egypt after his expulsion from Jerusalem, then he desired to get

Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea, said :— Let the papers be read and deposited among the accredited Documents.

When the Bishop Theodoret was giving Homilies, and said “ that GOD assumed (the Form of) May, even although it was not pleasing to men,” and, again, that “ Thomas touched Him Who rose, but wor- shipped Him Who raised Him (from the dead),” the people shouted these exclamations :—“ That is the “ Faith of the Apostles—that is The Orthodox “ Faith — that is the Faith of Diodorus and “Theodorus—just as Diodorus and Theodorus (be- “lieved), sodo we believe. No man is a believer in

to Antioch, to unite his fellow-believers there, but particularly (as some say ), to see the holy Simeon, who stood upon a Column in these regions. But before the doors of Antioch he was recognised, as he had lived there some time in the monastery of Mar Bassus. He was to have been sent to Constantinople by order of the Emperor, but he left him afterwards in charge of the Abbat of a Cloister, named in the Syriac, who tried to convert him first by flattering, then by cruelty. In consequence of ill treatment, he died on his way to the Capital of the Emperor Leo. His friends sailed with his body to Cyprus, where it was deposited in a Monastery of the “ Orthodox.” His Commemoration was kept on the thirtieth of the first Canun, soon after that of Jacob, the Brother of our Lord; and marvellously, says the writer, it happened, that the Commemora- tion day of the first Bishop of Jerusalem and that of Theodosius her ortho- dox Bishop fell together.” On the night of his death, the writer adds, Peter (of Gaza), who was at that time in Alexandria, saw in a vision Theodosius triumphantly accompanied by a host of angels, dressed in the white robe which the Archbishop of Jerusalem used to wear when bap- tisiag, and so he was carried into heaven.

We have given this note, as one proof more, how much information, elucidatory of Church History, can be gathered from Syriac sources, especially from the rich Collection in our British Museum. Abbé Mar- tin, notwithstanding, in no enigmatical terms, states that nobody knows what became of this wonderful Monk.

“an Edict—no man receives his faith from an Edict. “We are servants of the Apostles. Turn out the “ enemies of the Church—turn out Heretics—him who “makes (believes) God to suffer, turn out—turn out “ calumniators-—turn out Eutyches and Maximianus “turn out Heretics. Let Anathemas rest upon “those two. Let the Monastery of Maximianus “be instantly burnt; let us make him go thither now “(for that purpose). He is Satan and not a Monk.”

Also, at the time when the Copiatae and Lecti- carv and the Laborantes and some other Brethren were shouting out these exclamations among the people, Theodoret in the course of his Homily said to the people :—“ Naboth, the Jezreelite, because “he would not deliver up the inheritance and “vineyard of his Fathers, was stoned with stones, “ exclaiming—‘ | will not deliver up the inheritance “of my Fatherst.’ Do you, likewise, be zealous for “the Doctrines of your Fathers, saying—‘ We will “not deliver up the inheritance of our Fathers.’ “‘ Now there is nothing strange in this, that they who “labour for (the true) Religion should suffer evil (persecution) ; for, from Above the Blessed Paul

’ Do you, likewise, be zealous for “the Doctrines of your Fathers, saying—‘ We will “not deliver up the inheritance of our Fathers. ’ “‘ Now there is nothing strange in this, that they who “labour for (the true) Religion should suffer evil (persecution) ; for, from Above the Blessed Paul

Mili 206.1545 30,0 Laborantes. The Syriac word is ren- dered into this general term which, however, by no means accurately represents the meaning, nor does any English expression that I am ac- quainted with do so. We give only an approximation to it. It is given by Martin, as equivalent to Ordonnateurs, apparently ; though he seems not to wish to indicate that their functions were the same as those of modern French Ordonnateurs (at Funerals), | Hoffmann, who consulted a MS. Lexicon of the Library at Halle, translates the Syriac word into a German one that signifies Layers of the Table-cloth.

“teaches (this) when he says :—‘all those who will “live godly in Jesus Christ must (will) suffer persecu- “tion. But wicked men and deceivers (seducers) “ will add to (their) wickedness, being deceived and “ deceiving ’.”

Again the people cried out—“ Magicians to the Stadium—the attributers of suffering to God to the Stadium—O Thou, The Alone GOD! strike them.”

And many other such exclamations did they con- tinue to shout out, when provoked to it by expres- sions of the Homilist.t

2 Timothy, iii, 12,13. The Text and Syriac N.T. vary from the Greek.

iT ekap. 200; 2 55 [aaaaw is the Homilist, or the Interpreter. Atp. 116, Note }, it is rendered by Assemanus Commentator, seu interpres. See Bingham iii, Chap. xii, 4. I have translated it Homilist, because it seems to refer to the deliverer of the Homilies or Conferences—T heodo- ret. But, if interpreter is the correct word, then it implies that just as the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures, after the Dispersion of the Jews, when that language ceased to be vernacular, required the interpretation or explanation afforded by the Syriac Targums, or as Uranius Bishop of Himeria used an interpreter into Syriac of addresses (see page 159) de- livered in Greek, so the delivery in Greek of Theodoret’s Homilies was attended by a Syriac Interpreter in order to render their meaning in telligible to the audience. ¥

Hoffmann in his note refers to Bingham and to £. 4. Frommann, de hermeneutis veteris ecclesiae, Altdorf 1747, 4° (which dissertation has been republished in the Author’s Opusculorum philologici atque historici argumenti Tomi duo. Coburgi 1770, 8°). It appears from both, that very little is known about the Office of an Interpreter or Hermeneuta in the Ancient Church. The most explicit statement is that of Epiphanius (Expos. Fid. n. 21, i, p- 1104), who ranks him together with the exorcista (émopxiors,) and before the copiata ; this is confirmed by a passage of Eusebius, de Mart. Palaest. p. 172 (comp. the notes of Walesius) and one of Procopius. Of course the office was only wanted in Churches where different languages were used, and it would be interesting to know, whether the sermons of Theodoret in Antioch were, sentence by sentence, after they were pronounced by him in Greek, translated by the Interpreter into Syriac. We should then have here an Analogon to a similar praxis in the Synagogue. (Note from a Syriac Scholar).

I have been brought to admire the Divine Scrip- ture which exclaims—“ If it be possible, as muchas lieth on you, make peace with all men,’” but par- ticularly do J admire, O God-loving man ! the Word —‘“J] am at peace with those who hate peace’t— ; and, I judge, I can repeat it with truth; since, learn- ing it from the Psalmist, I have it constantly im- pressed on my mind, and, although people should scoff at me, I refuse and fear to return their infamy and scoffing. Yea, even when they show an auda- cious inclination to strike me and, by act, give proof of their intention, it isnot mine to punish (for such acts) ; they must all be borne with, and no great at- tention ought to be paid to them.

That is my will to occupy myself in matters which concern our Community—(e.g.) that CHRIST is the Onty Bzcorren Son or Gop and The First Brcottsn, in Whom and by Whom are all things, Who, for our sakes, became Incarnate and Who has, in no res- pect whatever, undergone (even) the shadow of a change.

With any of those, who, through ignorance or a false belief, have been pushed so far4, that statements

t In the Codex Vaticanus (Vercellone and Cozza, 1871) to which I have easy access, the exact words are—MNAPWOYKE NINA PAAAATHHTPONHCANO CKIACMATOC.

{| Or, perhaps, “into (the position of) Dignity, and have advanced statements, &c.”

With any of those, who, through ignorance or a false belief, have been pushed so far4, that statements

t In the Codex Vaticanus (Vercellone and Cozza, 1871) to which I have easy access, the exact words are—MNAPWOYKE NINA PAAAATHHTPONHCANO CKIACMATOC. {| Or, perhaps, “into (the position of) Dignity, and have advanced statements, &c. ”

have been advanced by them embodying Blasphemy, which lead to what is unbefitting (the character of) the Great and Profound Mystery of the (Divine) C#- conomy—with any of those people, because it is a necessity, and impossible for me to escape it, I do find myself in direct (manifest) antagonism, being re- minded of the only wise man who indicates this in saying—-‘ Everything is good in its season ”— “there is a time for war and a time for peace ”—“a time to serve and be zealous for the Lord.” “Be clothed in the armour of God,” Paul never ceases to cry out toust. Too short would be the time for me, if I wished to quote and point out Sentences of the Di- vine Writers, which stimulate us{ to the propriety and duty of resisting manfully, and of turning our faces from, and of hating, those who hate our Lord.

But it is time now for me to disclose the reasons tor, and to show the object of, this letter.

(Some) people give out—and the number of these I believe to be considerable and of an irreproachable life—that all, so to speak, of the Eastern people, zealous and Christ-loving as they are, feel at the present time scandalized and distressed. And, what is of still more importance, (they say) that those per- sons, who in reality ought to have steered skilfully through,—according to (the laws of their) art—and to have silenced the turmoil of, the approaching

t In. p. 202. 1. 16 aegis would seem to be the correct word, but the original MS. has

waves, are in fact the very parties, who raised the storm through havingdrunk the poison of the Impious Nestorius, which they do not hesitate to vomit, by their teaching, in the Church, after having given their assent and consent to the Holy and (ecumenical Sy- nod that took place of old at Nicaea, as well as to its Sister and Consentient one—I refer to that of Ephesus—and after having anathematized the Beastt, that contended with Christ, and all his Impious and unclean Doctrines.

Let any one say, in reference to those of whose acts an explanation has thus been intimated, who they are—and let him dart against them the affixing arrow of the true parable (viz.) “the dog that re- turns to his ownvomit and the swine, that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire{’—(who they are) that are labouring, after having destroyed the middle wall (fence of separation)§, to raise it again, without perhaps paying the matter proper attention, or without saying to themselves, as propriety sug- gests,—“ if I build up again what I have pulled