The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XVIII. An Epitome of the Acts at the Synod of Chal∣cedon, set at the end of the Second Book.

PAschasinus and Lucentius, Bishops, and Boni∣phatius, a Presbyter, filled the place of Leo Pontif of the Elder Rome. Anatolius being Pre∣late of Constantinople, and Dioscorus Bishop of the Alexandrians; Maximus also of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and those Bishops about them [were there.] Together with whom were present those personages who held the principall places in the eximious Senate [of Constanti∣nople.] To whom they who filled the place of Leo said, that Dioscorus ought not to sit toge∣ther with them in the Councill. For this [they said] was given them in charge by Leo. And, unless it were done, that they would go [forth∣with] out of the Church. And when [those] of the Senate asked, what were the matters ob∣jected against Dioscorus; they made answer, that Dioscorus ought to give an account of his own judgment, who, contrary to what was fitting and just, had accepted the person of the Judge, a 1.1 with∣out the permission of him who governeth the Bi∣shoprick of Rome. After which words, when Dioscorus, by the Senate's decree, was standing in a place in the midst; Eusebius Bishop of Dory∣laeum made a request, that the Supplicatory Li∣bell, which had by him been presented to the Em∣perour might be recited; which request he made in these express words: I have been injured by Dioscorus; the Faith hath been injured: Fla∣vianus▪ the Bishop has been murdered; and toge∣ther with me unjustly deposed by him. Do you give order, that my Supplicatory Libell may be read. Which thing therefore having been deba∣ted, the Libell was permitted to be read, the Con∣tents whereof were these.

From Eusebius the meanest Bishop of Dory∣laeum, who speakes in defence of himself, of the Orthodox Faith, and of Flavianus of Blessed memory who was Bishop of Constantinople. [It is] the designe of your power, to make provision for all your Subjects, and to stretch forth an hand to all those who are injured: especially to them who are recounted amongst the Ecclesiasticks. And here∣by you worship the Deity, by whom a power hath been given you to Rule and Govern * 1.2 the world. In regard therefore the Faith of Christ and we have suffered many and grievous things, contrary to all reason and equity, from Dioscorus the most reve∣rend Bishop of the great City Alexandria; we address to Your piety, entreating we may have Right done Us. Now, the business is this. At the Synod lately held in the Metropolis of the E∣phesians, (would to God that Synod had never been held, that it might not have filled the world with mischiefs and disturbance••) that † 1.3 Good man Dioscorus, disregarding the consideration of what is just, and [not respecting] the fear of God, (for he was of the same opinion, and enter∣tained the same Sentiments with the vain-minded and Hereticall Eutyches; but concealed it from many persons, as 'twas afterwards plainly evi∣denced by his own declaration:) † 1.4 took an oc∣casion from that accusation which I had brought against Eutyches a person of the same opinion with himself, and from that sentence pronounc't against the same Eutyches by Bishop Flavianus of Holy memory; [whereby] he assembled a multitude of disorderly and tumultuous persons: and having possest himself of power by money, as much as in him lay he hath weakened the pious Religion of the Orthodox, and has confirmed the ill opinion of the Monk Eutyches, which long since, even from the beginning, hath been condemned by the Holy Fathers. Whereas therefore, the matters are not small and triviall, which he has audaciously at∣tempted, both against the Faith of Christ, and a∣gainst Us, We fall at the feet of Your [Imperial] Majesty, and humbly beseech You, to order the said most Religious Bishop Dioscorus, to give in his answer to what is objected against him by us: to wit, by having the Monuments of the Acts, which he has made against us, read before the Holy Synod. From which [Acts] we are able to demonstrate, that even he himself is estranged from the Or∣thodox Faith, hath confirmed an Heresie full of impiety, has unjustly deposed us, and in a most grievous and injurious manner oppressed us: You sending your divine and adorable Mandates to the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod of Bishops most dear to God, b 1.5 to the end that it may hear both us and the forementioned Diosco∣rus, and bring to the knowledge of Your Piety all that is transacted, according to that which shall please Your Immortall height. And if we shall obtain this, we will pour forth incessant prayers for your eternall Empire, most divine Em∣perours!

By the joynt request therefore of Dioscorus and Eusebius, the Acts of the Second Ephesine Synod were publickly recited: by which 'twas manifestly demonstrated, that Leo's Letter had not been read, and that, notwithstanding there had been an Interlocution once and twice concerning that matter. Wherefore, when Dioscorus was asked to declare the Cause hereof, his answer was, that he himself by an Interlocution [had given order] once and twice that that should be done; and he requested, that Juvenalis Bishop of Jeru∣salem, and Thalassius [Bishop] of the First Cae∣sarea in Cappadocia, might give a more manifest declaration of this matter. For [he said] that they had received an Authority [of presiding in the Synod] together with him. Juvenalis did indeed affirm, that when the [Emperours] Di∣vine Letter * 1.6 had been read in the first place, he made an Interlocution, [ordering] that c 1.7 that [Letter] should be recited; but, that

afterwards no mention was made of that * 1.8 Epistle. But Thalassius said, that he hindred not the reading of that Letter; and that he had not so much † 1.9 Authority, as that he alone could Decree, that it should ‖ 1.10 be read. When therefore a fur∣ther progress was made in the reading of the Acts, and some of the Bishops found fault with some words as being false and forged; Stephanus Bi∣shop of the Ephesians was asked, what Notaries of his at that time had taken [those words] in writing; his answer was, that Julianus (after∣wards made Bishop of Lebedus,) and Crispinus were his Notaries: but, that Dioscorus's No∣taries would not permit * 1.11 that to be done, but took hold of their fingers whilst they were writing; in so much that they were in danger of undergoing most foul abuses. Further, the same Stephanus † 1.12 deposed, that [himself and the other Bishops] had subscribed to Flavianus's deposition in one and the same day. Hereto added Acacius Bishop of Ariarathia, that all [of them] had subscribed in a paper not written on, [and that they were compelled to it] by force and necessity, having been surrounded with innumerable mischiefs, in regard Souldiers [Armed] with murdering ‖ 1.13 weapons had encompassed them. Further, when another sentence was read, Theodorus Bishop of Claudiopolis said, that no body uttered those words. Moreover, upon a procedure in reading [the Acts, in this manner,] when [they came] to a certain d 1.14 place wherein Eutyches had said, [that he Anathematized] those who should af∣firm that the Flesh of God and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had descended from Hea∣ven: the Acts declared, that against these words Eusebius had said, that those were indeed con∣demned by Eutyches who should say that Christ's flesh had descended from Heaven, but that it was not added by him, whence the flesh was. The same Acts added also, that Diogenes Bishop of Cyzicum subjoyned [these words:] c 1.15 de∣clare therefore, from whence? and, that notwith∣standing they were not permitted to make any fur∣ther inquiry into these things. Further, the same Acts do manifest, that Basilius Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, spake [these words:] I adore our one Lord Jesus Christ, * 1.16 the Son of God, the only God the Word, who after the Incarnation and Union, is known in two natures. And, that against these words the Egyptians cryed out: Let no man divide Him who is not to be parted, he ought not to call one Son two. But, that the Easterns exclaimed, Anathema to him who parts, Anathema to him who divides. 'Tis contained in the same Acts, that Euty∣ches was asked, whether he would affirm two Natures in Christ. And, that he answered, that he as∣serted Christ [to consist] of two Natures before the Union: but after the Union, [he acknow∣ledged but] one [Nature in him.] And, that Basilius said [these words;] unless you affirm two undivided and inconfused Natures after the Union, you assert a confusion and a commixture. But if you add Incarnate and Inhumanate, and do understand Incarnation and Inhumanation in such manner as Cyrillus doth, you affirm the same that we do. For, the divinity which [is] from [his] Father, is one thing; the humanity which is from [his] Mother, is another. When f 1.17 they were interrogated, upon what ac∣count they had subscribed to Flavianus's deposition; the Acts declare that the Ea∣sterns cryed out, we have all sinned, we do all crave pardon. Again further, the same Acts being read on, do manifest, that the Bishops were que∣stioned, for what reason they would not permit Eusebius to come in, when he desired it. To which Dio∣scorus made answer, that Elpidius brought the Commonitory; and, that he affirmed, that the Emperour Theodosius had given order, that Eu∣sebius should not be suffered to come in. The Acts do manifest, that Juvenalis also said the same words. But Thalassius said, that he himself g 1.18 had not authority. Which answers were disallowed of by the Judges. For [they said,] that this A∣pology was invalid [where a matter] of Faith is the subject of the Conference. After these things, the same Acts do declare, that Dioscorus h 1.19 made a complaint in these words: what Canons are now observed, whenas Theodoret is [suffered to] come in; And, that the Senatours made answer, that Theodoret was come in as an Accuser. And when Dioscorus subjoyned, that Theodoret sate amongst the Bishops; the Senatours said again, that Eusebius and Theodoret should take the place of the Accusers, in like manner as Dioscorus had the place of the Accused allotted to him. When therefore all [the Acts] of the second Ephesine Synod had been read, and the sentence [of de∣position pronounc't] against Flavianus and Eu∣sebius, had been likewise recited, as far as that * 1.20 place, where i 1.21 Hilarius the Deacon had said, 'Tis contradicted: the Bi∣shops of the East and those with them

exclaimed, Anathema to Dioscorus: in this very hour k 1.22 Christ hath deposed Dioscorus: Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus: Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him, Orthodox Emperour, do you revenge Him! Many years to Leo: many years to the l 1.23 Patriarch. Then, when the following words were read, which manifested, that all the then convened Bishops had agreed to the deposition of Flavianus and Eusebius; the most Glorious Judges made an Interlocution in these express words.

We perceive, that a more exact scrutiny concerning the Orthodox and Catholick Faith ought to be made to morrow, when the Synod will be more compleat and full. But, in regard Flavianus of Pious Memory, and Eusebius the most Religious Bishop of Dorylaeum (from a search made into the Acts and Decrees, and also from their testimony by word of mouth who presi∣ded in the Synod then convened; who have con∣fessed that they have erred, and have deposed them without cause, when they had in no wise erred in re∣lation to the Faith:) have, as 'tis evidently known, been unjustly deposed: it appears to us (agreeable to that which is acceptable unto God,) to be just, (provided it shall please our most Divine and most Pious Lord,) that Dioscorus the most Religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenalis the most Religious Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most Religious Bishop of Caesarea, Euse∣bius the most Religious Bishop of m 1.24 Ancyra, Eu∣stathius the most Religious Bishop of Berytus, and Basilius the most Religious Bishop of Seleu∣cia in Isauria, which [Prelates] had power, and presided over the then Synod, should n 1.25 lye under the very same punishment, being by [the sentence of] this sacred Synod according to the Canons estranged from the Episcopall dignity: all things which have been consequently done being made known to his most sacred Imperial Ma∣jesty.

After these words, the Easterns cryed out this [is] a just judgment: but the Bishops of Illy∣ricum exclaimed, we have all sinned, let us all be vouchsafed pardon. And again; when the Ea∣sterns acclaimed, this is a just sentence: Christ hath deposed a Murderer, Christ hath reven∣ged the Martyrs: the Senators made an Inter∣locution, that every one of the Bishops conve∣ned, should by himself * 1.26 declare his own Faith; knowing for certain, that the most Divine Em∣perour did believe, according to that Exposition of the Faith of the three hundred and eighteen [Fathers, assembled] at Nice, and of the hun∣dred and fifty Fathers [convened] o 1.27 at Con∣stantinople; also according to the Epistles of the Holy Fathers, Gregorius, Basilius, Hilarius Athanasius, Ambrosius; and according to Cy∣rill's two Letters, which were recited at the First Synod at Ephesus: for, that the most Pious Leo Bishop of the Elder Rome, had deposed Eu∣tyches according to the same Faith.

The First Session therefore having after this manner been ended, when the most Holy Bishops had come together p 1.28 alone in order to another [Action,] Eusebius Bishop of Dory∣laeum presented Libells in de∣fence of himself and Flavia∣nus; wherein he accused Di∣oscorus as entertaining the same Sentiments with Euty∣ches, and because he had divested them of the Sacer∣dotall Function. He added also, that Dioscorus had in∣serted some words, which had not been spoken at the then convened Synod, into the Acts thereof; and moreover, that Dioscorus had procured that they should subscribe in blank papers. He requested fur∣ther, that all the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod might be made null by the vote of [the Prelates who] were convened, that themselves might be restored to the Sa∣cerdotall dignity, and that that nefarious opinion might be Anathematized. He re∣quested also after the reading [of his Libell,] that his Ad∣versary might be present. When this was by an Interlocution ordered to be done; Aëtius Arch-Deacon and Primicerius of the Notaries said, that he had gone to Dioscorus, as also to the others; and that Dioscorus had answered, that he was not permitted by his keepers to come to the Councill. By making another Interlocution it was ordered, that Dioscorus should be sought for before [the doors of] the Councill. And when he was not found, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople made an Interlocution, that he ought to be sent for, and to be present in the Synod. Which having been done, the messengers sent to Dioscorus returned and said that he told them, I am under custody: let [my keepers] say, whether or no they will permit me to go [to the Councill.] And upon the mes∣sengers saying to him, that they▪ had been sent to him, not to the Magistriani; they brought word,

that Dioscorus had said, I am ready to come to the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod; but I am hindred. Whereto Himerius added, that in their return from Dioscorus, the q 1.29 Assistant to the Master of the sacred Offices met them, and that in company with him the Bishops had gone again to Dioscorus, and that he had some things concerning these matters which he had taken in r 1.30 Notes. Which having been read, 'twas manifested that Dioscorus had spoken these ex∣press words. Having recollected my self, and con∣sidered what is expedient [for me,] I answer thus.

In regard the most magnificent Judges who sate in the Session before this, have Decreed severall things after many Interlocutions made by every one; and I am now cited to a Second Session, to the end that the soresaid [Decrees] may be voided and made null; 'tis my request, that the most magnificent Judges and Sacred Senate, who were at the Former Session, may be present now also, in order to a re-examination of the same matters. To whom Acacius, as 'tis mani∣festly related in the said Acts, gave answer in these very words. The Holy and Great Synod have not commanded Your Sanctity therefore to be present, that those things which have been transacted before the most Magnificent Judges and the Sacred Senate might be voided and made null: but [the Synod] hath sent us, [with a command] that You should come to the Session, and that Your Sanctity should not be absent therefrom. To whom Dioscorus re∣turned this answer, (as the Acts declare;) You have told me even now, that Eusebius hath pre∣sented Libells: I make a request again, that my Cause may be examined before the Judges and Senate. Then, after other things of this nature, which are put into the Acts; those were again sent, who might perswade Dioscorus to be pre∣sent at what was transacted. Which having been done, those who had been sent returned, and said, that they had taken Dioscorus's answer in Notes, which [Notes] do manifest, that he said these words. I have already signified to Your p••ety, that I am afflicted with a distemper, and that 'tis my request, that the most Magnificent Judges also and the Sacred Senate may now likewise be present at the Judgment of those things which shall be inquired into: but in regard my distem∣per hath increased, upon that account I have made a delay. And the Acts do manifest that Cecro∣pius said unto Dioscoru••▪ that a little before he had not made the least mention concerning his sickness; and that therefore he ought to satisfie the Canons. To whom Dioscorus made this re∣turn, I have said once, that the Judges ought to be present. Then, that Ruffinus Bishop of Samo∣sata said unto Dioscorus, that the * 1.31 Agitations and Debates [in the Councill] were Canonicall, and that Dioscorus, if he were pre∣sent, might freely speak what he should have a mind to. And when Dio∣scorus enquired, whether Juvenalis and Tha∣lassius and Eustathius were come [to the Sy∣nod,] s 1.32 he answered, that that was nothing pertinent to the business. To which words the Acts doe set forth, that Dioscorus subjoyned these, that he had requested the Christ-loving Emperour, [that he would give order] that the Judges also might be present [in the Councill,] as likewise those [Prelates] who together with him * 1.33 had been Judges. And, that hereto the [Synod's] Mes∣sengers said, that Eusebius had accused him only, and that all the rest ought not to be present. And, that to these words Dioscorus replied, that those other persons ought also to be present who had been judged together with him: for, that Eusebius had no private † 1.34 Cause against him, but [a common one, to wit,] concerning those things on account of which all of them had been judged. And again, when the [Synod's] Messengers persisted ‖ 1.35 in the same things, Dioscorus made answer, what I have said, I have said once; nor have I any thing further to say. To which words [when declared to the Synod,] Eusebius [Bishop] of Dorylaeum said, that he had [matter of accu∣sation] against Dioscorus only, and against no person else: and he desired that Dioscorus might be cited in by a third Summons. [After this] Aëtius gave information, that some persons who stiled themselves Ecclesiasticks, together with some others who were Laïcks, coming from the City Alex∣andria, had lately presented Libells against Dio∣scorus, and that those men were now standing before [the doors of] the Councill, and * 1.36 crying out. When therefore Theodorus, a Deacon of the Holy Church of Alexandria, had in the first place presented [Libells;] and then Ischyrio, who was a Deacon likewise; and after him Atha∣nasius a Presbyter and Cyrillus's sisters son; and lastly Sophronius; in which [Libells] they ac∣cused Dioscorus partly for Blasphemies, and partly on account of bodily [dama∣ges] and t 1.37 violent exaction of moneys: a third Citation is issued out, wherein Dio∣scorus is admonished to come [to the Synod.] The Mes∣sengers therefore appointed for this business, being re∣turned, made report that Dioscorus had said [these words:] I have sufficiently informed Your Piety; nor can I add any thing else thereto. Again, when the per∣sons sent upon this account had continued to be very urgent in their perswasives to Dioscorus [that he would come,] and he having always given the same answer; Paschasinus the Bishop said [these words.] Dioscorus having now been thrice Summoned, hath not appeared, being prick't

in Conscience: and he u 1.38 asked what [punishment] he deserved. Whereto when the Bishops had re∣turned answer, that he had * 1.39 offended against the Canons, and when Proterius Bishop of Smyrna had said, at such time as the Holy Flavianus was murdered, nothing had been agreeably and orderly done against him: they who supplied the place of Leo Bishop of the Elder Rome, † 1.40 made this De∣claration in these express words.

What Dioscorus who hath been Bishop of the Great City Alexandria has audaciously attempted against the Order of the Canons, and the Ecclesi∣astick Constitution; hath been made manifest, both by those things which have already been enquired into at the First Session, and also from what hath been done this day. For this person, (to omit many other things,) making use of his own authority, uncanonically admitted to communion Eutyches, (a man that embraces the same Sentiments with himself, who had been deposed canonically by his own Bishop of Holy Memory, we mean our Fa∣ther and Arch-Bishop Flavianus;) before * 1.41 his sitting [in the Synod] at Ephesus together with the Bishops beloved by God. But the Apo∣stolick See has granted a pardon to those [Pre∣lates,] for what hath been involuntarily done there by them. Who also to this present continue of the same opinion with the most Holy Arch-Bi∣shop Leo, and with all the Holy and Oecumenicall Synod. On which account, he hath received them to his own communion, as being asserters of the same faith with himself. But † 1.42 this man till this very time hath not desisted from boasting of these things, on account whereof he ought rather to mourn, and lay himself prostrate on the earth. Besides, he permitted not the Letter of the most Blessed Pope Leo, to be read, (which had been written by him to Flavianus of Holy Memory;) and his [he did,] notwithstanding he was severall times en∣treated by those persons who brought the Letter, to suffer it to be read; and notwithstanding he had promised with an Oath that it should be read. The not reading of which Letter has filled the most Holy Churches over the whole world with scandalls and detriment. Nevertheless, although such things as these have been audaciously at∣tempted by him, vv 1.43 yet we had some thoughts concerning the vouchsafing to him something of compassion in relation to his former impious Fact, as also to the rest of the Bishops beloved by God, although they had not the same au∣thority of judging that he was invested with.

But in regard he has out-done his former ini∣quity by his * 1.44 latter facts, (for he has audacious∣ly pronounced an Excommunication against the most Holy and most Pious Leo Arch-Bishop of Rome the Great; and moreover, (when Libells stuft with Crimes were preferred to the Holy and Great Synod against him,) having been ca∣nonically called once, twice, and thrice, by the Bishops beloved of God, he obeyed not, to wit, being prick't by his own conscience; [Lastly,] he has illegally received [to Communion] those, who have been justly deposed by severall Synods: [on these various accounts we say]) he himself hath pronounced sentence against himself, having many ways trampled under foot the Ecclesiastick Rules. Wherefore, the most Holy and most Blessed Leo Arch-Bishop of the Greatest and the Elder Rome▪ by Us and the present Synod, together with the thrice Blessed and most eminent Apostle Peter, who is the * 1.45 Rock and Basis of the Catho∣lick Church, and the foundation of the Orthodox Faith, hath divested him of the Episcopall dig∣nity, and hath * 1.46 removed him from [the performance of] every Sacer∣dotall Office. Therefore, the Holy and Great Synod it self will Decree those things concerning the forementioned Dioscorus, which shall seem agreeable to the Canons.

When therefore these things had been confirmed by Anatolius, Maximus, and the rest of the Bishops, excepting those [Prelates] who together with Dioscorus had been deposed by the Councill; a Relation concerning these [Transactions] was by the Synod written to [the Emperour] Mar∣cianus, and by the same Synod a deposition was sent to Dioscorus, the Contents whereof were these.

Know, that by reason of Your contemning the Divine Canons, and on account of Your contu∣macy [Shown] towards this Holy and Oecu∣menicall Synod, because (besides other Crimes whereof You have been convicted,) having been the third time called by this Holy and great Synod, according to the Divine Canons to answer to those Accusations brought against You, You have not appeared; on the thirteenth day of this instant month October, You are deposed from your Bishoprick by this Holy and Oecumenicall Synod, and are * 1.47 estranged from every Eccle∣siastick y 1.48 duty.

Then, having written concerning these things to the pious z 1.49 Bishops of the most Holy Church at Alexandria, and when the a 1.50 Edict against Dio∣scorus had been proposed, this Sessions was ended.

The foregoing * 1.51 Session having been thus en∣ded, after this [the Bishops] being again con∣vened, returned answer to the Interrogation of the Judges (who had requested that the † 1.52 true Faith might be expounded,) [in this manner,] b 1.53 that no∣thing further ought to be esta∣blished, the matters against Eutyches having been fully finished, and determined by the Bishop of Rome, to which [determinations] they had all given their assent. A∣gain, when all the Bishops cried out, that they all said the same things, and when the Judges by making an In∣terlocution had pronounced, that each Patriarch, having chosen one or two persons of his own Dioecesis, should come forth into the midst, to the end that the opinion of every one might be made manifest: Florentius Bishop of Sardis required a * 1.54 Truce, to the end * 1.55 that with consideration they might arrive at the Truth. And Cecropius Bishop of Se∣bastopolis spoke these words. The Faith hath been well expounded by the Three hun∣dred and eighteen Holy Fathers, and hath been confirmed by the Holy Fathers, Athanasius, Cy∣rillus, Celestinus, Hilarius, Basilius, Gregorius, and now again by the most Holy Leo. And our re∣quest is, that the [words] of the Three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers, as also those of the most Holy Leo, may be recited. Which having been read, the whole Synod cried out, in these words; this is the Faith of the Orthodox: Thus we all believe, Pope Leo believes thus, Cyrillus believed thus, the Pope hath expounded it thus. And when there had been another Interlocution, that the Exposition of the Faith [set forth] by the Hundred and fifty Holy Fathers might be re∣cited also, that was likewise read. To which the Synod again cried out, and said: This is the Faith of [us] all: This is the Faith of the Orthodox: Thus we all believe. d 1.56 After whom Aetius the Arch-Deacon said, that he had at hand the Epistle of the Divine Cyrillus to Ne∣storius, which all [the Fathers] convened at Ephesus had confirmed by their own Subscriptions; and that he had likewise another Letter of the same Cyrillus's, which had been written to Jo∣hannes [Bishop] of Antioch, and which had likewise been confirmed: and his request was, that both these Letters might be read. And after an Interlocution had been made concerning these [Letters,] they were both recited. Part of the Contents of the former Epistle run word for word thus.

Cyrillus,

to the most Pious Nestorius, [my] Fellow-Minister.

Some persons, as I understand, * 1.57 reproach my Reputation in the presence of Your Piety, and that frequently, taking an occasion [to do thus] most especially, at such time as those of the Ma∣gistracy are met together; and peradventure they suppose, that Your ears are even delighted [with such discourses as these.] And after some words. The Holy and Great Synod therefore hath said, † 1.58 that He the only begotten Son hath been begotten of God and the Father according to Nature, very God of very God, the Light of the Light; that He, by whom the Father hath made all things, de∣scended, was Incarnate, made man, suffered, rose again the third day, ascended into the Heavens. These Expressions and Forms we also ought to follow, considering with our selves, what is meant by this [proposition,] God the Word was incarnate and was made man. For we do not affirm, that the Nature of The Word having been changed, was made Flesh: nor that it was converted into whole man, who [consists] of Soul and Body. But [We say] that rather, that when The Word had personally united to himself the Flesh enli∣vened with a rationall soul, he was ineffably and incomprehensibly made man, and he hath been stiled the Son of man, not according to will only, or good pleasure; nor yet as it were in the As∣sumption of the person only. And, that the Na∣tures [are] diverse, e 1.59 which have come together into a true Unity: but, that of both [Na∣tures there is] one Christ and [one] Son; not as if the diversity of the Natures were destroyed by the Union: but rather, * 1.60 that the Di∣vinity and Humanity have perfected to us one Lord, and Christ, and Son, by an inef∣fable mysticall and secret con∣course to an Unity. And af∣ter some few words. But, in regard having personally united the humanity to him∣self on our account and for our salvation, he proceeded from a woman, for this rea∣son he is said to have been born according to the Flesh. For he was not at first born a common [and ordinary] man of the Holy Virgin, and after that The Word * 1.61 descended upon him: but having been † 1.62 united from the very womb, he is said to have under∣gone a Carnall Nativity, that he might procure [to himself] the Nativity of his own Flesh. After the same manner we say he suffered, and rose again; not as if God The Word, as to his own Nature, suffered either the Stripes, or

the * 1.63 Transfixions of the Nails, or any other of the wounds: for the Deity is Impassible, because 'tis also Incorporeall. But, in regard that which had been made his own Body suffered, on this ac∣count he is again said to have suffered for us. For there was the Impassible [Deity] in a passible Body.

Most part of [Cyrillus's] other Letter hath been recorded in our foregoing † 1.64 Book. But there is a passage in it, which Johannes [Bishop] of the Antiochians had written [in his Letter, to which passage] Cyrillus hath ‖ 1.65 fully agreed: this passage runs thus. We confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotocos, because God The Word took Flesh from Her and was made man, and from that very Conception united to himself a Temple taken from Her. But we know, that those divine men do take the Evangelick and Apostolick Expressions [ut∣tered] concerning the Lord, * 1.66 sometimes in a common sense, as [spoken] of one person: † 1.67 at oth••r whiles [they] divide them, as [uttered] concerning two Natures. And, [that they have] delivered these [Expressions as] be∣coming God, according to the divinity of Christ: but those other [as] humble and mean, agree∣able to the same persons humanity. To which words [Cyrillus] has subjoyned these. Ha∣ving read these your sacred Expressions, We find that We our selves embrace the same Sentiments. For, there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. We have therefore glorified God the Saviour of all [men,] rejoycing mutually, that as well the Churches amongst us, as those with you, do profess a Faith that is agreeable, both to the divinely inspired Scriptures, and also to the Tradition of our Holy Fathers.

After the Reading hereof, those of this Synod cried out in these words: We do all believe thus; Pope Leo believes thus. Anathema to him that divides, and to him who confounds. This is the Faith of Leo the Arch-Bishop. Leo be∣lieves thus; Leo and Anatolius believe thus. We all believe thus. As Cyrillus, so we believe. The eternall memory of Cyrillus. As Cyrillus's Letters f 1.68 are, so are our Senti∣ments. Thus we have be∣lieved, thus we do believe: Leo the Arch-Bishop thinks thus, thus he believes, thus he hath written. Then, an Interlocution having been made, that Leo's Letter might also be read; being rendred [into Greek,] it was recited: which [Letter] is extant in the Acts [of the Councill.] After therefore the reading thereof, the Bishops exclaimed, This is the Faith of the Fathers, This is the Faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus, g 1.69 we that are Orthodox do believe thus. Anathema to him who be∣lieves not thus. Peter by Leo hath uttered these words: The Apostles have taught thus: Leo hath taught pi∣ously and truly, Cyrillus has taught thus, Leo and Cyrillus have taught alike: Anathema to him who believes not thus: This is the true Faith, the Orthodox think thus, this is the Faith of the Fathers. Why were not these [words] read at Ephesus? Dioscorus hath con∣cealed these [Expressions.] It is recorded in the same Acts, that when part of the [fore-mentioned] Letter of Leo was read, the Contents whereof were these, And in order to the * 1.70 paying that due debt of our Nature, the divine Nature was united to a Nature passible, to the end that (for this was agree∣able to our Remedies,) He being one and the same Mediatour of God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus; might be able to die by one, and might not be able to die by the other: the Illyrician and Pa∣lestine Bishops being in doubt as to this Expression; Aetius Arch-deacon of the most Holy Church of Constantinople, produced a passage of Cyrillus's, the Contents whereof are these: Again, in re∣gard his own Body * 1.71 by the grace of God, ac∣cording as the Apostle Paul saith, hath tasted death h 1.72 for every man, he himself is [therefore] said to have suffered death for us: not as if he had ex∣perienced death, as to what belongs to his own Nature; (For 'tis stupidity and ex∣tream madness, either to af∣firm, or think this:) but because (as I have even now said,) his Flesh tasted death. And again, as to an expression of Leo's Letter, which runs thus: For each Form acts with a com∣munion of the other, that which is proper: to wit, The Word operates that which is The Word's; and the * 1.73 Flesh performs that which is of the † 1.74 Flesh: and the one of these shines with Miracles; but the other hath lain under injuries: the Illyrician and Palestine Bishops being in doubt, the same Aetius read a ‖ 1.75 Chapter of Cyrillus, the Contents whereof were these. Of the expressions [used concerning Christ,] some are most especially agree∣able to God; again, others are agreeable to man. But a third sort possess a certain middle place, evidencing the Son of God, to be God and also at the same time Man. After this, when the foresaid Bishops doubted at another place of Leo's Epistle, which runs thus: For, although in our Lord Jesus Christ, [there is] one person of God and of man, nevertheless that is one thing whence there is in both a Community of Contume∣ly, and that is another whence there is a Commu∣nity of Glory. For from us he [has] humanity, which is less than the Father. But from the Fa∣ther he has the divinity which is equall with his Father. Theodoret, after he had well considered this matter, said, that the Blessed Cyrillus had expresly spoken thus, in these words: And being made man, and loosing nothing that was his own, i 1.76 he continued what he was, and the one dwelt in the other, that is, the divine Na∣ture * 1.77 in man. After this, when the Illustrious Judges enquired whether there were any person who as yet doub∣ted, all answered, that no person made any further doubt. After whom, Atticus Bishop of Nicopolis requested, that a * 1.78 Truce of some few days might be allowed them, to the end that with a sedate mind and undisturbed understanding such things might be decreed as were pleasing to God, and to the Holy Fathers. He desired also, that Cyrillus's Letter, written to Nestorius, might be delivered [to them,] in which Cyrillus intreats Nestorius, that he would give his assent to his twelve Heads, k 1.79 whereto all agreed. And when the Judges by making an In∣terlocution

[had given order,] that an inter∣vall of five days might be allowed them, wherein they might have a meeting [and confer] l 1.80 with Anatolius Prelate of Costantinople: all the Bi∣shops cryed out, and said; We do believe thus: We all believe thus: as Leo, so we believe: no one of us doubts: We have all subscribed. To which [exclamations the Judges] made an Interlo∣cution in these express words. There is no ne∣cessity that you should all meet. But, in regard 'tis agreeable, that those who doubt should be con∣firmed, let the most pious Bishop Anatolius choose out of their number who have subscribed, such persons as he shall think fit to teach and inform those that doubt. Whereto those of the Synod subjoyned these Acclamations: We entreat m 1.81 for the Fathers: [Let] the Fathers, who are of the same Sentiment with Leo, [be restored] to the Synod; The Fathers to the Synod: These words to the Emperour: These Supplications to The Orthodox, These Supplications to Augusta: We have all sinned: Let us all be pardoned. But the Clergy of the Constantinopolitane Church exclaimed [in these words,] They are but few who cry out: The Synod says not this. After whom, the Eastern Bishops cried out, The Egy∣gyptian to Banishment. But the Illyricians ex∣claimed: We entreat [you,] have mercy upon all. After whom the Eastern Bishops cried out, The Egyptian to Banishment. And when the Illy∣ricians had made the same request which they had made before, the Clergy of Constantinople cried out: Dioscorus to Banishment: The Egyptian to Exile: The Heretick to Banishment. Christ hath deposed Dioscorus. After whom, the Illyricians and those Bishops of their partie [exclaimed,] We have all sinned; pardon all: Dioscorus to the Synod, Dioscorus to the Churches. And when such like words as these had preceded, this Session was ended. At the Session after this, when the Senate had made an Interlocution, that the De∣crees which had already been n 1.82 given forth should be recited, Constantinus the Secretary read these express words out of a * 1.83 Sche∣dule.

We perceive, that a more exact scrutiny concerning the Orthodox and Catholick Faith ought to be made to morrow, when the Synod will be more compleat and full. But, in regard Flavianus of Pious Memory, and the most Religious Bishop Eusebius (from a search made into the Acts and Decrees, and also from their testimony by word of mouth who presi∣ded in the Synod then convened; who have con∣fessed that they have erred, and have deposed them without cause, when they had in no wise erred in the Faith:) have, as 'tis evidently known, been unjustly deposed: it appears to us (agreeable to that which is acceptable unto God,) to be just, (provided it shall please our most Divine and most Pious Lord,) that Dioscorus the most Religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenalis the most Religious Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius the most Religious Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius the most Religious Bishop of Ancyra, Eu∣stathius the most Religious Bishop of Berytus, and Basilius the most Religious Bishop of Seleu∣cia in Isauria, which [Prelates] had power, and presided over the then Synod, should lye under the very same punishment, [and] accor∣ding to the Canons * 1.84 be removed from the Episco∣pall dignity: all things which have been conse∣quently done being made known † 1.85 to his most sa∣cred Imperial Majesty.

Then, after the reading of some other things, the Bishops assembled were asked, whether Leo's Letter agreed with the Faith of the Three hun∣dred and eighteen Holy Fathers convened at Nice, and with that of the Hundred and fifty [Holy Fathers assembled] in the Imperiall City [Constantinople;] whereto Anatolius Pre∣late of Constantinople and all the Bishops present returned answer, that Leo's Letter agreed with the foresaid Holy Fathers: and o 1.86 he subscribed to the forementioned Letter of Leo. These things having procee∣ded thus, those of the Synod cried out, We all consent, We do all approve, We all be∣lieve a like, We all think the same things, We all believe thus. [Let] the Fathers [be re∣stored] to the Synod, [Let] those who have sub∣scribed [be restored] to the Synod: Many years * 1.87 to the Emperour: Many years † 1.88 to Augusta. The Fathers to the Synod, those of the same Faith to the Synod: many years to the Emperour: those of the same Sentiments to the Synod: many years to the Emperour. We have all subscribed to the

Faith: as Leo, so we think After this an In∣terlocution was made [by the Judges,] in these express words: We have given a Relation con∣cerning these things to our most divine and most pious Lord, and we expect the answer of his piety. But your Reverence shall render an account to God, as well concerning Dioscorus who hath been deposed by You, (his Imperiall Majesty and we being ignorant thereof,) as p 1.89 concerning those [other] five persons for whom you have entreated, and concer∣ning all other matters which have been transacted in the Synod. [Hereupon they all] cried out, saying, God hath de∣posed Dioscorus: Dioscorus hath been justly deposed, Christ hath deposed Dioscorus. Then after these things, an answer being brought from Marcianus, which gave the Bishops permission to de∣termine according to their own discretion concerning the persons who had been deposed, in such manner as the Judges have declared by an Interlocution; [the Bishops] made their request, saying these express words: We entreat that they may come in. [Let] those of the same opinion [be re∣stored] to the Synod: those of the same Senti∣ments, to the Synod: those who have subscribed to Leo's Letter, to the Synod. Which persons, after an Interlocution, were admitted into the number of the Synod. And after this, the Sup∣plicatory Libells, which had been presented by the Bishops of the Aegyptick Dioecesis to the Em∣perour Marcianus, were read; wherein, besides other matters these things were contained: Our Sentiments are the same with those expositions which the Three hundred and eighteen [Holy Fathers] set forth at Nicaea, and [with those embraced by] the blessed Athanasius, and Cy∣rillus of Holy Memory: We Anathematize every Heresie, that of Arius, that of Eunomius, of Manes, of Nestorius, and that of those who assert, that the Flesh of our Lord is from heaven, and not from the Holy Theotocos, and Ever-Virgin Mary; * 1.90 whom [we affirm] to be like to us all, [but] without sin. Then, all [the Bishops] present in the Synod cried out, saying: Why do they not Anathematize Eutyches's opinion? Let them subscribe to Leo's Letter, and Anathe∣matize Eutyches and his Opinions: Let them give their assent to Leo's Letter: they are de∣sirous to impose upon us and be gone. Here∣to the Bishops of Egypt returned answer, that there were many Bishops in Egypt, and that 'twas impossible [for them] to represent the † 1.91 per∣sons of those who were absent: and they requested, that the Synod would expect their Arch-Bishop, to the end that (according as Custome requi∣red,) they might follow his Opinion. For [they said,] that if they should do any thing before the ‖ 1.92 Election of their Arch-Bishop, all persons of the whole Egyptick Dioecesis would fall up∣on them. And when they had made many en∣treaties concerning these things, and those of the Synod had vigorously resisted them; by an Inter∣locution 'twas ordered, that an * 1.93 intervall should be granted to the Bishops of Egypt, till such time as an Arch-Bishop could be ordained over them. And after this, were presented Sup∣plicatory Libells of some Monks, the sum of which was this, that they might in no wise be forced to subscribe † 1.94 to certain Papers, q 1.95 till such time as the Synod (which the Empe∣rour had ordained to be convened,) should meet, and take cognizance of those things which had been Decreed. After the recitall of these [Li∣bells,] Diogenes Bishop of Cyz••cus declared that ••arsumas, one of those persons who were come into the Councill, had murdered Flavianus: for, that he had cried out kill him. And that, although he was not named in the Libells, yet (contrary to what was right and fitting,) he had gotten entrance [into the Councill.] Whereat all the Bishops exclaimed, Bar∣sumas hath ruined all Syria, he hath brought a thousand Monks against us. And when an Interlocution had been made, that the [Monks] who were come together should expect the Synod's determi∣nation; the Monks requested, that the Libells composed by them might be read: part whereof was this, that Dioscorus and those Bishops with him might be present at the Synod. At the hearing whereof, all the Bishops ex∣claimed. Anathema to Dioscorus: Christ hath deposed Dioscorus: thrust these persons out of doors: take away the injury of the Synod: re∣move the Force of the Synod: [Relate] these words to the Emperour: remove the Injury of the Synod: take away the disgrace of the Synod. In opposition to whom the Monks cried out, re∣move the injury of the Monasteries. And when the same exclamations had been made again by the Synod, 'twas ordered by an Interlocution, that the rest of the Libells should be recited. In which 'twas affirmed, that Dioscorus's deposi∣tion had not been duely and orderly made, and that, the Faith being proposed, * 1.96 he ought to be admitted to the Session of the Synod. And un∣less this were done, they would shake their gar∣ments, [and recede] from the Communion of those Bishops who were convened. After the Recitall of these words, Aetius the Arch-Deacon read the Canon concerning those who separated themselves [from Communion.] And again, when the Monks were divided at the questions [put to them] by the most Holy Bishops, and afterwards, at the interrogatory of Aetius the Arch-Deacon made as from the Synod; and when some of them Anathematized Nestorius and Eu∣tyches, and others refused to do that: an Inter∣locution was made by the Judges [who decla∣red,] that the Supplicatory Libells of Faustus and the other Monks should be read; wherein they requested of the Emperour, that those Monks should not have any further Countenance shown them, who had lately appeared in opposition to Or∣thodox Sentiments: amongst whom, one Doro∣theus •• Monk had termed Eutyches Orthodox. Against him diverse questions concerning Euty∣ches's Doctrine were proposed by the Judges. After this, when the Fifth Session was begun, the Judges by an Interlocution declared, that what had been determined concerning the Faith, should be promulged. Then Asclepiades a Deacon of Constantinople, read the Determination, which they were pleased not to have inserted into the Acts. Against which [Determination] some made opposition; but more consented to it. And when Exclamations had been made on the one

side and on the other, the Judges said, that Dio∣scorus affirmed he had therefore deposed Flavia∣nus, because he asserted there were two Natures: but, that the Determination ran thus, of two Natures. To which Anatolius made answer, that Dioscorus had not been deposed on account of the Faith; but because he had * 1.97 excommunicated Leo, and having been thrice summoned, had not appeared. Then r 1.98 the Judges desired, that the words in Leo's Letter might be inserted into the definition [of the Faith:] which having been denied by the Bishops (who said that another definition [of the Faith] could not be made, for that was compleat and perfect;) these things were related to the Emperour. And he ordered six of the Eastern Bishops, and three of the Pontick [Di∣oecesis,] and three of A∣sia, and three of Thracia, and three of Illyricum, (A∣natolius and the Deputies of the Romish See being al∣so present,) to meet in the Church [of Euphemia,] and there rightly to deter∣mine matters in relation to the Faith; or at least, that every one of them should set forth his own Faith; which if they did not, they were to know, that a Synod should be convened in the West. And being asked to declare, whether they would follow Dioscorus who asserted [Christ to consist] OF TWO [Natures,] or Leo [who affirmed] TWO [Natures] IN Christ, they cried out that they s 1.99 believed [agreeable to] Leo: but, that those who made opposition were Eu∣tychianists. And when the Judges had said, that t 1.100 according to Leo's Opinion [there ought] to be added [in the definition of the Faith, these words] two natures united, u 1.101 inconvertible, and undivided, and inconfused in Christ; [the Bi∣shops entreated them to go into the Oratory of the Holy Euphemia's Church.] vv 1.102 And when the Judges had entred into the foresaid Oratory, together with Anatolius and the Deputies of Leo, with Maximus also of Antioch, and Juvenalis of Jerusalem, and Thalassius of Caesarea in Cap∣padocia, and with the other [Bishops;] and when [some little time after] they had gone out from thence, the definition [of the Faith] was read, the Contents whereof were these: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and so forth, which we have inserted * 1.103 above into our History. And when they had all cried out; This is the Faith of the Fathers, Let the Metropolitans now sub∣scribe; This is the Faith of the Apostles; We all follow this Faith; We all think thus: the ••udges made an Interlocution in these words: Those matters which have been defined by the Fathers, and which please all persons, shall be Re∣lated † 1.104 to his Imperial Majesty. But, at the Sixth Session, the Emperour [Marcianus] came [to the Councill,] and made a Speech to the Bi∣shops concerning Concord. And ‖ 1.105 after an Inter∣locution of the Emperour's, the definition [of the Faith] was read by Aetius Arch-Deacon of Con∣stantinople, and all subscribed to the definition. Then the Emperour asked, whether the definition were composed by the unanimous consent of them all: and they all confirmed it with joyfull accla∣mations. Again, the Emperour made two Speeches [to the Bishops,] which were followed with the joy∣full acclamations of them all. After this by the Em∣perour's perswasion the Canons were * 1.106 written, and x 1.107 to [the City of] the Chalcedonensians were given Metropoliticall Rights and Priviledges.

And the Emperour commanded the Bishops to stay three or four days, and that every one should propose [questions] concerning what he had a mind to, in the presence of the Judges; and * 1.108 that all things should be ended by a convenient and fit determination▪ Thus this Convention was finished. There was y 1.109 another [Session] also, wherein other Canons were made. And again, at ano∣ther Session, Juvenalis and Maximus made an agreement, and it seemed good, that the [Bishop] of Antioch should have the two Phoenicia's, and Arabia; and the [Bishop] of Jerusalem the three Palestines [Sub∣ject to his See.] And after an Interlocution of the Judges and▪ Bishops, they confirmed [this agreement.] And at the z 1.110 ninth Session Theo∣doret's Cause was discussed. Who had Anathe∣matized Nestorius, in these words; Anathema to Nesto∣rius, and to him who denies the Holy Virgin Mary to be Theotocos, and to him who divides the one Only-begotten Son into two Sons: moreover, I have subscribed to the defi∣nition of the Faith, and to Leo's Epistle. After an In∣terlocution therefore made by them all, he recovered his own See. In another Session, Ibas's Cause was examined, and those things were read which had been transacted and pronounced against him; the Judges whereof were Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus. And Sentence was deferred to the following [Session.] At the Eleventh Con∣vention, when many of the Bishops had voted Ibas to a 1.111 be restored to his Bishoprick, some Bishops opposed it, and said, that his Accusers were without, and they requested that they might be ordered to come in. Those things therefore were read which had been transacted against Ibas. And when the Judges by an Interiocu∣tion had given order, that the Acts at Ephesus against Ibas should be read; the Bishops said, that all things which had been done, at the Second Ephesine Synod, were void and null; except only the ordination of Maximus [Bishop] of An∣tioch. And they made a request to the Empe∣rour concerning this matter, that by a Law he would decree, that nothing of those things [which had been done] at Ephesus after the First Synod (over which Cyrillus of Blessed memory, Pre∣late of Alexandria, had presided;) should be valid. And Ibas had his Bishoprick adjudged to him. At another Action, the Cause of Bassi∣anus Bishop of Ephesus was discussed; and 'twas Decreed, b 1.112 that as well he, as Stephanus, should be deposed, and another Substituted in their room. And at another Session, the same thing was put to the Vote and confirmed. In the Thirteenth Action, the Cause between Eunomius [Bishop] of Ni∣comedia, and Anastasius Bishop of Nicaea was in∣quired into, who were at strife amongst themselves concerning their own Cities. Moreover, there was a Fourteenth Action, wherein the Cause of c 1.113 Sabinianus [the Bishop] was examined. And in fine, it was determined, that the Constantino∣politane-See should have * 1.114 precedency immediately after that of Rome.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In the fourth chapter of this book (where we have this same pas∣sage) these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, without the permission of him who governeth the Bishop∣rick of Rome,] occur no••, neither in the Greek Text of Valesius's Edition, nor in that of Robert Stephens's; though Valesius takes notice of them in his version there. At this place they are inserted into both the now mentioned Greek Editions; and therefore we have ren∣dred them here, but (with good reason) have omitted them at the said fourth chapter. This latter answer of the Roman Legates to the Senatours, seems obscure and unintelligible.
• * 1.2

  Or, the things un∣der the Sun.
• † 1.3

  Spoken by way of Irony.
• † 1.4

  Or, found▪
• b 1.5

  In the incompa∣rable Flo∣rentine M. S. this place is read thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to the end that it may hear both us, &c. The reading in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill is the same. Christo∣phorson, and S^r Henry Savill at the margin of his copy, have men∣ded it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. to the end that it may hear our cause, and that of the forementioned Dioscorus. But I had rather write it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Vales. In Robert Ste∣phens the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. where also the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is wanting.
• * 1.6

  Or, had lead the way.
• c 1.7

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to him] doubtless the reading must be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that,] under∣stand [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the divine Letter.] Which emendation is confirmed by the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, pag. 52, and 53. Edit. Bin. where these words occur. Gloriosissimi Judices & Am∣plissimus Senatus dixerunt, &c. The most Glorious Judges and the most noble Senate said: Let the most Blessed Bishop Juvenalis declare, why▪ when the most Reverend Bishop Dioscorus made an Interlocution for the reciting of the Letter of the most holy Romish Arch-Bishop, that Letter was not read. Juvenalis the most Reverend Bishop of Jeru∣salem said: Johannes the Presbyter and Primicerius [chief] of the Notaries said, that he had in his hands the sacred Letters of the most Religious and most pious Emperours, and I answered that the Imperial Letters must be read. Further, the very words which Juvenalis had made use of in that second Ephesine Synod, occur in the abovesaid 52. pag. where the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod are recorded. More∣over, Nicephorus confirms our Emendation, in the last chapter of his 15^th book, where he gives us a summary of the Acts of the Chal∣cedon Councill, mostly transcribed from Evagrius. I have been larger in my remarks upon these things, because Christophorson, in the Rendition of this place, hath wandred far from the truth. By the way, you may observe the fraud committed in that second Ephe∣sine Synod. For, when Hilarius the Deacon, the Legate of the Apo∣stolick See, had openly declared to the Bishops who were present, that he had Pope Leo's Letter, and had required that it might be read in the Councill: Johannes the Presbyter and Primicerius of the No∣taries, arose and said, that he had in his hands other Letters written from the Emperour to Dioscorus. Then Juvenalis commanded, that those Letters of the Emperour should be read, no mention being made of Leo's Letter. You see therefore, that the reading of Leo's Letter was designedly impeded, by the fraud of Dioscorus, who, instead of Leo's Epistle, caused the Emperour Theodosius's Letter to be read in the Synod. Further, the Tellerian M. S. does confirm our E∣mendation; in which copy I found it written as I had conjectu∣red. Vales.
• * 1.8

  That is, of the Let∣ter of Leo Bishop of Rome.
• † 1.9

  Liberty, or, free∣dome.
• ‖ 1.10

  Or, come to a rea∣ding.
• * 1.11

  That is, would not permit Ste∣phanus's Notaries to take the Acts in writing.
• † 1.12

  Or, at∣tested.
• ‖ 1.13

  Or, In∣struments.
• d 1.14

  This place, which E∣vagrius points at here, is ex∣tant in the First Acti∣on of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 58. Vales.
• c 1.15

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he said, from whence therefore?] the reading in the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill is better, (see pag. 58;) in the Impe∣rative-mood, to wit, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, declare therefore, from whence? Vales.
• * 1.16

  In Binius, pag. 58, the reading is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the only begotten Son of God, God the Word.
• f 1.17

  In the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, only Basilius is said to have been questioned by the Judges and Senatours; and what answer he returned to their que∣stion, is added there also. Notwith∣standing, Nicephorus confirms the vulgar reading, which is [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when they were in∣terrogated:] which if we will re∣tain, it must be said, that Basi∣lius and those who were with him, were interrogated by the Judges. Vales.
• g 1.18

  In the Rendition of this place both Transla∣tours have erred. For Musculus renders it thus: Tha∣lassius verò dixit, non habere au∣toritatem ca quae à principibus in hujusmo∣di causis judicantur, But Tha∣lassius said, that those things which are judged [or, determi∣ned] by the Princes in such causes as these, have not authority. Christophorson has followed the same sense also. Likewise Langus, Nicephorus's Translatour, hath fallen into the same mistake. But, from the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, it is easie to confute this Rendition. For Thalassius being questioned by the Judges, makes this answer only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, all power and authority was not in me. For, although Juvenalis and Thalassius were ordered by the Emperour Theodosius to preside at the second Ephesine Synod together with Dioscorus, notwithstanding in real∣lity all the power was in Dioscorus's hands. Further, the Judges con∣demned the Answer of Dioscorus, Juvenalis, and Thalassius in these words, In a matter of ••aith this defence is not to be admitted. Vales.
• h 1.19

  I agree with Christophorson and S^r Henry Savill; who instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was sent for,] mended it thus [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made a complaint.] Which fault I found to have been frequently committed in the Manuscript copies. Vales.
• * 1.20

  Or, ex∣pression.
• i 1.21

  This place must be corrected from the first Action of the Chalcedon Synod, pag. 142. Where, after the Sentence of condemnation pro∣nounc't by Dioscorus against Flavianus and Eusebius, when Flavianus had said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, I refuse you: Hilarius Deacon of the Church of Rome said, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'tis contradicted. Which words are written out from the Acts of the second Ephesine Synod. Vales.
• k 1.22

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. So 'tis also writ∣ten in Ni∣cephorus. But in the Acts of the Chalcedon Synod 'tis written far otherwise, to wit, after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. That is, in this very hour [Dioscours] hath deposed: in this very hour let him be deposed. Which reading I ap∣prove of as being the better. But, as this place of Evagrius is to be corrected from the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, so on the other hand, the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill are to be amended from our Evagrius. For, instead of these words which follow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Holy Lord do Thou revenge him; it must [in the Chalcedon-Acts] be written thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus: Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him, Orthodox Emperour &c. as it is in Evagrius and Nicephorus: and ••o the old Translatour of the Chalcedon-Councill seems to have read: for he renders it thus: Sancte domine, tu illum vindica: Catholice Imperator, Tu illum vindica, Holy Lord, do Thou revenge him: Catholick Emperour, do you revenge him. From which Version we conclude, that these words [Flavianus hath been deposed by Dioscorus] ought necessarily to precede. Otherwise, whither should these words [do Thou revenge him] be referred? Vales.
• l 1.23

  Some body may make a query here, what Patriarch is to be understood at this place. My affirmation is that Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople is meant. Further, two things are remarkable here. The first is, that the orientall Bishops wish many years not to their own Patriarch, but to another. Secondly, that they term the Bi∣shop of Constantinople simple and absolutely, The Patriarch, to wit, giving him this honour on account of the prerogative of his See. For, in the Constantinopolitane Synod, the second place was assigned to the See of Constantinople. Vales.
• m 1.24

  From the Act•• of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 152. (where this Interlocu∣tion of the Judges is recorded;) Instead of Armenia, it must be made An∣cyra. Vales.
• n 1.25

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, fall from,] in the First Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 152, it is truer writ∣ten thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, lie under.] For 'tis referred to what went be∣fore, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the very same punishment; and the same herewith is the reading in the fourth chapter of this book, where this Interlocution of the Judges occurs entire. In the fourth Action of the Chalcedon▪ Synod, pag. 217, the reading indeed is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: but there is a word added in the foregoing [clause,] in this man∣ner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, subjected to the same punishment. If we should retain the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then these words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being estranged from] which follow, would be superfluous. Indeed, these two last mentioned words are wanting in the Tellerian and Florentine M. SS. and in Nicephorus. Vales.
• * 1.26

  Or, set forth.
• o 1.27

  In the excellent Florent. M. S. these words [at Constanti∣nople] are wanting; nor do they occur in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, as may be seen at pag. 152; Edit. Bin▪ Vales.
• p 1.28

  In the third Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, only the Bi∣shops met, nor were there any of the Secular Judges, or Sena∣tors, present in the Councill. For, in that Session the Faith was to be treated of: which that they should declare and set forth▪ the Bishops had before been in∣vited by the most glorious Judges. But the Bishops for a long while refused to do that, saying that the Draught of the Nicene Creed was sufficient, which had been confirmed by the Constantinopo∣litane, and first Ephesine Synod. Nevertheless, at length they had yielded to the Judges request, and promised they would do it. Fur∣ther, where the Faith is trea∣ted of the Secular Judges have nothing to do. In the Third Action therefore, wherein the Faith was to be treated of, no Secular Judges were present. It is further to be remarked, that at this place Eva∣grius hath omitted the transacti∣ons of the Second Action. Eva∣grius therefore seems to have taken the Third Action for the Second. Which is confirmed by the Acts of this very Synod, pag. 177; where that seems to be the Second Meeting, or Action, which now is the Third. Vales.
• q 1.29

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Langus and Christo∣phorson have ren∣dred it Boethus, as if that were a proper name. But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the name of an Office. For the Princeps officii magistri offi∣ciorum was so termed, who was of the Schole [or, Body] of The A∣gente•• in Rebus; as we are informed from the Notitia Imperii Romani. Farther, this Assistant of the Master of the Offices, was by his proper name called Eleusinius, as 'tis recorded in the Third Action of the Chal∣cedon Synod. Vales.
• r 1.30

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Acts of the Chalcedon Councill, instead of these words, 'tis written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which the old Translatour hath rendred thus: Et c••rta locuti sunt, quae in exceptis habeo, And they have spoken some words, which I have in my Excepta [that is, in my account taken thereof in writing.] 'Tis certain, Himerius was a Notary and a Reader, sent by the Councill (together with the Bi∣shops) to Dioscorus, that he might take those things in writing, which should be said on both sides; for that was the Office of No∣taries. The Bishops, as often as they went to a Synod, were wont to carry each, his Notary along with them, who were to take the matters transacted in the Synod in writing: to the end that, after the ending of the Synod, each Bishop might carry a copy of the Acts into his own Country. Further, I approve highly of the old Translatour's rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 excepta. Whence I am of opinion, that Origen's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ought in Latine to be termed Excepta. I know indeed, that Origen's 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are by Rufinus and Jerome commonly termed Excerpta, Excerptions; but my Sentiment is, that 'tis corruptly written, in regard they ought rather to be termed Ex∣cepta. Vales.
• * 1.31

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Valesius renders it thus; Canonicum constitutum esse judi∣cium, that a Canonicall Judica∣tory was constituted.
• s 1.32

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, He answered: in Robert Stephens's Edition, the reading is, Eustathius answered: In Valesius's Versi••n 'tis, respon∣dit Pergamius, Pergamius an∣swered.
• * 1.33

  Or, had judged.
• † 1.34

  Or, busi∣ness.
• ‖ 1.35

  Or, con∣cerning the same mat∣ter.
• * 1.36

  Or, made use of out∣cries.
• t 1.37

  I am of the same opinion with Learned men, who instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] had mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lent exaction; by conjecture, as I think. For our Copies have no alteration here. Yet the Telle∣rian Manuscript (which I pro∣cured opportunely, whilest our Edition was in the press,) has it plainly written, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales.
• u 1.38

  Nice∣phorus has inserted some words here, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, And he asked the Bishops. Vales.
• * 1.39

  Or, made himself obnoxious to.
• † 1.40

  Or, pronounced Sentence.
• * 1.41

  Diosco∣rus's.
• † 1.42

  Diosco∣rus.
• vv 1.43

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The same is the rea∣ding also in Nice∣phorus. But, in the Chalcedon▪ Acts, and in the fourth chapter of this book, (where this sentence of condemnation occurs,) it is more truly written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it was our design. But, by transposing the preposi∣tions, I had rather write it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. we had considered in relation to, &c. which writing is far more ele∣gant. Vales.
• * 1.44

  Or, se∣cond.
• * 1.45

  These▪ Legates of the Romish-See (I sup∣pose) point at that ex∣pression u∣sed by our Saviour to Peter, re∣corded Matth. 16. 18. As a Comment on which Text take these words of Saint Cyprian, in his book de Unitate Ecclesiae, termed also Tractatus de Simplicitate Prelatorum, pag. 113. Edit. Bafil. 1558. Loquitur dominus ad Petrum, Ego tibi dico, inquit, quia tu es Petrus, & Super istam Petram aedifica∣bo Ecclesiam meam, &c. The Lord speaketh to Peter, I say unto thee, says he, that Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, &c.—And after his Resurrection he says to the same per∣son, Feed my sheep. And although he gives an equall power to all the Apostles after his Resurrection, and says, As the Father hath sent me, so also I send you, &c.—Yet that he might manifest the Unity, by his own authority he hath disposed the originall of the same Unity as beginning from One. For the rest of the Apostles were the same also, that Peter was, endowed with an equall fellowship, both of honour and power; but the originall proceeds from Unity, that the Church may be shown to be one.
• * 1.46

  Or, e∣stranged.
• * 1.47

  Or, removed.
• y 1.48

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] is variously rendred by Translatours. For Langus renders it Consuetudinem, Custome. Musculus and Chri∣stophorson have translated it thus; & ab omni Ecclesiastico Jure esse abalienatum, and are alienated from all Ecclesiastick Right. The Old Translatour of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 214, renders it Functionem, Function; which, in my judgment, is the truer Version. In the Li∣bell of Deposition of the same Dioscorus, which the Chalcedon-Synod sent, almost in the very same words, to the Clergy men of the Alex∣andrian Church who were then at Chalcedon, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Degree. In the sentence of condemnation pronounced a∣gainst the same Dioscorus by the Legates of the Romish See, instead of this word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Office, is made use of. Now, these words are therefore added by the Synod, that they might shew, that Dioscorus was reduced to a Laïck-communion. For he is not only said to be divested of the Episcopall dignity, but is also removed from every Ecclesiastick Office: least any one should think him to be removed from the Episcopall Act: [or, acting as a Bishop,] and thrust down into the degree of the Presbyterate. For to do that, is sacriledge, as 'tis said in the fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 247. Vales.
• z 1.49

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It should (as it seems,) be written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Clergy of the most Holy, &c. For Dioscorus's Libell of Deposition was sent to the Clergy-men of the Alexandrian Church, who were then at Chal∣cedon, as may be seen in the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 214. Due order did require indeed, that Dioscorus's Deposition should be declared by the Synod to the Bishops of Egypt also. But the Bishops of the Chalcedon-Councill were to perform that afterwards, in their Synodick Letter. At that time they had done sufficient, in declaring Dioscorus's Deposition to the Alexandrian Ecclesiasticks who were then at Chalcedon, to wit, to El••••mosynus the Presbyter and Oeconomus [or, Steward,] and to Euthalius Arch-Deacon, and to the rest of the Clergy. 'Tis certain, Evagrius's words do sufficiently declare, that there is no mention here concerning the Bishops of Egypt. For he calls them Bishops of the Alexandrian Church: which appellation agrees not with the Bishops of Egypt. Vales.
• a 1.50

  In Nicephorus 'tis 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But in the Acts of the Chalce∣don-Councill, the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Tellerian M. S. I found it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vales. And so 'tis in Robert Stephens's Edition.
• * 1.51

  Or, con∣vention.
• † 1.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the true Reli∣gion.
• b 1.53

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Doubtless the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be expun∣ged; in regard 'tis altogether su∣perfluous at this place. Further, the place here meant by Eva∣grius, is extant in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 159, Edit. Bin. But 'tis to be remarked, of which I have given an Advertisement before, that the Copies of the Chalcedon-Synod which Evagrius made use of, were different from those we now have. For that which is to us the Third Action, to Eva∣grius is the Second, as we have seen already. But, that which in our copies is inscribed the Second Action, is the Third to E∣vagrius; as it will be made ma∣nifest from this place, and those following. Vales.
• * 1.54

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a Pr••lude, or, Cessation.
• * 1.55

  c The place which Evagrius means here, occurs in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 159. Also, the words of Cecro∣pius Bishop of Sebastopolis occur in the same page. Vales.
• d 1.56

  This place is al∣so extant in the Se∣cond Action of the Chal∣cedon-Sy∣nod, pag. 160. Vales.
• * 1.57

  Or, prate against.
• † 1.58

  Or, that he hath been begotten the only be∣gotten Son of God, &c.
• e 1.59

  For the divine and humane Nature being joyned together, have constituted to us one Christ and Lord. And so that is true which Cyrillus says, viz. that two Natures diverse amongst them∣selves, have come together into a true unity: which, neverthe∣less, Christophorson understood not. Not that of two Natures one is made, in such manner as Euty∣ches asserted: But, that of two Natures one Christ hath existed. And thus Cyrillus has explained his own opinion a little after these words; whereas he saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by an inef∣fable mysticall and secret concourse to an unity. From hence it ap∣pears, that Johannes Langus, o∣therwise the Learned Translatour of Nicephorus, hath mistook here, who has rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (not unity, but) union. Vales.
• * 1.60

  Or, that by the divinity and humanity they [the Natures] have perfected, &c.
• * 1.61

  Or, came.
• † 1.62

  Or, made one.
• * 1.63

  Or, piercings.
• † 1.64

  Chap. 6.
• ‖ 1.65

  Or, with∣all suf∣frages.
• * 1.66

  Or, part∣ly.
• † 1.67

  Or, part∣ly.
• f 1.68

  In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 161▪ in∣stead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are] it is writ∣ten [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, contain.] Vales.
• g 1.69

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, We that are Orthodox do be∣lieve thus. In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, p. 169, it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The Orthodox do believe thus; which reading I like bet∣ter, although Nicephorus confirms the common reading. Vales.
• * 1.70

  Or, lay∣ing down.
• * 1.71

  See Heb. 2. 9.
• h 1.72

  I agree with Learned men, who (instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by all) have mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, or, instead of every man; so the reading is in Nice∣phorus, and in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, pag. 170. Vales.
• * 1.73

  The bo∣dy.
• † 1.74

  Or, body.
• ‖ 1.75

  Or, Head.
• i 1.76

  In the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, this place of Cyrillus is written otherwise, thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, For he continued what he was: but 'tis altogether to be understood, that the one dwells in the other, that is the divine Na∣ture in the humane. Vales.
• * 1.77

  Or, with men.
• * 1.78

  Or, an Intervall.
• k 1.79

  There is an ambi∣guity in these words. For they may as well be referred to Cyrillus's twelve heads, of which he speaks just before, as to the requests of Atticus Bishop of Nicopolis; to which all the rest of the Bishops agreed, as we are informed in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, about the end of it. Johannes Langus has followed the former sense. But the latter explication pleases me best. Vales.
• l 1.80

  I as∣sent to the Learned, who (instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 about Anatolius,) before us had mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with Anatolius. In Nicephorus the preposition is wanting, which nevertheless seems to me altoge∣ther necessary. Vales.
• m 1.81

  In the excellent Florentine M. S. the reading is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for, or, concer∣ning the Fathers; which is better than 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. from the, &c. And the same with that first mentioned, is the reading in the Second Action of the Chalcedon-Councill. Further, who these Fathers should be, for whom the Bishops entreat, that they may be restored to the Synod, 'tis not difficult to guess. For they are these, Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Eusebius, Eustathius, and Basilius; who had been deposed in the First Action together with Dioscorus, by an Interlocution of the Judges and Senatours. On account therefore of this deposition which the Bishops had ap∣proved of by their suffrages, these five Bishops, were present neither at the Second nor Third Action, as 'tis apparent from the Catalogue of the Bishops which is prefixt before those Actions. Besides, in the Third Action, when the Legates of the Apostolick See had pronounced a sentence of deposition against Dioscorus, the rest of the Bishops con∣firmed it by their own subscriptions: excepting these five, as Evagrius has truly observed above. In the Common Editions of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 212, the names even of these five Bishops occur written also: but, out of order, and after all the other Bishops. Whence it appears, that they had not subscribed at such time as the sentence was pronounc't, but a long while after, when they had been restored, and had recovered their former dignity. Moreover, it may be ma∣nifestly concluded from what is said above, that that is most true which I have already remark't, viz. that the Second Action of the Chalcedon Synod is by Evagrius taken for The Third, and The Third for The Se∣cond. But, which Copies are worthiest to be believed, whether those which Evagrius made use of, or them which we have now extant, 'tis not easie to pronounce. To me, the Copies made use of by Eva∣grius seem more certain. First, on account of their Antiquity; for doubtless they were older than those we now use. Secondly, by rea∣son of their legitimate and true order of matters transacted. For, after an accurate Examination of Dioscorus's Cause, and after the In∣terlocution of the Judges, who had pronounced him to have offended against the Canons, and that he was to be deposed; all which was done in the First Action: it remained, that Dioscorus by a Canonicall Judgment of the Bishops should be condemned. Wherefore, that Action, wherein Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops by a Synodick Sentence, ought immediately to follow The First Action. Therefore Evagrius and Nicephorus have rightly placed it in the second place. A third reason is drawn from the Third Action it self, pag. 177. where Dioscorus is said to have answered the Legates sent to him from the Holy Synod, in this manner: Quoniam ante haec in congregatione, &c. In regard before this the most magnificent Judges sitting in the Con∣vention, have determined some things, after a large Interlocution of every one of them, but now a second meeting calls me out, in order to the nulling of what has been said before. Nevertheless, that is in the way, which occurs at the close of the Second Action, viz that the Bishops of Illyricum cried out thus, Dioscorus to the Synod, Dioscorus to the Chur∣ches. Which doubtless they would not have dared to say after Dio∣scorus's deposition to which themselves had subscribed. Therefore, the Second Action, where this Acclamation occurs, ought necessarily to precede The Third Action; in which Dioscorus was Canonically de∣posed. And this I think to be truer. Vales.
• n 1.82

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the due De∣crees;] it must undoubtedly be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Decrees which had been given forth; which is the reading in Nicephorus. And this rea∣ding is confirmed by the fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 218, &c. Vales.
• * 1.83

  Or, Pa∣per.
• * 1.84

  Or, made strangers to.
• † 1.85

  Or, to the Divine heighth.
• o 1.86

  Christophorson read it in the plurall number 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they subscribed; and so the rea∣ding is in Nicephorus: which is confirmed by the Acts of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 218, &c. Vales.
• * 1.87

  Or, of the Emperour.
• † 1.88

  Or, of Augusta; that is, Pulcheria; see chap. 1.
• p 1.89

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ concerning all those other things,] the reading in the Flo∣rentine and Tellerian M. SS. is truer, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, concerning those [other] five per∣sons; in the Fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 232▪ the reading is the same with this last mentioned; as likewise that in Nicephorus. Vales.
• * 1.90

  That is, Christ.
• † 1.91

  Or, per∣son.
• ‖ 1.92

  Or, no∣mination.
• * 1.93

  Or, delay.
• † 1.94

  Or, in certain pa∣pers.
• q 1.95

  There is extant a Supplica∣tory Libell, presented to the Em∣perour Marcianus by the Monks, in the Fourth Action of the Chalcedon-Synod, pag. 237. In this Libell the Monks request of the Emperour, that an Oecumenicall Synod might be convened, (which the Emperour had before given order to be as∣sembled;) which might consult the safety of all persons, and that the Monks might not be compel∣led by violence to subscribe. Those Monks, belike, did not be∣lieve that Synod to be Oecumeni∣call, at which Dioscorus and the other Bishops of Egypt were not present. They requested there∣fore, that Dioscorus might be wholly restored, as may be seen in another Libell which is reci∣ted afterwards. Vales.
• * 1.96

  Or, he ought to partake of the Synod.
• * 1.97

  Or, brought an Excommuni∣cation upon Leo.
• r 1.98

  As to my self it seemeth, I have restored this place very hap∣pily. For, of these three words [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, from this instant] I have made one, in this man∣ner, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. the Judges desired, &c. But Nicepho∣rus, perceiving this place to be cor∣rupted, by adding a word made it good in this manner; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. From this instant the Judges or∣dered, &c. Which emendation is contradicted by the Authority of the Acts, and contrary to E∣vagrius's mind. For the S••cu∣lar Judges, who by the Empe∣rour's order were present at the Synod, never Commanded that Leo's Letter should be in∣serted into the definition of the Faith; but only desired that of the Bishops: which nevertheless was denied them by the Bishops, as 'tis apparent from the Fifth Action, pag. 250. Vales.
• s 1.99

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a∣greeable to] must be under∣stood. For the Bishops did not make an∣swer that they be∣lieved Leo, according as Christophorson renders it; but, that they believed with Leo [or, as Leo did believe,] as Langus and Musculus have rightly rendred it. For thus they had acclaimed, as Leo does, so we believe; as it occurs in the fifth Action. Vales.
• t 1.100

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Nicephorus has mended it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ according to Leo. But, I doubt not but Evagrius wrote 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to Leo's opinion. For so the Judges speak in the Fifth Action of this Councill, pag. 250. Further, before the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the verb [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there ought] seems necessary to be added. Vales.
• u 1.101

  In the Fifth Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, 'tis written adver∣bially, thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, inconvertibly, and indivisibly, and inconfusealy. Vales.
• vv 1.102

  Before these▪ some words seem to be wanting in the Greek-Text, which from, the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill may be supplied after this manner: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Bishops intreated them to go into the Oratory [of the Holy Euphemia's Church.] Further▪ the mistake of Langus and Christophor∣son is to be taken notice of here; who have rendred 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church of the Holy Martyr Euphemia. The Synod of Chalcedon was in∣deed assembled in the Temple, or Church of Saint Euphemia. But, the Treaty, or Conference, concerning the Faith was held in the Oratory of the said Church, according as the Emperour had given order in the Allocution which is recited in the Councill, pag. 250. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to meet in the Oratory [or Quire] of the most Holy Church. For 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Martyrium] is taken for the Church, as it appears from the Third Action of the Chal∣cedon-Synod, where the Bishops are said to have met in the Martyrium of the most Holy and Victorious Martyr Euphemia, And in the other Actions of that Councill, the same Bishops are said to have come to∣gether into the most holy church of the same Martyr. In regard therefore 'tis manifest, that the Oratory (wherein some few of the Bishops met only, to treat concerning the Faith, together with Ana∣tolius and the Deputies of the Romish See,) was part of Saint Euphe∣mia's Church, it remains to be inquired, what part of the Church that was. Saint Euphemia's Church consisted of three spacious Edifices; the first whereof was an Atrium, or, Court. The second, the Basilico, [or, the Church it self;] the third, the Altar built in form of a Cuppolo, as Evagrius tells us in the third chapter of this book. The Oratory therefore is the same with the Altar, which now a days we term the Choire, or, Quire. Nor has our Evagrius done right, in making use of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie the Oratory; for the Emperour had not ordered the Bishops to meet in the Martyrium, but in the Oratory of the Martyr, as we have now said. Vales.
• * 1.103

  See chap. 4.
• † 1.104

  Or, to the Divine heighth.
• ‖ 1.105

  Or, by the Empe∣rour's or∣der.
• * 1.106

  Ordained, or, Consti∣tuted.
• x 1.107

  Not a Metropoli∣ticall Right or Priviledge, but the name of a Metropolis only, was given to the City of Chalcedon: for these are the words of the Emperour Marcianus's Law; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; that is, We have Decreed, that the City of the Chalcedonensians, wherein the Synod of the most Holy Faith was con∣vened, should have the priviledges of a Metropolis, honouring it with the name only, to wit, its proper dignity being preserved to the Metropolis of the Nicomedians. But although the Emperour in these words seems to adorn only the City it self of the Chalcedonensians, with the Title of a Metropolis, yet that priviledge belongs even to the Church of the Chalcedonensians also. From that time therefore the Bishop of Chalcedon had the honour of a Metropolitane: but, had no Metropoliti∣call Right or Priviledge, because the Emperour by this Law would have nothing diminished from the dignity of the Bishop of Nicomedia. The Bishops of this very Councill have determined [or judged] the same thing in the Cause of the Bishops of Nicomedia and Nicaea. For, whereas Nicaea by the Emperour's Rescript had obtained the honour of a Metropolis, the Judges and Bishops who were in the Councill made answer, that this honour had been given only to the City by the Emperours; nor could the Bishop of Nicaea by this Law arrogate to himself a Metropoliticall Right or Priviledge; but was only preferred before the other Bishops of the Province Bythinia: so that, he was accounted in the second place after the Metropolitane, as may be seen in the Thirteenth Action. Further, what the Metropoli∣ticall Rights and Priviledges were, we are informed from the Canons of the Nicene Councill; to wit, that the Ordinations of Provinciall Bi∣shops should not be made without the Metropolitan's consent: and that the Metropolitane Bishop should have a power of calling out the Provin∣ciall Bishops to a Councill of his own. Moreover, in the Florentine Manuscript I found it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, although in the Chalcedon-Councill it is always written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Regularly it should be written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But the Ancients seem to have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as 'tis apparent from many places in the Chalcedon-Councill. Vales.
• * 1.108

  Or, what was fitting should be done.
• y 1.109

  In Nicephorus, instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, other things,] it is righter thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the accent in the last syllable save one; understand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Session, or Conven∣tion. I wonder, that neither Musculus nor Christophorson per∣ceived this. Vales.
• z 1.110

  Yes, in the Ninth Action, the Cause of Theodoret the Bishop was judged, as Our Copies show us. But the Copies of the Chal∣cedon Synod, which Evagrius made use of, seem to have been different from ours. For, as we have seen a little before, Eva∣grius reckons a Seventh Action, wherein other Canons were pro∣mulged. Which Action is at this day wanting in our Copies. Vales.
• a 1.111

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In the Tenth Action of the Chalcedon-Councill, and in Nicephorus, the Praepo∣sition is wanting. But in the Florentine Manuscript, I found it written 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which is the same as if he should have said 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, among, or, of the number of the Bishops▪ Vales. The reading in Robert Stephens is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b 1.112

  The Bi∣shops De∣creed, that as well Bas∣sianus, as Stephanus, should be removed from the Bishoprick of Ephesus, and that in their place another Bishop should be made; as may be seen in the Eleventh and Twelfth Action. This place of E∣vagrius therefore is to be made good thus: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that as well he as Stephanus should be ejected, or, deposed, and another Substituted in their room. Vales.
• c 1.113

  Instead of Basianus, it must be made Sabinianus, from the Acts of the Chalcedon-Councill. Of this Sabinianus Bishop of the Perrenses (which is a City in the Euphratensian Province) Liberatus makes mention, in the twelfth Chapter of his Breviarium. Also, there is an Epistle of Theodoret's extant, written to this Sabinianus, which is reckoned the 126^th amongst his Epistles. Vales.
• * 1.114

  Or, should be placed.