A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

The History of the COUNCILS. Held from the Year 430, to the End of the Fifth Age.

Of the I. Council of Ephesus.

And of the other Assemblies of Bishops touching the Affair * 1.1 of Nestorius, which were precedent to, or followed after this Council.

ABout the end of the Year 428, Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople, having permitted his * 1.2 Priest Anastasius, and Dorothaeus a Bishop to Preach arrogantly, That the Virgin Mary ought not to be called the Mother of God, and having himself maintained the same Opinion in several of his Sermons, brought a great deal of trouble into his Church. The People being much offended at this Doctrine rose against their Bishop; Eusebius afterward Bishop of Dorylaeum, and some others of the Clergy published a Protestation against him, wherein they declared him an Heretick, and accused him of reviving the Error of Paulus Samosatenus; the Priests also taught the Contrary Doctrine. Proclus Bishop of Cyzicum Preach'd against Nesto∣rius's Opinions, but without naming him. Lastly, The Clergy, the Monks, and People combined against Nestorius; but on the other-side Nestorius and his party stoutly maintained what they had asserted, and still preach'd the same Doctrine; and being upheld by the Authority of the Prince, they cruelly handled those that opposed their Designs.

This Dispute soon spread it self into Aegypt, whither Nestorius's Party had sent a Collection of his Sermons. The Monks of Aegypt were the first that moved these subtile questions, and debated them among themselves. St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, who was of the Contrary Judgment, percei∣ving * 1.3 that several of them defended the Party of Nestorius, wrote a large Letter to these Monks, in which having admonished them, that it were much better not to meddle with such abstracted Questions, which cannot be of any advantage; he declares himself against the Doctrine of Nesto∣rius without naming him, proving by several Reasons, that the Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God. This Letter being seen at Constantinople anger'd Nestorius, who order'd a certain Person named Photius to answer it, and gave out a Report that St. Cyril governed his Church badly, that he affected a Tyrannical Power, stirred up Sedition against the Emperor's Officers, and was a Maintainer of the Manichees.

Nestorius's Letters were carried to Rome. St. Caelestine, and the Bishops of Italy wrote to Saint Cyril, to know whether they were Nestorius's or not. Nestorius seeing, that St. Cyril declared himself openly against him, complained much of his Carriage, and resolved to have no Com∣merce * 1.4 with him for the future. St. Cyril to pacify him, wrote a Letter to him, wherein he tells that he was grieved to hear, that he was angry with him for the Letter, which he wrote to the Monks of Aegypt; but he ought to consider, that it was not that Letter, that had raised such di∣sturbances in the Church, but the Papers which went about under his Name, that had caused so great a Scandal; that some Persons would not call Jesus Christ God, but the Organ and Instru∣ment of the Divinity; that it was this that obliged him to write; That he had been sent to from Rome, to know, who was the Author of those Writings; that all the West was in an Uproar a∣bout them; that he might appease the disturbances by explaining himself, and retracting what was attributed to him; that he ought not to refuse to give the Virgin Mary the title of the Mo∣ther of God, because by this means he would restore the Churches Peace.

This Letter was carried to Nestorius by one of S. Cyril's Priests, who was very urgent with him for an answer to it. He gave him one, but without an Explication of his Doctrine, and telling * 1.5 St. Cyril, that though he had acted contrary to the Rules of Brotherly Charity, yet he would for∣get it, and did by this Letter give him the tokens of Union and Peace.

Saint Cyril having informed Nestorius, that his Writings were carried as far as Rome, and that they met with an unwelcome reception there, Nestorius thought it his Duty to write to St. Cae∣lestine about it. And to do it the more handsomely, he took an Occasion to write to him about four Pelagian Bishops, Julian, Florus, Orontius, and Fabius, who had fled to Constantinople, and had pre∣sented their Petitions to the Emperor, in which they complained of the ill usage they had recei∣ved in the West. He assures the Pope, that he had answered them according to his Office and * 1.6 Duty, although he was not informed of their Case; but that he ought to make it clear, that they may have no cause to importunt the Emperor. and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him up 〈◊〉〈◊〉 have compassion on them; for if it be true, that they were Condemned f•••• endeavouring to ma•…•… a new Sect, they deserved no manner of Pity. He adds, that having found at Constantinople some Persons who corrupted the Orthodox Faith, he laboured to recover them by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 means, although their Heresie came very near Arius and Apollinar•…•…s, for they confounded and mixed the two Natures in Jesus Christ, making the Divine Nature to be born of Mary, and the Flesh of Jesus Christ to be changed into his Godhead; that upon this ground they gave the Virgin the Mother of Christ, the Title of the Mother of God; that this term, although it be improper, might be endured upon the account of the Union of the Word with the Manhood, if it be not understood of the Divine Nature, and if we do not suppose, that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Word of God, which is intolle∣rable. He sent this Letter with the Copies of his Sermons by Antiochus.

Saint Cyril not being satisfied with Nestorius's answer, wrote another Letter to him, wherein he delivers to him his own and the Churches Doctrine. And to gain the greater Credit to his * 1.7 Explication, he grounded it upon the Creed made by the Nicene Council, where it is said, That the only Son of God begotten of his Father from all Eternity, came down from Heaven, was made Man, suffered, rose again from the Dead, and is ascended into Heaven. He says that we ought to be con∣tented with this Decision, and believe, that the Word of God was Incarnate, and was made Man; That he saith not, that the Nature of the Word was changed into Flesh, nor the Flesh into the Nature of the Word, but that the Word was United by an Hypostatick Union to the Manhood; insomuch, that the same Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and Son of Man, yet without any confusion of the Natures; That it may not be said, that the Virgin hath brought forth a Man into the World, into whom the Godhead is since descended; but that from the instant of his Conception the Godhead was United to the Manhood; insomuch, that it may be said, that God is born according to the Flesh, and in the same sense that he hath suffered, and is dead, not as though the Word hath suffered in him, but because the Body, which he assumed, hath suffered, and was laid in the Sepulchre. In fine, that it is in this sense that we say, that the Virgin is the Mother of God, because she brought into the World the Body of Jesus Christ, to which the Godhead is Hypostatically United. Saint Cyril having thus explain'd himself, ex∣horts Nestorius to embrace these Sentiments, that he may preserve the Peace of the Church, and an uninterrupted Union among the Bishops.

This Letter raised the Dispute. Nestorius was highly offended, and in his answer to it accu∣ses * 1.8 St. Cyril of putting a false interpretation upon the words of the Council of Nice, and broach∣ing several Errors. He says, that he Explains the Council of Nice ill, because this Council doth not say, that the Word was born, suffered or is Dead, but it says this of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, words which equally agree to the Humanity and Divinity. He commends St. Cyril for acknowledging the distinction of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; but he accuses him of destroying this truth consequentially, and making the Godhead passible and mortal. He owns the Union of the two Natures, but he holds, that upon the account of that Union we may not attribute to either of them the Qualities that belong to the other only; and he affirms, that as often as the Scripture speaks of the Death and Passion of Jesus Christ, it appropriates them to the Humane, and never to the Divine Nature. Lastly, He tells him, that he hath been sur∣prized by the Clergy, infected with the Heresie of the Manichees, who were at Constantinople, and had been deposed in a Synod for it.

Upon this occasion it was, that the Adherents of Nestorius published the Book, which Photius wrote against St. Cyril's Letters to the Monks, with another Piece bearing this Title, Against those, who upon the Account of the Union debase the Godhead of the Son by Deifying the Manhood. These Writings were sent to St. Cyril by Buphas Martyrius a Deacon of Alexandria, and Saint Cy∣ril's Agent at Constantinople.

Nevertheless Anastasius the Priest pretended not to disapprove wholly of St. Cyril's Letter to the Monks, and alledged this Reason, that he confessed in that Letter that no Council had mentioned * 1.9 the term of the Mother of God. Saint Cyril being afraid that those of his Party who were at Con∣stantinople, should be ensnared by this Artifice, wrote a large Letter upon that subject, wherein he labours to prove that Nestorius and his party divided Jesus Christ into two Persons. He ad∣vises them to give this reply to those that accuse them of troubling the Church, and not submit∣ting to their Bishop. That 'tis their Bishop that is the cause of this trouble and scandal, because he teaches strange Doctrine. In the next place he complains of his behaviour towards him, and of the Calumnies they made use of to defame him. He says, that he is ready to defend himself before any Judicature, but yet he was not against Peace, provided the Orthodox Faith be se∣cured. Lastly, He tells them that he had sent them again the Petition, which they had sent to him, but he had changed and mollified the terms, lest Nestorius should say that he had accused

him before the Emperor; That in that which he had framed, he had rejected Nestorius, as being his Enemy; He desires them to present this Petition if need be, and says, that it Nestorius goes on still to persecute him, he will send some Wise and Prudent Persons to de••end his own and the Churches cause, being resolved to suffer the utmost rather than abandon it. He wrote also at the same time two Letters to justifie himself, that he had engaged in this affair against Nestorius, because he thought himself obliged to do it for the defence of the Faith. He says, that 'twas not * 1.10 he, but Nestorius that was the Cause of the trouble, and that 'twas not he, but Nestorius that had hindred, that Peace was not again restored to the Church.

Nestorius not receiving an Answer from Pope Caelestine, wrote another Letter to him, in which he earnestly desires him to give him an answer about the Case of those Bishops, of whom he wrote to him. He speaks also of those pretended Hereticks, who confounded the two Natures in Je∣sus Christ, and attributed to the Manhood that which agrees only to the Divine Nature, and to the Godhead that which belongs to the humane Nature only. This Letter was carried to Rome by Count Valerius.

Caelestine had not returned an Answer to Nestorius's first Letter, because he thought it necessary to Translate and Examine the Sermons, which he sent him. It is probable, that this task was imposed upon Cassian, and indeed, the Books of this Author against Nestorius were made about this time and are written as we have observed, against one of Nestorius's first Sermons. Saint Cyril suspecting that Nestorius might have written to Rome, sent Possidonius thither with a Letter, * 1.11 in which he relates all that had passed to that time in the business of Nestorius. About the end of the Letter, he tells S. Caelestine, that he did wait for his Judgment to determine, whether he should receive Nestorius to Communion, which for that reason he had neither hitherto granted him, nor absolutely refused. Lastly, He exhorts him to let them know his Opinion in the East, that all the Churches might be United, and joyn together in one and the same Doctrine.

With this Letter he sent some Papers, which contain'd the principal heads of Nestorius's Do∣ctrine. Besides this he gave Possidonius a Paper of Instructions, which is published by M. Balu∣gius, in which he lays down Nestorius' Doctrine after this manner. The Doctrine, or rather the * 1.12 Heresie of Nestorius is, to believe, That the Word of God foreseeing, that the Person, who was to be Born of Mary, should be Holy and Great, did therefore make choice of him to make him to be born of a Virgin, and bestowed such Graces upon him, as that he was rightly called the Son of God, Our Lord, and Christ; that he made him Dye for us, and then raised him from the Dead; that this word was Incarnate, because he always was with the Man, as he also had been with the Prophets, but in a more special manner. That Nestorius confessed, that he was with him in the Womb of the Virgin, but he will not acknowledge that he was a God by Nature, but he was called so upon the account of the extraordinary favour which God had always shewed him, and that it was the Man that died and rose again. After this manner S. Cyril delivers Nosto∣rius's Doctrine; which being done, he thus explains his own. We believe and confess, that the Word of God is Immortal, yea Life it self; but he became Flesh, and being united with a Body, * 1.13 animated with a Rational Soul, suffered in the Flesh, as the Scripture says, and because his Body suffered, we say, that he hath suffered, although he be of a Nature * 1.14 incapable of suffer∣ings; and because his Body is risen, we say, He is risen. But Nestorius is not of that Judgment, for he says, that it is the Man, who is raised, and that it is the body of the Man, which is of∣fered to Us in the Holy Sacrament. We believe on the Contrary, that it is the Flesh and Blood of the Word, that giveth life to all things. He says afterward, that Nestorius had suborned Cae∣lestius to accuse Philip of being a Manichee, but Caelestius not daring to appear, Nestorius had found out another pretence, and Deposed Philip for having Celebrated the Sacrament in his House, al∣though all the Clergy of Constantinople said, that it was a thing ordinarily done, as often as oc∣casion required.

Possidonius departed to go to Rome with these Instructions, but had order not to deliver Saint Cyril's Letter to the Pope, unless he understood, that Nestorius's Letter was come to his Hands.

Before Passidonius was arrived at Rome S. Cyril wrote to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that his Friend * 1.15 Nestorius had given Scandal to all the Church, by suffering Dorotheus to deny, that the Virgin was the Mother of God, and maintaining that Doctrine. And that because he would not abet that error, Nestorius had declared himself against him, and filled the World with Calumnies a∣gainst his Reputation. He tells Acacius, that he was sorry that such a subtle and difficult Que∣stion had e'er been started and Preached to the People, for which Moral Discourses and Instru∣ctions were much more suitable. Acacius answered, that he approved of this Judgment of Saint Cyril, and that he was as throughly persuaded as himself, that such things ought not to be dispu∣ted; but he advised him not to reprove, with so much passion, a word, which Dorotheus had * 1.16 spoken unawares and inconsiderately, for fear of embroyling the Church, and desires him to ap∣pease this Quarrel by his Silence, intimating to him, that it was the Opinion also of John Bi∣shop of Antioch.

Possidonius being arrived at Rome, Pope Caelestine who had received Instructions from both sides, * 1.17 had assembled a Council in August, Anno. 430, in which after they had read, and examined Nestorius's Writings, his Letters, and S. Cyril's; they disapproved Nestorius's, and approved Saint Cyril's Doctrine. We have a fragment of the Acts of this Council, related in Arnobius's con••e∣••erence with Serapion, which contains some part of St. Caelestine's Judgment, where some Passa∣ges

of St. Ambrose, St. Hilary and D•…•…sus are cited to prove, that it may be said, that the Son of God was born of a Virgin, that God was made Man; and that there is but one Son of God. They did not think it ••••t in this Council to condemn Nestorius presently; They order'd, that it should be signified to him, that if within ten days after Notice of this Sentence he did not condemn the New Doctrine, which he had introduced, and did not approve the Doctrine of the Churches of Rome and Alexandria, yea, of the Universal Church, he should be Deposed and Deprived of the Communion of the Church; and they also declared, that all the Clergy and Laity, who had separated from Nestorius, since he taught this Doctrine, were not Excommunicate.

In order to the Execution of the Decree of this Synod, Pope Caelestine wrote to S. Cyril, and by his Letter gave him Commission to Execute in his stead, as having his Authority, and being his place, the Sentence given against Nestorius. He wrote also a Letter to Nestorius, in which he opposes his Doctrine; tells him, that the Bishops of whom he spake in his Letter, are Pelagians, * 1.18 who were condemned because they would not acknowledge Original Sin, and gives him Notice of the Judgment given against him, declaring to him at the same time that he had commissioned S. Cyril to execute it in his Name. He also certified the Clergy of Constantinople of it, as also the Bishops of the Chief Sees, as John Bishop of Antioch, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, and Flavian Bishop or Philipopolis, to whom he sent a Circular Letter. These Let∣ters * 1.19 are all dated Aug. 17. Anno. 430. * 1.20

Saint Cyril before he would do any thing against Nestorius wrote a Letter to John Bishop of An∣tioch, and John Bishop of Jerusalem, to let them know how things had passed in the West, and exhorting them to joyn with him either to make Nestorius change his Opinion, or execute the * 1.21 Judgment passed against him by the Western Bishop, if he persisted in it.

John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril and Caelestine's Letters, and having communica∣ted them to six Bishops, which were then present with him, of whom Theodoret was one, foresee∣ing the trouble which Nestorius would raise, exhorted him by a Letter which he wrote on purpose, giving him all the marks of Friendship, not to wonder at S. Caelestine's and S. Cyril's Letters, but yet not to slight this affair, and advised him not to reject the term of the Mother of God, which several Holy Men had already made use of; and so much the rather, because this Dispute had al∣ready * 1.22 created great disturbances in the Church, and was likely to make greater, because he saw, that the West, Aegypt, and perhaps Macedonia, were determined to separate themselves, unless they were satisfied about it; That heretofore Theodorus of Mopsuesta had recanted the way of Expressi∣ons which he had used publickly, that he might not give an occasion of Scandal. Lastly, He says, that he did not invite him to make a shameful Retractation, but knowing that several Persons had heard him say, that he did not reject the Good Sense which might be given to this term, The Mother of God, and that he would willingly call her by that Name, if some Persons of Autho∣rity in the Church were of that Judgment; He exhorts him to use it, since no Ecclesiastical Au∣thor had condemned it, and several had used it. Nestorius answered John Bishop of Antioch, that * 1.23 many abusing the term of the Mother of God, and others not being willing to call the Virgin by any other term than the Mother of Man, he thought it safest to choose the term of the Mother of Christ.

Notwithstanding this, Saint Cyril called a Council in November, Anno. 430. in Aegypt. In it they resolved upon the Execution of the Judgment pronounced by the Western Bishops against * 1.24 Nestorius, and they deputed four of them to signifie it to him, with a Synodical Letter, that in case he did not revoke his Errors, and profess the Doctrine of the Church within the time pre∣scribed by S. Caelestine's Letter, he should be degraded from his Priesthood. This Letter is dated Nov. 3. Anno. 430. Saint Cyril joyned to it a Confession of Faith, which he would have him make, and his twelve famous Anathema's.

The Confession of Faith, which he propounded 〈◊〉〈◊〉 him, was that of the Council of Nice, to which he added an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation more at large, to this Effect, That the Son of God was made Man, and born of a Virgin, yet without any change of the Natures, either of the Flesh into the Godhead, or of the Divine Nature into the Manhood, without any alteration or mixture; yet so, as that the Word being united with the Manhood by an Hypostatick Union, makes but one Christ; That we may not divide the two Natures, nor look upon them as united merely by an Union of Dignity, Authority, or Af∣fection; That we may not say, that he dwells in the Son of Mary as in another Man, nor call Jesus Christ a Man carrying a God; nor use these Expressions, nor any like them, I honour him who is invested with the Divine Nature, for his sake, who hath invested him with it; I adore the Invisible because of the Visible, &c. But we must acknowledge, that the Son of God hath suffered in his Visible Flesh, that he is Sacrificed for us, is Dead; and Lastly, That the Virgin having brought forth a God hypostatically United with the Manhood, ought to be Called the Mother of God. This long Confession of Faith (for the Articles which we have mentioned, are laid down at large) is attended with twelve Anathema's. * 1.25

The First is against him that doth not confess, that the Person, who in Isaiah is called Emanuel, i. e. Jesus Christ, is a true God, and that the Virgin is upon that account the Mother of God; because she brought into the World the Word incarnate according to the Flesh.

The Second is against him that doth not acknowledge, that the Word of the Father being hypo∣statically United to the Flesh makes one Jesus Christ with his Flesh, and that he is altogether God and Man.

The Third is against him, that divideth the Natures after the Union, or allows them only an Uni∣on of Dignity, Authority, and Power, and not a natural Union.

The Fourth is against those, who attribute that which is spoken of Christ in Holy Scripture, to God or Man separately.

The Fifth is against him, who calls Jesus Christ, a Man bearing-God, and not a true God, and the Natural Son of God, because being Incarnate he partakes of the same Flesh and Blood with us.

The Sixth is against him that asserts, that the Word of God is the God of Christ.

The Seventh is against him, who says, that Jesus Christ, as he was Man, was moved by the Word, and was cloathed with his Glory, as being a Person distinct from him.

The Eighth is against him who asserts, that we ought to Worship the Manhood with the Word, and will not give the same Adoration to Immanuel, i. e. to the Word Incarnate.

The Ninth is against him who says, that Jesus Christ did Miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by his own.

The Tenth is against him, who affirms, that it is not the Word that is our High-Priest and Apo∣stle, who was Sacrificed for us, but it is the Man, who dyed for himself, and for us.

The Eleventh is against him who denies, that the Flesh was the Living Flesh of the Word, but the Flesh of the Man united with the Godhead by a Moral Union, because it dwells, and inhabits in it.

The Twelfth is against him, who will not say, that the Word hath suffered truly in his Flesh, and that he dyed, and rose again according to the Flesh.

About this time also S. Cyril wrote his three Treatises about the Incarnation. One of which he dedicated to the Emperor, and the other two to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria, in which * 1.26 he explains, and proves his Doctrine at large.

Before the Sentence of Caelestine, and S. Cyrill's Letter were signified to Nestorius, he fore-seeing the Storm, which was about to fall upon him, desired Theodosius, that he would call a Council. And since his Anger against the Monks of Constantinople, who were not of his Party, increased * 1.27 every Day more and more, they also petitioned, That a Council might be assembled, and in the sequel addressed the Emperor, praying him, That the Governor of Constantinople would restrain the Outrages committed against them, till the Matter were determined by a Council. Theodosius seeing, that a Council was desired by both sides, and believing it necessary to appease the Trou∣bles of the Church, appointed it at Ephesus on Pentecost in the following Year. The Circular Let∣ter, which he wrote to invite the Chief Metropolitans to it, bears date Nov. 19. Anno 430. In it * 1.28 he says, that it was his Duty to provide for the Peace and Welfare of the Church, to hinder, that it be not troubled with Schisms and Divisions, to provide that Religion be preserved in its Puri∣ty, and that the Clergy and Bishop live an unblameable Life. In this Letter he doth not alledge any particular Reason, which he called this Council, but only tells the Bishops, That it was for the Good of the Church, and that they that did not come to it, could not be excused neither before God nor Men.

The Fame of S. Austin induced the Emperor to require him in particular; and for that end wrote to him, although he was a Bishop but of a small City: But the Emperor's Letters not be∣ing received in Africa till about Easter, Anno 431. S. Austin was then dead, and the other African Bishop being encompassed with so many Enemies, could not come to the Council.

The Emperor wrote a Letter particularly to S. Cyril, to tell him, That he looked upon him as * 1.29 the Author of this Trouble, and therefore commanded him peremptorily to be present at the Council. He also particularly blamed him for disturbing the Church, creating Divisions in the Royal Family by writing to the Empresses severally, for meddling with an Affair that nothing concerned him; for acting imperiously, and imprudently.

Nestorius also wrote to S. Caelestine against S. Cyril, and informs him, That Theodosius had ap∣pointed * 1.30 a General Council, and prays him to accommodate the Differences which were between those, who called the Virgin the Mother of God, and those who would give her no other Title than the Mother of a Man, by calling her the Mother of Christ.

In the mean while the four Bishops, deputed by the Council of Alexandria to signifie to Nestorius the Judgment passed against him by the Synod of Rome, arrived at Constantinople, and delivered the Letter of the Council into his own Hands in the presence of his Clergy, Decemb. 7. Anno 430. which was the Lords-Day. He put off their Answer till the next Day; but when he saw what it contain'd, he would see them no more, but still continued to Preach after the same manner as he had done before. He sent John Bishop of Antioch a Copy of the Letter, Confession of Faith, and 12 Anathema's of S. Cyril's, and desired him to set some Person to write against them, and himself opposed 12 other Anathema's to them.

In the First, he pronounces Anathema against him that says, That he that is called Immanuel in Scripture, is a God only, and not a God dwelling with us; that is to say, United to our Nature, which he took of Mary, against him that calls the Virgin the Mother of God, and not of Immanuel, or that says, That the Word is changed into Flesh.

The Second, i•• against them that said, That by the Union of the Word and Flesh, the Godhead hath received some alteration or that it is united to the Flesh in part only; or that saith, That the Godhead and Manhood in Jesus Christ are of the same Nature.

The Third, is against those who said, That Jesus Christ is one Son only made of two Natures, without any Mixture.

The Fourth, is against them who take that which is spoken concerning the Person of Jesus Christ in Scripture, as agreeing to one Nature only, and so attribute the Sufferings to the Word of God.

The Fifth, is against those who dare affirm, That there is but one Jesus Christ according to Na∣ture.

The Sixth, is against him who gives the Word, who was Incarnate, any other Name than that of Christ, or who makes the Nature of Man to be Uncreated, as that of the Word is.

The Seventh, is against him that saith, That the Person, who was born of Mary, is the only Son of God, and are not contented to say, That he became the Son of God by an Union with the only Son of God.

The Eighth, is against him who believes, That we must honour the Form of a Servant for it self, and not because it is United with the Nature of the Word.

The Ninth, is against him that saith, That the Form of a Man in Jesus Christ, is Consubstantial with the Holy Spirit; and, That it had not the Power of doing Miracles by the Union that it had with the Word.

The Tenth, is against them who affirm, That the Word was sacrificed, and suffered for us, and not Immanuel.

The Eleventh, is against them who said, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ is enlivening of its own Nature as it is Flesh.

The Twelfth, is against them, who attribute to the Word the Sufferings of the Flesh of Jesus Christ.

These Anathema's of Nestorius being published at Constantinople, were confuted by Marius Mer∣cator, * 1.31 and John Bishop of Antioch caused Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and Theodoret to write against S. Cyril's. He wrote also himself Circular Letters to condemn them.

The time for the assembling of the Council drawing nigh, the Bishops began their Journey to present themselves at Ephesus. S. Cyril went with almost 50 Bishops of Aegypt; and being landed at Rhodes, he wrote the News of it to his Clergy and People. He arrived at Ephesus five or six * 1.32 Days before Pentecost, which was that Year upon June 7. Nestorius also came about the same time with 10 Bishops. Juvenal also arrived with some Bishops of Palestine. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was obliged to assemble his Bishops to Antioch, who were almost 12 Days Journey distant from thence, and had above 30 Days Journey by the Land thither, could not get there so soon. He * 1.33 wrote a Letter of Excuse to S. Cyril, and assured him, that he would be at Ephesus within five or six Days.

The Emperor sent Count Candidian to the Council, that he might assist at it in his stead; not to meddle with Questions or Controversies, which concerned the Faith, but to drive away the Monks and Laity, which came to Ephesus in throngs, and might raise Disturbances there; To maintain the Order and Freedom of the Council without suffering any Heats or Contests; To hinder the Bishops from going from Ephesus to Court, or elsewhere; And to oblige them to define and determine the Questions in debate before they started any others. And this did the Letter * 1.34 sent to the Council declare to be the substance of his Commission, wherein 'tis also said, that shall not bring any Criminal, or Pecuniary against the Bishops of the Council, neither in the Council, nor before the Judges of Ephesus; And that he hath permitted Count Irenaeus, Nestorius's Friend, to accompany him, nevertheless without allowing him any Share in the Commission granted to Candidian.

Fifteen Days being past from the Day appointed for the Synod, the Eastern Bishops having * 1.35 also sent two Bishops, who had assured them, that the rest would soon be there, and that they would not take it ill, if the Council began without them. Saint Cyril, and Juvenal Bishop of Je∣rusalem, and the Bishops of Aegypt and Asia, met in the Great Church of S. Mary, Ju. 22. althô the Legats of the Holy See were not yet come; and notwithstanding the Opposition of 68 Bi∣shops, who required them to stay till the arrival of the Eastern and Western Bishops. Saint * 1.36 Cyril was President of this Council. We shall examine by and by, whether it was in his own, or in the Pope's Name. The Number of Bishops, if we may believe what they have written them∣selves, was near 200. The Orientals count but 50 out of Aegypt, 30 Asian Bishops, and some others. The Subscriptions make it * 1.37 evident, that there were 160 who signed it, because there were some of those, who at first opposed the holding of the Council, who did nevertheless joyn in it.

After Peter the Chief Notary had in a few Words declared the Cause of the calling of this Council, they made him read the Emperor's Circular Letter sent to the Metropolitans. After∣ward * 1.38 Memnon having observed, that there had sixteen Days passed since the day fixed by the Em∣perors Letter; Saint Cyril said, that it was high time to begin the Council, and required that such Papers should be read as were useful for that end, and chiefly, Candidian's Commission, which he had already perused; 'tis true, but he said after, that he did it against his Will, and to

know the Emperor's mind only, and not to begin the Council. But he demanded, that they should stay till the Eastern Bishops were arrived, saying, that it was the Emperor's design to make it a general † 1.39 Council, and not a particular and separate Assembly. But because they had no re∣gard to his advise, he retreated, and immediately entred his Protestation against the Council.

Saint Cyril and the other Bishops did not give over their Proceedings; and Theodorus Bishop of Ancyra having represented it as a thing necessary, to * 1.40 call Nestorius before they read any thing, three Bishops arose, and said, That Yesterday they had been with Nestorius, and the six or seven Bishops which were with him, and that they had advised them to come to the Council; but they could get no other answer from them, but this, That they would think of it, and would come to it, if they judged it convenient: Wherefore they sent others with a Summons in Writing to cite him to the Council. Florentius the Tribune, being accompanied with a Clerk of Nestorius's answered them, That he will come to the Council when all the Bishops are met. These Bishops having reported this answer to the Council, they sent other Bishops to cite him the third time, according to the Canons, but they were not suffered to enter into Nestorius's House, and they could get no other reason from the Guards that were at his Gate, but this, That they had Order to keep any Person from entring that came from the Synod. This being reported to the Coun∣cil, they began to enter upon the Discussion of their business. And after they had rehearsed the Nicene Creed, they read S. Cyril's second Letter to Nestorius, which was unanimously approved by them; The answer of Nestorius to it being also read, was rejected, and they pronounced an Anathema against it, and the Author of in They caused also S. Caelestine's Letter, S. Cyril's third Letter, and his Anathema's to be read. Then they heard the Testimony of Theodotus of Ancyra, who deposed, that since he was at Ephesus, he had heard Nestorius say, That it was an Impious Assertion, to say, That a God could be an Infant of two or three Months Old. Acacius also, Bishop of Melitina, averred that he heard one of the Bishops, which were of Nestorius's company say, That be that suffered for us, was a distinct Person from the Word. After these Testimonies, they produced many passages of the ancient Fathers, and several pieces of Nestorius's Writings. They also read the Letter of Capreolus Bishop of Carthage, brought by Bessulas his Deacon; wherein he tells the Council, that the state of the African Church was such, that he could not call a Synod to choose Deputies for the Council; and that they were so beset with their Enemies, that it was impossible for them to get to it; That the Emperor's Letter came not to them till Easter, and if they had had free passage, they could not have got to the Council so soon; so that he was contented to send his Deacon Bessulas with a Letter of Excuse, but did conjure them not to suffer any Novelty to Creep into the Church, and to confirm the ancient Doctrine, and the Catholick Faith.

The Council judging Nestorius sufficiently convicted by these Records, which they had read, pronounced Sentence against him in these words:

The Most Impious Heretick Nestorius refusing to appear at our Citation, and not suffering the Holy Bishops, which we sent to him, to enter into his House, we were obliged to examine his Cause; and having convicted him of dispersing and teaching an Impious Doctrine, as hath been proved, as well by his Letters, and other Writings, as by the Sermons which he hath Preached in this Metropolis, which hath been con∣firmed by sufficient. Testimonies, we have been forced, according to the Letter of S. Caelestine Bishop of Rome, to pronounce against him this heavy Sentence, which we cannot do but with grief; Our Lord Jesus Christ, against whom Nestorius hath Blasphemed, declares him by this Synod deprived of his Episcopal Dignity, and separated from the Communion of the * 1.41 Episcopal Order.

So that Nestorius was cited twice in one Day, his Cause examined, his Letters and Writings read and rejected, the Letters and Writings of S. Cyril approved, Witnesses heard, and the Con∣demnation of Nestorius pronounced by 200 Bishops, or thereabouts, at one Session only. It is true, it lasted a long time, for S. Cyril observes in a Letter, that they met very early in the Morning, and made an end very late by Candle-light.

The next day the Sentence pronounced against Nestorius by the Synod was signified to him, by * 1.42 a Letter from the Council. In the Direction of it he is called, Another Judas. As soon as this was done, they wrote in the name of the Synod to the Emperor, and Clergy of Constantinople. Saint Cyril wrote also in his own Name to the Clergy of Constantinople, and Alexandria, and sent the Emperor the Acts of the Council.

Nestorius was not idle on his part, but wrote a Letter to the Emperor in his own Name, and in the Name of 16 Bishops, who signed his Letter, that being come to Ephesus, according to the Orders of the Emperor to be present at the Council, he waited for the Bishops, who were to come thither from all parts, and particularly for the Bishop of Antioch, and the Metropolitans of his Diocese; as also for the Bishops that were come out of Italy and Sicily. But perceiving that the Aegyptians were very impatient under this delay, believing that they did it out of design, they had offered to come to the Synod, if Count Candidian would cite them to it, but he would not do it, because he had heard that John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops would soon come. Nevertheless the Bishops of Aegypt and Asia, would hold a Council alone, and had filled the City with trouble; That Memnon Bishop of this City had granted them the Great Church for this tumultuous Assembly to meet in, although he had denied them the Licence to go into S. John's Church. He desires the Emperor to give Orders, that they be not wronged and abused, and that they Celebrate a Lawful Council, not allowing any Monk or Lay-man, nor any Bishop not Sum∣moned to be present at it, but only two of the most Eminent and Learned, chosen out of every

Province, or if he did not think it 〈◊〉〈◊〉, to permit them to return 〈◊〉〈◊〉 again 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Candidian al∣so sent the Emperor a Relation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 had passed, much like the Account Nestorius had given him; He also gave the Council Notice, that be had written to him, and made his Declaration against the meeting of the Council•• and Ordered, that they should wait for the arrival of John Bishop of Antioch.

Five days after the Deposition of Nestorius, John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bi∣shops arrived. They were but 26, which being joyned with the 10 Bishops which were with * 1.43 Nestorius, made but 36 in all, if we believe S. Cyril's Relation. Nevertheless in the Subscrip∣tions of their Letters we find more than 50 set down by their Names, and the Names of their Cities. The Council sent some Bishops to meet John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him not to Communicate with Nestorius, who was deposed. But John Bishop of Antioch was so far from harkening to them, that as soon as he arrived, he held a Council * 1.44 in the place of his Abode. Here Candidian declared, that he had done all he could to hinder the Bishops, who were assem∣bled with Cyril and Memnon, from doing any thing before the coming of the Eastern Bishops; That they had required of him, that they might read the Emperor's Letters, saying, They knew not the Emperor's Orders that he had done it against his Will merely to prevent any Se∣dition, but at his departure he had admonished them to do nothing rashly; but not having re∣gard to his advise, they had done what they pleased; after they had driven him out of the Coun∣cil, and refused to hear the Bishops which Nestorius had sent to them. He then read the Emperor's Letter, and when that was done, John Bishop of Antioch demandad, if he done any thing more. He said, That they had Deposed Nestorius, and had published and fastened up his Deposition. John Bishop of Antioch went on, and asked him, If it were done regularly; if Nestorius were pre∣sent, and Convected; or whether he was Condemned without being heard. Candidian answered, that it was all transacted without Examination, and contrary to the Rules. Candidian having given this Testimony, he went out. The Bishops accused Memnon of shutting up the Churches against them, and S. Cyril of reviving the Error of Arius and Nestorius in his twelve Chapters. Upon this Accusation they pronounce the Sentence of Deposition against S. Cyril and Memnon; and Excommunicated all those who had Communion with them, till they should confess the Faith of the Council of Nice without adding any thing to it; pronouncing Anathema against S. Cyril's Chapters, and obeying the Emperor's Orders, who Commanded them to examine this Question without tumult and noise. This Sentence was signified to the Bishops, against whom it was gi∣ven; and because they minded it not, they protested against Cyril and Memnon, because they still held a Council after they were deposed, and contrary to the prohibition of Candidian. These Bishops immediately sent the Emperor word by Writing what they had done. There were two remarkable Circumstances in this Letter. The first, That S. Cyril had written to John Bishop of Antioch two days before the beginning of the Synod, that he would stay till he came. The Second, That they could not get thither sooner, because of the length and tiresomness of the Voyage, which they were forced to make by Land. They wrote also to the Clergy, Senate, and People of Constantinople, to the Empresses, and to the People of Hierapolis.

The Relation of Candidian being received at Constantinople first, Theodosius ordered, that all that had been done by S. Cyril's Synod, should be looked upon as Null and Void, and that the whole Council should proceed to a new Judgment; forbidding the Bishops to go from Ephesus, till he had sent some of his Officers to the Synod to know how things had passed there. This is the Subject of the Emperor's Letter, dated June 19, brought to Ephesus by Palladius. This was sig∣nified to the Bishops of both sides. Saint Cyril, and the Bishops of his Party answered, that Can∣didian had not given a true Relation of things to the Emperor, and desired him to send for him to Constantinople with five Bishops of the Council, that he might be informed of the truth of all their Proceedings. This Letter was not subscribed by all the Bishops, because Palladius, who was to carrry it, was very urgent to be gone.

John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party wrote also by this Palladius to the Empe∣ror; and having related all that had passed a second time, they prayed him, that only two Bi∣shops out of every Province should be allowed to be at the Synod with their Metropolitan. They also complained, that the Church of S. John had been shut against them; insomuch that they were forced to pray abroad, and had been abused in their return. Lastly, They humbly implore the Emperor to remove Cyril and Memnon, the heads of this Persecution from Ephesus. A little after they sent Count Irenaeus, to whom they give another Relation against Saint Cyril, concerning the Violence, which they pretend he had done them, by keeping them out of S. Paul's Church, by throwing of Stones at them. They also gave him Letters to the Governor of Con∣stantinople, and to the Officers of the Emperor, that they would maintain their Cause. Nestorius wrote also in his own Name to an Eunuch of the Emperor, that he did not refuse to call the Virgin Mary, The Mother of God, provided that they would condemn the Error of Apollinaris, which is maintained by S. Cyril.

July 10. Philip and Arcadius Legats of the Church of Rome, arrived at Ephesus, and joyning themselves with S. Cyril and his Synod, according to their Instructions, by which they were or∣dered * 1.45 to act in conjunction with him, they held a Session the same Day, in which they read S. Coelestine's Letter, dated May 8. first in Latin, and after in Greek, which shews us, that 'twas the Custom to read the Letters of the Holy See in the Tongue wherein they were written. The

Substance of it was this, that the Holy Spirit is present in Synods, and all Bishops being the Apo∣stles Successors are obliged to maintain and defend the Doctrine, which they have received from them, and to imitate the Zeal and Vigilance of their Predecessors; that they ought to have the same Spirit as they have but one Faith; that the Question in hand obliges them to arm themselves with a fresh Zeal, because the Person of Jesus Christ is endangered by it; That he hopes, that He, who hath united the Synagogue, and the Church, will re-unite the Minds of Christians, re∣store the Churches Peace, and make the Truth and Ancient Faith to Triumph; He exhorts them to continue in that Love so much commended by S. John, whose Reliques they have among them; that they Ought to pray to God with one Heart and Voice, that he would direct them by the Light of his Holy Spirit, and give them Courage to defend the Word of God zealously, and procure the Peace of the Church. Lastly, He tells them, that he sent them the Bishops Ar∣cadius and Projectus, and Philip a Priest, to be present at all the transactions of the Council, and put in execution what he had already ordained. After this Letter was read, the Legats of S. Cae∣lestine demanded, that they would communicate to them the Acts of what was already done, which was granted them. We find at the end of this Act two other Letters of S. Caelestine's, the one of which is directed to Theodosius, and the other to S. Cyril. He exhorts the former to pro∣tect the ancient Faith, and he answers to the Latter who had consulted him, whether he might still receive Nestorius, the time which he had fixed for his Retractation, being passed; He an∣swers him, I say, That We must always receive a Sinner, whensoever he returns, and that We must endeavour to appease the troubles raised in the Church. He tells him likewise, that he earnestly desired, that Nestorius might repent, and that he may be again received. These two Letters bear date, the one May 7. and the other May 15.

The next day they met, to read over again the Acts of the first Session of Council to Caelestine's * 1.46 Legats. When they heard them, they approved them, gave their Judgment against Nestorius, and subscribed his Condemnation. When this was done, they framed a Letter to the Emperor, wherein they tell him, that the Legats of the Bishop of Rome had assured them, that all the We∣stern Churches agreed with them in their Doctrine, and had condemned with them the Doctrine and Person of Nestorius. So that this Matter being thus ended as the Emperor desired it for the benefit of the Church, and of the Faith, they desired him to give them leave to withdraw, to secure them from the Persecution they were threatned with, and suffer them to ordain a Bishop at Constantinople in the room of Nestorius. They wrote at the same time to the Clergy and Peo∣ple of Constantinople, to exhort them to put some Person into the See of Constantinople in the place of Nestorius, lately Deposed by the Council for his Impious Doctrine.

The Judgment of Nestorius being thus finished, Cyril and Memnon cast about them how they * 1.47 might provide against the Sentence of Deposition pronounced against them by the Eastern Bishops. The Council therefore being assembled the fourth time, on July 16th Cyril and Memnon presented a Petition against John Bishop of Antioch, wherein they say, That the Council being assembled in the City of Ephesus to confirm the Faith of the Church, and to condemn the Heresie lately invented by Nestorius, had acted Regularly, and in the usual forms; That they had cited Nesto∣rius three times to render a Reason of his Doctrine; but this Heretick refusing to appear, the Council had attentively examined his Writings, and had Condemned him according to the Rules of the Church-discipline; That after this Judgment given, and an Account of it sent to the Em∣peror, John Bishop of Antioch had come to Ephesus, where he Assembled himself with the Bishops of Nestorius's Opinion, of whom some were Deposed, and others were Bishops only in Name, having no See, and that in this Assembly, which had no Authority to judge any Man, he deli∣berately pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, although he could not do it, the Bi∣shop, whom he principally pretended to judge, being in a See Superior to his own. But yet al∣though he might have undertaken this Judgment, yet he ought to have followed the Canons and Rules of the Church, to have admonished them, and cited them before the Council; but con∣temning all these Rules, he had rashly and inconsiderately, pronounced a Sentence of Deposition against them, immediately after his arrival, without letting them know for what reason he con∣demned them; That it was a matter of consequence not to suffer the Laws of the Church to be despised; That one Bishop dared to do such things to another, who ought to have the precedence; That he would not dare to attempt the like against the meanest Person of the Clergy; These Considerations forced them to desite the Council to Summon John and his Associates, to give an Account of their behaviour before the Synod. Hesychius, Juvenal's Deacon read this Petition, and Juvenal presided upon this Occasion, because S. Cyril taking upon him the Person of an Accuser, could not preside in it, nor his Notary give his Opinion in it.

The Synod having respect to the Demand of S. Cyril and Memnon, sent twice some Bishops to John Bishop of Antioch, and the Bishops of his Party, but they were not suffered to enter; and the only Answer which was made them, was, that they would not have any thing to do with Persons which they had Excommunicated. Then the Council pronounced, that all that had been done against Cyril and Memnon, was Null, and ordered, that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited a third time, and if he did not appear, he should be condemned.

The same Day John caused an Abusive Libel to be fastned in a publick Place, not only against Cyril and Memnon, but also against all the Bishops of their Council, declaring Cyril and Memnon Deposed for Heresie, and the other Bishops Excommunicate for favouring them, till they should forsake them, and re-unite themselves with the Eastern Bishops.

The next Day the Council being assembled again, S. Cyril made his Report concerning the Li∣bel of John Bishop of Antioch, and declared that he Condemned Arius, Apollinaris, and the other Hereticks, as well as Nestorius, and the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius. Whereupon he re∣quired that John Bishop of Antioch should be cited the third time. And they sent three Bishops and a Notary to him. John Bishop of Antioch received them by his Arch-Deacon, who would, have given them a Paper as from the Council, but they declared that they came not to receive any * 1.48 Paper, but to cite John Bishop of Antioch. This Arch-Deacon went to tell his Bishop so, and be∣ing returned, presented them again with his Paper; and because they would not receive it, he said to them, Let No body come from you, and we will send No body from our side; we have sent our Resolutions to the Emperor, and we wait his Orders, to know what we shall do. The Bishop in∣sisting upon it, and desiring him to hear what the Synod had given them in Charge to say, He answered, You have refused to receive the Paper which I have tendered to you, and I will not hear the Orders of your Synod. This being said, he withdrew himself. The Bishops told Asphalius and Alexander the Priest the Reason of their coming, and then returned to give the Synod a Relation of the whole Matter, who declared John Bishop of Antioch, and the 36 Bishops his Adherents to be separated from the Communion of the Church, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what they had done, praying him to confirm it by his Authority, and consent to all that they had done. They also wrote a Synodical Letter to S. Caelestine, in which they relate all that had passed at Ephesus; and tell him, That they had read and approved his Synodical Decrees against the Paelagians and Caelestians in the Council. He sent him also a Copy of the Acts of the Council. This Act was concluded with a Sermon preached by S. Cyril at Ephesus, against John Bishop of Antioch.

The Eastern Bishops on their side wrote to the Emperor, that Cyril and Memnon having been Deposed by their Synod, could not be absolved by Bishops Excommunicated; and they prayed the Emperor to send for them to Constantinople, or at lest to Nicomedia, and not to permit any Metropolitan to bring more than two Bishops of his Province, because a great Multitude is only fit to cause disturbance; That their Adversaries had brought with them a great number of Bi∣shops, contrary to the Intentions and Orders of the Emperor; That as for themselves they had obeyed them exactly, by bringing only three Bishops out of each Province, and had sent no Bi∣shop to Court, as their adversaries had done, but contented themselves with writing to him, be∣cause they would not disobey his Orders. They sent this Letter by Count Ireraeus.

The 6th Session of the Council was held July 22. Because the Eastern Bishops accused the Bi∣shops of the Council of introducing another Creed, besides that of the Council of Nice, they read * 1.49 it in this Session, declared their approbation of it in general, and owned that it contained a Sound and Orthodox Doctrine. But they added, that several Persons, who pretended to acknowledge it, putting false Interpretations upon it, they had been forced to produce the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers, to discover the true meaning of it. Then they read over again the Testimonies of the Fathers, which they had quoted already at the Condemnation of Nestorius. This done, that they might fasten the Reproach which was laid upon them, upon their Adversaries themselves, they caused Charisius a Priest, and a Steward of the Church of Philadelphia, to present a Petition a∣painst one James a Priest, a Friend of Nestorius, accusing him for making the Quartodecimans, who returned to the Communion of the Church, to sign a Confession of Faith different from the Nicene Creed, and full of Heresie. He alledged that form of Faith, which M. Mercator attri∣butes to Theodorus of Mopsuesta, although there be not the least word spoken of it in that Session, that, among other things, maintains, That the Holy Spirit hath not derived his Subsistence from the Son, that we Adore the Son of Man in Jesus Christ, because of its inseparable Union with the Word; That there is but one Son, which is the Word, to whom the Manhood being insepa∣rably joyned, partakes of his Dignity, and is called God, and Lord after a particular manner. This Creed, and the Names of those that signed it being read, the Council made this famous Declaration.

That it is not allowable to any Person whatsoever, to Alledge, Write, or make a Different Creed from that which was made by the Holy Fathers Assembled at Nice; and that all those, who are so audacious as to make, or alledge, or offer any other to be signed by such, as turn themselves, or are converted to the Church, whether they be Jews, Pagans, or Here∣ticks, if they be Bishops or Clergy-men, they shall be degraded from their Dignity; and if they are Lay-men, they shall be accursed.

Then they read the Extracts of Nestorius, and Peter the Chief-Notary observed, that he owned, that he was the first that had spoken in that manner. This Act concluded with a Sermon of S. Cyril.

The Council having nothing more to regulate concerning Doctrine. In the 7th Action, which was held July ult. (It is in the Acts Pridie Calendarum Sept. but it ought to be read Pridic Ca∣lend. * 1.50 Aug. for this day was past before Count John arrived, and S. Cyril was seized) they dis∣cussed matters of Discipline. Rheginus, Zeno, and Evagrius Bishops of Cyprus presented a Petition to the Council against the Bishops of Antioch, complaining that the Bishops of Antioch endeavoured to make the Bishops of the Isle of Cyprus subject to their Jurisdiction, and that the Bishop of Con∣stantia, Metropolitan of Cyprus, being lately Dead, the Bishop of Antioch had obtain'd Letters from Dionysius the Prefect, directed to Theodorus Governor of the Isle, prohibiting them from Ordaining a Bishop in that City without the Permission of the Council of Ephesus. These two Letters were read, and the Bishops of Cyprus having shewn, that it was the design of John Bishop of Antioch, to Ordain the Bishop of Constantia, they asked them if it were the Custom; and being answered,

that it was never practised, the Synod ordered, That according to the Canons of the Council of Nice, the Bishops of Cyprus should enjoy their Ancient Rights, and Ordan the Bishop of Constan∣tia, according to their Ancient Custom.

On the occasion of this business they made this gene∣ral Rule, That the Ancient Custom should be observed in all the Provinces, and that no Bishop should attempt to bring under his Jurisdiction, a Province which hath not heretofore been sub∣ject to him, nor his Predecessors, and that if any one hath endeavoured it, or hath kept any Province by force, he shall be forced to resign it, and restore it to him to whom it belongs, that the Canons be not Violated, and Haughtiness of Worldly Power may not creep into the Church, under the pretence of the Priesthood, and so we lose the Liberty, which Jesus Christ hath pur∣chased for us by his Blood; He who is the Saviour of all Men.

In this Act they also made six Canons, which contain nothing extraordinary concerning Disci∣pline. In them they order only, That the Bishops which are, or shall be joyned to Nestorius, shall be Deposed. They Decree the same Punishment against those that embrace the Doctrine of Ne∣storius or Caelestius, or that Communicate with Persons Excommunicated or Deposed, or who shall Contemn or Abuse that which is done by the Synod. On the otherside, they restored them who have been Excommunicated or Deposed by Nestorius: And they enjoyned all the Clergy, not to obey those Bishops who have or shall embrace the Nestorian Party.

The Synod also in this Act granted a Letter in favour of Eustatius, who having been Ordained Metropolitan of Pamphylia; and finding himself oppressed with troubles, was brought by some Cunning Intrigue to give a Writing, wherein he renounced it. The Council ordered, that althô Theodorus had been Ordained in his place, yet he should enjoy the Name and Dignity of a Bishop. Nevertheless with this Charge, that he should not Ordain, nor Administer Sacraments by his own Authority in any Church.

In the same Act they confirmed the Synodical Decree of Sisinnius, against the Messalians or Eu∣chitae, and Ordain'd, that they who would not Subscribe the Form of the Faith composed by this Synod, should be Excommunicated or Deposed. They also defend their Book, concerning an Ascetiek or Monastick Life.

Lastly, Euprepius of Byza, and Arcadiople, and Cyril Bishop of Cele, desired them to preserve the Antient Custom of the Province of Europe, in which one Bishop had several Cities in his Diocese. The Council Ordain'd, that there should be no Innovations in this Case, but the Churches should still be Governed as they were heretofore.

While these things were transacting at Ephesus, it was strongly debated at Constantinople, what they should do, about what had passed on both sides there. The Lot of all was, as I may say, in the Emperor's hands, and the Success of the Council depended upon the Resolutions taken at Court. The Council sent three Bishops to him, the Eastern Bishops contented themselves to send Count Irenaeus only. He arrived there but three days after the Deputies of the Council, who had prepared their minds to favour them. But when Irenaeus was come, he appeared before the Emperor in the presence of the Deputies of the Council, and did so much that he had almost persuaded the Emperor to think, that the Synod held by S. Cyril ought not to be accounted a Lawful Council; so that he had almost confirmed the Decrees of the Eastern Bishops, and Ba∣nished S. Cyril. But John, the Emperor's Physician, and a Friend of S. Cyril being come in, quite changed the state of things by engaging the greatest part of the Ministers, some of whom were of an Opinion, that what was done on both sides, was Lawful; others thought, that it was ne∣cessary to declare all Null, and to send for some Bishops, who were unconcerned, to examine the Matters of Faith, and all that passed at Ephesus. In this difficulty Theodosius took their part who approved of the Deposition of Nestorius, as also of S. Cyril and Memnon; upon the account of Factious Combining, and conspiring one against another; being persuaded, that as to what con∣cerned the Faith, that had all Orthodox Sentiments, and all agreed in the Doctrine of the Ni∣cene Council. In this he followed the Judgment of Acacius of Beraea, who wrote it to the Sy∣nod. The Emperor being thus determined, he wrote to the Bishops of the Council, and sent Count John to put this Order in Execution; and to re-unite all the Bishops in one Council, ha∣ving removed Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon.

John was no sooner come to Ephesus, but he commanded the Bishops of both Parties to come to him at his Inn. John, Bishop of Antioch, and Nestorius came thither, accompanied with the Bi∣shops of his Party, and S. Cyril with his. There was none but Memnon who was missing. Imme∣diately there arose a contest among them. The Aegytian Bishops maintain'd that Nestorius ought not to be present at the Reading of the Emperor's Letter, and that S. Cyril ought, but John Bi∣shop of Antioch, and his Party held the contrary. This Dispute having continued a long time, Count John compelled Nestorius and S. Cyril to withdraw: And then he read the Emperor's Let∣ter to the other Bishops; and told them, that it was the Emperor's Will, that Nestorius, Cyril, and Memnon should be Deposed. John Bishop of Antioch's Party consented to it, but the others maintained, that S. Cyril and Memnon ought not to be looked upon as Deposed. Count John to prevent the trouble that was likely to ensue, committed Nestorius to the Custody of Count Can∣didian, and S. Cyril to Count James's, and sent Memnon word of his Sentence of Deposition; and having sent for him, also put him in Custody to Count James, and then gave the Emperor an Account of what he had done; telling him, That the Minds of the Bishops seemed so much ex∣asperated one against another, that he could find no means to reconcile them.

The Eastern Bishops gave Count John a Letter to send to the Emperor. In it they desired; that he would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Cyril's 12 Chapters, and that he would be contented to have the Ni∣cene Creed without any Additions signed by them. They wwrote also to Acacius, and sent a Sy∣nodical Letter to the Clergy and People of Antioch, wherein they bragged that it was reported, that all they had done was confirmed by the Emperor's Authority. These Letters are in Lupus's Collection, Chapt. 17, 18, and 19.

The Bishops of the Council on their part wrote also to the Emperor, to complain of his Sen∣tence, and to assure him, that they wondered at his Religion, who was persuaded that S. Cyril and Memnon had been justly Condemned. They told him at the same time, that they would not communicate with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius, and earnestly besought him to release S. Cyril and Memnon; and that he would get information of the whole affair from Persons unsuspected. They wrote also to the Bishops which were at Constantinople, and to the Clergy of that Church, complaining of the ill Usage they met withal, and that they underwent many hardships by being kept at Ephesus. Wherefore they desired them to pray the Emperor to free them from that Prison, and to remove them to Constantinople, or send them home to their own Churches again. They represent the sad condition that they were in, in the Me∣moir, which they sent to the Abbot Dalmatius. Saint Cyril also wrote himself to the Clergy, and People of Constantinople, and to the three Aegyptian Bishops residing there. The Letter of the Council with the Relation was carried by * 1.51 a Beggar in † 1.52 his Staff; this was delivered to Dalma∣tius, who was an Abbot in great reputation for Sanctity, who presented it to the Emperor, to whom he was well known. He also read the Letter of the Council to the People of Constantinople, and the People cryed out Anathema to Nestorius. The Clergy of Constantinople presented a Petition to the Emperor, in the behalf of S. Cyril and Memnon. Dalmatius, and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, gave the Council an Account of what they had done by Letter. In fine, the Emperor resolved, and Ordered. That they should send some Bishops of both sides to Constantinople, that the Affair might be terminated by the cognizance of the Cause. There were eight Deputed by each side. On the Councils side, Philip a Priest, the Pope's Legat, with these Bishops, Arcadius, who was also a Legat for the Holy See, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Phillippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. The Commission which the Council gave them, was, That they should de∣mand the Restauration of S. Cyril and Memnon; and that they should not re unite with John, and the Bishops of his Party, till they had Subscribed the Condemnation of Nestorius, begged Par∣don for what they had done, and S. Cyril and Memnon were restored. With these Instructions the Council gave them a Letter to the Emperor, for the justification of S. Cyril and the Council. The Eastern Bishops sent also eight Deputies, viz. John Bishop of Antioch, John Bishop of Da∣mascus, Himerius Bishop of Nicomedia, Paul Bishop of Emesa, Macarius Bishop of Laodicea, Aprin∣gius Bishop of Chalcis, and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, † 1.53 They were left at Liberty to act as they saw convenient, but they recommended it to them to endeavour to make S. Cyril's twelve Chap∣ters should be rejected as Heretical. The Emperor, a little after, gave a Second Order, com∣manding, That Nestorius should withdraw into his Monastry, and that Cyril and Memnon should continue in restraint till their Cause was examined. The Praefect wrote to Nestorius, that he might retire to his Monastry, and that he had taken Order, that he should be furnished with Carriages. Nestorius received this Order with a seeming Joy, and told the Praefect, That he ac∣counted this Order of the Emperor a Kindness, believing nothing more honourable than to be forced to retreat for the defence of Religion; but he pray'd him to take effectual care, that the Emperor do condemn S. Cyril's Chapters by his Publick Letters. This Retirement of Nestorius discovered, that there was no hopes of his Restauration, as that the Cause of the others was yet dubious.

The Deputies arrived at Chalcedon about the end of August, where they received an Order to stay, for they could not come to Constantinople because of the disturbances which the Monks raised. From hence the Deputies of the Eastern Bishops sent a Petition to the Emperor, wherein they desired, that he would not allow any other Confession of Faith, but that of the Council of Nice; and that he would be Judge of the Contests between them, and that they might set down their Reasons on both sides in Writing; Or at least, if he were not at leisure to examine this af∣fair, that he would dismiss all the Bishops to their Dioceses. They complained also, in this Memoir, of the attempts of Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, upon Phaenicia and Arabia. But they said, that they would not have any thing done against him for Peace sake, and for fear of troubling the Church with Personal Contests.

The Emperor a little after came to his Country-House near Chalcedon, and sent for the Depu∣ties * 1.54 to him, and heard them with an abundance of Patience. The Legats for the Eastern Bishops thought they had an Advantage: And therefore spake against S. Cyril's Chapters, and accused Acacius of having said, that the Godhead was passible; and did so much by their Insinuations, that the Emperor and his Council seemed favourable to them. The Bishops of S. Cyril's Party spake more modestly, and contented themselves to intreat the Emperor to send for S. Cyril, that he may give an Account himself both of his Faith and Conduct. The Emperor propounding it to both sides, to deliver him their Judgment in Writing, the Deputies for the Eastern Bishops said, That they had no other Confession of Faith, but that of the Nicene Council, wherefore they

Signed that, and presented it to him. They wrote all that had passed to the Bishops of their Party, who in their Answer shew the great Joy that they had for the good Success they were likely to have; telling them, that their Adversaries domineered as before, Judged, Caused, sent their Sentences of Deposition every where, Ordained Bishops, and disturbed the Churches. They exhort their Deputies to oppose Novel Opinions courageously, and to insist upon the Condemna∣tion of S. Cyril's Chapters. They joyned to this Letter a Petition to the Emperor in which they give him thanks for his favourable reception of their Deputies, and implore him not to suffer them, who are Condemned for nothing but rejecting S, Cyril's Heretical Chapters, to remain un∣der Condemnation.

While both Parties waited for the Success of this Affair, Men's minds were much divided at Constantinople; the People heard the Eastern Bishops very favourably; They Preached and Prayed not in the Churches, for they could not be admitted into them, but in an House; On the con∣trary, the Clergy and Monks were very much exasperated against them. The Emperor, who had at first favoured them, began by little and little to be disaffected to them. He propounded it to them to receive Cyril and Memnon, but they would not agree to that Proposition; and when they attempted to speak to him of Nestorius, he would not suffer them: His Council was absolutely engaged. Acacius Bishop of Beraea in a Letter Printed in Lupus's Collection, Ch. 41, accuses Saint Cyril of changing the Judgment of the Court, by bribing the Eunuch Scholasticus with Money; and says, That this Eunuch being Dead, and having left a great deal of Money, the Emperor found an Account of several Sums of Gold received of S. Cyril, which were conveyed to him by Paul S. Cyril's Nephew. But we have little reason to believe what Acacius Bishop of Beraea says, because he was none of S. Cyril's Friend: But 'tis ever manifest, that the Emperor changed his mind in a very short time, and resolved all on the sudden to have another Bishop Ordained at Constantinople. Wherefore he carried the Deputies of the Council along with him to Constantino∣ple, that they might Ordain a Bishop. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops hearing this, sent a Petition to the Emperor, in which having accused their Adversaries of Rebelling always against the Orders of the Emperor; they tell him, that being Summoned to Chalcedon, they had requested first of all, that they would keep close to the Nicene Creed, and reject the Heretical Chapters of S. Cyril; that being cited a second time, they were ordered to discourse of those things that were in Controversie; and as they prepared themselves for this Dispute, they heard, that his Majesty was returned, and had carried along with him to Constantinople the Deposed and Ex∣communicated Bishops, to make them celebrate the Sacraments, and Ordain a Bishop, and had left them at Chalcedon, them, who had never attempted any thing but for the defence of the Faith; That they thought themselves obliged to tell him, that if he allowed Hereticks to Ordain a Bishop at Constantinople, before their Doctrines were Examined, he would infallibly create a Schism, be∣cause it will never be endured; That Communion be kept with Hereticks, and that not only the Eastern, but also all the Churches of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thracia, Illyria, and Italy, will never admit of the Heretical Doctrine of Cyril.

The only answer that the Emperor gave them, was, That he permitted them, and the other Bishops that were at Ephesus, to return to their Dioceses. As soon as they received this Order, they presented a third Petition, in which they speak with a great deal of Freedom. They com∣plain, That having been cited to confirm the Faith of their Ancestors, they were kept at Chalce∣don, and sent back again without doing any thing; that he had favoured them who had ever been rebellious against his Orders, and so had raised these Troubles; That he ought to think, that the Eastern Bishops are his Subjects as well as others; That he ought to protect the Faith into which he had been Baptized, and for which the Martyrs have poured out their Blood; That Faith, with which he had conquered the Barbarians, and which was necessary to subdue Africk; That the Church would be rent in pieces, if he suffered S. Cyril's Doctrine to be setled; That they were obliged to put him in mind, how much he would offend God, if he suffered persons of Heretical Opinions to perform the Offices of Priests; That they were much troubled to see, that the great∣est part of the People, who are now of Orthodox Sentiments, will by this means be infected with Heresie; That their Duty obliged them to admonish him of these things; and to pray him earnest∣ly to put them in order; That if he did it not, they had discharged their Conscience, and do pro∣test against them that this fault may not fall upon them. This Petition did not change the Empe∣rors mind, insomuch that they were forced to beg of him themselves that he would permit them to withdraw, which they obtain'd. At their departure they wrote to the Eastern Bishops, how things had passed.

The Result of the Emperors Judgment was, That Nestorius was justly deposed; That S. Cyril and Memnon should keep their Sees; That all the Bishops should return again to their Churches; That neither of them both are Hereticks; And that they should be exhorted to reunite. These are the Contents of the Emperors Letter to the Bishops assembled at Ephesus, published by M. Cote∣lerius, and put by M. Baluzius into his Collection of Councils. The Emperor tells them, That desiring nothing so much as the Peace of the Church, he had done his utmost endeavour to hinder their Disagreement, and to reunite them again; but not being able to bring that about, nor to make them hold a Conference about the Doctrines of Faith, he had ordered, that the Eastern Bishops should return into their own Country, that S. Cyril should go to Alexandria again, and that Memnon should remain at Ephesus; and that as long as he lived, he would not condemn the

Eastern Bishops, they not being convicted of any Errour, and no Body caring to enter the Lists with them. That if they desired Peace, they might write to him; but if they yet stood out; they had nothing to do but to return home. Thus the Council of Ephesus ended. S. Cyril re∣turned to Alexandria; and arrived there Octob. 30. Nestorius retired into the Monastry of Eu∣prepius at Antioch; and Octob. 25. Maximian was Ordain'd in his place by the Bishops, which were at Constantinople, four Months after the Deposition of Nestorius. This Maximian was a Monk, who was thought worthy to be made a Priest, and was accounted a very pious Man, though not learned. The Synod which Ordain'd him, communicated it to the Bishops of Epirus, to S. Caele∣stine and S. Cyril. He wrote also himself to these two last. The Emperor wrote for him to the Pope. S. Cyril returned an Answer to the Synod, and Maximian. Caelestine wrote four Letters, the first to the Emperor, the second to the Synod that Ordained Maximian, the third to Maxi∣mian, and the last to the Clergy of Constantinople. He shewed much Joy that Nestorius was con∣demned, and said that he earnestly desired that Peace might be restored. He prays the Emperor chiefly to endeavour it. These Letters are dated March 25. Anno 432.

The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops, who were at Chalcedon, wrote also before their depar∣ture to Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, to engage Illyria. This Bishop was not at the Council of Ephe∣sus, but on the one side Flavian Bishop of Philippi had assumed the Title of his Deputy, so on the part of the Eastern Bishops Julian Bishop of Sardica sate in the Council, and had received a Letter from Rufus, who recommended the defence of the Faith of the Council of Nice to him, and not to suffer any Novelty to be introduced. The Deputies of the Eastern Bishops made use of this Op∣portunity to write to Rufus, that they have resisted the Doctrine of S. Cyril's Chapters, and would not consent that any thing should be added to the Nicene Creed: That they had for this Reason condemned S. Cyril and Memnon; the one as an Heretick, and the other as a Favourer of Heresie, and have Excommunicated those, who defend them till they should condemn S. Cyril's Chapters, and profess the Faith of the Nicene Council: That all the Lenity, which they had used, could do no good with them, but still these Bishops continued to maintain these Heretical Doctrines, and therefore had made themselves subject to the punishment inflicted by the Canons, and particularly by the fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch. Then they accused S. Cyril for being of the Judg∣ment of Arius and Apollinaris, and attributing that to the Godhead of Jesus Christ, which is said of his Humane Nature. As for themselves, they say, that they are resolved to hold to the Do∣ctrine of the Council of Nice, and to follow the Faith of the Holy Fathers: That this is the Judg∣ment not only of the Eastern Bishops, but also of the Asian Churches, and it is not to be doubted but that the Italians will oppose the Novelties, which they endeavour to bring in. They also ac∣cuse S. Cyril and Memnon for breaking the Canons by Communicating with Excommunicated Per∣sons, and with the Followers of Pelagius and Caelestius, and the Euchitae, or Enthusiasts. They pray them therefore not to receive S. Cyril and his Adherents to his Communion, nor to receive their Letter.

The end of the Council did not at all conduce to the Peace of the Church, but on the contrary the Minds of Men appeared more discontented than ever, and the Eastern Bishops, who had had the worst of it, sought to revenge themselves. In their return they wrote to Theodotus Bishop of * 1.55 Ancyra against the Letters of the Bishops of the Council. At Tarsus they confirmed what they had done, and deposed not only S. Cyril and Memnon, but also six of the Deputies of the Council of Ephesus, viz. Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Flavian Bishop of Philippi, Firmus Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Miletene, and Euoptius Bishop of Ptolemais. After∣ward being come into the East, they met again at Antioch, confirmed what they had done a se∣cond time, and from thence wrote to the Emperor, That they held no other Faith than that of the Nicene Council; That they abhorred S. Cyril's Chapters, and earnestly besought him to pro∣vide, that they be not taught in any of the Churches. Theodoret wrote also in his own Name to the People of Constantinople, which were well affected to their Party, to confirm them in the Opi∣nions which he had heretofore taught them, and to prove themselves innocent from the Errours laid to their charge, by professing that there is but One Christ, and by opposing S. Cyril's Senti∣ments, as being the same with the Apollinarians. There was in the farthest part of the East a certain Bishop, who was of S. Cyril's Judgment: It was Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, whose Zeal car∣ried him so far, that he not only condemned Nestorius, but also publickly pronounced Anathema against Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and all that were not of S. Cyril's Judgment. Being of these Prin∣ciples, he persecuted those, who would not come over to his Opinion, who fled to the other Bi∣shops. Andrew Bishop of Samosata hereupon consulted with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and * 1.56 shewed him, that it was necessary to declare himself. This was the reason that made John Bishop of Antioch, and some other of the Eastern Bishops, to write to the Bishop of Osroene, that they should not communicate with Rabulas, till being summoned before them, they had pardoned him upon his making Satisfaction, or he had been punished according to the Rigour of the Laws.

But as the Party of Cyril were ill used in the East, so those of the Nestorian Party, and the Ea∣stern Bishops met with no better usage in Asia, Cappadocia and Thrasia. Maximian chosen Bishop of Constantinople, who began already to exercise his Jurisdiction over the Churches of those Diocesses, would have himself acknowledged by all the Bishops, and deprived them, who would not com∣municate with him. Firmus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Metropolis of Cappadocia Prima, came to Tyana, and Ordain'd a Bishop in the place of Eutherius; but he getting some help, forced

him, whom Firmus had Ordain'd, to renounce his Ordination. They also attempted to depose Dorotheus Metropolitan of Martianople, and Ordain Saturninus in his place. They also endeavour∣ed to deprive Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, because he would not put the Name of Maximian into the Dypticks. Lastly, All places were full of Deposed and Exiled Bishops, and the Church was in terrible Trouble and Confusion. * 1.57

The Emperor Theodosius being desirous to remedy these Disorders, which increased daily, wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, That he might put an end to these by signing the Condemnation of Ne∣storius, and pronouncing Anathema to his Doctrine, and by this means all this Trouble would cease: That S. Cyril, S. Caelestine, and the other Bishops would communicate with him; and that this may be brought to pass, he commanded him to come to Nicomedia with some of his Clergy only, assuring him, that S. Cyril had also Orders to be there, and that he had told them, that they should not come to Court, till they were reconciled; and had procured Peace to the Church by their Re-union. He forbids them in the mean while to attempt either to dispossess, or ordain any Bishop. The Emperor wrote to S. Symeon Stylites, and Acacius Bishop of Beraea, that the one * 1.58 should labour to procure the Peace of the Church by his Prayers, and the other by his Care. This Letter was written in the beginning of the Year 432. The Count Aristolaus was sent to execute these Orders, and wrote to John Bishop of Antioch to come to Nicomedia. John suspected that the design was to carry him from thence to Constantinople, and therefore being unwilling to do any thing without the advice of his Brethren, he wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, That if * 1.59 it were in his Power to go, or not, it was necessary to deliberate together, what they should an∣swer; and if he were carried away by force, he ought at least to take his leave: That he was too weak to undertake so great a Journey: That he was afraid they would make some attempt upon his Life by the way. Then he desires Alexander to come to the Synod, which was shortly to meet at Cyrus, according to the Custom, that they might take Resolutions together what they should do. He adds, That the Propositions which they had brought, were more impious; That S. Cyril's Chapters had some appearance at least of Errour, but at present they demanded no more than to condemn them that taught that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ.

Aristolaus used no compulsion to carry John Bishop of Antioch: But finding him inclinable to * 1.60 Peace, suffered him to call a Synod, which was held at Antioch, where they declared that they would remain stedfast to the Faith of the Council of Nice, which needed no Explication; That they understood it in the sense, in which S. Athanasius had explained it in his Letter to Epictetus, and that they rejected the Letters, Chapters, and other Decisions lately made, as being only fit to raise Disturbances.

They made also five other Propositions, but this was the principal, and all the Eastern Bishops resolved for the Peace of the Church to receive S. Cyril to their Communion, if he did approve this Proposition, provided that they were not obliged to subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius. This was the Judgment not only of John Bishop of Antioch, but also of Alexander Bishop of Hie∣rapolis, * 1.61 Theodoret, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and other Zealous Defenders of the Nestorian Party. Acacius Bishop of Beraea was commissioned to make this Proposition to Aristoläus, that he might communicate it to S. Cyril. This Count went immediately to Alexandria, and made this Propo∣sition to S. Cyril, who would not accept the Proposition of the Eastern Bishops, but on the con∣trary in his Letter to Acacius insisted upon it, That he not only could never reject that, which had been done at Ephesus against the Blasphemies of Nestorius, but likewise that he could not unite again with the Eastern Bishops, unless they would condemn Nestorius and his Doctrine, and treat him with disgrace as an Heretick. Nevertheless to give the Eastern Bishops some Satisfaction, he pronounced Anathema against the Errours of Arius and Apollinaris, and declares that he believes That the Body of Jesus Christ is animated with a Rational Soul; That he allows not of any Confu∣sion, Conversion or Mixture between the two Natures of Jesus Christ; That he confesses, that the Godhead is impassible, but holds, That Jesus Christ, the Son of God, hath suffered according to the Flesh for us. He adds, That his twelve Chapters were only designed to oppose Nestorius's Errors; and when the Peace is made, he will easily satisfie any Objections, which they can form against them.

This Letter being delivered to Acacius of Beraea, with another from Aristoläus, which was brought by Maximus, sent on purpose from Alexandria about this Affair, Acacius also having af∣terward received two other Letters from S. Cyril, and one from the Bishop of Rome, as also a se∣cond * 1.62 Letter from the Emperor, all which exhorted him to further the Peace of the Church; he sent to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, a Copy of S. Cyril's Letter; and wrote to them at the same time, That he thought that they ought to be contented with this Explication, which was very exact, and conformable to their Sentiments, and that he prayed them to approve the Answer which John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Bishops assembled at Antioch, gave S. Cy∣ril, and the Conditions of Peace to which they would agree. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, were of different Judgments about the Letters of S. Cyril, yet they both agreed that they ought not to conclude a Peace upon this Condition alone. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis took no∣tice, * 1.63 that the Letter of S. Cyril contained also some Errours, and maintained that the Word ought to be thought only to have suffered according to the Flesh. Theodoret on the contrary believed it Orthodox, and looked upon it as a tacit Retractation of the Doctrine of the twelve Chapters, al∣though there were some terms intricate and obscure: But he much disapproved S. Cyril's Conduct in rejecting the Proposition, which had been offered by the Bishops of the Council of Antioch, and

he thought it impossible to make any Peace so long as S. Cyril would oblige them to sign the Con∣demnation of Nestorius. He was very willing, that they should condemn those in general, who affirm, that Jesus Christ is a mere Man, who divide Jesus Christ into two Sons, or deny his Godhead; but he could not endure to condemn a Person, whom he thought to be of Orthodox Sentiments, at the same time, that he approved of sound Doctrine. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Maximus Bishop of Anazarbum, Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, were of the * 1.64 same Judgment with Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis; and although they were averse from the Proposition of Peace made by S. Cyril, yet they would not agree to Theodoret's. This is seen by the Letters which these Bishops wrote one to another, and to Acacius Bishop of Beraea, Mediator of the Peace.

John Bishop of Antioch, who earnestly desired a Peace, being troubled to see these impediments on both sides, thought, that the best way to remove them, was to send a Bishop, being per∣suaded, that things would be cleared by a conference, and that an accommodation might more easily be effected vivâ voee, than by Writing; besides, by this means the more Zealous would not be obliged to Subscribe any thing, and yet would be comprehended in the Peace. There∣fore he chose Paul Bishop of Emesa, who had Subscribed for Acacius Bishop of Beraea in their Council of Ephesus, to undergo this Charge. He wrote also at the same time to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that he ought to yield; That the Objections which he made were very subtle; That it was not a time to dispute Philosophically, but to redress the troubles of the Church, and the pressing dangers with which it was threatned; That Archilaus Bishop of Euphratesia was likely to be condemned to bear a great Fine.

Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, could not agree to this Proposition, and took that very ill which John had written to him. Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople approved of their sending Paul Bishop * 1.65 of Emesa; but he particularly recommended it to them, that they should oblige them to Sub∣scribe, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, without Confusion or Mixture.

John Bishop of Antioch gave Paul Bishop of Emesa a Letter for S. Cyril, in which he tells him, That his Twelve Chapters were the Sourse and Original of the Division; but his Letter to Aca∣cius * 1.66 had made them clear, and corrected, what was amiss in them; That it needed no further Explication, and that if the Peace were once concluded, they might explain themselves better. He was pleased, that S. Cyril approved of S. Athanasius's Letter to Epictetus, and says, That that alone was sufficient to discover the true Sense of the Doctrine of the Council of Nice.

Paul Bishop of Emesa being come to Alexandria, having had one conference with S. Cyril about what passed at Ephesus, delivered the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch to him, who was much displeased with him for it; because it revived the complaints, which were made against the twelve Chapters, and reflected upon what was done in the Council of Nice. Nevertheless the Emperor was intent upon a Peace, and resolved to have one at any rare. Paul Bishop of Emesa, a Subtle and Prudent Man, excused the Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and said, That he had no design to offend S. Cyril, and that it ought not to be any hindrance to the Union. Saint Cy∣ril insisted upon the Condemnation of Nestorius, and Paul Bishop of Emesa satisfied him by ac∣knowledging that Nestorius had been justly Deposed, and that Maximian was a Lawful Bishop, * 1.67 and giving him a Declaration of it in Writing. Paul Bishop of Emesa having Subscribed it, re∣quested, that he would be contented with his Subscription, as done in the name of all the Eastern Bishops. But S. Cyril required, that John also should Subscribe a certain Writing, which he would send him. Paul Bishop of Emesa demanded also, That the Bishops deposed by Maximian should be restored, viz. Helladius of Tarsus, Eutherius of Tyana, Himerius of Nicomedia, and Do∣rotheus of Martianople, but S. Cyril would not give his consent to it. * 1.68

Nevertheless the common report at Constantinople was, That S. Cyril had retracted his Opini∣ons, and done all that the Eastern Bishops required of him; Insomuch that S. Cyril was obliged to relate the whole transaction to his Legats; How he had obliged Paul to sign the Condemna∣tion of Nestorius, before he communicated with him, and how he had not sent a Letter of Com∣munion to John Bishop of Antioch, but upon condition, that before it be given him he should sign a Writing, which he did send him, containing the Condemnation of Nestorius.

John Bishop of Antioch deferring his answer for some time, S. Cyril was something troubled, fearing lest his Deputies should have given his Letter of Communion to John Bishop of Antioch, * 1.69 before he had Signed the Condemnation of Nestorius. Epiphanius the Arch-Deacon, and Coad∣jutor of S. Cyril, wrote about it to Maximian, and earnestly intreated him to see that their design be put in Execution, and to persuade the Emperor to compel John Bishop of Antioch to Subscribe against Nestorius, and command, that no mention be made of him for the future.

John Bishop of Antioch having received S. Cyril's Letter, returned him an answer, and changing something in the form of Faith, which S. Cyril had sent him, said,

That without adding any * 1.70 thing to the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice, unless by way of Explication and Declaration; He confessed, that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, was perfect God and perfect Man, having a Body, and a reasonable Soul, born of his Father from all Eternity, according to his Godhead, born of the Virgin in time according to his Manhood, consubstantial with the Father according to the * 1.71 Divinity; because he hath united the two Natures after such a manner, as that they are but One Christ, One Son, One Lord. And in this Sense of the Union without mixture it may be said, That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because

the Word was Incarnate, was made Flesh, and was United in the Moment of his Conception to the Body, which he took from her. And as to the terms attributed to Our Lord in the Gos∣pels and Writings of the Apostles; some of which, Divines make common, as agreeing to the Person only, and others they apply separately upon the account of the distinction of the two Natures, and apply some to the Divine, and others to the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.

Having given his approbation of this Faith, he declares, that for Peace sake, and to take away all occasion of Scandal, he did acknowledge that Nestorius was justly Deposed; That he con∣demned the Novel-Expressions, which they endeavoured to introduce; That he approved the Ordination of Maximian, and he Communicated with all the Orthodox Bishops.

This Letter being carried to Alexandria, S. Cyril did readily unite himself with John Bishop of Antioch; and to satisfie John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops for his part, he wrote them a Letter, in which having declared how joyful he was at this Re-union, and approved their Confession of Faith; He condemns the Errors they had accused him of, and acknowledged, that there is not either Mixture, or Confusion, or Conversion of the two Natures; That the Nature of the Word is neither diminished, nor become passible. He approves of Athanasius's Opinion, but he observes, that there are two Editions, wherein the Letter to Epictetus hath been Corrupted. Paul Bishop of Emesa, and S. Cyril, being thus agreed in the main, Paul Bishop of Emesa made a Ser∣mon * 1.72 Dec. 25. 432. in which having explained his Doctrine about the Incarnation, and confessed that he believed the Virgin the Mother of God, he was interrupted by the Acclamations of the People; So that he Preached the remaining part on Jan. 1. following, and S. Cyril approved Paul Bishop of Emesa's Discourse in a short Sermon.

John Bishop of Antioch having received this News with this Letter of S. Cyril, he wrote Cir∣cular * 1.73 Letters to the Eastern Bishops; in which he tells them, That S. Cyril had made a plain Confession of the Orthodox Faith, approved the form of Faith which he had sent him, and had freed himself from the Errors with which he was accused, and had removed all Objections against him; That by this means, all the Churches were again United in one Communion. He ex∣horts all the Bishops to joyn in this Peace, and says, That they that stand out, will discover, that they have acted not through Zeal for the Faith, but through Passion. He sent them with this Letter a Copy of his Letter to S. Cyril, and of S. Cyril's to him. John Bishop of Antioch * 1.74 wrote also particularly to Theodoret, before Paul Bishop of Emesa was returned. Lastly, He sent a Letter of Communion in his own Name, and in the Name of the Eastern Bishops, to S. Sixtus, * 1.75 S. Cyril, and Maximian, in which he assures them, that he approved of the Deposition of Nesto∣rius, condemned his Impious Doctrine, and consented to the Ordination of Maximian; and S. Cyril on his part wrote to Maximian, S. Sixtus, and John Bishop of Antioch. While these things passed in the East, S. Sixtus Bishop of Rome, who succeeded S. Caelestine, had ordered things in the same manner almost at Rome, having approved of what the Council had done against Nestorius, yet without coming to any disagreement with John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, and exhorting S. Cyril to endeavour after Peace, and to receive them, if they would ap∣prove of the Orthodox Faith.

Since there were always some Persons, who carried themselves with Passion, or indiscreet Zeal, this Peace was not generally approved. Saint Cyril was accused by some of being too re∣miss; insomuch, that he was forced to justifie himself by several Letters, and to demonstrate, that the Confession of the Eastern Bishops was Orthodox. This is the Subject of his Letters to Acacius Bishop of Melitine, to Eulogius, to Donatus, and Maximus, who refused to communicate with John, and the other Eastern Bishops.

This Agreement of John Bishop of Antioch displeased a great many of his Brethren. Theodoret, who was one of the most moderate of that Party, did not at first disapprove the Conditions of the Peace, not knowing, that they exacted the Condemnation of Nestorius, but he wrote to John * 1.76 Bishop of Antioch, that he ought not to conclude a Peace, till those who had been deprived were restored. He wrote also the same to Theosebus, and several other Bishops. John Bishop of Anti∣och wrote about it to the Emperor, to satisfie him. But Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Andrew Bishop of Samosata, Melitus Bishop of Mopsuesta, declared from the beginning, That they disap∣proved of this Peace, and reproved two things chiefly in it, viz. The Condemnation of Nesto∣rius, and the approbation of the term, The Mother of God without any Explication. Theodoret likewise knowing, that he had condemned Nestorius, disallowed the Agreement, and joyned with Andrew of Samosata, and Alexander of Hierapolis. He invited them to come to Zeugma to deli∣berate about what was fit for them to do, Alexander would not go, but answered, That such a Meeting was needless; That 'twas evident, that S. Cyril was more to be blamed than ever; That he required that Nestorius should be peremptorily condemned, but would not condemn the three Chapters. He complains of the proceedings of John Bishop of Antioch, and accuses him of having betrayed his Faith, and condemned an Innocent Person. Andrew Bishop of Samosata was more * 1.77 moderate, and advised Alexander to agree, without requiring S. Cyril to condemn his twelve Chapters, since it sufficeth, That he hath made profession of the Orthodox Faith, and we must use some condescension for the benefit of Peace. But Alexander absolutely refused, and declared, That he would not communicate with S. Cyril, nor with those who joyned with him. Andrew Bishop of Samosata, and John Bishop of Germanicia had much ado to bring him to any accommo∣dation, * 1.78 for he told them, he took this Proposition ill, and condemned their carriage. Maximian

Bishop of Anazarbus told them. That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was also very much surprized at their proceedings. The∣doret was willing to come to an Agreement, for he thought S. Cyril's Confession was Orthodox, but he would not give up Ne•…•…. He wrote his Opinion to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, and the People of Constantinople. Helladius Bishop of Ta••••us, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and the Bishops of Cilicia met at 〈◊〉〈◊〉; there they confirmed the Condemnation of S. Cyril, and Excommuni∣cated those who had received him to their Communion, till he should condemn his Chapters, as * 1.79 they had agreed the first time they were Assembled. After they had taken these Resolutions they wrote to S. Sixtus, that S. Cyril hath taught the Heresie of Apollinaris in his twelve Chapters, * 1.80 which was condemned at Rome by Pope D••••asus; that he hath condemned Nestorius at Ephesus unjustly, and on the contrary S. Cyril and Me•…•… were justly Deposed; that the Emperor ha∣ving convened the Bishops of both Parties, their Adversaries would not enter into a Conference with them about the points of Faith; that they taught Errors, and falsly imposed them upon those that were not of their Judgment; That John Bishop of Antioch had himself condemned S. Cyril's Chapters, but hath since prevaricated by receiving S. Cyril and Mamnon to Communion; that he alone hath absolved them from the Anathema pronounced against them by several Bishops; and not content with this, he condemned Nestorius, and all that he hath asserted, as Impious, without marking any particular. They pray the Pope to inform himself of these things, and to assist them; That they would pour out floods of Tears at his Feet, if the fear of those Wolves, which are ready to enter into their Flocks, did not constrain them to continue with them, and watch over them.

It was to no purpose for them to think to engage the Pope to them, for knowing the Peace he had approved the Conditions, Sept. 15. 433, and had written about them to S. Cyril, and John Bishop of Antioch.

John Bishop of Antioch being angry, because Alexander and some other Bishops of the East and Asia, not only refused to be included in the Peace, but separated themselves from him upon that * 1.81 Account; after he had written to them several times, he implored the help of the Imperial Au∣thority, to force them to submit to his Will. Proclus having been Ordain'd Bishop of Constanti∣nople in the room of Maximian, in the beginning of the Year 434, he took that occasion, writing about that Ordination to the Prefect Taurus, to desire him to assist him with his Authority against the Bishops, who refused to joyn in Communion with him. He sent also to Constantinople one named Verius, who obtain'd an Edict against them from the Emperor, directed to Domitian the * 1.82 Questor. John Bishop of Antioch certified Alexander in particular of the Emperor's will, telling him, that he would not allow any of the Bishops to come to Constantinople. The Letter was delivered to Alexander by one of the Emperor's Officers, but he would not receive it; but hearing It read on∣ly he promised to obey the Emperor's Orders. Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and the Bishops of Euphratesia, whose Metropolitan he was, wrote a Circular Letter to all the Bishops of Syria, the * 1.83 two Cilicia's and of Cappadocia Secunda, in which they complain of John Bishop of Antioch, as well because he hath condemned Nestorius, as because of the troubles he involved them in, and his daily attempts against them. Alexander in signing this Letter, discovers, that it was a year since he communicated with him, which shews, that it was written in 434. Helladius Bishop of * 1.84 Tarsus, Metropolitan of the upper Cilicia, and four Bishops of the same Province answered them, That they had a design to call a Synod, but being hindred by the approaching Festival, they comforted them by advising them to have recourse to their Prayers. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, * 1.85 and the Bishops of the Lower Cilicia comforted them also by a Letter, and exhorted them to re∣main stedfast. But Alexander Bishop of Apimaea wrote to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, that * 1.86 he desired to speak with him, certainly that he might persuade him to the Peace; but not being able to come to Hierapolis by reason of the Feast, he prayed him to come to some Monastry half way to meet him. All these Writings would not keep them from persecuting the Bishops, who would not communicate with John Bishop of Antioch. Theodoret complains in a Letter written to the Governor of his Countrey, That they had stirred up Tumults in his Diocese, that they had * 1.87 thrust out Abibus Bishop of Dolechia, and had ordained in his place a Priest called Athanasius, who had been heretofore convicted of a Wicked Life; that they had also Ordained in another Church one Named Marinian known to be a Debauched Man, and that this Ordination had been made contrary to the Canons, without the Authority of the Metropolitan, by strange Bishops. That they had hindred Athanasius from entring the Church of Dolechia, and made him promise upon Oath, that he would not accept of it, but that he had not long after possessed himself of it, with∣out any regard had to his Oaths.

Abibus being thus deprived, presented a Petition to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and to The∣odorus, a Bishop of his Province, wherein he complains that he had been driven out of his See by * 1.88 force, and declared, That he had never voluntarily quitted his Bishoprick, as they had divulged. These Bishops wrote to the Empresses against those violences, which John Bishop of Antioch used against those that would not be of his Judgment. They complain, that he had ordain'd two Bi∣shops in their Provinc•• contrary to the Canons; and that he had put one into a Church which was in the Diocese of Hierapolis. They implore these Princes to obtain of the Emperor to forbid these Ordinations contrary to the rules, and allow the Bishops in their Province to Celebrate them according to their Custom, and to leave the Church of S. Sergius to depend upon the Bi∣shoprick of Hierapolis

Nevertheless, there came a second Order from the Court to Titus a Count and Imperial Vicar, and sent in the Emperor's Name by Count Dionysius, Master of the Horse, who enjoyned him to bid Helladius Bishop of Tarsus, Maximian Bishop of Anazarbum, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and Theodoret, to return to the Communion of John Bishop of Antioch, upon the penalty of being immediately deprived of their Churches. Helladius wrote about it to Melitius Bishop of Mopsuesta, * 1.89 and desired to know what he should do; Melitius answered him, That he ought to remain stedfast. Theodoret also wrote about it to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and tells him, That as for himself, he was not afraid of his Menaces, and that he was willing to retire; but his Monks had much disturbed him, by representing it to him as his Duty not to be against the Peace, and that they had proposed it to him to go to Gindarus, where they would procure John Bishop of Antioch that they might discourse of an Agreement; That he had yielded to this Proposition, but had refused to go to Antioch.

Alexander answered him, That he was resolved never to communicate with Cyril: That what had been commanded since from Constantinople, confirmed him in that Resolution: That though all the Dead should rise to persuade him the contrary, he would do nothing: That he was ready to leave his Bishoprick, and had already done it, had not he feared he should pass for a Deserter, and a Coward for forsaking his Flock. Theodoret answered, That he seemed to be acted with too much passion: That he ought to con∣descend * 1.90 so far as he might safely without approving any thing that is not true. That he ought to examine the Synodical Letter of John Bishop of Antioch, and S. Cyril; and if they found it Orthodox, they might communicate with S. Cyril, nevertheless not approving what had been done at Ephesus: That he had heard, that he brought this Proposition out of the East: That Proclus Bishop of Constantinople was of sound Principles: That Hilladius and Eutherius had told him so: That he could wish, that they could meet with John Bishop of Antioch at some distance from Antioch, on condition, that those whom he hath unduly Ordained, should be excluded: That he was troubled that John Bishop of Antioch having in his Letter made Confession of the Orthodox Faith, had condenmed Nestorius, who had no other Opi∣nions than those which John did explain: That that which comforted him, was, That he had not absolutely condemned his Doctrine, but particular all that he had said, or written against the Doctrine of the Apostles.

Alexander replied, That he did not separate from John Bishop of Antioch upon the account of the Ordinations, which that Patriarch had unfitly made, but because he hath betrayed his Faith, and com∣municated with an Heretick: That he was resolved not to communicate with any of those, who held Com∣munion with S. Cyril, although they should condemn his Chapters. And to shew to what an height the * 1.91 Bishop of Constantinople had driven things, he sent him the beginning of his Synodical Letter, where he speaks of the Seditions which sprung from the corrupt Seeds of Nestorius's Doctrine.

Theodoret did not yield to this Counsel, but on the contrary he thought himself obliged to ad∣monish * 1.92 his Metropolitan Alexander friendly, That it was necessary to consider upon a Peace; That he saw the Churches would certainly be ruined; That their Flocks would become a Prey to Wolves; That he was afraid that they must give an Account to God for being backward to it; That by comparing the Ad∣vantage of Peace with the Disadvantages that might redound to the Church, he found it would lose more by holding out, than by a small Compliance.

But Alexander, who was never to be wrought upon, gave him an angry Answer, That he would * 1.93 not have him write any more to him about it. And for an Answer to Theodoret's Maxim, he told him, That the only way to compare the Benefit and Damage that might be done, is to chuse the part that Truth is on: That Deprivation, Banishment, Death, and Disgraceful Revilings of Men, are nothing to Eter∣nal Torments: That he did not wonder that Theodoret inclined to a Peace, being persuaded that S. Cy∣ril was Orthodox; But as for him, who thought him an Heretick, he could not communicate with him. Whereupon he cites the Examples of Meletius Bishop of Constantinople, Eusebius Bishop of Samosata, of Barsus, and of many other Bishops, who have been deposed because they would not communi∣cate with Hereticks. He sent him a Letter from Parthenius a Priest, who assured him, that Ne∣storius's Adversaries had not at all altered their Mind.

Theodoret seeing that there was no way to change the Resolution of his Metropolitan, consulted * 1.94 his own Affairs alone; and going to Antioch, entred into Communion with John, but without any Subscription, or Approbation of the Condemnation of Nestorius, to whom he wrote a Letter to excuse himself, as also to Helladius Bishop of Tarsus. The Bishops of Cilicia Secunda followed his * 1.95 Example, and wrote a Synodical Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which they acknowledged, That his Letter to S. Cyril was Orthodox; That they had separated themselves from him out of a suspi∣cion that S. Cyril's Chapters were Heretical, but their fear was taken away by that Exposition of Faith. The Bishops of Cilicia Prima and Isauna yielded also, but they could never alter the inflexible Resolution of Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret himself wrote again to him, and to his Friends, to persuade him, but he answered his Letters with anger, and sharp Reflections, shew∣ing always an unconquerable Resolution and Obstinacy. Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta was the only Man of the Cilician Bishops that imitated him. John Bishop of Antioch deposed, and ordain∣ed in his place Chromatius, and presented a Petition to the Emperor to persuade him to remove * 1.96 him from his See.

But they behaved themselves better towards Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis. Theodoret having done what he could to bring him over, even by desiring Nestorius to write to him, interceded for him to John Bishop of Antioch, and desired him to let him alone, shewing him, that it would be of no ill consequence, nor prejudice his Cause, because he would be quiet, whereas if he provo∣ked

him, 'twould cause more trouble. But John Bishop of Antioch, who was resolved to make all the Eastern Bishops subject to him, wrote to Alexander by Count Titus, and Dionysius Master of the Horse, That they had born patiently hitherto in respect to him; but if he did still continue in his Resolution not to communicate with John of Antioch, they could not wait any longer, nor dissemble. He answered with his ordinary stiffness, That he could not communicate with a Bishop who had received Hereticks to his Communion, and that he was willing to go without any noise or stir whether they pleased. * 1.97 After this, Titus gave Orders to Libianus Judge of Euphratesia to expel Alexander, if he still re∣main'd in his Resolution, and to put in his place such a Person as the Synod of Bishops should Or∣dain. This Order being made known to Alexander, he retreated, and Libianus telling Titus, that * 1.98 he had executed his Orders, represents to him, and John Bishop of Antioch, the Affliction that the Church of Hierapolis was in, having lost their Bishop, and prayed them to have some regard to it.

John Bishop of Antioch wrote hereupon to the Clergy, and People of Hierapolis. That he had * 1.99 used all manner of ways to convert their Bishop Alexander; That he had prayed, and sollicited him seve∣ral times not to hinder the Peace by his obstiuate refusal; And that he was yet willing to receive him, if he would comply, and enter into Communion with him. Lastly, They thrust out, and banished all the Bishops, which refused to communicate with John of Antioch. Irenaens hath given us a Catalogue * 1.100 of them, after he hath related the Order, which was given against him, and against another called Photius, Adherents of Nestorius: Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, banished to Phamosis in Egypt, where there are Mines: Abibus Bishop of Dolochia, who was one of the first that was driven out of his Diocess, and another ordain'd in his place by John Bishop of Antioch: Dorotheus Bishop of Martianople, Metropolitan of Moesia, who was sent to Caesarea in Cappadocia: Valeanius and Eudo∣cius, Bishops of the Province of Moesia, subject to the Metropolis of Dorotheus, who withdrew themselves voluntarily from the Churches: Meletius Bishop of Mopsuesta, Bishop of Cilicia Secun∣da, banished to Melitina, a City of Armenia, where Acacius Bishop of that City made him suffer much: Zenobius Bishop of Zaphyria in Cilicia Prima, who left his Church in the same manner, and was afterward banished to Tiberias, from whom he was also driven: Anastasius Bishop of Te∣nedos, Pausianus Bishop of Hypate, Basil Metropolitan of Larissa in Thessalia, Julian Bishop of Sardica, who retreated themselves, and suffered much: Theosebus Bishop of Chios, who died in his own Church, and would never communicate with those who had received S. Cyril: Acilinus Bishop of Barbalissa, who was expelled from his Bishoprick for refusing to communicate with John, but he was after re-united to him without the condemning of Nestorius: Maximinus Bishop of Deme∣trias in Thessaly, who separated himself immediately after the Condemnation of Nestorius. Thus ended the long and boisterous Contest between the Eastern Bishops, which lasted two Years com∣pleat after the Peace made between B. of Antioch and S. Cyril. Lastly, Nestorius, who was the Author and Subject of all these Troubles, was himself last of all sacrificed to it, being removed from his Monastery, and banished to Oasis by the Emperors Edict published in 435. and by ano∣ther Edict in August in the same Year: His Books were condemned to be burnt, and all Persons forbid to read them.

Peace seemed by this means to be restored to the Church, all the Bishops being of the same Communion, but there still remained some Seeds of Division in Mens Minds. The Eastern Bi∣shops * 1.101 had a secret Grudge against the Egyptian, and the Egyptians could not endure the Eastern. They suspected one another guilty of Heresie, the one were always persuaded that S. Cyril's Chap∣ters were Heretical, and the others thought them Orthodox. Besides, several Eastern Bishops had not condemned Nestorius, and were not inclined to condemn him, thinking him innocent. Nevertheless one of the Conditions of the Peace was, That they should curse Nestorius. Lastly, Some of those who Signed the Deposition of Nestorius, would not add any thing against his Do∣ctrine, saying, That the Emperor exacted no more of them, and to communicate with the Patri∣archs. Thus the Bishops of Cilicia Prima explained themselves in the Letter that they wrote to the Emperor in the presence of Aristolaus. But this did not content S. Cyril, and therefore he sent Beronicianus Bishop of Tyre to beg of the Emperor, That he would by his Edict force all the Bishops not only to condemn the Person of Nestorius, but also to condemn his Impious Doctrines, and at the same time to confess that there is but one Son only, who ought not to be divided in∣to * 1.102 two, born of God after an ineffable manner before all time, and born of the Virgin in time according to the Flesh. That in this sense she is the Mother of God, because one and the same Person is God and Man both, the Word being Incarnate without Confusion, or mixture; and that this Word is passible in the Humane Nature, although he be impassible in the Divine. This Edict was sent to Aristolaus, who presented it to the Bishops of Cilicia Prima, and the Ea∣stern Bishops. Acacius Bishop of Meletine having heard that S. Cyril obtain'd this Edict, congra∣tulated him for it by a Letter, and advised him to send some zealous and faithful Persons with Aristolaus, who might compel all the Bishops to condemn the Doctrines of Nestorius, and Theodo∣rus, and those who affirm, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, which act distinctly, and that plainly, and without Ambiguities, because he had seen some Nostorians in Germanicia, who by asserting. That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, introduced two Persons, and two Sons, se∣parating the two Natures, and making them to act distinctly.

At the same time S. Cyril wrote a Letter to John Bishop of Antioch, in which he tells him, That it was said, That some Eastern Bishops, who seemed to condemn Nestorius, and to curse his Do∣ctrine, did yet revive his Errours. He assures him, That he did not believe it, but he pray'd him, That if there were any such, he should take notice of them, and confute them. He thought, that it was not sufficient for all that to condemn Nestorius, and his Doctrines, because they might evade it, by saying, That they condemned him for nothing but because he would not * 1.103 give the Virgin Mary the Name of the Mother of God; but when they curse Nestorius and his Do∣ctrine, they must profess the Faith contain'd in the Edict before-mentioned. He wrote also to Aristolaus not to permit those, who do not confess this Faith, to continue in the Priesthood, and Clergy. He wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, and Aristolaus, particularly against Theodoret, ha∣ving heard by a Priest named Daniel, that he had not condemned the Person or Doctrine of Ne∣storius. He tells another Bishop also named Mosaeus, that the Abbot Maximus accused him of ha∣ving asserted the Blasphemies of Nestorius.

John Bishop of Antioch having received this Edict of the Emperor, was surprized, that the Ea∣stern * 1.104 Bishops having so manifestly condemned Nestorius and his Doctrine, and given so great proofs of the soundness of their Faith, should yet be suspected, and a new Confession of Faith be exact∣of them. He wrote to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, That this was very unjust dealing; That they would neither add any thing, nor take from the Nicene Creed; That they understood it as the Fathers of both the Eastern and Western Churches had explained it; That they rejected the Hereticks that had corrupted it; That this may suffice for their Justification, although it was needless, having done four Years since all that was desired of them, at the time when Paul Bishop of Emosa came out of Egypt. That he could not imagine for what reason they sought out new mat∣ter of quarrel; That the Bishops of the Provinces adjoyning to the Sea, of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Ara∣bia, Mesopotamia, Osroëne, Euphratesia, and the Lower Syria, are of the same Judgment, and have approved what they have done; That he prayed him to prevent those new Troubles, and to suf∣fer the Eastern and Asian Churches to have some respite, and to protect them against the Heathens, Jews, and some Nestorians of Cilicia, who yet held out their Opposition. He wrote the same thing to S. Cyril, who replyed to his Letter, That he rejoyced to see him in so good a Mind, and * 1.105 that he desired nothing so much as to see Union and Peace in the Church, and to see those Scan∣dals to cease, which John Bishop of Antioch had once suppressed, and he would endeavour fully to extinguish for the future.

By this he seemed to let the Eastern Bishops to be quiet hereafter, but there were some trou∣blesome unquiet Spirits, who raised a new contest, which troubled the Church a long time. Some of the Clergy and Monks of Antioch seeing that they could not create any further Distur∣bances to the Bishops about the business of Nestorius, because there was no discourse of him or his Writings, which had been plainly condemned, noised it abroad, that they revived the same Er∣rours under the Name of Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodorus of Mopsuesta, whose Writings they in∣tended to publish. Hereupon they wrote a large Letter, which they sent to S. Cyril. At the * 1.106 same time the Abbot Maximus, who dwelt at Antioch, disgraced the Eastern Bishops, saying, That they were all Nestorians; that they pretended to approve of the Nicene Creed, but they put what sense they pleased upon it. Theodotus Bishop of Ancyra, Acacius Bishop of Melitina, and Rabulas * 1.107 Bishop of Edessa, who were the most Zealous against the Nestorians, declared themselves first against the Writings of Theodotus Bishop of Mopsuesta. Rabulas and Acacius wrote a Circular Let∣ter to the Bishops of Armenia, to oblige them to reject the Books of Theodorus, which they had translated into their own Language. The Bishops of Armenia being met upon that account, ad∣dressed themselves to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, to know what they should do upon the oc∣casion, and sent two Priests with the Letters of Acacius and Rabulas, and the Books of Theodorus. Proclus having received these Pieces, composed a Writing, entituled, An Epistle to the Armenians, in which he explains the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Incarnation, affirming, That to avoid all Ambiguities, we ought to confess, that One Person of the Holy Trinity was Incarnate. To this Writing he joyned such Propositions as he thought Heretical, or at least suspected of He∣resie, which were extracted out of Theodorus's Books, but he did not name him. He sent this Writing to John Bishop of Antioch by his Deacon Theodotus. The Bishops of the East being met at Antioch, read this Work of Proclus there, approved it, subscribed it, and sent it to him, but did not condemn the Extracts of Theodorus's Books. S. Cyril having received this Piece of Proclus by Basilius the Deacon, the Letter of the Bishops of Armenia, and the Extracts of Theodorus's Books, declared himself openly against the Works of the Latter, and wrote to the Emperor, Not to suf∣fer them to be approved; and to John Bishop of Antioch, That he should condemn them. Acacius Bishop of Melitina wrote also to John Bishop of Antioch, against the Writings of Theodorus. The Abbot Maximus, who was the principal Author of these new Broils, had put the Name of Theo∣dorus Bishop of Mopsuesta, and Diodorus, at the Head of those Extracts which S. Proclus had annexed to his Letter, and would have the Eastern Bishops to curse Theodorus. The Monks of Armenia took the pains to dispose these Extracts over all the Eastern parts; and going from City to City, boldly declared. That they ought to condemn them, and curse the Author of them.

John Bishop of Antioch complained of this first to Proclus and S. Cyril; assuring them, that the Eastern Bishops would rather separate than condemn the Memory of Theodorus. Whereupon S. Cyril wrote to Proclus, That though he believed the Works of Theodorus to be full of Impieties

and Blasphemies, yet he thought it more convenient for Peace sake, and to prevent a separation of the Eastern Bishops not to speak of him, chiefly because he dyed in the Communion of the Church. Proclus wrote on his part to Maximus, that he disapproved his Carriage, that he ought to be obedient to his Bishop, and not trouble the East; and that he would send his Dea∣con back again, when his Writing is Signed, and the Propositions annexed at the end of it, be rejected.

John Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Bishops, could not hold their Peace, seeing the Memory of a Bishop who was of so great reputation among them to be assaulted. Being assembled there∣fore at Antioch in 436, or 437, they wrote three Letters for the defence of Theodorus, the one to the Emperor Theodosius, the other to Proclus Bishop of Constantinople, and the third to S. Cyril.

In the Letter to Theodosius; they humbly represent to this Emperor; that it is unjust and pre∣judicial to the Church to quarrel at the Writings or Memory of Theodorus; that this great Man * 1.108 for five years together was a professed Enemy and Opposer of Heresie; That he was commended, admired by all the World, and highly esteemed by Theodosius the Great; That he was the Scho∣lar of Flavian and S. Chrysostom; That having Written a great deal, it is likely he may have * 1.109 some Expressions which may give some ground for the Accusations brought against him; That the Ancient Fathers have used the same Modes of speaking, which are reproved in the Works of Theodorus. Lastly, That those, who bring this Accusation are troublesome Persons, who are de∣lighted in nothing but disturbances and confusion.

In the Letter to Proclus they commend his Book, blame those that were the Authors of the Division, who accuse their Bishops, and not content to raise Sedition against the Living, desire to do it against the Dead, and make their attempts to condemn Theodorus. Theodorus, who in his Life-time never received any reproof, who was always commended, and esteemed by the Empe∣ror and Bishops, who ever opposed himself against the Heresies, and wrote 10000 Volumes to confute them. They conclude this Letter by maintaining, that we may find an infinite number of such like passages, as those of Theodorus, in Ignatius, Eustathius, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, Flavian, Di∣odorus, S. John, Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, and Atticus. From whence they infer, that if we con∣demn Theodorus, we must also do the same to them, because there is none of them out of which the like passages may not be taken, especially, if we sever them from what goes before, and follows after, as they have done in those that are extracted from the Writings of Theodorus.

Lastly, in the Letter to S. Cyril they say, that being Assembled upon the account of Proclus's Letter, they thought it needless to enter into a new contest concerning the Writings of Theodorus, * 1.110 all things being at peace; That it is possible that there may be in the Works of that Author some places, which are capable of an ill sense; but there were others, where he delivers his Judgment plainly in a very Orthodox manner; That we may meet with the like Expressions in the Holy Fathers; particularly in S. Athanasius, Theophilus. and Proclus's Letter; That it is very dangerous to blemish the Memory of a Man, who served and defended the Church for several Years; and so much the more, because by condemning him we must involve several of the Fa∣thers in the same Fate; That 'twas this that made the Defenders or Nestorius so victorious, who were amazed to see themselves cursed with the such Bishops as dyed in the Communion of the Church, and in so great esteem; That Theodorus having opposed the Hereticks was obliged to reject their Errors more plainly; and to make use of such terms, as might seem to favour the Opposite Errors.

The Emperor made answer to John and his Synod, That he had heard by Proclus what a stir some Persons began to make in the East, and exhorts him to provide for the Peace, and encoun∣ter * 1.111 those who are the promoters of the Disturbance; That his Intention is, that all those that are under his Gouernment, should live in Peace, and chiefly the Church; That they might be confident of this, and therefore be more active to further and secure the Peace of the Church.

Proclus also gave them a very civil Answer, declaring to them, That when he wrote his Book, he had no design to condemn Theodorus; That his Deacon Theodorus had no Order to do it, and * 1.112 that he was contented to reject these Propositions, which seemed to him False or Erroneous, without naming the Authors.

Lastly, Although S. Cyril openly declared himself against the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsu∣esta, yet he wrote to John Bishop of Antioch, as he had before done to Proclus; That he appro∣ved, that for the Peace of the Church, they should content themselves to condemn the false Pro∣positions taken out of the Books of Theodorus, without meddling with his Memory. This Letter is recited in the Fifth Council, where it is accused of Falshood, because they pretend, that it doth not * 1.113 agree with the other Letters of S. Cyril; but if they consider them well, they are not contrary to this. In it he condemns the Writings of Theodorus and Diodorus, and reproves those that commend the Doctrine of these Authors, but he doth not pronounce Anathema against their Persons; on the contrary, in his Letter to Proclus, he is of the same Opinion as in this. It cannot be proved, that he changed his Judgment, or that he ever was against the Peace, in which he had engaged himself.

We would here make an end of the Council of Ephesus, but before we pass to the History of the Council of Chalcedon, it is necessary to add something by way of Illustration upon such points of the History, as do admit of some difficulty.

And first, It is demanded, who it was, that called the Council of Ephesus? It is evident, that it was Theodosius the Younger. The Cardinals Baronius and Bellarmine both agree in this, but

they pretend that this Emperor did it by the Pope's Authority, and following his Judgment and Advice. This supposition is groundless, and indeed it is easie to prove by the course of the History, that it was impossible, that the Emperor should take the Pope's Advice, when he called the Council. Saint Caelestine having examined the Cause of Nestorius referred to his Council by both Parties, wrote to S. Cyril, that he should certifie Nestorius, That if he did not change his Opinion, within ten Days after the Declaration of this Sentence to him, that he was Exccommu∣nicated and Deposed, and that they would put another Person in his place. This Letter is dated Aug. 11. Anno. 430. The Pope speaks nothing here of celebrating a Council, but on the con∣trary he supposeth it needless to call one, and that it was not yet mentioned.

The Pope's Letter was carried to Alexandria by Possidonius. Saint Cyril called a Council of Bishops there, to signifie the Pope's Judgment to Nestorius. The Letter of the Synod is dated Novem. 3. of the same year. The Letter for the assembling the Council of Ephesus bears date Nov. 19. By this 'tis evident that the Emperor had not resolved to call this Council, till he knew what the Synod of Alexandria had decreed. Now it is manifest, that it was not possible in so small a time as passed between the holding of this Council, and the Date of his Letter, to write to Rome, and receive Advice from thence. Therefore the Council of Ephesus was called by the Emperor, and the Pope knew nothing of it, the Pope having passed his Judgment before. Yea, moreover it seems, that the Emperor's design in calling the Council was to weaken or rectifie the Pope's Sentence. Lastly, the Pope was called to it, as other Bishops, and he acknowledges in his Letter written to Theodosius, That it was the Emperor who ordered the calling of a Synod.

The Question concerning the Presidency is of greater difficulty. It is beyond Controversie that S. Cyril did preside in this Council, but some enquire, whether it was in the quality of Le∣gat of the Holy See, or in his own Name. It is certain, that the Pope had entrusted him wholly with the Execution of the Sentence which he had given against Nestorius; but it doth not ap∣pear in the least, that he had any Commission to assist at, or Preside over the Council of Ephe∣sus in his Name; but on the contrary, he sent his Legats on purpose to it, who had strict or∣ders to do nothing but with the concurrence of S. Cyril; but he doth not say, that S. Cyril shall assist with them at the Council in his Name, nor that he continues the same power to him, which he lately gave for this purpose. And indeed, in the relation which the Council gives the Empe∣ror, the time, which went before the Council is distingui••hed from that which followed; and it is said, that S. Caelestine had Commissioned S. Cyril before the Council, but after he sent the Bi∣shops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Deacon Philip, on purpose to supply his place in the Council.

Nevertheless S. Cyril in the Subscriptions of the First, Second, and Third Action, takes the Title of The Deputy of Caelestine. Liberatus and Evagrius gives him also the same Title. Some pretend, that it hath been added to the Subscription by some Scribe, or that it ought to be un∣derstood of the time which went before the Council. I rather believe, that S. Cyril having born that title before the Council, held it in the Council it self, though he had it not then; but it doth not follow from thence that he presided in the Pope's Name, or in the Quality of his De∣puty, for if he had presided under that Title, it is certain, that upon his default the other Legats of the Pope ought to have presided in his place, and had the first Seat. Now 'tis evident, That not they, but Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem presided in the Fourth and Fifth Action, in which Saint Cyril became a Petitioner. Wherefore 'twas not under the Title of Legat to the Pope, that S. Cyril presided, since in his absence Juvenal was preferred before the Pope's Legats; 'Twas be∣cause he was the first of the Patriarchs, who were present in Person at the Council.

There are several Objections made against the Nature of this Council, and the management of it. Some say, that it ought to be accounted no better than a tumultuous and rash Assembly, where all things were carried by passion and noise, and not for an Oecumenical Council. That S. Cyril held it against the consent of the Commissioners, whom the Emperor sent to call them together; That not only Nestorius and his Party, but also several other Orthodox Bishops oppo∣sed it; That he scorned to wait for the Eastern Bishops, who would have soon arrived, and who desired him to wait for them; That he did not stay for the Legats of the Holy See, nor any of the Western Bishops; That his Synod was made up of the Aegyptian Bishops, and some Bishops of Asia, who were wholly devoted to his Will; That it was he that did all, and ordered all in the Council. Although he was Nestorius's Enemy, and one whom he had objected against for his Judge, because he looked upon him as his Enemy; Had not Nestorius therefore the same rea∣son to Object against him? The manner in which he acted against Nestorius, and the rashness he was guilty of in condemning him, make it Credible, that he was animated by nothing but Passion. He caused Nestorius to be Summoned twice in a day. Nestorius Answered, That he was ready to appear when the Eastern and Western Bishops were come, and the Council was full; That they refused not to be Judged, but he would not be judged by his Enemies only; These excuses appeared Reasonable. St. Chrysostom alledged the like to exempt him from appearing before the Synod of Theophilus. Nevertheless S. Cyril imitating his Uncle and Predecessor Theo∣philus, accepted the Accusation, proceeded against him, and was the first that gave his Voice a∣gainst him, and caused him to be Condemned. This S. Isidore of Damaita reproved S. Cyril for telling him,

That several Persons laughed at him, and at the Tragedy which he had Acted at

Ephesus; That it was said openly that he sought nothing but revenge upon his Enemy; That in this he imitated his Uncle Theophilus; and although there was a great deal of difference be∣tween the Person accused, the carriage of the Accusers was much the same; That he had bet∣ter have been quiet, and not revenged his private quarrels at the expence of the Church, and so raise an eternal discord among Christians, under a pretence of Piety.

These are the very words of Isidore, which he speaks to him in kindness. Gennadius Bishop of Constantinople com∣pares this conduct of S. Cyril's to Theophilus's, and calls him the second Scourge of Alexandria. The Proceedings in the Judgment seem to prove it more clearly, that S. Cyril and the Bishops of his Party were hurried by Passion; That they greatly aimed at the Condemnation of Nestorius, and were afraid of nothing more than of the coming of the Eastern Bishops, for fear they should not be able to do what they pleased; for in their first Session they cited Nestorius twice, read the Testimonies of the Fathers, S. Cyril's Letters and twelve Chapters, Nestorius's Writings, and all gave their Judgments. Was ever any business concluded with so much haste; The least matter of this nature require an whole Session. How could they throughly examine S. Cyril's 12 Propositions in so small a time, which need so much Explication, and have caused so many disputes? How could they compare so many passages of Nestorius's Sermons, with what went before and came after to find the true Sense? How could they be sure of the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers in so short a time? All these things required a long and serious Examination for several days together; but the Bishops of the Council were afraid that they should not finish it at one Session, and therefore sat close to it from Morning to Night, to judge this matter only for fear that things should happen otherwise, if they should stay till to morrow. The Sentence which they caused to be delivered to Nestorius, was made up of such Words, which discover the Passion they were in. To Nestorius another Judas. Was it not enough to Condemn and Depose him, but they must insult over him with abusive Words. Lastly, This Council was so far from bringing Peace, that it brought nothing but trouble, divisions, and scandals, in to the Church of Jesus Christ, so that that may be said of this Council with a great deal more truth, which S. Gregory of Nazianzene said of the Councils of his time.

That he never saw an Assembly of of Bishops that had a good and happy Conclusion; That they always increased the Distemper rather than cured it; That the obstinate Contests, and the ambition of Overcoming and Domi∣neering, which ordinarily reigns among them, renders them prejudicial, and ordinarily they, who are concerned to judge others are moved thereto by ill-will, rather than by a design to restrain the faults of others.

This seems to agree to the Council of Ephesus better than any other Assembly of Bishops. The History of the Troubles that followed this Council, makes this suffi∣ciently evident, and we may say, that these Troubles were not appeased, but because the Trans∣actions of this Council were buried in silence, These are the Objections which may be made against the form of the Council of Ephesus: I have neither dissembled them, nor weakned them, that I may shew, that nothing which can be said on this Argument is unanswerable. At present I shall offer these Answers to the former Objections, viz.

The Council of Ephesus was called in the Usual forms. The Bishops of all Countrys of the Roman Empire were summoned to it. The Days appointed being come, the Bishops who were come to the City, where it was to be held, waited some days after; They did not begin it, till they knew, that the Men whom they waited for, would soon arrive, and that they were willing that the Council should be begun without them; That though several Bishops were not at first of that Opinion, and therefore opposed it, yet they yielded at last, and were present at the Council; That there remained no more than ten with Nestorius; That the Emperor's Commissi∣oner having read the Letter for the Calling of the Council, had done his Duty, and after that was free for the Bishops to meet; That though the Pope's Legats were not come, yet it was Lawful to begin the Council without them, since the day appointed for the beginning of it was over; That these Legats having read what was done in their absence had approved it; That John Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops ought to have come to the Council according to their Summons; That they might have Read and Examined a New what had passed, and ought not to have made a Schism, or separated upon that account; That though they did judge Nestorius at one Session, and in one Day, he must blame himself for it, because he would not appear; That he deserved to be Condemned for his Obstinacy; That it was evident, that he had denied, that the Virgin Mary might be called The Mother of God, and that he used such Ex∣pressions as seemed to divide the Person of Jesus Christ into two; That he was cited three times according to the Order of the Canons; That it was not necessary by the Laws of the Church to perform these Citations on several days; That it was Zeal and not Passion that made Saint Cyril to act so; That although he had had some differences with Nestorius, that was no just im∣pediment, that he might not be his Judge in the Council, especially discussing a matter of Faith; That in the business of S. Chrysostom there was nothing meddled with that concerned the Faith; That it was not a General Council, but a private Synod called together by the contentious hu∣mour of Theophilus; That S. Isidore and Gennadius were mistaken through the false Reports that S. Cyril's Enemies had spread abroad of him; That afterward they themselves acknowledged the Falshood of them; That there were in the Council many Bishops of Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thracia, and Thessaly, which could not be said to be devoted to the Egyptian Faction; That Ju∣venal Bishop of Jerusalem, and the other Bishops of Palestine could not be suspected of holding

Intelligence with them; That it is not credible that Memnon was so much Master of the Asian Bi∣shops as to make them to yield to his Will against Justice and Innocence; That Judgment was pronounced after cognizance of the Cause; That they read the Nicene Creed, and examined the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers of the Church; to which, because Nestorius's Opinions were evidently contrary, they Condemned him; That it is very rare to find a longer time allowed in any of the Ancient Council for the Examination of a single point of Faith; That they did neither approve nor examine S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, because the Question was not about them; but only to inquire whether Nestorius had Preached any Errors, and whether he deserved to be Condemned; That they never after meddled with it; That on the Contrary his Condemnation was approved by almost all Orthodox Bishops; That the Doctrine which the Council condem∣ned as his was unanimously rejected by all the World; That the troubles which followed the Council, proceeded from nothing but the Headiness of the Eastern Bishops, who would at first right or wrong maintain their bad proceedings; That they have been happily appeased by the Peace, in which they have followed the Judgment of the Council, concerning the Person and Doctrine of Nestorius. Lastly, That the following Councils, and the Universal Church have re∣ceived the Council of Ephesus, and have acknowledge it for a General Council.

From the Form let us come to the Matter it self. Was Nestorius in an Error? Had S. Cyril delivered nothing contrary to the truth? Did not his twelve Chapters contain in them the Errors of Arius, or Apollinaris? or at least, the same Error which was after maintained by Eutyches? Were not the Eastern Bishops of Nestorius's Judgment? If John Bishop of Antioch were not, yet were not Theodoret, Andrew of Samosata, Hilladius Bishop of Tarsus, Eutherius Bishop of Tyana, and above all, Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, and all the Bishops who were Expelled and Deposed with him, because they would not Subscribe the Condemnation of Nestorius? Lastly, Was there none of S. Cyril's side in the Error opposite to Nestorius's? As for Nestorius, we have already shewn wherein his Error consisted, and proved, that there was a lawful ground of Condemning him, because though he pretended to acknowledge the intimate Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ, yet he would not consent to the true Consequences, which followed from that Union, and made use himself of such comparisons and expressions, as did plainly intimate a Moral Union only. His obstinate rejection of the term of The Mother of God, and other expressions commonly used in the Church, as for Example. That God was born, suffered, and dyed, &c. His way in which he Explained the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, saying, That God inhabited in Man as in a Temple, that he was Cloathed with the Manhood, that he was joyned to the Man, that he beheld himself in the Manhood, as in a Looking-glass; The comparisons that he made of the Union of the Humane and Divine Nature in Jesus Christ, to the Union of Man and Wife, of the Spirit and Soul in a Righteous Man, and several other ways of speaking of the like nature, to which he was so much addicted, that he shewed an aversion for those that signified the Natu∣ral and Substantial Union of the two Natures, were evidences that he not sincerely allow of such an Union. And although there had been no other reason besides the Scandal which he gave by speaking after such manner as might make Men believe, that he was in the Error of Photinus, or Paulus Samosatenus, that had been enough to condemn him, if he would not change those Expressi∣ons, and conform to those of the Church. Now it was so in this case; for when they speak to the People, who were accustomed to hear these Words, God was born, God is dead, &c. when they discoursed of Jesus Christ, and told them that these Propositions were false and unsufferable, they immediately imagined that they denied Jesus Christ to be God, and by this means it was that the Nestorian Preachers, and their Friends, raised so great a Scandal among the Faithful at Constantinople. At first they thought him of the Opinion of Paulus Samosatenus; but the thing being better examined, they knew, that his Error was more subtle. Saint Cyril himself acknow∣ledged it, and owned that it were better not to meddle with this Question. But because Nesto∣rius persisted still to give offence to the People, and to speak in a way contrary to the Church, and would not change it, they were forced to condemn him. John Bishop of Antioch, and his best Friends, who thought him of Orthodox sentiments disapproved his manner of speaking, and advised him to alter them, and own, that the Virgin might be called the Mother of God. He would not do it at first, but at last he did it, but too slowly, and after such a manner as shewed that he did it not heartily. He was therefore justly Condemned? But did not his Adversary also deserve the same Fate? Was not he of Arius and Apollinaris's Opinion, or at least of Euty∣ches's? Did not his twelve famous Chapters contain some Errors? Had not the Eastern Bishops reason to reject them? Did the Council of Ephesus do well to approve them?

As to the Opinions of S. Cyril, he hath explain'd himself too clearly to be suspected as guilty of the Errors of Arius and Apollinaris. He hath so often expresly rejected them, and hath remo∣ved the Accusation so fully, that it can't be said, that he hath approved the Errors of these two Hereticks, by denying with the one of them, that Jesus Christ hath a Soul, and with the other, that his Soul was destitute of Understanding and Reason. Nor can we with greater truth say, that he hath confounded the two Natures in the Person of Jesus Christ; or that he allows of a change of one Nature into another, since he hath always distinguished the two Natures, and re∣jected the Error of those, who say, That they are changed, or confounded, or mixed. He di∣stinguishes them so elegantly in his Second Letter to Nestorius, that ••e was forced to own in his Answer to him, that he allows a distinction of the two Natures, that he acknowledged, that

the Word had not his Original from the Virgin, and that it was not possible that the Word should suffer. He always confessed this Doctrine, when the dispute was at the hottest. Lastly, When he made Peace with the Eastern Bishops, he made no scruple to acknowledge the two Na∣tures in Jesus Christ, united in one Person; insomuch that John Bishop of Antioch, Theodoret, and almost all the Eastern Bishops, have owned, that his Letter and Doctrine were Orthodox. But although it is manifest that S. Cyril was of Orthodox Sentiments, yet we must own, that it hath happened to him, as it hath to all others almost who suffer themselves to be transported with Pas∣sion in Disputes, that is to say, by opposing an Errour so earnestly, he seems to incline to the con∣trary; for having opposed those Persons, who divided the two Natures, he used such Expressi∣ons to denote the Union, as gave occasion to believe, that they were confounded. This Facundus Bishop of Hermianum wisely observes.

S. Cyril, saith he, having undertaken to oppose Nesto∣rius, who divided Jesus Christ into two, that he might reject this Errour more fully and plain∣ly, made choice of all such terms, as are most proper to express the Union of the two Natures whereas the Ancient Fathers, writing against Apollinaris, who confounded them, laboured most to express their distinction. But we ought not to think for all that, that S. Cyril disowns the difference of the two Natures, or that the Ancients denyed the Unity of the Person.

The difference of the Contests made them speak differently. The Expressions, which comes nearest the Opinion of the Eutychians, and which is chiefly urged, is this, One Incarnate Nature. S. Cyril uses it often, and they affirm, That he is the first of the Fathers that hath mentioned it: For though it is said, that he took it out of S. Athanasius, yet it is very probable, that the Wri∣tings attributed to Athanasius, out of which S. Cyril is pretended to have taken it, is rather Apolli∣naris's than this Father's, as the Orthodox have since found out, and maintained against the Se∣verians. This Expression seems directly contrary to the Faith of the Church, which believes two Natures in Jesus Christ, and was displeased not only with the Eastern Bishops, but with S. Isidore of Damiata, who wrote to S. Cyril, that he ought not to use it, because by saying One Nature, he excludes the Two. Nevertheless, S. Cyril and Egyptions used it commonly, and preferred it be∣fore others. Eutyches and his Friends have since looked upon it as the Foundation of their Do∣ctrine, and Flavian himself comes near it in his Apologitical Letter to the Emperor. The Coun∣cil of Chalcedon would not make use of it, and the Eastern Bishops rejected it. But the Egyptian Bishops having shewed them that it was S. Cyril's, they dare not condemn it. Several Greek Au∣thors have used it since, but it is seldom found in the Latin Fathers, and there are very few Di∣vines which have approved of it. There are divers senses given to this Expression: Some say, that S. Cyril means by this word Nature, the Person, and that he uses these terms promiscuously, as it appears in his Defence of his eighth Chapter, where he says, That Jesus Christ is one Person, or Nature; that is, One Hypostasis. In this sense, there is no difficulty in this Proposition, but the true sense of S. Cyril is not, that there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ, but that the Nature of the Word was Incarnate: For he never says plainly, That there is but One Nature in Jesus Christ; but, that there is but One Nature of the Word which is Incarnate; and having said that, he explains how it being Incarnate was united to the Manhood. Thus S. Cyril explains himself in several places, but chiefly in his Letters to Succosius and Acacius. He acknowledges indeed that the Hu∣mane and Divine Nature are distinct in the Person of Jesus Christ; but for fear that distin∣ction should be abused, and they should divide these two Natures into two Persons, he af∣fected to use a term which signified this Union without denoting any division; which he did, not only to oppose the Nestorians the most strongly, but to satisfie the most zealous of his own Party, who could not endure to hear of two Natures in Jesus Christ, and who were displeased that it was approved in the Confession of Faith made by the Western Bishops.

As to the Chapters of S. Cyril, which made so much noise, we must own, that these twelve Propositions were very subtil, and that some of them might be badly construed. This S. Cyril himself was convinced of; but 'tis not true, that they are not as well capable of a good sense. He explain'd them in such a manner, as might satisfie the Eastern Bishops. They were read in the Council of Ephesus, but they were approved by Name, as his second Letter to Nestorius was. When the Peace was concluded, the Eastern Bishops were not obliged to subscribe nor approve them, nor did they require it of S. Cyril to retract them. They were not spoken of in the Coun∣cil of Chalcedon, nor was Theodoret obliged to recant what he had written against S. Cyril's Chap∣ters. They read also in this Council Ibas's Letter, where it is said, That the Eastern Bishops be∣lieved S. Cyril an Heretick, before he had explain'd his Chapters. All this proves, that the twelve Chapters of S. Cyril were never made a part of the Faith of the Church, and that the Eastern Bishops are not to be condemned for opposing and rejecting them. Nor can we reasonably believe them guilty of any Errours in their carriage as to Nestorius. It is evident, that they thought him of Or∣thodox Sentiments, and at the very time when they stuck closest to him, they plainly rejected the Errours that were attributed to him. They also advised him from the very first to approve the term of the Mother of God; and shewed him, that in one sense it might be said, That the Son of God, who was born before all Ages, was also born of Mary. But nothing better proves, that the Ea∣stern Bishops never departed from the Orthodox Truth, than the Objections which they made against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters; for though they condemned the Expression of this Father, they acknowledged, That there was but one Person in Jesus Christ, and owned that the two Natures are united in a very strict Union, and cannot be divided or separated, but they oppose any con∣fusion,

mixture or change of the two Natures, Errours which they thought to lie couched in S. Cyril's twelve Chapters. They always professed the same Doctrine both in and after the Coun∣cil of Ephesus. They always protested that they acknowledged but one Christ, perfect God, and perfect Man, and that the two Natures were united in one Person. When the Peace was making, there was no Controversie about the Confession of Faith, they agreed without any trouble with S. Cyril in that, who acknowledged that they never were in Nestorius's Errours, though they had been before accused of it. Theodoret himself, who was one of the most furious against S. Cyril's twelve Chapters, had no sooner seen his first Letter, but he owned it to be Orthodox. All the difficulty which can be raised here, is as to Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis, Eutherius Bishop of Ty∣ana, and some other Bishops who would not be comprehended in the Peace, or yielded to it only by force. But we must own, that these Bishops themselves did seemingly profess the Orthodox Faith; and though they found fault with S. Cyril's Exposition of the Faith, 'twas not because they denied the Union of the two Natures in one Person, but because they were afraid that there was some term which made it suspectous, that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ. They never defended the Doctrine attributed to Nestorius, but maintained that Nestorius had no other than what they thought Orthodox. 'Twas a Question of Fact, and not of Right, that divided them. But their Obstinacy and Separation gave occasion to suspect, that they were of Nestorius's Opini∣on, or at least was sufficient to make them to be condemned as Disturbers of the Peace, and Schis∣maticks.

Lastly, The chief Subject of these Contests which were raised between the Egyptian and Ea∣stern Bishops at this Juncture, may be said to proceed from hence, that they attributed the quality of the Divine and Humane Natures, which were in the Person of Jesus Christ after different manners: For the Eastern Bishops could hardly understand, how the Qualities of the Humane Na∣ture could be attributed to the Divine, and the Properties of the Divine Nature to the Humane; and the Egyptians urged this Communication of Terms to an excess, as has not since been fol∣lowed.

'Tis for this Reason, that the Eastern Bishops being desirous to take away all matter of Con∣test, have annexed to the end of their Confession of Faith:

We know, that as to those Qualities which Holy Scripture attributes to our Lord, there are some, which great Divines have made common to both Natures, as agreeing to one and the same Person; and there are others which they attribute to the two Natures severally, referring to the Divinity of Jesus Christ those, which are more sublime, and to the Humanity of those, that are more mean, and unworthy of the Di∣vine Nature.

We have seen that Nestorius would never allow it to be said, that God is born, dead, or hath suffered, but would suffer them to be said of Christ. The Eastern Bishops also would very hardly * 1.114 allow these Expressions, and desired that some softer terms might be added to explain them. S. Cyril and the Egyptians used them upon all Occasions; they scrupled not to say, The Immortal is dead, Life is dead, God is crucified, Humane Flesh is become the Giver of Life, and to be adored: Yea, some of them, as Acacius Bishop of Melitina, maintained this Expression, That the Word was born, died, hath suffered, and applyed it to the Divinity, or Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. This was the Original of the greatest part of the Disputes, which reigned in this Age, which we are now speaking of, and in the next. This was the Cause of the misunderstanding between the Ea∣stern and Egyptian Bishops, The pretence of their Division, and the Subject of their Contests.

THE HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL of CHALCEDON, * 1.115 and other Precedent Councils.

ALthough all the Eastern Patriarchs seemed to be agreed about the Contests, which had so long troubled them, yet private Persons were not united in their Opinions, and * 1.116 several there were on both sides that stirred up Divisions in both the Churches. Among the Easterns there were some secret Nestorians, who sought by any means to revenge the Disposition of Nestorius; and among the Egyptians there were others, that carried the Union of the two Natures too far, making but one of the two, and could not endure any should acknowledge two after the Union. The Monks especially were of that Opinion, pub∣lished it every where, and condemned all those that would not embrace it. After the Deposition of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Alexandria were united; but because the Inte∣rest of these two Sees were different, they did not continue Friends long. The Bishop of Constan∣tinople would have the second place among the Patriarchs, and rule over the Diocesses of Asia and Pontus; the Bishop of Alexander disputed his Claim, yet himself aimed to bring one part of the East under his Jurisdiction. The Bishop of Antioch did not much regard the Preference of the Bishop of Constantinople, but he would not submit to the Bishop of Alexandria, nor endure him to take away his Provinces from him. These things being controverted in 439, between Proclus Pa∣triarch of Constantinople, Theodoret in place of John Bishop of Antioch, and the Deacon Dioscorus, Deputy for the Patriarch of Alexandria, an Order was made among them, That the Canons of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople should be observed; That the Bishop of Alexandria should be confined to Egypt; That the Eastern Bishop should exercise his Jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches only hereafter, and not concern himself hereafter with the Affairs of the Diocesses of Asia and Pontus; and that the Bishops of Constantinople should have the second place according to the Canon of the Council of Constantinople. Dioscorus opposed this Regulation with all his Power, and accused Theodoret of having betrayed upon this Occasion the Interests of the Churches of Alex∣andria and Antioch, but he had the management of the Bishop of the Imperial City, who was in great favour at Court, and might much advantage or hurt the Eastern Bishops.

Rabulas Bishop of Edessa, who was one of the violent Enemies of the Memory of Theodorus, and the most Zealous Defender of the manner of speaking used by the Egyptians, being dead, Ibas a Priest was put in his place, who was of the just contrary Judgment, and was suspected to be a Nestorian. Rabulas having left in his Church several Persons of the same Opinion, who could not endure any Expressions, which looked like Theodorus's or Nestorius's, he did never enjoy any quiet. They had accused him already, while he was yet but Priest, and while John Bishop of Antioch was yet alive, of defending the Nestorian Principles, refusing to subscribe Proclus's Writing, and to condemn the Propositions of Theodorus annexed to it, but on the contrary, translating them into Syriack, and dispersing them in the East. Proclus, before whom he was accused, had sent him to John Bishop of Antioch, but the business went no further, either because his Accusers would not prosecute him before John Bishop of Antioch, who was not a Favourer of them, or because John Bishop of Antioch had stifled the matter. When Ibas was made Bishop, they revived these * 1.117 old Accusations; Samuel, Cyrus, Maras, and Eulogiûs, Priests of his Church, whom he had Ex∣communicated, accused him to Domnus who succeeded John, and presented a Petition to him, accusing him of being a Nestorian. Domnus ordered him to appear to justifie himself; but be∣cause it was in Lent, he put off the hearing him, till after the Feast was over, and yet ordered him to absolve these Priests from the Excommunication, Ib•••• permitted Domnus his Governor to

do with him, as he pleased; and Domnus absolved them from their Excommunication, because of the Feast, but upon Condition, that they should not go from Antioch, because the Cause was not determined; and in case they went from thence before the business was ended, they should be liable to greater Punishment. Maras and Eulogius stayed, but the other two went to Constan∣tinople to accuse Ibas, and to procure him other Judges. Domnus having called a Synod after the Feast asked the two Priests, which staid at Antioch about them; and knowing of them, that their Fellows were gone to Constantinople, declared them false Accusers; and that they were justly Excommunicated, and that by their flight they had render'd themselves more blame-worthy. This Judgment was subscribed by twelve Bishops. Nevertheless Dioscorus, who Suc∣ceeded S. Cyril in 444, revived the old Quarrel between the Egyptian and the Eastern Bishops, and endeavoured to destroy the principal Bishops of their party. In this enterprize he was asist∣ed and maintain'd by Eutyches, a Priest, and Abbot of the Monastery of Constantinople, who had great interest at Court. This Monk was always one of the most Zealous of the Egyptian Party, who stuck close to the most rigid Expressions of S. Cyril, but carried things higher than he, and absolutely refused to say, that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ. He accused his Adversaries of being of Nestorius's Opinions, and they again reproved them for be∣ing Apollinarians. The Greatest part of the Eastern Monks were of Eutyches's judg∣ment, and accused their Bishops for being Nestorians. And because they were in favour at Court, and some of these Bishop were suspected to be Nestorians, they easily obtain'd an Edicts against them. Theodoret suffered more than any Man else by it, as we have seen Irenaeus was Deposed, but justly. They appointed Judges for Ibas, and troubled several other Bishops sus∣pected to be Nestorians. They laboured also to go further, and under the pretence, that the Eastern Bishops were defenders of the Memory of Theodorus and Diodorus, they would involve than all in the same Condemnation. Domnus and the Eastern Bishops opposing this attempt, wrote to the Emperor Theodosius, that Eutyches revived the Error of Apollinaris; That he corrupted the Doctrine of the Church touching the Mystery of the Incarnation, asserting, That the Humane and Divine Nature of Jesus Christ are but one, and attributing the Sufferings to the Godhead; That he Cursed Diodorus and Theodorus, with a design to maintain those Errors, those two Pil∣lars of the Church, who had maintain'd the truth against the Hereticks of their time, and had been commended and esteemed by the great Men of their Age. Eutyches to revenge himself upon these his Accusers wrote to the Pope S. Leo, that the Error of Eutyches was revived by a private Fa∣ction. He dare not accuse the Bishop of Antioch, and the other Eastern Bishops by name; but it is easie to see that he means them. Saint Leo commends his Zeal, but would not openly de∣clare himself against the Persons whom Eutyches accused, not knowing particularly who they were. Saint Leo's answer bears date June 1. 448.

The Judgment of Eutyches did legally belong to * 1.118 Flavian, who was his Bishop. This Patri∣arch was engaged for his own Interest to uphold the Eastern Church against the Egyptian, be∣cause the Bishops of Alexandria contended with him about the Prerogatives and Privileges, which * 1.119 he pretended to, whereas the Bishop of Antioch, and the Eastern Church had yielded to them. Wherefore it happened, that in the Council assembled at Constantinople, Nov. 448. to examine the Sentence given by Florentius Bishop of Sardis, Metropolitan of the Province of Lydia against two † 1.120 Bishops subject to his Jurisdiction; Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum brought an Accusation against Eutyches, and presented his Petition to the Council Nov. 8. in which he requests, that Eutyches might be Summoned before the Synod, to answer to such Accusations as he had to make against him; alledging, that he was ready to prove, that he held Heretical Opinions about the Mystery of the Incarnation. This Petition being read in the Council, Flavian said, That this Accusation surprized him, but that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, ought to go to Eutyches, and confer with him about his Doctrine; and if he found him Heretical in his principles, then the Synod might cite him. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum answered, That he was heretofore intimate with him, That he had admonished him several times, but could not work any change in him. Flavian urged him several times to speak with him again, but he would do nothing, but more impor∣tuned them to cite Eutyches. Whereupon the Council ordered, that he should be Summoned; and they sent John a Priest and Advocate, and Andrew a Deacon to Communicate to him the Petition presented against him; and to tell him, That he must come to the Council.

In the Second Action, which was on Nov. 12. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, to free himself from * 1.121 all suspicion of Nestorianism, desired that the two first Letters of S. Cyril to Nestorius, and his Letter to John Bishop of Antioch might be read. Flavian, Eusebtus Bishop of Dorylaeum, and all the other Bishops approved the Doctrine contained in their Letters, and the greatest part of them added, that it was conformable to the Faith of the Nicene Council.

In the third Action held Nov. 15. John and Andrew related to the Council, that they had been * 1.122 with Eutyches at his Monastry; That they had read to him the Petition presented against him, and had given him a Copy of it, and had cited him before the Synod; but he answered them, That he had made a Resolution a long time ago never to go out of his Monastry, but to abide in it as in a Tomb; That he prayed them to assure the Council, that Eusebius Bishop of Dory∣laeum had been his Enemy along time, and had invented this Accusation to ruin him; That he was ready to consent to the Confession of Faith made by the Fathers assembled at Ephesus and Nice, and subscribe their Expressions; but if they were mistaken in any thing, he would not re∣prove

it, nor did he intend to give his approbation of it; That he did keep close to the Scrip∣ture, as being more certain than the Explications of the Fathers; That after the Incarnation of the Word he did adore Jesus Christ, as God Incarnate and made Man; That he read a Book to to them, where these things were, and afterwards rejected the Propositions of which he was accused, and among the rest this, that the Word had brought his Flesh from Heaven; That he owned, that he was perfect God, and perfect Man born of the Virgin, without having a Flesh consubstantial with ours; and that he was made up of two Natures Hypostatically united. This Relation of John and Andrew was confirmed by testimony of one Athanasius of Seleucia. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said to the Council, That what he had already related was sufficient to discover the Opinion of Eutyches, but he again intreated the Synod to cite him a second time. They sent therefore to him two Priests, named Mamas and Theophilus, giving them an Order in Writing directed to Eutyches in the name of the Synod, in which he was Commanded to come and defend himself against the Accusations of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum; and they threatned him, if he did not come, to judge him according to the severity of the Canons, as a Person, who was afraid to be convicted, and therefore fled from Justice, because the excuse which he al∣ledged, that he had resolved not to go out of his Monastry, was not sufficient, the Accusation being of that Nature. After the departure of the Priests, who carried this Order to Eutyches, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said, that this Monk did all he could to make trouble; that he had sent into all the Monasteries a form of Faith to have it signed there: Abraamius the Priest deposed, that Asterius told him, that the Abbot Immanuel had received one in the name of Eutyches, and because he assured them, that he also had sent it to other Monasteries, they nominated two Priests and two Deacons to go and get a true information of it in all the Monasteries. Mamas and Theophilus, whom they had sent to Eutyches, being returned, reported, That being arrived at his Monastry, they found the Monks at the Gate, and that they told them, that they came to speak with their Abbot, that as the Deputies of his Bishop and of the Synod they desired to speak with him; but the Monks answered, that he was Sick; That he could not speak with them; and that they might tell them the occasion of their coming, and what they desired of him; That they insisted upon it, that they must speak with him in Person, and that they had a Letter from the Synod directed to him; That these Monks being gone in sent out another Monk, called Eleusinius, who told them, That he was come to them instead of their Abbot, who was Sick; That they had insisted and demanded, whether Eutyches would receive them or not? That these words much affrighted these Monks; but to pacifie them, they bid them not trou∣ble themselves, for they brought nothing that need disturb them, but could tell them the sub∣ject of the Letter of the Synod, was to cite him a second time, that he should come and give answer to the Accusation brought against him by Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum; That the Monks entring in again told Eutyches of it, who immediately caused them to be brought in; That they delivered their Summons to him from the Synod, and that after he had read it, he told them, That he had made a solemn Resolution a long time since never to go out of his Monastery; That they still urged him to yield Obedience to the Synod, but he always refused it, and had given them a Writing subscribed by his own Hand to present to the Council. They ordered him to be cited the third time the next Day, which was Octob. 17. and framed the Instrument of his Citation, which they gave to Memnon * 1.123 the Sacristan, and two Deacons to deliver it to him.

The next day Eutyches sent Abraamius the Priest with three Deacons belonging to his Mona∣stery to Flavian, to excuse his not coming to the Council by reason of his Sickness. Flavian * 1.124 hearing this excuse, said it was reasonable to put off this business till he was well. Abraamius telling them, that he had a Commission to Answer for him, if they did put any Questions to him. Flavian replied, That the Person accused ought to answer for himself; That he did not urge him; That he would give him all the time he desired; That he might be assured, that he should find all the Bishops of his Synod to be his Brethren and Friends; That several Persons had taken offence at the things that Eutyches had vented; That he ought to clear himself of the Accusation, or make satisfaction for it; That he had heretofore been a stout Champion for the truth against Nestorius; That it was necessary that he should speak for himself; and if he hath delivered any Error, he ought not to be ashamed to retract it; That if he owned it and would condemn it, the Synod was ready to forgive him, upon Condition that he would never teach the like for the future; In sum, That he had known him a long time, and had a great respect for him, but could not but hearken to so Zealous an Accuser; that he had desired him several times to lay down this Accusation, but could not prevail; That he desired not the destruction of the Monasteries; That he wished for nothing so much as to preserve Peace and Union. This Con∣ference is reckoned for the fourth Act of the Council: Nevertheless, it was not with all the Assembly of Bishops, but only between Flavian, and the Messengers from Eutyches,

The next day being Wednesday Nov. 17. the Bishops being again met, Memnon, who had been * 1.125 sent by the Council to Summon Eutyches a third time, said, That he had answered him; That he had sent Abraamius to Flavian and the Synod, to * 1.126 consent in his Name to all that had been decreed by the Holy Fathers assembled at Nice and Ephesus, and to all that S. Cyril had spoken. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum answered, that that was not the Question, whether he consented to them now, or no, but what he had done heretofore? That he was accused for having taught Heretical Doctrines; That he had Witnesses of it; That he had admonished him of it several

times; That 'tis not sufficient for him now to say, that he approves sound Doctrine; That he ought to be convicted of the Errors he hath Taught, and afterwards retract them, and give full satisfaction. Memnon added to his Relation, that having urged Eutyches to come himself, he said, That he had sent Abraamius to obtain some time of Flavian and the Synod; That he expected their Answers, and desired only the rest of the Week; That on Monday next he would come to the Synod and give them Satisfaction. This Report being confirmed by the other Deputies, they gave audience to those whom they had sent to the Monasteries, to enquire whether Eutyches had sent any Forms of Faith to be signed by them; And they said, that the Abbots Martin and Fa••∣stus had received a Writing in Eutyches's Name, but they would not Subscribe it; That the Ab∣bot Job had heard that the Bishop of Constantinople would soon bring them one to sign; That Immanuel and Abraam had received no Writing in Eutyches's Name. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum insisted, that they had enough to condemn Eutyches, but nevertheless consented, that he should be allowed the time he desired, and defer his Judgment to Monday, November 24.

In the mean time he laboured to get all things ready for his business; and in the Synod held * 1.127 on Saturnay Nov. 22, he desired them to Summon such Persons before the Council as were neces∣sary for the Conviction of Eutyches, viz. Narses the Priest, and his Coadjutor, the Abbot Maxi∣mus his Friend, Constantinus a Deacon, and Eutyches's Chancellor, and Eleusinius a Deacon of his Monastery, that the truth might be laid open before them. And they gave Eusebius leave to Sum∣mon them Afterward he shewed, That Mamas and Theophilus had not given a Faithful Report of what they had heard Eutyches say, and requested, that they be obliged to speak the truth of what they heard upon Oath. Mamas was absent, but Theophilus was there, and owned, that Eu∣tyches had asked them in the Presence of Narses, Maximus, and other Monks, in what place of Scripture the two Natures were spoken of; who of the Fathers had said, That the Word of God had two Natures; That they had answered, Shew us in what place of Scripture the term Con-substantial is mentioned; that he answered them. That it was not in Scripture but in the Expo∣sitions of Faith made by the Fathers; That Mamas replied, That the Holy Fathers also had ac∣knowledged the two Natures in Jesus Christ; That continuing his Speech he enquired of Euty∣ches whether Jesus Christ were perfect God and perfect Man; That he owned it, whereupon he concluded that Jesus Christ was made up of two perfect Natures; But Eutyches answered them, God forbid that I should say, that Jesus Christ is made up of two Natures, or that I should give the Godhead the Name of a Nature. Let them depose me if they please, yet I will die in the Faith which I have received from my Fathers. Then Theophilus excused himself for not relating these things at first, because he was not sent upon that account, but to Summon Eutyches only. Mamas be∣ing also suddenly returned excused himself also after the same manner, and said, That what Theophilus had deposed was true.

The Day on which Eutyches had promised to be present at the Council, being come, Eusebius * 1.128 Bishop of Dorylaeum first appeared. Then they sent to search for Eutyches in the Church, and about the Bishop's Palace, and after much enquiry John a Priest and Advocate of the Church, came to tell them, That he had met with a Troop of Soldiers, Monks, and Guards, that would not suffer him to escape their hands, but upon condition that he would go with them; that there was the Grand Silentiary of the Palace, who demanded entrance, as coming from the Emperor. They suffered him to come in immediately with Eutyches, and he delivered to the Council the Emperor's Letter, which imported, that his Majesty, desirous to uphold the Peace of the Church, and the Faith of the Nicene Council, which was confirmed at Ephesus by the Bishops who condemned Nestorius, and to hinder any Scandal from rising in the Church of Jesus Christ, had nominated Florentius Patricius, who was a Person of known Faith and Honesty, to be presrnt at the Synod, because they debated upon a matter of Faith, while the Letter was reading, there were several Acclamations made in the Praise of the Emperor. The Council testi∣fied their Approbation of the Emperor's Choice in naming Florentius, and were well pleased he should be at the Council. They asked Eutyches whether he was willing with it, who answered That he would agree to any thing that pleased the Council, and that he left himself entirely to the Bishops. They prayed the Grand Silentiary to put Florentius in mind of it, and when he was come, they read over again the Acts of the Council. When they came to a place of Saint Cyril, where it was said, that there is an Union of the two Natures in Jesus Christ; Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum interrupted them, and told them, that Eutyches did not consent to that truth. Florentius desired that Eutyches might be interrogated about it, but Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum fearing that he would own it, desired them to make an end of reading the Acts, and said, That it ought not to be any prejudice to him, although he should now acknowledge this truth, since it is evident, that he hath denied it. He discovered, That he was afraid of him, and that with reason, because he was Poor and of no Credit, whereas Eutyches was Rich and in great Credit, and had threatned him to cause him to be banished to Oasis. Flavian promising him faithfully that Eutyches's Confession should be no disadvantage to him; Eusebius then asked him, if he con∣fessed the Union of the two Natures. Eutyches said Yea. Eusebius pressed him further, and asked him, if he acknowledged two Natures in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation, and whether he owned that Jesus Christ was of the same substance with other Men according to the Flesh. Eutyches answered, That he came not to Dispute, but to deliver his Judgment which was set down in the Paper, which was in the Hand, which he entreated them to read, Flavian bid

him read it himself, and because he said he could not, they bid him declare his Opinion with his Mouth. Wherefore he said, that he Worshipped the Father as the Son, and the Son as the Father, and the Holy Ghost as the Father and the Son; That he acknowledged that he dwelt with us in the Flesh, having taken Flesh of the Virgin, and he was really Incarnate for our Sal∣vation. Flavian asked him, if he believed that Jesus Christ was con-substantial with the Father according to his Divinity, and with us according to his Humanity. Eutyches answered, That he had delivered his Judgment, and they need not ask him further about it. Flavian demanded if he agreed, that Jesus Christ was of two Natures. He answered, That he would not dispute a∣bout the Nature of his Master and Lord. Flavian further asked him, if he believed him of the same Substance with us, according to the Humanity. He replyed, that hitherto he had never asserted that the body of Jesus Christ was of the same Substance with ours, but that the Virgins was. But because they urged him further, shewing him, that if the body of the Virgin was of the same Substance with ours, and Jesus Christ assumed his body of the Virgin, the body of Je∣sus Christ was also of the same Substance with ours. He answered, that since others affirmed it, he was very willing to assert it, but hitherto he had called it the body of God. Lastly, Flo∣rentius bid him speak plainly, whether Jesus Christ after the Incarnation was of two Natures? He answered boldly, that before the Union there was two Natures, but after the Union he ac∣knowledged but one, The Synod required him to Curse this Doctrine. He answered, that he would be willing to submit to the Judgment of the Council, but he could not Curse the contrary Opinion, because if he did it he should Curse the Holy Fathers. They urged him to pronounce them Accursed, who would acknowledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Incarnation, but he stoutly maintain'd that he would not do it, because it was the judgment of S. Cyril and S. Athanasius. When they saw, that he stuck at this, the Synod pronounced him deprived of his Priest-hood, of the Communion of the Church, and the Office of Abbot; and ordered, that all those, who should accompany with him, and assemble with him, should be Excommunicated, as well as those who should espouse his Sentiments. This Sentence was signed by 29 Bishops, and 24 Abbots.

Eutyches having heard this Sentence pronounced against him thought it best to appeal to a Council, where the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexander, and Jerusalem, the Bishop of Thessalonica, and several other Bishops should be present. But he did not make this Appeal publickly, and in the presence of the Synod; but the Assembly being dissolved, and after the Sentence pronounced a∣gainst him, he wrote immediately to Pope Leo, that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum having a design to ruin him, and to disturb the C••urch, had presented a Petition to Flavian, and some other Bishops who were met at Constantinople, in which he accused him for being an Heretick; That being Summoned to Answer to the Accusation, although his Age and Sickness ought to have excu∣sed him, yet he had been forced to appear, knowing well enough that they had combined to∣gether to destroy him; That he had immediately presented a Confession of his Faith in Writing, Subscribed with his own hand; That Flavian had not, nor would receive it, nor cause it to be read, but had urged him to confess, that there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, and to pro∣nounce them accursed that would not; That being unwilling to add any thing to the Faith of the Council of Nice, and knowing that Julius, Faelix, S. Athanasius, and S. Gregory rejected the two Natures, he dared not to discourse of the Nature of the Word of God, who in the last days came down into the Womb of the Virgin without any change in himself, in such manner as he pleased, and that he knew, that he was not a Man in shew only; that he would not Curse the Fathers, and that he had required them to write to his Holiness, and leave it to him to Judge him, promising to submit to his Determination; That the Synod not regarding these Propositi∣ons had dissolved themselves, and had published a Sentence of Deposition against him; That they had contrived a long time against him by the Faction, insomuch that he was in great danger, if he had not been taken away by the Guards; That they had forced all the Abbots to subscribe against him, and being desirous to justifie himself before the People by reciting his Creed, they had hinder'd him, that they might make him pass altogether for an Heretick; That in this con∣dition he fled to S. Leo for help, whom he knew to be Zealous for the Faith, and to hate all Faction and Contest; That he assured him, that he brought in no Innovations concerning the Faith, and had been taught from the beginning of the Church; That he condemned Apollinaris, Valenti••••s, Manes, Nestorius, and all those who affirm, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ descended from Heaven, and was not assumed in the Womb of the Virgin. He requests, that setting aside that which had been done against him through Faction and Combination, that it be not preju∣dicial to him, S. Leo would give his Judgment about the point of Doctrine in contest; That he would forbid them for the future to speak abusively of him, to thrust him out of the num∣ber of the Orthodox, and that he would not endure that a Person who hath passed 70 Years in the exercise of Continence and Chastity, be overwhelmed at the end of his Life. He annexed to the end of this Letter the Petition of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and the Confession of Faith which he had made in the Council, with the Testimonies of the Holy Fathers against the two Natures. There is also at the end of this Letter a Confession of Faith made by Eutyches, in which he professes to hold to the Definitions of the Councils of Ephesus and Nice, of S. Cyril and other Fathers of the Church, and pronounce Anathema against Nestorius and Apollinaris, and a∣gainst all those who affirm, that the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, holding

that the Word of God came down from Heaven without Flesh, and took Flesh in the Womb of the Virgin of the very Flesh of the Virgin. So that he, that from Eternity was perfect God, is become perfect Man in time. We find also in the same place a Letter attributed to Julius, which affirms, that we ought not to say, That there are two Natures in Jesus Christ after their Union, and that as Man, although he be made up of a Soul and a Body, is but one Nature, in like manner though the Divinity and Humanity be in Jesus Christ, they are nevertheless but one Nature. It is probable, that this Letter is forged under the Name of Julius, as the Letters attributed to Faelix, and S. Athanasius upon the same subject.

But Eutyches did not content himself to write to the Pope, he besought the Emperor to call a * 1.129 general Council for the determination of his Cause, and prayed him, that in the mean while he would have the Acts of the Judgment given against him by Flavian to be revived, main∣taining that things were not carried as they are related in those Acts. From this time the Em∣peror resolved to Assemble a General Council, and in the mean while he assembled the Bishops residing in Constantinople, to examine the Acts of the Council under Flavian before them and the Parties concerned. This Synod met Apr. 1. in the Baptistery of the Great Church. It con∣sisted of 30 Bishops out of the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, the East, and Thracia, of whom 10 or 12 were present at the former Synod. Thelasius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia was the first. Patricius Florentius held the chief place in it as Judge, and the Tribune Macedonius, a Notary, and Master of Request ordered it. He, when the Bishops were entred, Ordered, That those, who were sent in the stead of Eutyches should be admitted. Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum said, That if he defended himself by Proxie, he would retire. Macedonius having answered, That the Em∣peror would have it so, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum desired the Bishops to declare, if they were willing it should so be. Melipthongus Bishop of Juliopolis said, That he thought that the Person accused ought to come in Person, especially if the cause in Examination were of any consequence, and that the Emperor had determined to hold an Universal Council, to which all matters of consequence ought to be reserved. Macedonius having been inquired of by Florentius, what commands he had received from the Emperor about it, said, That the Emperor understanding that Eutyches was Condemned, would have the Acts of his Condemnation read over, in the presence of those whom Eutyches had sent in his stead to the Synod, that both Parties might be satisfied in what was related. Patricius hereupon called in Constantinus, Eleusinius, and Constantius, who were sent on Eutyches behalf, and Macedonius have placed the Gospel in the middle of the Sy∣nod; would have obliged the Bishops to take an Oath, that they would speak truly, if things were transacted so as they are set down in the Acts. But Basilius Bishop of Seleucia said, That the Bishops were never obliged to take an Oath upon the like Occasion, that Jesus Christ for∣bids us to Swear that being before the Altars, having the fear of God before their Eyes, and their Conscience to observe them, they would speak the whole truth so far as they could remem∣ber. Wherefore they ordered Aëtius a Deacon and Notary, to produce the Authentick Acts, at first he was unwilling, but Flavian and the Bishops having consented to it, he brought them forth; Constantius the Monk produced also a Copy of theirs. There was no difficulty about the two first Actions. They made several brangles about the answers of Eutyches, which don't de∣serve to be related. But when they came to the Condemnation, Constantine said, That Eutyches had appealed to a Council of the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica, and that they had not inserted that appeal into their Acts. Basil Bishop of Seleucia said, That he had heard him say at that time; that they propounded it to him to confess that there were two Na∣tures in Jesus Christ; That if the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria would command him to do it, he would say it: but he never heard him appeal from the Sentence. Flavian maintain'd, That Eutyches had not appealed in the Council, but the Synod being dissolved, as he ascended on high, Patricius had told him, That Eutyches did appeal from it. Florentius said, That the busi∣ness was thus carried. Julianus and Seleucius testified, that none of the Bishops had heard that he appealed from it.

Eutyches invented another trick to weaken the Authority of the Acts. He desired, that the Grand Silentiary might hear them, who being sent to Flavian's Synod, might know much of what passed there. The Emperor granted his request, and Commanded the Grand Silentiary to take the deposition of Martial, a Count, and Great Master of the Imperial Palace. He appeared be∣fore him with Macedonius the Notary. and Master of Requests Apr. 27. and declared, that being sent to meet Flavian by the Emperor, to tell him, that Patricius Florentius had Commission to sit in the Synod, that he held in his Episcopal Palace at Constantinople; Flavian answered, That it was needless for Florentius to give himself that trouble, because the business was already de∣creed, and Eutyches was condemned because he did not appear after the second Citation, and that then they shewed him a Paper, where his Condemnation was written; and that before the Synod was Assembled, Macedonius deposed, That being come from the Council where they had reviewed the Acts of the Synod, Asterius, a Priest and Notary, met him, and told him, That A∣braamius and the Notaries had changed some places in the Acts; and fearing lest they should discover the fraud, he was forced to tell him, that it was done without his knowledge or con∣sent.

It was about this time that Flavian was obliged to make a Confession of his Faith to the Empe∣ror, which is recited in the first part of this Council, in which he professes to follow the Holy Scripture, and Expositions of Faith, made by the Holy Fathers assembled at the Council of Nice, of the 125 Fathers assembled at Constantinople, and those who assembled at Ephesus under S. Cyril, and to teach that there is but one Jesus Christ born of God from all Eternity, according to his Di∣vine Nature, and born of the Virgin in time according to his Humane, perfect God, and perfect * 1.130 Man, made up of a Soul and Body of the same Substance with God, as to his Divine Nature, and with his Mother, according to the Flesh, made up of two Natures united in one Person. That he doth not refuse to say, That there is one Nature of the Word, provided that it be acknow∣ledged to be Incarnate and made Man, because our Lord Jesus Christ is of two Natures. That he pronounces them Accursed, that affirm, That there is two Sons, or two Persons, and particu∣larly Nestorius. This was the Substance of the Form of Faith, Signed by Flavian, and presented to confute the Calumnies of those who hated and envied him.

S. Leo having received a Petition from Eutyches, and a Letter from the Emperor, wrote a Letter to Flavian, in which he tells him, That he greatly wondered that he had not written to him about * 1.131 the disturbance that happened in his Church, nor had given him an Account of what had passed; that he had received a Petition from Eutyches, who complained, That he was unjustly deprived of Communion notwithstanding the Appeal, which he interposed in the Council; but they had no regard to it; That he saw not with what Justice they could condemn him, yet he desired nothing to be done, till he had full information of every thing; That they ought to have shewed some Innovation that Eutyches had made against the Ancient Doctrine, for which he deserved to be dealt so rigorously with; That he had sent him a Person of Credit, and a faithful Relation of what had passed, because the Lenity of the Church, and the Piety of the Emperor, inclined him to wish earnestly for Peace, and to ••nduce them that are in an Error to acknowledge it, and amend it; That he did not think it a very hard thing to compose things, because Eutyches had al∣ready declared, That he was ready to Recant, if he was found to have Taught any Error. This Letter bears date Febr. 18, An. 449.

At the same time he wrote also a Letter to Theodosius, in which having highly extolled the Em∣perors Piety, he tells him, That he had not yet been able to learn for what Reason Flavian had con∣demned * 1.132 Eutyches; That he had received a Writing from Eutyches, in which he complained, That he had been unjustly condemned, although he had never departed from the Faith of the Council of Nice; That the Petition of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, of which Eutyches had sent him a Co∣py, had not given him a sufficient insight into it, because he had not distinctly set down the thing which he reproved in his Doctrine; That he had Written to Flavian to send a full and faithful Relation of the Affair, and he made no question but that he would do it.

We have two Letters of Flavian to St. Leo. In the first, which he wrote to him when he sent him the Acts of the Council of Constantinople, he Accuses Eutyches for reviving the Errors of * 1.133 Valentinus, and Marcion, by holding that there is but one Nature in Jesus Christ; that the Pro∣perties of the two Natures were mixed together, and that the Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ was not of the same substance with ours; that Eutyches had been Accused by Eusebius Bishop of Do∣rylaeum, and was convicted of this Error, as he may learn by the Acts annexed to this Letter; that since Eutyches, instead of Repenting, had disturbed the Church by Publishing abusive Libels, and Presenting to the Emperor arrogant Petitions, full of Falshoods, and Injuries, breaking all Laws by it; that it was not true that he had presented an Appeal to the Council to deceive him; that he prayed him to act upon this occasion as became his Priestly Dignity, to make this business, which concerns all the Churches, his own, to approve the Condemnation of Eutyches so regularly performed, to confirm the Pious inclinations of the Emperor; and so much the more, because this Affair needs nothing but his Help and Protection; that by this means Peace may soon be restored, Troubles cease, and he lay aside the thoughts of a Council, which he is about to Convene, which can only bring further trouble to the Church.

In the 2d Written some time after, having shewed what grief he was in for the Impiety of Eutyches, he Accuses of the Errors him of which he had spoken in the first, and prays S. Leo to * 1.134 make known his Condemnation to all the Bishops subject to the See of Rome, for fear least any one not being informed of it, should Write to him, or Communicate with him.

S. Leo having received the first of these two Letters from Flavian, tells him that he commended the Zeal which he had shewn for the Faith, and that he would not suffer him to be troubled, nor Eutyches to persist in his Impiety. This Letter is dated May 21. 449. He was of the Opinion at first, as well as Flavian, That it was not necessary to Assemble a General Council, at least in the East, and to prevent it, prayed Theodosius to call one in Italy, But before the Emperor had received this Letter, he had appointed a Council at the humble Request of Dioscorus Bishop of * 1.135 Alexandria, for the Re-examination of the business of Eutyches. S. Leo having notice of it, and being Summoned to it, as other Bishops were, nominated 3 Legats to send into the East, Julius Bi∣shop of Putebli, Renatus a Priest, and Hilarius a Deacon, with Dulcitius a Notary; he gave them several Letters, which are Dated June 13.

The first was that famous Letter directed to Flavian, in which he Explains with so much Ac∣curacy the Mystery of the Incarnation. In it he distinguishes two Births of the Son of God, and * 1.136 two Natures in Jesus Christ, whose Properties subsist distinctly, although they be united in one and the same Person. He maintains that the Word hath assumed our Nature, and all the Proper∣ties

of it, Sin only excepted. In it he proves that he hath a true Flesh like ours. He rejects the Confession of Faith made by Eutyches, because, says he, 'tis absurd to say, That the Son in the Incarnation is of two Natures, and impious to maintain, That after the Incarnation he hath but one. He acknowledges that he was justly Condemned, and yet was willing to shew him some Mercy if he would confess his fault, and eondemn viva voce, and in Writing the Errors which he had published.

The second was written to Julian Bishop of Coos, who had been present at the Judgment given * 1.137 against Eutyches, and had written about it to S. Leo. In it he speaks passionately against Eutyches, calling him an Impudent Old man; he accuses him for reviving the Errors of Valentinus, Apolli∣naris, and Manichaeus. He proves that there is no change, nor a confusion made in the two Na∣tures in Jesus Christ. He observes, that it follows from Eutyches's Confession of Faith, that the Soul of Jesus Christ was united with the Godhead before it assumed a Body in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, and that the Body of Jesus Christ was created out of Nothing. Lastly, He main∣tains against Eutyches, That although Jesus Christ had some particular Privileges, as to be Born, and Conceived of a Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost, and not to be subject to the mo∣tions of Concupiscence, nor Sin, yet he hath a Body and Soul of the same Nature with ours, and endued with the same Properties.

The third is directed to Theodosius. He tells him, That he had sent his Legats to be present at * 1.138 the Council in his stead, which he had called at Ephesus, and assure him at the same time, that Eutyches was apparently in an Error.

The fourth Letter of the same Date is directed to the Empress Pulcheria. He commendeth * 1.139 her Zeal for the defence of the Faith; explains the Mystery of the Incarnation to her; condemns the obstinacy of Eutyches; complains that the Emperor had appointed the Council upon a day too near, because the Bishops of Italy had too little time from the 12th of May, on which they recei∣ved the News of it, to the 1st of August, which was the day appointed for the Meeting of the Synod at Ephesus, to prepare for, and finish such a Journey. T••at the Emperor had thought that he ought to be present in Person, but although he had had some President for it, which he had not, the present Conjuncture will not permit him to leave Rome. Lastly, He shews of what Im∣portance this Question was, and prays him to take care that Eutyches's Impiety be Condemned by pardoning him if he Recant it.

The fifth Letter of S. Leo is directed to the Abbots of Constantinople; he tells them, that he * 1.140 condemns the Errors of Eutyches, and hoped that he would acknowledge it.

The sixth is directed to the Council it self; In it he opposes Eutyches by the Confession of * 1.141 S. Peter, who acknowledged that Jesus Christ was the Christ the Son of the Living God. He ex∣horts the Fathers of the Council to suppress the Error, and to reduce those that are in it.

There are also two Letters of the same date, of which one is addressed to Pulcheria, the other * 1.142 to Julian of Coos; as also another to Flavian, dated June 17, and another June 20, to Theodosius. He repeats the same things in them.

The Emperor Theodosius also wrote several Letters about the Council. The first is about the Calling of it, dated May 30, directed to the Patriarchs and Exarchs, in which he orders them to be at Ephesus, Aug. 1. with the Metropolitans, and so many of the Bishops of their Jurisdicti∣on as they would choose, except Theodoret, who was Prohibited to come thither, unless the Council should Summon him.

The second is a private Letter to Dioscorus, dated May 15, in which he gives him Notice, That he would have the Abbot Barsumas present at the Council, as a Deputy for the Eastern Abbots, who complained that they were used hardly by their Bishops, who were favourers of Nestorius's Party. The third is an Order to Barsumas to be present at the Council. It is dated the day be∣fore the former Letter.

The fourth is an Order directed to Elpidius to come to the Council with Eulogius, a Tribune and Notary, to prevent that there be no Tumults there. In it he Orders that the Bishops, who have been Judges of Eutyches, should be present at it, but have no power to Consult, nor right to Vote, but shall wait upon the Judgment of the other Bishops, because they Re-examine what they have Judged. He forbids them to meddle with any Civil Affairs, least that which concerns the Faith be not throughly decided.

The fifth is an Order to the Proconsul of Asia, to afford Elpidius all necessary Assistance. The sixth is a Letter to the Bishops of the Council, in which he tells them, That he wished that they had had no cause of going from their Churches and leaving their Ministerial Functions, and to spare themselves the trouble of so long a Voyage, but Flavian having moved a Questi∣on concerning the Faith, by accusing the Abbot Eutyches, after he had done what he could to appease the Contest, but to no purpose, by perswading Flavian to keep close to the Nicene Creed, he thought that there was no other way to decide this Question but by assembling a Council, that they might examine all that had passed, utterly extirpate the Error, and expel all those out of the Church who would revive the Heresie of Nestorius.

The seventh is a private Letter to Dioscorus, in which he gives him the Precedence of the Bi∣shops, and the Chief Authority in the Council, not only upon the Account of Theodoret, whom he commanded to be Excluded out of it, but upon the Account of some other Bishops whom he sus∣pected to favour the Sentiments of Nestorius. He takes notice also, that he was perswaded that

Iuvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the other Or∣thodox Bishops, would join with him; and he was unwilling, that they who would add or change any thing that had been Established at Nice or Ephesus, should have any Authority in this Synod.

It is easie to perceive by these Letters that the Court favoured Eutyches, and the Aegyptian Party, and declared it self openly for them against Flavian and the Eastern Bishops: It was Chry∣saphius the ••unuch, who for a long time had born a good Affection to the Aegyptians, who was a great Friend to Eutyches, who Baptized him, and a particular Enemy to Flavian, who would not give him Money for his Ordination. It was, I say, this Chrysaphius who had misguided the Em∣perors Piety, with whom he had a great Interest and Favour.

The Council began Aug. 8. An. 449. It was made up of 130 Bishops out of the Dioceses of Aegypt, the East •…•…acia, Pontus and Asia: Dioscorus of Alexandria was President of it by the * 1.143 Emperors Order. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, appeared there in the Name of the Party; The Bishop-Legat of the Pope, held the second place in it. It is not certain whither it was Ju∣lian Bishop of Coos, or Julius Bishop of Puteoli, who held this place; The Greek Acts of the Council bear the Name of Julian, which is also met with in the ordinary Edition of the Latin Translation, but the MSS. of the Old Translation, reviewed by Rusticus, read it Julius, and not Julianus. It is certain by S. Leo's Letters, that he sent Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, with Hilarius the Deacon, and Renatus the Priest, to supply his place in the Council: Now the Author of the Me∣moir about the Affair of Acacius assures us, That Renatus died in his Journey at the Isle of Delos; and that Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, assisted in the Name of the Pope at the Council of Ephesus. Evagrius says also in his History, That Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, assisted in the Popes room at the Council of Ephesus. In the Acts of the Council there is no mention of Renatus the Priest, which confirms the Testimony of the Author of the Memoir about the Affair of Acacius, and proves, That it was he, and not Julius 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••utebli, that died in the way. It is true there is a Letter of Theodoret Written after the Cou•…•… Renatus the Priest, but either Theodoret knew not of his Death, or the Superscription is alter'd, for 'tis not probable that Hilarius the Deacon, and Dulci∣tius the Notary, should be Named in the Acts of the Council, and Renatus the Priest not be spo∣ken of if he had been at it, and the Testimony of the Memoir of Acacius, who was almost con-temporary, is of great weight. The Greek Text of the Acts of the Council ought not to create any doubts, for we know that the Greeks often corrupt the Latin Names, and the Name of Julian being more common among them than that of Julius, they put the first instead of the last. The MSS. of the Old Translation in Latin, made when the Memory of the Council was yet fresh, and when the true Name of the Pope's Legat, who assisted at this Council, was well known, serve to Rectify the Greek Text. Juvenal had the third place in the Council before Domnus Bishop of Antioch, who was allotted the fourth Seat. Flavian was reckoned in the fifth place, which was very extraordinary in the Council of Chalcedon. Steven, Bishop of Ephesus, was the sixth in Or∣der; and Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia was next to him, and was ranked among the Patriarchs, as we have seen in the Emperors Letters to Dioscorus.

John, the Chief Notary, having declared to the Bishops, That the Emperor had caused them to meet, to Examine a Controversie of Faith disputed between Flavian and Eutyches, utterly to Extirpate Heresie, and to confirm the Faith Established by the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Explained by those of the Council of Ephesus, Read the Letter for the Calling of the Coun∣cil. Then the Bishop-Legat made some excuses for S. Leo, that he did not come in person to the Council, as he had been desired by the Emperor, because there was no President that it had ever been done in any Council. He required them to receive and read his Letter, in which he ex∣plained the Doctrine of the Church. They did not read this Letter, but the Emperors, and after several Acclamations, in which they commended the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, they called Eutyches before them, who presented a Confession of Faith, in which he recited the Nicene Creed, professed to Live and Die without making any alteration in it, by changing, or adding to it; as also in the Doctrine of S. Cyril, approved by the Council of Ephesus. In it he pronounced Ana∣thema against Manes, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, and against all Hereticks, beginning with Simon M. and particularly against those who maintain that the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven. Having read this Confession of Faith, he complained, That though he was of this Judgment, yet Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, had unjustly accused him before Flavian, and the other Bishops, who were at Constantinople about their private Affairs; That he had presented abusive Petitions against him, in which he treated him as an Heretick, although he alledged no proof of it; believing, that Flavian having cited him to the Council, would condemn him be∣cause he did not appear. That when he appeared, Flavian would not suffer him to read his Confession of Faith; And though he declared, That he had no other Sentiments than those of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Ephesus, yet they read a Sentence of Condemnation gi∣ven against him, not regarding the Appeal, which he interposed, and made to a General Coun∣cil. That after this Condemnation Flavian had caused him to be accounted for an Heretick, and had made several Bishops and Monks to subscribe against him, although above all things he ought to have Written to all the Bishops to whose Judgment he had appealed; That seeing himself thus persecuted, he had informed the Patriarchs, and Emperor, after what manner things had been carried, and had requested that the Proceedings of Flavian should be Examined in the

Council. When Eutyches had thus spoken, Flavian requested that Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, his Accuser, should be called in, but Elpidius would not suffer him to be admitted, and said, That he had done the Office of an Accuser before the first Judge, and that now the Judges them∣selves were to answer for the Judgment; that the Council was met to Judge the Judges themselves, and examine the Judgment which they had given, and not to furnish out a new Accusation; so that it was sufficient to read over again the Acts of the Council of Constantinople. Juvenal, Bi∣shop of Jerusalem, and several other Bishops, were of that Opinion, but the Popes Legats de∣manded that S. Leo's Letter should be read before the Acts. Eutyches said, That the Legats were suspected by him, because ever since their arrival they had abode with Flavian, who received them Friends, and gave them Presents; so that he desired the Council, that if they demanded any unjust thing against him, it might not be prejudicial to him. Dioscorus, President of the Coun∣cil, concluded, that the Acts of the Condemnation of Eutyches should be read without more ado. They read them all along with the acknowledgment that had been made of them at Constantinople. When these Acts were read, the Bishops declared, That Eutyches having always professed the Faith of the Fathers of the Council of Nice, and Ephesus, was Orthodox, and had been unjustly Condemned.

The Monks of the Monastery of Eutyches afterwards presented a Petition against Flavian, in which they complain, That this Bishop having unjustly Condemned their Abbot, because he would not approve, as he had done, Errors contrary to the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, had sent Theodotus a Priest to them, who enjoined them not to obey their Abbot, to have no Society with him, and not permit him to have the Management of the Revenue of the Monastery; that the Altar, which Flavian himself had Consecrated for them six months since, had remained without a Sacrament; that they were still themselves bound by that unjust Sentence; that some of their Brethren were dead with∣out receiving the Sacrament; that they had always strictly followed the Orders of a Monastick life ac∣cording to their Rule, but had been deprived of their Sacraments; that they had passed the Festivals of the Nativity, Epiphany and Easter, and continued 9 months in that Estate, but Flavian had no Mercy on them; that they prayed the Synod to have some pity on their Misery, restore them to the Communion, and to judge him with rigor who had passed that unjust Sentence upon them. This Petition was Sub∣scribed by 1 Priest, 10 Deacons, 3 Sub-deacons, and 21 Ordinary Monks. They questioned them about their Faith, who answering, That they received the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, the Faith of S. Athanasius, S. Gregory, and S. Cyril, and that they agreed to the Confession of Faith that Eutyches had read, they declared them Absolved, and they received them to Com∣munion.

Lastly, They read the sixth Action of the [former] Council of Ephesus, that they might get a pretence to condemn Flavian, and when it was read, and approved by the Bishops, Dioscorus de∣clared, That Flavian, and Eusebins Bishop of Dorylaeum, having been the Cause of a Universal Scandal, endeavouring to add to the Faith of the Council of Nice, contrary to the Prohibition of the Council of Ephesus, ought to be Deposed. His Opinion was followed by Juvenal, Domnus, Thalassius, and the Bishops, who Signed the Condemnation of Flavian, and Eusebius Bishop of Do∣rylaeum. While Dioscorus gave his Judgment, Flavian said aloud, That he rejected him; and Hilary the Deacon said, That he opposed the Sentence of Dioscorus. Some of the Bishops contra∣dicted it, others cast themselves at Dioscorus feet, begging of him to spare Flavian, but they were compelled by the threats of the Soldiers, whom they had admitted, to subscribe the Acts of the Council. The next day Dioscorus Deposed Ibas Bishop of Edessa, being accused of having spoken this Blasphemy, That he envied not Jesus Christ the Title of God, because he could himself become such, if he pleased. Nor did they spare Theodoret, although he was denied the Liberty of coming to defend himself. The reason of his Condemnation was, That he had written against S. Cyrils Chapters, and had heretofore taken Nestorius's part. Labinianus Bishop of Paros, was also De∣posed; and lastly, Tho. Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, had Signed the Condemnation of Flavian, and consented to all that Dioscorus desired, yet he was also condemned under a pretence, that he had heretofore written a Letter to Dioscorus against S. Cyril's 12 Chapters. Dioscorus made use of the opportunity of his absence from the Council, upon the account of some indisposition which took him suddenly. Flavian Appealed from this Judgment given against him by ••he Synod. The Reasons for his Appeal were these, That they would not hear his Defence; That Dioscorus had been an absolute Commander in it to order what he pleased; That all things passed by force and contrary to the Canons; That they had forced the Bishops by Threats to Subscribe; That they would not read S. Leo's Letter; That no regard was had to the refusal which he made against Dioscorus, nor to the opposition made by the Popes Legats. This Appeal was presented to the Popes Legats, but it was referred to a General and Free Council, and there to be Prosecuted. This appears by the Letters and Carriage of S. Leo, who in persuit of this Appeal did not con∣cern himself with the Judgment of Flavian's Cause before his own Tribunal, but importuned the Emperor to call a Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops, to make void the Judgment given at Ephesus against all sort of Justice and Equity. Dioscorus, and those of his Faction, being pro∣voked by this Appeal, set upon Flavian with a design to banish him, and did it with so much violence, that he died a little time after. 'Tis probable that having received several blows on his Feet when he was apprehended, and afterward being hardly used in his Journey by those that carried him into Banishment, he died a little after he came there of the ill usage and blows he

had received. Thus Liberatus and Evagrius relate his Death, and this shews, that it was not without Reason that Dioscorus was accused in the Council of Chalcedon of having been the Cause of Flaviau's Death, because though he did not himself smite him, yet it was by his order that he was so badly used. Anatolius was ordain'd in the place of Flavian, Maximus of Donnus, Non∣nus of Ibas, and Athanasius of Sabanian. They ordained none in the place of Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, for they were only thrust out of their Dioceses. The first desired help of the Pope. They did not spare the very Legats of S. Leo, who were the only per∣sons who shewed any Courage for the defence of the Innocent. They were apprehended, but Hilary found out a way of escape, and having passed through many dangers they got safe to Rome. During these transactions, S. Leo was much perplexed about the success of this Affair. He knew * 1.144 that Eutyches was very considerable at Court, and that Dioscorus and the Egyptian Bishops favou∣red him, and was afraid that they would not have that respect to his Letter and Legats that they ought. Flavian's silence increased his Grief, and he could not but let him know it. As soon as he understood by Hilarius the Deacon how things went, he called a Council, and wrote to the Emperor Theodosius in his own and Brethren's Name, That the Council, which he had caused to be held at Ephesus, had depraved the Purity of the Faith, and Discipline of the Church; That * 1.145 all things were carried according to the Humour of Dioscorus, who had allowed the Bishops no Liberty, and who had made them pass a very unjust Sentence. He conjured his Majesty by the name of the Holy Trinity to leave all things in the same state that they were before the assem∣bling of this Council, until he could call a Council of a greater number of Bishops from all parts of the World. He says, that all the Churches, and all the Western Bishops did implore him with Tears and Sighs, that since the Legats of the Holy See have opposed it, and Flavian presented them with an Appeal, his Majesty would call a General Council in Italy, which may either wholly remove or mitigate the Causes of the discontent; insomuch that there may remain no Scruples about the Faith, nor any Division contrary to Charity, by summoning the Bishops of the Eastern Provinces to this Council. He adds, that 'tis unavoidable after an Appeal put in, and also con∣formable to the Laws established in the Council of Nice. They are the Canons of the Council of Sardica that he means, and uses to shew, that in the Case of an Appeal a Synod ought to be called to examine the Cause already judged; and not to shew that he had a right himself to re∣view * 1.146 it. This Letter is dated Octob. 13.

He repeats the same Complaints and Requests, in another of the 15th of the same Month. He also addresses himself to Pulcheria, to obtain what he desired by her means. In the mean time he comforts Flavian, telling him, That he will not omit any thing for the defence of the * 1.147 Common Cause, and exhorts him to suffer patiently. He congratulates the Bishop of Thessalonica, because he was not at the Council of Ephesus, and admonishes him to continue in Communion * 1.148 with Flavian. Lastly, He exhorts the People and Clergy, and Abbots at Constantinople to be still united with Flavian; and explains to them what they ought to believe concerning the Incarna∣tion * 1.149 of Jesus Christ, by rejecting the Sentiments of Eutyches. In fine, He brought it to pass that the Emperor Valentinian, and the Empresses Placidia and Eudoxia did joyn with the Western Bi∣shops to entreat Theodosius to suffer a General Council to be held in Italy. We have the Letters they wrote to Theodosius, in which they much extol the Authority of the Holy See, and insist much upon Flavian's Appeal. But Theodosius gave this Answer to these Letters, That he had as∣sembled * 1.150 a Council at Ephesus, where the thing had been examined and judged; That Flavian was found Guilty and therefore was condemned, and that 'twas needless, nay impossible to do * 1.151 any thing more, Saint Leo also wrote about it to Pulcheria, and made her write to him by the Empress Placidia. He refused to communicate with Anatolius, and renewed his suit afresh in beginning of the next Year, that he would hold a Council in Italy; He sent Legats also into the East to demand it, but could not effect any things as long as Theodosius lived. Marcian, who * 1.152 succeeded him in the year 450, entred upon the Throne with another Opinion, because * 1.153 Pulche∣ria, by whose Marriage he was advanced to that Dignity, had a great Veneration for the Bishops of Rome. So that the four Legats which S. Leo had sent, being arrived at Constantinople, a little after the Death of Theodosius, were very kindly received there. Anatolius foreseeing that it would not be for his advantage to continue in Communion with Dioscorus, and maintain his separation from S. Leo's, sought all means to joyn with the Latter, and to procure, that he should acknow∣ledge him Lawfully ordained, although it was done by Dioscorus, and he had been put into the place of a Bishop unjustly, and violently deposed. He made use of his Interest with the Empe∣ror and Empress to bring this about, and that he might himself engage S. Leo's favour, and per∣suade him of the Purity of his Faith, he called a Council of such Bishops as were then at Con∣stantinople, and invited the Pope's Legats to be present at it. In it he caused S. Leo's Letter to * 1.154 Flavian to be read, with the Testimonies of the Greek and Latin Fathers, and caused all the Bi∣shops to sign it, pronounced Anathema against Nestorius and Eutyches, and condemned their Do∣ctrine, sent the Letter of S. Leo to the Metropolitans, that they should sign it, and that they should cause all the Bishops of their Provinces to sign it. In this Synod they also decreed that the Bishops who were fallen into an Error by approving the Acts of the Council of Ephesus un∣der Dioscorus, and had separated themselves from the Communion of the Church, should have Communion with no Church but their own, and be deprived of the Communion of other Bi∣shops. The Pope's Legats proposed it to him to blot out the Names of Dioscorus and Juvenal out of the Dypticks.

Anatolius having celebrated this Council sent Deputies to S. Leo, to assure him of the Purity of his Doctrine, and communicated to him what they had proposed in the Council. The Emperor Marcian, and the Empress Pulcheria, wrote to S. Leo, and she tells him, That they intended soon to celebrate a Council in the East, and desired him to send the Western Bishops to it. She adds that she had caused the Body of Flavian to be brought to Constantinople, where they Enterred it honourably in the Apostles Church, which was the ordinary burying place of the Bishops of Constantinople, and had given those Bishops who were banished upon the Account of the Council of Ephesus, leave to return to their own Dioceses.

Saint Leo thanked the Emperor and Empress for the Protection they had afforded to the Faith, * 1.155 he received Anatolius with Joy, acknowledged him for a Lawful Bishop, allowed him to receive those Bishops to the Communion of the Church, who being forced to give place to the Violence used in the Council of Ephesus, were sorry for what they had done, and confessed the Faith of the Church. As to Dioscorus, Juvenal; and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, he bids Anatolius to con∣sult with his Legats about it, and to do as they should judge Convenient, provided it be not pre∣judicial to the Memory of Flavian 〈◊〉〈◊〉 That as to himself he thought it Unjust to put the Name of his Persecutors among the number of the Bishops of the Church, so long as they remain in their Error, and it seemed reasonable to him either to punish them for their perfidiousness, or make them acknowledge their fault. Lastly, He recommends to him Julian of Coos, Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, and those of the Clergy, who have always been favourers of Flavian. He wrote par∣ticularly to Julian B. of Coos, that he ought not to receive those Bishops, who had assisted at the * 1.156 Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus, till they condemn what they have done, and that they should punish those who persist in it. These Letters are dated, April 13. 451.

The Emperor Marcian and S. Leo were both of the same mind as to the calling of a Synod, but S. Leo desired, that it might meet in Italy; but the Emperor peremptorily resolved it should be in the East, Nevertheless he sent Lucentius a Bishop, and Basil a Priest, into the East, to endea∣vour to reconcile the Bishops. but he wrote at the same time, that he thought it more convenient * 1.157 to put off the Council a while upon the Account of the Wars. He commanded his Legats to act warily, and with the Concurrence of Anatolius, and to receive none to their Communion but such as profess the Doctrine of the Church distinctly and plainly. As to the Heads of the Party, he meddle not with their Cause, but in the mean while he forbids them to recite their Name at the Altar, nor receive them to Communion. He thanks the Emperor and Empress for resto∣ring the Exil'd Bishops, and honouring the Memory of Flavian, and prayed them to Depose Euty∣ches, and put an Orthodox Abbot into his Monastery. Lastly, He advises Julian Bishop of Coos. to joyn with his Legats in endeavouring to utterly extirpate the remainders of Heresie. Two Eastern Priests suspected of Heresie fled at the same time to Rome. The Pope being well assured * 1.158 of their Judgment, and having made them condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, sent them back again Absolved, and recommended them to Anatolius.

While S. Leo thought to resto••e the Affairs of the Church without a Council, Marcian appoin∣ted one at Nice Sept, 1. Saint Leo having received the News of it, sent Bonifacius a Priest to it, and gave order to Pascasimus Bishop of Lilybaeum to go thither also in his Name with the Legats he had sent, and Julian Bishop of Coos. He wrote about the calling of this Council to the Em∣peror * 1.159 Anatolius, and Julian Bishop of Coos.

In these Letters he tells them that he was troubled, that they had appointed a Council, That he thought it better to defer it till some fitter time; Yet he says, That he sends Pascasinus Bi∣shop of Lilybaeum, and Boniface the Priest, that they may assist in his stead at the Council with Juli∣an Bishop of Coos. He desires likewise, that the Emperor would grant the Presidence to Pascasimus.

He also wrote a Letter to the Bishops of the Council, in which having excused himself, because he did not come to the Council by reason of the Custom, he tells them that he sent Pascasinus and Lucentius Bishops, and the Priests Boniface and Basil to assist in his place at the Council. He exhorts them to suppress the Deputies of those, who oppose the Faith of the Incarnation, which he hath explained in his Letter to Flavian, and to redress the grievances of the Church by re∣storing the Bishops condemned for the Faith, and by condemning Eutyches and his Followers, without mentioning what hath been done against Nestorius by the first Council of Ephesus. This * 1.160 Letter is dated June 27. There is also another of the same date addressed to the Emperor Mar∣cian, in which he observes, That the Council ought not to innovate any thing, nor bring any question of Faith into Contest, but to keep themselves close to the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, and condemn the Errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. By another Letter dated * 1.161 July 19, he desires the same thing of him, and recommends his Legats to him.

Lastly, He wrote to Pulcheria, that he had sent his Legats to the Council, although he wished * 1.162 that it had been held in Italy. He observes, That they ought to act in it with a great deal of Moderation, and not imitate the Violence used in the Council of Dioscorus. He adds, That he did so in receiving to Communion such, as having fallen through Cowardise had acknowledged their fault. He thought likewise, that they ought to pardon the Heads of the Party, but he would not have them received rashly, without giving evident signs of their sincere Repentance.

The first of September, which was the day appointed for the beginning of the Council, being come, several Bishops came to Nice, where it was to sit. Having stayed there some days, and hearing nothing from the Emperor, they wrote to him to pray him to suffer the Council to be∣gin;

The Emperor returned them this Answer. That the Legats of the Holy See had thought it convenient, that he should be there in person, and that his affairs having not hitherto, nor yet permitting him to go to Ephesus, he desired them to come to Chalcedon, where they should hold the Council. This place was suspected by some, because it was to be feared, that Eutyches, who had a strong party in those quarters, would raise some Sedition. They discovered to the Em∣peror the ground of their Fear, but he assured them. That he would take care that they should have no disturbance, and exhorted them to come immediately. The Bishops having received this Letter came cheerfully to Chalcedon, where the Council met the first time Octob. 8. Anno. 451.

This Council was held in the Great Church of S. Euphemia, the Emperor's Commissioned-Officers, and the Counsellors of State being present, who were to direct all their motions, and * 1.163 were set in the middle of the Council, near the Rails of the Altar. On the Left-Hand were the Bishops Pascasinus and Lucentius, and the Priest Boniface the Pope's Legat, then Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and after him Maximus Bishop of Antioch; Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea, Stephan Bishop of Ephesus, and all the Bishops of the Eastern Dioceses, except those of Palestine with the Bishops of the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, of which those that we have named, were Exarchs, or Patriarchs. Upon their Right-Hand were Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Quintillus Bishop of Heraclea in Macedonia, who supplied the place of the Bi∣shop of Thessalonica, Peter Bishop of Corinth, with the Egyptian Bishops Illyria and Palestine. The Holy Gospels were in the midst. The number of the Bishops is commonly reckoned 630. And indeed, S. Leo in his 77 Epistle to the French Bishops, saith, That the Synod consisted of 600 Bishops or thereabouts. Liberatus and Photius reckon 630, yet there are but 350, or thereabouts, named in the Acts of the Council, and 'tis very unlikely, that there should be above 600 Bishops as∣sembled out of the Dioceses of the Greek Church. The Testimony of S. Leo doth not undoubt∣edly prove it, because the number of 600 in Latin is ordinarily taken for a considerable num∣ber. This might give some reason for the mistake, or there might be some confusion in the Fi∣gures. But however that be, 'tis certain that this Council was made up of a greater number of Bishops than any of the Precedent Councils.

The first Meeting of the Council was on the 8th of October. The first thing that Pascasinus the Pope's Legat did, was to demand, that Dioscorus might not sit in the Council, saying, That * 1.164 they were ordered by S. Leo, Bishop of the Church of Rome, which is the Head of other Churches, to hinder him from sitting in the Council, and that if he did, they declared, That they would withdraw. We must observe, that they spoke in Latin, and an Interpreter explai∣ed what they said to the Council. The Commissioners asked them, what they had to object a∣gainst him. The Legats insisted upon it, that he was to give an Account of the Judgment he had given without Authority, and contrary to the will of the Holy See, that he was accused, and could not be a Judge. The Commissioners ordered him to come forth into the middle as a Per∣son accused. Immediately his Accuser Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum appeared, and required that his Petition should be read. Saying with Tears in his Eyes, that he had been unjustly condem∣ned as well as Flavian, whom Dioscorus had put to Death. The Sum of the Petition was this, That in the Council held a little while since at Ephesus, Dioscorus had attempted several things contrary to Justice, and the Faith, by upholding Eutyches, who was Accused and Condemned for Heresie, and by condemning the Orthodox Bishops; That he prayed the Council to Command him to answer to the Accusations, which he was ready to prove against him. Dioscorus made this Defence for himself, that Flavian had been condemned in a Council called by the Authority of the Emperor, and desired them to read the Acts. Eusebius agreed to it. Dioscorus changing his mind prayed the Council to Examine before all things else, such things as concerned the Faith. The Commissioners ordered, That he should answer the Accusations brought against him, and that the Acts of the Council should be read as he had required. Whereupon they read the Em∣peror Theodosius's Letter for the appointment of the Council of Ephesus, and the Acts of that Council, in which the Acts of the Council of Constantinople under Flavian were inserted. This was the Cause of several Interruptions in the Council.

The first was about Theodoret, whom Theodosius had forbidden to come to the Council of Ephe∣sus. The Commissioners demanded that he should be admitted, because S. Leo had acknowledged him for a Lawful Bishop, and the Emperor Martian had ordered him to be present at the Coun∣cil. The Bishops of Egypt, Illyria, and Palestine opposed it. Hereupon several tumultuous Ac∣clamations were made of each side. Lastly, The Judges ordered, that he should come in as an Accuser, and should stand in the middle, provided, that it were not prejudicial to the Rights of either Party. When he entred, the Acclamations of both sides were redoubled; Some cryed out, That he was Deposed from his See, others accused him for being a Nestorian. The Ea∣stern Bishops cryed out against Dioscorus, and the Egyptians and they against the Eastern Bishops. This continued a long time, and the Synod had turned into a confused Rout, if the Commissi∣oners had nor suppressed the Popular Crys by telling the Bishops, That it was unbecoming them to act thus, and then making them to go on in reading Theodosius's Letters, and the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. The reading of these Papers discovered, that Dioscorus would not suffer Saint Leo's Letter to be read in the Synod, although it was twice requested of him. They accused Dioscorus for having falsified the Acts, and made the Bishops to sign a Blank-Paper, and that by force, compassing them in with Soldiers, who threatned them. They said, that Eutyches had

indeed owned that the Flesh of Jesus Christ did not come from Heaven, but that he would not say whence it was. They disputed some time about the Union, and distinction of the two Na-Natures. The Eastern Bishops confessed, that they had done ill in signing the Deposition of Fla∣vian, they said Unanimously, That they had all offended, and therefore desired Pardon. They examined, why they would not suffer Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum to come into the Council of Ephesus. Whereupon Dioscorus complained, that they had admitted Theodoret into the Council of Chalcedon. When they read the Judgment of Dioscorus against Flavian, the Eastern Bishops all cryed out, Anathema to Dioscorus, and disapproved the Condemnation of Flavian, and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum. The Commissioners concluded, that since it appeared by the Acts which they had read, and by the Confession likewise of those who had the chief places in the Council of Ephesus, that Flavian and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum had been unjustly Condemned, it was just, that not only Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria, but also Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius Bishop Ancyra, Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, and Basil Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, who had presided in the Council of Ephesus with Authority, should bear the same Punish∣ment, and be declared unworthy of their Episcopal Office, according to the Holy Canons. The Bishops of the East and Illyria, approved of this Sentence. The Judges then said, That the Bi∣shops ought now to declare what their Faith is, and to be assured, that the Emperor followed the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople, the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, and the two Letters of S. Cyril, read and confirmed in the first Council of Ephesus; and that S. Leo had written a Letter to Flavian against Eutyches, which contained an Ex∣position of the Catholick Faith.

The Second Action in the Greek Copies at present is that which treats of the Faith. Evagri∣us * 1.165 and Facundus make it the Third, and put that which concerns the Deposition of Dioscorus in the Second place. Liberatus on the other hand follows the common order. The ancient MS in the Church of Paris agrees with Evagrius; but Rusticus the Deacon, who reviewed the ancient Translation of the Council of Chalcedon by several MSS. about the middle of the Fifth Age, as∣sures us, that that in the Monastery of the Acaemetae Monks follows the Order of Liberatus. So that if we consider the Authorities of others it is hard to determine the Order of these two Acts, because there are on both sides testimonies equally Ancient and Credible. The Date, which might clear this difficulty, is not certain. The Act of the Condemnation of Dioscorus is dated the Third of the Ides, that is to say, the 13th day of October. That wherein the Faith is treated of in the Greek, and most of the Latin MSS, is dated the Sixth of the Ides, which is the 10th of October, but the MS of the Church of Paris says only, Sub die Idus Octobris, before the Ides of October, without mentioning the Day, so that it may be the 14th. The Fourth Session, which sets down the date of the First, does not clear this any thing more, for in the Translation it is the Sixth of the Ides of October, and in the Greek the First of the Ides. In the first Act the Com∣missioners deferred the Question of Faith the first Day. The Act where the Faith was treated of speaks of that, wherein the Absolution of the Flavian was handled, as preceeding it. It is said about the end, that five days after they will meet to treat of the Doctrine of S. Leo's Letter, which was done on the 17th, in the 4th Act.

Lastly, The Bishops of Illyria at the conclusion of the Action, which is commonly thought to be the Second, desire, that Dioscorus might be brought into the Synod again, and restored to his Church. Dioscorum Synodo Dioscorum Ecclesiis. Now would they have done it, if his Deposition had been pronounced in the Council, and signed by themselves. These Reasons seem to render the Common Order to be most probable. But on the other side Dioscorus being cited before the Council in the Session wherein he was Deposed, answered twice, That in the first Session the Commissioners of the Emperor were present, and that they Summoned him to a Second Session, where they were not. It is then very hard to know the true order of these two Sessions.

However that be, we will not remove the Act, wherein the Question concerning the Faith was debated, from the second place. The same Commissioners and Bishops who were present at the first Action, were also at this, and in the same order, except those who had been declared unworthy of the Priesthood in the first Action. The Commissioners having represented, that what concerned the Judgment of Flavian and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, being judged in the former Session, they ought to take the subject of our Faith into Examination; because that was the principal matter for which the Council was Assembled; That the Emperor had no other Faith than that of the Council of Nice; all the Bishops declared that they had no other, and that they would not undertake to explain it, nor add any thing to it. Cecropius said, that to con∣fute the Error of Eutyches S. Leo's Letter was sufficient. The Bishops said, That they would fol∣low it, and Subscribe it. The Commissioners said, That it was necessary that the Patriarchs should choose one or two of the Bishops of their Dioceses who were most Learned, that they might treat and agree concerning the Faith. All the Bishops said, That they would not endure any new Exposition of Faith in Writing, because they had a Canon that forbad it. Florentius Bishop of Sardis shewed, That it was no easie thing to make an Exposition of Faith so quickly, and demanded time for it. Cecropius required that they should read the Nicene Creed, and Saint Leo's Letter. The Judges ordered it should be so, wherefore they read the Nicene and Constan∣tinopolitan Creed. Saint Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius, his Letter of Union to John Bishop

of Antioch, S. Leo's Letter to Flavian, and the passages of the Fathers annexed to it. All the Bishops by their reiterated Acclamations approved the Creeds of Nice and Constantinople. The Bishops of Illyria and Constantinople scrupled some places in S. Leo's Letter, but to satisfie them they proved that there were the like in S. Cyril's Writings. This made them all consent, and all the Synod approved S. Leo's Letter. But since there were some Bishops who had some further Objections about it, they put off the Action five days longer, that they might make the point clearer; and they desired Anatolius to choose out some Bishops from among them, who had signed this Letter, who were most able to explain it to the rest. This Action was ended with Acclamations, in which the Eastern Bishops desired pardon for them of their side, and the Ba∣nishment of Dioscorus. On the contrary the Illyrians demanded that he should be still continued in his Church, and have a place in the Synod.

In the Third Action October 13. the Bishops being assembled without the Commissioners, Eu∣sebius Bishop of Dorylaeum presented a New Petition against Dioscorus, accusing him to be of the * 1.166 same Opinion with Eutyches, to have condemned Flavian unjustly, for putting into the Acts of his Council such things as were never spoken, and for forcing the Bishops to sign a Blank Paper. Whereupon he besought the Council to declare all that was done in the Synod of Ephesus under Dioscorus, Null, and to pronounce an Anathema against Eutyches. He prayed the Council to Summon Dioscorus to appear before them. The Arch-Deacon Actius said, that he had been with Dioscorus and the other condemned Bishops; That Dioscorus had answered, that they were the Guards which had hindred him from coming to the Council. They sought for him abroad, and because they could not find him, they sent to cite him. He answered them that went, That he was under Guard, and they must ask them if they would let him go; That in their return they had met with the Master of the Offices, and returning again with him to bring Dioscorus, He answered them, That upon second Thoughts he had resolved not to go to the Synod, lest the Judges should be forced to examine again what they had resolved. They told him, That they did not call him to weaken what had been decreed, but only to invite him to the Council. Having refused to go they summoned him a Second time, but he replyed, That he was Sick, and that he would not go to the Synod, unless the Commissioners were there. He demanded whether Juvenal, Thalassius, and Eustathius were also Summoned thither. They said, That it did not concern him that Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum had accused him only, and as to what he required, that the Commissioners should be present, that was needless, because it was a Matter purely Ecclesiastical, where the Commissioners or Lay-men ought not to assist. Nevertheless he still refused to go. They resolved to cite him a Third time. In the mean time Aetius told the Council that there were at the Door some Clergy-men and Lay-men of Alexandria, who de∣sired to be permitted to prefer their Complaints against Dioscorus. They received them, and read their Petitions.

The first was Theodorus's a Deacon of Alexandria, who complained, that Dioscorus thrust him out of the Clergy without Cause, not bringing any Accusation, nor forming any Complaint a∣gainst him. He accused him for being an Enemy to all S. Cyril's Relations, for having used them ill, for being of Origen's Opinions, for being guilty of Murther, Theft, making Disturbances and Debaucheries, for having impelled 10 Egyptian Bishops to sign an Excommunication against S. Leo, and offered to prove all these Facts.

The second was Ischyrions, who also accused Dioscorus for having exercised several Cruelties, plundering Houses, rooting up Trees, forcing private Men from their Estates, for buying the Corn, which the Emperor sent to the Churches of Lybia to make bread for the Holy Sacrament, and to support the Poor and Strangers, for disposing certain Monies which * 1.167 a Lady left to the Poor and Hospitals of Egypt, to scandalous Persons, for familiarly conversing with † 1.168 Lewd Wo∣men. He added, that Dioscorus had thrust him out of the Clergy for no Cause, although he had done much service for the Church of Alexandria in S. Cyril's time, he was one of his Friends; and had caused the Monks to, burn his House; Lastly, That he had sent a Company of Church-men to apprehend him, who had slain him, had he not fled from them; That he had seized on him in Alexandria, and shut him up in an Hospital, where he endeavoured also to destroy him.

The third Petition was presented by Athanasius, S. Cyril's Nephew. He accused Dioscorus for deposed him and his Brother, for causing them to be hardly used at Constantinople by Chrysaphius, and to buy their Liberty of him very dearly: That they had been forced to borrow Money at Use, which had ruined them: That his Brother being dead, he was left alone over-whelmed with Debts: That Dioscorus to compleat his ruine had seized upon an House at Alexandria, which was all he had, to make it a Church: That he had thrown him out of the Clergy, and forbidden any Person giving him relief: That he had despoiled him of all his Estate, and of what belonged to his Brothers Children, and had reduced them to Beggary.

The fourth Petition was of a Lay-Man called Sophronius, who accused Dioscorus not only for not executing the Orders, which the Emperor had directed to him against an Officer of Alexan∣dria, who had carried away his Wife, but also of sending his Deacon to pillage his Estate, and forcing him to fly. The same Sophronius likewise declared, that he was ready to prove, that Dioscorus had uttered Blasphemies against the Trinity, and endeavoured to make himself Supreme over the Province of Egypt. Then they deputed certain Persons to summon him the third time to come and answer, as well to the Accusations of Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum, as to other fresh

Accusations. The Bishops, who summoned him, shewed him among other things, that he was obliged to go and clear himself of the Accusations formed against him, because the Misdemeanors of the Bishops turning to the general disgrace of the Clergy, he ought to free the Church from it, and if that which they laid to his Charge were false, he ought to justifie himself, and convince the World of his Innocency. Dioscorus gave them no other answer than this, That he had nothing more to say, that was new.

When they had certified the Council, that Dioscorus would not come to it, Pascasinus asked, What Punishment he had deserved? The Bishops said, That he had offended against the Ca∣nons. Then the Popes Legats declared, That it was evident as well by the Examinations made in the first Assembly, as by what had already passed in this, that he had attempted several things contrary to the Order and Discipline of the Church: First, in that he had absolved the Priest Eutyches by his own Authority, who had been condemned by Flavian his Bishop: That the Holy See had pardoned the other Bishops, who had been forced to do the same, but since had submit∣ted themselves to the Council, but that it ought not to deal so with Dioscorus, because he obsti∣nately persisted in his fault: That he had committed no small Crime in not suffering S. Leo's Let∣ter to be read in the Council of Ephesus: That this notwithstanding, they were ready to use him with the same Lenity as other Bishops, but since he continued in his Obstinacy, dared to Ex∣communicate S. Leo, and would not appear before the Synod, being summoned three times, al∣though he was accused of very great Crimes, and had received Persons deposed and excommu∣nicated into his Communion.

For these Causes, says the Legats, Leo Archbishop of Old Rome, doth by us, and by the Synod, with the Authority of S. Peter, who is the Rock and Foundation of the Church, and the Ground of Faith, Depose him from his Episcopal Dignity, and declare him unworthy of the Priesthood. And let all the Council judge now, what ought to be done with Dioscorus according to the Orders of the Holy Canons.

Anatolius, Maximus Bishop of An∣tioch, and all the other Bishops following Pascasinus's Sentence, gave one after another their Votes for the Deposition of Dioscorus, and confirmed them with the Seal. Then the Council sent to the Emperor an Account of their Proceedings, in which they deliver the same Motives for the Con∣demnation of Dioscorus, which are mentioned in Pascasinus's Sentence. They also sent another Relation of them to Pulcheria the Empress. Then they certified Dioscorus of the Judgment pro∣nounced against him; they published it by a private Writing to the Clergy of Alexandria, and by a publick Edict to all the People of Chalcedon and Constantinople.

The Commissioners were present at the fourth Session held Octob. 17. They began it with * 1.169 reading the Judgment pronounced by the Commissioners in the First Action; they also read that which was said in the Second, about deferring the Exposition of Faith. The Commissioners de∣manded of the Council, What they had decreed concerning the Faith? The Popes Legats said, That they had no other Doctrine or Faith to deliver, than that, which was contain'd in the Creed of Nice and Constantinople, in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, and in S. Leo's Letter, which agreed exactly with the Doctrine of these Councils. All the Bishops declared that they believed the Doctrine of S. Leo's Letter to be conformable to the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and also those of Constantinople and Ephesus. Some of those who were most scrupulous, declared that in their Judgment S. Leo's Legats had removed all Difficulties, in saying, That the Terms of S. Leo's Let∣ter did not imply any Division in the Person of Jesus Christ. There was a good Bishop of the Province of Lycaonia, who thought good to speak thus; That his Country had always been free from Controversies, and had always remained in the Faith of the Fathers with simplicity; and that if any Persons did contradict S. Leo's Exposition of Faith, he should be very little concerned; but as to himself he believed as the Fathers of the Councils of Nice and Constantinople believed. When all the Bishops had given their Opinions particularly, they made several Acclamations in common for the Confirmation of what they had said, and desired that the * 1.170 five Bishops who had been de∣posed by the Council, and deprived, should be restored, because they had signed as well as others, and were of the same Judgment. The Commissioners answered, That they had spoken to the Emperor for them, and that they ought to wait for his Answer; and that as to the rest, they should give an Account to God for the Deposition of Dioscorus, which they had done without the Concurrence of the Emperor, or his Commissioners, for the Restauration of the five Bishops whom they demanded, and of all which they had done. All the Bishops cryed out several times, that Dioscorus had been justly Deposed.

They waited some time for the Emperor's Answer; but at last he sent the Bishops of the Council word, That he left them to their own Liberty to do as they thought fit with the five Bishops deposed in their first Session, viz. Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia, and Eustathius of Berytus. The Council required, that they should be admitted, and the Commissioners ordered it so. After they were come in, they declared them Orthodox, and received them into their number. The Commissioners then informed the Coun∣cil, that some Bishops of Egypt had presented a Petition to the Emperor the day before, in which they explained their Doctrine. They admitted them, and read their Petition, where it was con∣tained, That they had no other Faith than that which they received from the beginning of the Church from the Evangelist S. Mark, and were taught by S. Peter the Martyr, and their Holy Fathers Athanasius, Theophilus, and S. Cyril; That they held the Faith of the Fathers of the Coun∣cil of Nice, and that of S. Athanasius, and that they Anathematized all the Heresies of Arius, Euno∣mius

Mani•…•…, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and of those, who affirm, That the Flesh of Jesus Christ came down from Heaven, or that he did not assume it in the Womb of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, as all other Men do. This Petition was signed by 30 Bishops of Egypt.

The Bishops of the Council were offended, that they had not condemned Eutyches, not appro∣ved S. Leo's Letter. They demanded by several Acclamations, that they should pronounce an Anathema to Nestorius, and Subscribe S. Leo's Letter. They declared that they did condemn Eu∣tyches, and approve S. Leo's Letter, but could not Subscribe any thing unless they had a Patriarch. They demonstrated in a very affecting way, that it was not Lawful for them to do any thing without him; that if they signed any thing, they should be torn in pieces in their own Country. The Bishops did not much regard these excuses, but cryed out incessantly against them. But the Commissioners being more Moderate, declared, That since the impediment which kept the Egy∣ptian Bishops from Subscribing, was not that they were of a different Judgment, but only a Cu∣stom establshed among them; by which they were forbidden to do any thing without the Con∣sent and Order of their Patriarch; and that they desired to be born with no longer than till they had one. It was just and reasonable, that nothing should be done against them, till they had a Patriarch ordain'd, and therefore should remain at Constantinople till that time. Pascasimus consent ••ed to this Proposition, upon Condition, that they would give security not to go from Constanti∣nople, till they had a Patriarch. The Commissioners ordered, That they should give security for it, or at least, should engage themselves to it by an Oath.

Then the Monks of Egypt were brought in, who had presented a Petition to the Emperor, to beg of him, that they might not be compelled to sign any thing. They met with a bad Re∣ception, and some body espying among them Bursumas, they cryed out, that it was he that slew Flavian, that it was he that commanded he should be put to Death. They presented another Petition to the Synod, in which they required, that Dioscorus, and the Bishops of his party should come to the Synod; That they would annul all things that had been done against him, and de∣clared, That if they did not do it, they would separate themselves from the Bishops of the Coun∣cil. When this Petition was read, the Arch-Deacon Aëtius read the 5th Canon of the Council of Antioch against such Monks as did cause any Schism. Then they Questioned them about their Faith. They protested, That they held the Faith of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, but would not A••••thematize Eutyches.

Other Monks presented a Petition against the former, and declared, That they condemned them, desiring leave to punish them who would not Subscribe. They then asked Carosus and Doroth••us, who were the heads of those obstinate Monks, but they boldly affirmed, That they would neither sign S. Leo's Letter, nor condemn Eutyches. They gave them two or three days to consider what they would do.

After this Action there was a Private Session, Octob. 20. against Carosus and Dorothaeus, to whom they had given two or three days time; and another of the same day about a difference that happened between Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, and Photius Bishop of Tyre. Neither Evagrius, nor Liberatus make mention of these two Sessions, nor do we meet with them in the Old Tran∣slations of the Council, not that they are not real, for there is mention made of the Judgment given by the Council about the affair of Photius in the 10th Action; but because they concerned private matters of small Consequence, or such as had no relation to the Council, for that which respects Carosus, Dorothaeus, and Barsumas, and the other Monks, contains nothing remarkable. They had time given them only till Nov. 15. to consult whether they would submit themselves to the Council, which time being passed, if they would not do it, they declare them deprived of their places, and Excommunicated.

The Action concerning the difference between Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius of Bery∣tus is more considerable, but it had no relation to the business for which the Council was called; and for that reason it is, that Evagrius and Liberatus have not spoken of it, and that it is not de∣scribed in several Copies of the Council. The subject of this Action was this. The Emperor had made the City of Berytus into a Metropolis, this gave Eustathius an Occasion to assume the title of a Metropolitan likewise, and to seize upon the Cities of the Province, which before were subject to the Metropolis of Tyre. He also made Photius Bishop of Tyre consent to this en∣croachment, and Subscribe an Instrument, although against his will. Photius desired to be re∣leased from this Obligation, got the Emperor's Letter for that purpose, and presented his Petition to the Council, in which he prayed, that what he had done might not be prejudicial to him, but setting it aside, be established in his Ancient Rights and Privileges. Eustathius asked Photius, whether he would have this business treated on according to the Formalities of the Emperor's Council, or according to the Laws of the Church. Photius answered, That he addressed him∣self to the Emperor to obtain the Ancient Rights, which the Church of Tyre hath enjoyed, yet he did not reject the Laws of the Church. The Commissioners ordered, That they should determine this business by the Canons, and the Bishops were of the same Opinion. Photius accused Eusta∣thius for having taken * 1.171 six Cities from him, and prayed them, that they would restore them to him. Eustathius made this Defence, that it had been so decreed by a Synod held at Constantino∣ple, whose Constitution he had brought them signed by Anatolius, and Maximus Bishop of Antioch. He added, That he had never requested the Emperor to make his City a Metropolis; but it was the Custom for the Emperor to make Metropolis's, that it was not he that divided the Pro∣vinces,

but the Council; and that since the Letter of S. Leo being lately come to Constantinople, a Synod of Bishops assembled in that City had sent it to other Bishops that they might sign it; there was the same reason for the Letter, which had put him in possession of the rights of his Metropolis. Photius complained, That while he was celebrating Ordinations in his Province according to the Ancient Custom they had sent him a Mandate in which they Excommunicated him; so that he remained Excommunicated for 126 Days. Anatolius, whom this Charge con∣cerned, said, That Photius having done things contrary to the Usage and Order of the Church had been Excommunicated by a Synod at Constantinople. Hereupon the Commissioners demanded if it were allowable for Anatolius to send a Writ of Excommunication to Photius, and deprive him of his Suffragans; and lastly, Whether they ought to give the Assembly of Bishops met at Constantinople the Name of a Synod. On this last head one of the Bishops said, with the consent of all, That the Name of a Synod might be attributed to an Assembly of that Nature, and that those who were aggrieved, might apply themselves to it to obtain Justice. But whereas it was objected, that Photius was not present, all the Bishops were of that Opinion, that they could not condemn a Person absent. An••tolius also made a very good Defence for himself upon the first head, but could not justifie himself as to the second, and a Bishop reproved him for acting con∣trary to the Laws of the Roman Empire by condemning the Absent▪ Photius desired them to maintain the Ancient Laws of the Church. All the Bishops answered, That his Request was rea∣sonable, and that the Canon ought to remain in full force. They read the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice concerning the power of a Metropolitan, to ordain Bishops by their Brethren of the same Province. The Commissioners demanded, whether the Bishops of the Province had assisted at the Ordinations of Eustatbius. He answered, That since he had enjoyed the right of a Metropolitan, he had always called the Bishops to all the Ordinations that he had made. The Commissioners asked, if according to the Canons there could be two Metropolitans who had right to ordain in one Province. The Council answered, That there ought to be but one according to the Canons of the Council of Nice. Then the Commissioners adjudged the Right to Photius in all the Province of Phaenicia Prima, and forbad Eustathius to extend the Pragmatick-Sanction of Emperors to it. The Council approved this determination; the main difficulty was concerning the Bishops Ordained by both of them. Whereupon the Council judged, that those whom Photius had Ordained, should continue Bishop, although Eustathius had ranked them among the Priests. All the Bishops were of his Opinion. Lastly, * 1.172 Cecropius put the Council in mind, that to prevent such complaints and troubles for the future, they should decree, That the Let∣ters obtained of the Emperor in what Province soever it be, should not be prejudicial to the Canons, or Ancient Discipline. The Synod, and the Commissioners judged that it ought to be so.

The next Meeting, which is counted the Fifth, was held Octob. 22. The Commissioners caused * 1.173 the Confession of Faith, which was composed the day before to be read; the greatest part of the Bishops approved of it, but the Pope's Legats, and some of the Bishops of the East opposed it. The former did it so Zealously, that they desired that they might return home if they would not keep themselves wholly to S. Leo's Letter. This raised several Acclamations among them, who would have it received. The Commissioners were in some doubts concerning it, because Dioscorus had condemned Flavian, because he said, That there were two Natures in Jesus Christ, and this definition did not distinctly say so, but only that the Union was made of two Natures. Anotalius said, that Dioscorus was not condemned for any point of Faith; but because he had Excommunicated S. Leo, and would not come to the Synod. The Legats of the Holy See per∣sisted in their Opposition to this Novel definition of Faith▪ saying, That it was needless, and was defective in several things, but others maintained strongly, that it was Necessary and Perfect, and the Commissioners said, That they ought to give the Emperor an Account, and wait for his Orders about it. He then ordered, that they should choose six Bishops out of the Bi••hoprick of Asia, three out of Pontus, three out of Asia, three out of Thracia, and as many out of Illyria, that they being assembled in the Chapel of the Church of S. Euphemia, may compose a Formula or Confession of Faith, or that every one should declare his Doctrine by his Metropolitan, and added, That if the Bishops would satisfie him about it, he would make them hold a Council in the West. When this Order was come, the Bishops who desired that the definition of Faith which had been read should be approved, made many Acclamations. The Commissioners said, That it seemed necessary to add to it according to the Definition of S. Leo, that there are two Natures in Jesus Christ, united without Change, Confusion, or Separation.

Having received these Preparatives, the Bishops, chosen to compose a Confession of Faith, went into the Chapel, and having finished it brought it to the Council. It contained an Appro∣bation of the Creed of Nice and Constantinople, of S. Cyril's Synodical Letters to Nestorius and the Eastern Bishops, and S. Leo's Letter. After which they add, That following these Writings of the Holy Fathers, they did believe in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, perfect God and per∣fect Man, Consubstantial with God as to his Divinity, and with Man according to his Humanity, in whom there are two Natures united without Change, Division, or Separation, so that the Properties of the two Natures do subsist in, and agree to One and the same Person, who is not divided into two, but is One Jesus Christ as it is said in the Nicene Creed. This Confession of Faith concludes with a Declaration, That those Persons are Deposed and Accursed,

w••o 〈◊〉〈◊〉 da••e ••o 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ or ••••opose any other Creed, than that of this Council. This Con∣fessio•••• of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 app••oved by all the World.

〈◊〉〈◊〉. ••5. The Empe•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 came 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Person to the Council. He told the Bishops that his in••ent i•• calling 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 preserve the Faith in its purity, and to condemn Error; That he came to this Sy•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shew his Authority, but only to provi••e for their Peace, according to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 o•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ That he had no other design but to procure a firm Union among all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Subjects in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••aith, and that those disturbances which have been raised some * 1.174 years ••••nce by the Cove•…•… and Passion of several Persons▪ should be appeased wholly by this Council. Af••er sever•••• App••auses given him, Actius read th•• C••••fession of Faith, which had been already approved and ••••••••ed by all the Bishop••▪ which appeared more nu∣mero••s in this Session than any other. Several Metropolitans signed it in their own and in the Name of the Bishops of their Province, whose Names they set down, and that's the reason that the number of the Bishops of the Council of Ch••lced•••• amounts to so many; although, if we count the number of Bi••hops named in this place, of whom above One hundred were ab∣sent, it comes to no••more than 470. Then the Bishops began some loud Acclamations again, but the Emperor p••t 〈◊〉〈◊〉 stop to them by wishing good Success to their Assembly, and declaring, That whosoever shall cele••••ate any publick Assemblies about Religion, &c. stir up any troubles by his Disputes, shall be thrust out ••f the Imperial Ci••y, if he be a Lay-man; and Deposed, if he be a Clergy-man.

The Matter of Faith being determined in this manner, he required the Synod to approve some Regulations which he had made, and which he thought more for the honour of the Synod to con∣firm by the Authority of the Bishops, than to make them himself by a Law.

The first was this, That although they were to be had in great esteem, who live a Monastick Life, yet because some persons, under a pretence of embracing Monkery, disturb the Church and the Publick Peace, it shall be forbidden any Church to build a Monastery in any City, without the permission of the Bishop, and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the L••nds on which it is built. That the Monks should be subject to their Bishop▪ and content themselves with Fasting and Prayer, without concerning themselves either with Ci∣vil or Ecclesiastical Affai••s, unless they are called to it by the Bishop of the City. Lastly, That Monks should not be allowed to receive Slaves into their Monasteries, nor any Persons obliged to the Service of another, without the consent of those to whom they belong.

* 1.175 The second was to forbid the Clergy to hold farms, or be Managers of Civil Affairs, yet they were not prohibited to take care of the Revenue of the Church, if their Bishop ordered them to do it.

The third was, That it should not be allowed a Clergy-man of one Church to leave it, and officiate in another; but e••ery one shall be obliged to continue in the Church, to which he was at first appointed. And if any Bishop hereafter shall receive the Clerk of another Bishop, he shall be Excommunicated with the Clerk he hath received. All the Bishops approved of these Constitutions, and gave their Bles∣sing to the Emperor.

Lastly, The Emperor said, Th••t in respect to S. Euphemia and the Council, he did bestow upon the City of Chalcedon the title of a Metropolis, nevertheless not encroaching upon the rights of the City of Nicomedia. The Bishops having approved it, requested, That they might have leave to de∣part home; but the Emperor desired them to stay three or four Days longer to compleat Regu∣lations. Evagrius says, That in the following Session they made other Canons; and indeed, there are some MSS, of Ancient Versions, wherein there are some Canons made after the Sixth Session. But Liberatus places the Canons in the Fifth Session, as they were in the Greek Copies. The MS. of the Church▪ of Paris, wherein there are some Canons after the Sixth Session may well be thought to have been disordered, and the Canons put out of the Natural place▪ for we read at the end of the 14th Action. Explicit Actio XIV. The 14th Action is ended. Incipit XVI. The 16th beginneth. An evident proof that one Action is omitted, which can be no other then the 15th.

The Contest between Maximus Bishop of Antioch, and Juvenal Bishop of Jerusalem, is cer∣tainly the first which was discussed Octob. 26. It continued not long, but was determined by the * 1.176 Council with the Consent of both parties. They left both the Phaenicia's and Arabia to the Bi∣shop of Antioch, and the three Palestines to the Bishop of Jerusalem.

The same Day, but at another Session, they finally determined the cause of Theodoret, as we have already said in the life of that Author. * 1.177

In another Session on the same Day, they entered upon the business of Ibas, who had been con∣demned * 1.178 in the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus. He pleaded, that he was Innocent; and as a proof of it, he alledged the Judgment given by Photius Bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius Bishop of Berytus, who were put in Commission by the Emperor to judge of his Cause. They read the Judgment of those Bishops, by which he was proved to be of Orthodox Sentiments; and to be reconciled with his Accusers by those Bishops; to have publickly Anathematized Nestorius to satis∣fie those, who had taken Offence at some of his Discourses; and also promised to forget what had passed, and not to be severe against those who had accused him of Managing the Revenues of the Church by Stewards, according to the Custom of the Church of Antioch.

The next day they went on in the same business; They read the Acts of the Synod held at Berytus, in which he was accused of several Crimes, viz. Theft, Simony, and Bribery, and that he did affirm, that he envyed not Jesus Christ the Name of God, because he could become one. But his Accusers not being able to produce any Witnesses, nor any proof to convict him of these

things, they wrangled some time about his reproving a Clergyman for affirming, That our Life is dead. But he cleared himself by saying to him, that he spoke it, as if he understood by our Life the Godhead; that it was not true, that the Life is dead, but if he understood the enlivened Flesh of Jesus Christ, it was true. They accused him also of speaking against S. Cyril; and having cursed him, he answered, That before he was united with the Eastern Bishops, he had rejected his Chapters, and had condemned him, in which he was not more blame-worthy than the rest of the Eastern Bishops: But since the Union he had communicated with him, and had never con∣demned him. They produced his Letter to Maris the Persian, which proved nothing more. In it he condemned S. Cyril's Chapters, and praiseth the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, but he approved of the Peace and Union made with S. Cyril after he had explained himself. On his behalf he caused a Letter from the Clergy of Edessa to be read, attesting, that they had never heard him speak any thing like that which they accused him of. When they had read these Acts, they would have had that which was done against Ibas in the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus read, but the Legats said, that it was needless to read any thing of this Council; that the Bishop of Rome had declared all that was done in it void, except the Ordination of Maximus Bishop of Antioch, whom S. Leo had received to his Communion; that they ought to Petition the Emperor to make a Law, forbidding any further mention of this Council. The principal of the Bishops were of the same Opinion, and all the other consented by their Acclamations. Then they returned to the business of Ibas, and he was declared Orthodox upon the Account of his Letter, and the Acts which had been read: But because there had been another Bishop Ordained in his Place, it was left to Maxi∣mus his Metropolitan to do as he thought sit. His Judgment was, that Nonnus should hold the Title of Bishop, till he should examine his Ordination by the Bishops of his Diocess. The Com∣missioners approved the Judgment of the Synod.

At the end of this Session is put a private Action concerning Domnus Patriarch of Antioch, who * 1.179 had been deposed by Dioscorus. 'Tis but a short Relation, and extant in Latin only, which was found by Rusticus in a Manuscript of Patricius Julianus. F. Quesnell thinks it a Forgery. M. Balu∣zius on the contrary maintains, that it is Genuine. Before we examine their Reasons; we will speak of the Subject of it. It bears date Nov. 26. In it Maximus Petitions, That they would have some pity upon Domnus, who was not long since Bishop of Antioch, and grant him a certain Stipend out of the Revenues of his Church. The Popes Legats answered, That S. Leo having con∣firmed the Ordination of Maximus, they thought it sufficient to do for Domnus, to leave it to Maximus to allow him a competent Maintenance out of the Revenues of his Church; that he ought to content himself for the future with such a Competency, and to be quiet. Anatolius, Juvenal, and the other Bishops commended Maximus for his Kindness, and the Commissioners concluded with the Bishops, that Domnus should be allowed something out of the Revenues of the Church of Antioch; but they left it wholly to the Discretion and Bounty of Maximus to give him what he pleased.

But for the better understanding of this part of the History, we must know, that Domnus was taken out of a Monastery by his Uncle John Bishop of Antioch; and after he had been some time with him, he succeeded him. The Author of the Life of S. Euthemius saith, That this Saint had foretold a long time before what should befal him, that he should leave his Monastery, that he should succeed his Uncle, but that he should be deprived through the Tribulation of wicked Men, who would make use of his Simplicity and Ignorance to seduce him. Whether this Prediction were true, or not, it is certain, that all this befel him, for he succeeded his Uncle, and afterward was deposed by Dioscorus, not being aware of his Designs. The Author of the Life of Euthemius saith, That he returned to his Monastery, being very much troubled that he ever went from it; and did ever bewail it in all the rest of his Life. It is indubitable that he never recovered his See, and that the Ordination of Maximus, who was Ordain'd in his place, was held good. We shewed in the foregoing Action, that it was the only thing that the Council approved, because they said that S. Leo had acknowledged him for a Bishop. But why was Domnus, of all the Bi∣shops who were condemned by the false Council of Ephesus, the only one excepted? Why did they approve of Maximus's Ordination? How could it hold good, while Domnus was alive? What Reason could they have to confirm the Condemnation of Domnus? He indeed condemned Flavian, but several others did it as well as he. Two things only can be alledged in Answer to these Objections: viz. Either that he was dead when the Council of Chalcedon was held, or that he renounced his Bishoprick, and voluntarily resigned his place to Maximus, preferring a retirement and solitary Life before the Troubles of the World, and the Episcopal Charge, as the Author of the Life of Euthemius writes.

F. Quesnel affirms, That he was dead, when the Council of Chalcedon was held; and conse∣quently maintains, that this Action which we have related is forged. The Arguments which he uses are these:

1. It is no where extant in Greek, and the Latin Version hath been found by Rusticus only in the MS. of the Lady Juliana: It is not to be met with in any of the MSS. in the Monastery of the Acaemetae, nor in any others, which he had reviewed. It is not in the MS. of Probus, nor of the Queen of Sueden, nor that at Paris.

2. No Ancient Author hath made mention of it, though they had occasion to speak of it. It seems a good conclusion from the silence of Evagrius, that there was no Copy of this Action at

Antioch; and because Liberatus counts but 16 Sessions of this Council, that it was neither in Africk, Rome, or Alexandria, from whence he took the Latin Version of the Council of Chalcedon; and and lastly, from the Confession of Rusticus, who cites only the MS. of the Lady of Juliana, al∣though he had seen the MSS. of Rome, Chalcedon, Alexandria and Constantinople. So that all the proof of this Action depends upon the Authority of one MS. only, of which we know nothing but by the report of Rusticus, who being engaged among the party of those, who could not ap∣prove the Condemnation of the three Chapters, was obliged to make it appear, that Domnus was not condemned after his Death, but in his Life-time.

3. This pretended Action hath no fixed place; Rusticus puts it after the seventh Action, but it bears date with the 10th, after which it is now usually placed.

4. Justinian, and the fifth Council assure us, that the Council of Chalcedon condemned Domnus after his Death for having written against S. Cyril's Chapters. This Testimony seems positive. F. Quesnel also proves, that Domnus was dead before the Council of Chalcedon, because S. Leo speaks not of him, and because in the 14th Action Athanasius of Paros speaks of him as dead, saying, The Bishop of Antioch that then was, was his Enemy. And in the Edict of Theodosius, it is said, That he was Bishop of Antioch. If he had been alive, why did he not come to the Council? Why did not his Friends speak for him? Why did they not joyn him with the other Bishops who were de∣posed for signing the Deposition of Flavian, but restored by this Council? M. Baluzius also fur∣nishes F. Quesnel with a full Testimony from Eutychus, who says that Domnus died the next Year after the Council of Ephesus.

5. The Style of this Piece discovers the Imposture, which is full of Soloecisms, and Barbarous Words. In it the Bishop of Rome is called plain Pope, without any addition of Honour or Re∣spect.

6. It is much easier to justifie the Action of S. Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon, in approving the Ordination of Maximus, by supposing that Domnus was dead, than alive; for in this last case, it seems unjust to maintain an Intrusion against a lawful Bishop. F. Quesnel alledges several other Reasons in a Dissertation made on purpose upon this Subject, but these are the principal, and to me the strongest.

M. Baluzius answers to these Objections, That there are several genuine Pieces, of which we have only Translations, and that the MS. of the Lady Juliana is of very great Authority, since Ru∣sticus assures us, that it was very ancient in his time. That Rusticus cannot be justly charged with Falsehood, nor Ignorance; that 'tis no wonder that the Action concerning Domnus hath no fixed place, since the same hath happened to the Action about Photius and Eustathius; that the testimony of Justinian and the fifth Council is of no worth, because they have alledged several false things, and there is nothing in the Acts of the Council against Domnus. That the silence of Evagrius and Liberatus prove no more, than that this Action was not found in the Copies which they used. That it is no wonder that Domnus was not restored, nor that no Man required that he should, since he desired it not, but preferred retirement in his Monastery before an Episcopal Charge. That when speaking of Domnus, it is said, that he was a Bishop, it is not meant that he was dead, but only that he was not then, what he had once been, a Bishop. That it ought not to seem strange that the Style of this Translation is Barbarous, since the like Barbarisms are met with in other Versions, and the plain Name of Pope for the Bishop of Rome is found in some places of the Council of Chalcedon. But the strongest Argument made use of by M. Baluzius, to prove that this Action is genuine, besides the Authority of the Lady Juliana's MS. is, that in the 10th Action Steven Bishop of Ephesus says, after Paschasinus and Anatolius, that the Ordination of Maximus was approved by S. Leo, and the Synod. It seems that this relates to the Action concerning Domnus. But this seems something impertinent. 'Tis sufficient, that S. Leo and the Council did acknow∣ledge Maximus for a lawful Bishop, to ground this Assertion upon. It is not necessary that they should speak of Domnus. These are the Reasons of the two most able Criticks of our time about the Action of Domnus. Let every one follow which of these Opinions seems most probable to him.

The 11th and 12th Action are about one Business, though upon two several Days. In them the Council examined the difference between Steven and Bassianus, who both of them pre∣tended * 1.180 to be Bishops of Ephesus. First, they read the Petition of Bassianus addressed to the Empe∣ror, in which he represents it to him, how ill he had been used, that he was taken from his Church by force, plundered of his Estate, and many of his People slain by the virtue of the blows. He prayed the Emperor to allow him to go to the Council, and secure him against any Violence. In the Council Bassianus declared, that Steven had been the Ringleader of this unjust force. Steven being summoned to answer to this Accusation, objected to Bassianus, that he had not been Or∣dained at Ephesus, but that he had intruded into the vacant Church by the help of a seditious Troop; that being afterward thrust out, he himself was Ordained by four Bishops of Asia, with the consent of the Clergy and People of Ephesus; that he had been 50 Years a Clergy-Man of that Church. Bassianus affirmed, that he had been Canonically Ordain'd; that when he was but a Youth, he had founded an Hospital of 70 Beds for sick Men; that Memnon Bishop of Ephesus bearing him a Grudge, had Ordained him Bishop of Evasa, although he was not willing to accept it, and to force him to it, he had so cruelly used him before the Altar for three hours together, that the Altar and the Holy Gospels were covered with Blood; that after this he remained at

Ephesus, and would not go to the Church, of which he had been Ordained Bishop, nor did he ever see it; that Memnon being dead, Basilius was Ordained in his place in a Council of the Pro∣vince, who being informed that Bassian had been made Bishop of Evasa by force, sent another Bi∣shop thither, to whom he granted Communion, and the Title of Bishop; that after the Death of Basilius, the People, Clergy and Bishops, of whom Olympius, now present at the Council, was one, had placed him in the See of Ephesus; that the Emperor had confirmed his Ordination; that when he was at Constantinople, he had communicated with Proclus, who sent him a Synodical Let∣ter; that he had enjoyed his Bishoprick peaceably four Years, had Ordained 10 Bishops, and ma∣ny Clerks; that one Day after the Celebration of the Holy Sacrament, they seized upon him, and pulling off his Episcopal Vestments, put them upon Steven. Steven retorted, that Bassian had been deprived by a Synod with the consent of S. Leo, Flavian, and the Patriarchs of Alexandria and An∣tioch; that the Emperor had sent the Silentiary Eustathius to be informed of the Wrongs, which he was accused to have done to the Poor; that he never was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus; and if he were four Years in possession of it, 'twas as an Usurper, not as a lawful Bishop. Bassian re∣plyed, That he had been duly Ordained Bishop of the Church of Evasa, but had never been there. He desired them to take Cognizance of the Violence, Steven on his part desired them to read the Canons, which forbid one Bishop Ordained for any certain Church to enter upon another. Leon∣tius read the 16 and 17 Canons of the Council of Antioch, which were the 95 and 96 in the Book they then used. They then prayed Olympius to tell them how things had passed. He then said, That after the Death of Basil, being intreated by the Clergy to come to Ephesus to Ordain a Bi∣shop, he went thither supposing to meet some other Bishops there; that after he had waited three Days, he said to the Clergy, who were come to meet him, that he could do nothing alone; that the Canons of the Church did not permit him to Ordain a Bishop, but especially of so great a Metropolis; that as he spake this, there came a throng of People, which took him up, and car∣ried both him and Bassian to the Church, where he enthroned him. They then demanded of the Clergy, Whether Proclus had received Bassianus? Theophilus, a Priest of the Church, answered, That he had owned him, communicated with him, gave him a Synodical Letter, and put his Name in the Dypticks. They asked Steven, How Bassian had been put out of the Bishoprick of Ephesus? He answered, That the Bishop of Alexandria had made inquiry into it by the Emperors Order; that S. Leo had declared by his Letter, that he ought not to be a Bishop; that afterward the Si∣lentiary came to examine his Management, and had condemned him; that it was not Steven that had sollicited him to it; that they had made him a Bishop, when he had no thoughts of it; and that, lastly, it was a matter concluded upon. Bassian complained of his force used against him, he said, That Steven came to communicate with him, when he seized upon him, and then impri∣soned him three Months; that Steven was Ordained by the same Bishops that Ordain'd him. Then they heard the Clergy of Ephesus, who testified, that they had used Violence to Bassian. The Bishops at first determined in his Favour, but the Commissioners said, that they thought it most just that neither of them should be Bishop of Ephesus. Bassian, because he had got into possession by force, and without observing the Rules prescribed by the Canons, Steven, because he was Ordained by a Club, and by unlawful ways. The Bishops agreed to this Sentence, and confirmed it the next Day, and ordered a third Person to be Ordained Bishop of Ephesus. The Commissioners con∣cluded the Matter so, yet allowing Bassian and Steven two hundred Nobles apiece, to be paid them out of the Revenues of the Church for a Pension towards their Maintenance. Bassian de∣sired that they would restore what had been taken from him. The Commissioners replyed, That if any thing had been taken from him, it should be restored when he should make a sufficient proof of it in Justice. These two Actions, according to Evagrius, and the ancient Version, make but one. Liberatus distinguishes them, but he confounds the second of them with the following Acti∣on.

This was also upon Octob. 30. The Bishop of Nicomedia presented a Petition against Anastasius * 1.181 Bishop of Nice, in which he accused him of disturbing the Province of Bithynia by changing the ordinary form, and invading the Churches belonging to his Jurisdiction. Anastasius on the other side affirmed, that the Bishop of Nicomedia had taken away some Churches that did of right be∣long unto him, and was in possession of them. To prove this he alledged, that Julian had made the City of Nice a Metropolis, that ever since the Church of Basinople, about which the main Controversie was, had been under the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Nice; that S. John Chrysostome had written to the Bishop of Nice to come to Basinople, to regulate that Church, as being subject to his Authority; that he could prove, that the Bishops of Basinople have been Ordained usually at Nice. Eunomius maintained the contrary. They read the fourth Canon of the Council of Nice, which forbids Bishops to Ordain without their Metropolitan. Anastasius Bishop of Nice contended, that he did enjoy that right; and to prove it, he produced the Letters Patents of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens, which confirmed the right of a Metropolis to the City of Nice, upon con∣dition, that it should be subject to the Judge of Bithynia, and without any prejudice to the Rights of other Cities. Eunomius read others of the same Emperors, which signified, that the Honour and Title of Metropolis granted to Nice should do no injury to the Rights of others. The Com∣missioners judged, that the Emperors Letters importing that the Title of Metropolis granted to the City of Nice, should not hurt the Right of other Cities, and chiefly of the City of Nicomedia, they ought to observe the Decree of the Council of Nice, which forbids, that there should be more

than one Metropolitan in one Province. The Bishops were of the same Opinion, and declared, that the Ordinations of the Province of Bithynia ought to belong to the Bishop of Nicomedia. Aetius the Archdeacon of Constantinople moved it, that the Contest between the Bishops of Nico∣media and Nice ought not to prejudice the Rights of his Patriarch, who ought to Ordain at Basi∣nople, or at least that no Ordination should be celebrated there without his permission. The Bi∣shops made no other answer but this, that the Canons ought to be observed. The Commissioners finally determined, that the Bishop of Nicomedia should have Authority over all the Churches of Bithynia, and that the Bishop of Nice should only have the Title of Metropolitan, and should be subject to the Bishop of Nicomedia; and as to the Rights of the Church of Constantinople, they would speak of that in its place.

In the following Session, which was held Octob. ult. they read the Petition of Bishop Sabinian, * 1.182 relating, that he had been Ordained Bishop of Paros by the Metropolitan, and Bishops of the Pro∣vince in the room of Athanasius, who was deprived, because he being accused of great Crimes, and summoned to Judgment, he dare not appear; that nevertheless the Council of Ephesus under Dioscorus had sent for Athanasius, who challenged his Bishoprick. Athanasius made his Defence, saying, that a good while since his Cause had been examined by S. Cyril and Proclus, who wrote in his behalf to Domnus, and had a promise from him, that he would satisfie them, but after S. Cyril's death he altered his mind, and had summoned him to Judgment; that he answered him, that if he would keep to S. Cyril's and Proclus's Letters he would appear, otherwise he would not obey his Summons. He requested that Proclus's and S. Cyril's Letters might be read, which shew∣ed, that Athanasius complained of what he had suffered from his Clergy, who had forced him from his Bishoprick; that they had presumed to turn out, or make Stewards according to their Humour, to put their Bishops Name out of the Dypticks, and make many other insufferable at∣tempts; that Domnus ought to hinder this disorder, or if that City were too far distant from An∣tioch, to name Commissioners about the Places to look into it, because the Metropolitan was sus∣pected by him. Domnus had already appointed for one Commissioner Panolbius Bishop of Hiera∣polis, a Friend of Athanasius's, but he would not appear before him, on the other side he refused by a Writing delivered to him to forsake his Bishoprick. John the Successor of Panolbius cited A∣thanasius also. Lastly, Domnus himself cited him to his Council, but in stead of appearing, he went and sollicited S. Cyril and Proclus, and having represented his case otherwise than it was, he ob∣tained the Letters of them, of which we have spoken. Then Domnus again summoned him before a Council assembled at Antioch, where the Clergy of Paros appeared to accuse him, the Bishops of the Synod condemned him. This was proved to the Council of Chalcedon by the reading of the Acts of the said Council.

The Commissioners then determined, that Athanasius having been deposed according to form, Sa∣binian had been duly Ordained, and Athanasius not rightly restored by Dioscorus; that neverthe∣less Maximus ought to examine in a Synod within eight Months the Accusations which are laid to his Charge, or may be brought against him; and if he be convinced of the Crimes imputed to him, he should not only be deposed, but punished according to Law: But on the other side, if they do not furnish out a Process, and convict him within the time limited, he shall continue Bi∣shop of Paros, and Sabinian shall enjoy the Name and Title of Bishop, and shall be maintained at the Expence of the Church.

The 15th Session in the ordinary Editions, and according to Liberatus, contains the Canons of the Council. * 1.183

The I commands, that the Canons made by preceding Councils be observed.

The II enjoyns, that if any Bishop Ordain for Money, or sells the Gifts of the Spirit, which are invaluable, whether it be a Bishop that is Ordained for filthy Lucre, or a Priest, or a * 1.184 Suffra∣gan Bishop, or a Deacon, or any other Clergyman, or a Steward, or an Advocate, he shall be deposed, who is proved to have done it, and the Person Ordained; and if any Person be a Pro∣curer of it for Gain, he shall be deposed, if he be a Clergyman, and excommunicated, if he be a Monk, or Layman.

The III forbids Bishops, Clergymen or Monks to hire Farms, or engage themselves in worldly Affairs, unless the Law obliges to be Guardians, or the Bishops charge them with the Administra∣tion of the Church, or to take care of the Widows and Orphans, and such Persons as stand in need of the Relief of the Church.

The IV Canon concerning the Monks is the same with the sixth Session.

The V revives the Ancient Canons against those Clergymen, who remove from one City to ano∣ther.

The VI forbids the Ordination of any Clergyman absolutely and without a Church-Title; that is to say, who is not set apart for the service of some Church, either in the City or Country, or of some Chapel or Monastery; and declares those Ordinations void that are celebrated otherwise: And forbids them that are so Ordained to do the Functions of their Ministery, that they may con∣ceal them from disgrace that have Ordained them.

The VII forbids those, that have been Ordained, or are made Monks, to leave their Stations, and declares them excommunicate that do it.

The VIII enjoyns the Clergy that belong to Monasteries, and Chapels of Martyrs, to be subject to their Bishops.

The IX forbids those Clergy-men who have any differences with other Clergy-men to apply themselves to any other Judicature, than the Bishops, or them who are appointed Judges by them, and commands, That if any Clergy-man have any thing against his Bishop, he should address himself to a Provincial Synod, or if he hath any thing to do with his Metropolitan, he shall go to the Exarch of the Diocese.

The X shews, That it is forbidden a Clergyman to be intituled to two Churches at one time, to that, in which he was Ordained, and that, to which he is removed; and that those who do it, shall be obliged to return to their Church, or if they remain in the Church to which they are re∣moved, they shall have nothing of the Revenue of the Church which they have left, nor of the Hospitals of that Church.

The XI makes a distinction between Letters of Recommendation, which are given to Persons Suspected and Unknown, and Letters of Communion, which are given to Persons well known. It declares, that these last ought to be given to the Poor.

The XII forbids Bishops to divide their Provinces by obtaining Letters Patents from the Em∣peror to raise their City to the title of a Metropolis, and declares, that the Bishops of those Ci∣ties, who have been raised to their Dignity by their Princes Letters, should have the Honour and Title only of a Metropolitan, but none of the right of a real Metropolitan.

XIII shews, That they will not receive strange and unknown Clergy-men without Commen∣datory Letters from their Bishops.

The XIV forbids Readers and Singers to Marry Heretical Wives, and obliges them that have Married such to bring their Children to the Church to be Baptized, and to bring them up in the Faith of the Church.

The XV forbids the Ordination of a Deaconess before 40 years of Age, and without strict Examination; and declares, That if she shall Marry after she hath been some time in the Service of the Church, she shall be Excommunicated with her Husband.

The XVI tells us, That it is not permitted Virgins, which are devoted to God to Marry; That they, who have done so, shall be Excommunicated, that nevertheless the Bishop of the place may treat them with such Lenity and Mildness as he thinks fit.

The XVII That the Churches or Parishes should remain under the Jurisdiction of those Bi∣shops who are in possession of them, especially if they have been so for 30 years past; but if with∣in 30 Years past there hath been any dispute about them, it shall be permitted to refer them∣selves to the Provincial Synod, or if it be a Bishop who is injured by his Metropolitan, he may have recourse to * 1.185 the Bishop of his Diocese, or the Bishop of Constantinople. Lastly, If the Em∣peror changes the condition of a City by his Authority, the order of the Parish Churches shall follow the Civil Constitution.

The XVIII forbid Clergy-men and Monks to make Conspiracies, Cabals, or Factions against their Bishop.

The XIX revives the Decree of the Council of Nice for the holding of Provincial Councils twice a Year.

The XX forbids Bishops taking Clergy-men from other Bishops.

The XXI Commands, That it be examined what manner of Persons they are that accuse Bi∣shops, or other Church-men, before their Accusation be received.

The XXII shews, That it is not lawful for the Clergy to seize upon the Estate of their Bi∣shops after he is Dead.

XXIII orders the Advocates of the Church of Constantinople to bid the strange Monks that came into that City without leave from their Bishop, to depart from thence.

The XXIV That the places, where any Monastery hath been built, should always be set a-part for that use.

The XXV enjoyns Metropolitans to celebrate Ordinations three Months after the Death of a Bishop, and in the mean time to take care of the Revenues of the Church by the Stewards.

The XXVI enjoyns every Bishop to have a Steward of the Revenues of his Church.

The XXVIII deposes, or Excommunicates those, who take away Women by force under a pretence of Marrying them, and those, who pretend to defend them.

The XXVIII Canon grants to the Church of the City of Constantinople, which is called new Rome, the same Privileges with Old Rome, because this City is the second City in the World. It also adjudges to it besides this the Jurisdiction over the Dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and over the Churches which are out of the bounds of the Emperor, and a right to ordain Me∣tropolitans in the Provinces of these Dioceses.

The XXIX Canon is a repetition of what had been said before by Pascasinus and Anatolius, that it is Sacrilege to reduce a Bishop to the degree of a Priest, because, when a Bishop deserves to be Deprived of his Bishoprick, he is not worthy to be a Priest, at least if he be not unjustly Deposed.

The XXX is also a repetition of what had been ordered upon the Account of the Egyptian Bishops, who would not sign the Condemnation of Nestorius.

Upon serious consideration we shall find, that these 30 Canons are only an Explication of the three Canons of the 6th Session, or Decrees made in the Council upon several occasions, which some made a 16th Action; but others have put in this place because the following action informs us,

that the 28th. Canon was made the Day before. As for my self I much doubt whether this Collection of Canons was made in any Session of the Council, and do rather believe that they were composed since, and taken out of the several Actions. 'Tis easie to find the places.

Nov. 1. (For though this Action be ordinarily dated Octob. 28, 'tis a fault, which is not in the MS of Dijon, which is an Original) the Pope's Legates complain'd that after they and the Com∣missioners were departed, the Bishops had made several Orders contrary to the Canons and Dis∣cipline of the Church; They required, that they should be read over again. Before they were read Aetius the Archdeacon said, That the Custom of Synods was, to make other Constitutions after they had decided what concerns the Faith; that being about to do it for the Church of Constantinople, they had prayed the Legats to be present, but they refused, with which having acquainted the Commissioners they had ordered the Council to do what they thought convenient; that they had deliberated freely, and had done nothing clancularly. They then read the Canon concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople. Pascasinus in the first place said, that they had sur∣prized the Bishops by making them Subscribe the Decrees which they had no knowledge of. All the Bishops said, That it was not so, that no body was compelled, and every one knew what he did. Lucentius then complain'd, that they had dispised the Canons of the Council of Nice, by preferring the Decrees of a Council held 150 years after, before them. He caused the Order to be read, which they had received from S. Leo, commanding to oppose those Bishops, who took too much upon them, upon the account of the Splendor of their Sees, and hinder them from at∣tempting any thing. The Commissioners ordered the Canons to be read on both sides. Pascasinus read the 6th Canon of Nice, with an Addition prefixed, which asserted, That the Church of Rome hath always had a Primacy. Aëtius read it without the Addition with the Canon of the Council of Constantinople. They demanded if the Bishops of Asia and Pontus had voluntarily signed the Decree in question, and they answered, Yes, and that the Bishop of Constantinople was in possession of the Right of Ordinations among them; But Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra answered, That although he had Signed it, and was not willing to oppose the general consent, yet it is true that he was Ordained at Gungra; That he did not seek to perform those Ordinations; That all that he desired was, that nothing should be exacted of the Bishops at their Ordinations. They made answer, That it was forbidden by the Canons, that the Altars were pure. Eusebius answered, That he did not fear any such thing of Anatolius, but no Man was Immortal. Anatolius asked him who ordained him, He said, That by misfortune he was at Constantinople and Proclus had Or∣dained him.

Lastly, The Commissioners published the Result of the Acts and Depositions, which had been made, that the Bishop of Rome should have the Primacy and chief Honour; That the Bishop of Constantinople should enjoy the same Prerogatives of Honour, and had right to Ordain in the Sees of the Metropolis's, in the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, such Persons as should be chosen by the Clergy, People, and Nobles; That they were to give him Notice of this Election, and know whether he desired the Person that was chosen should come to him to be Ordained at Constantinople, or whether he would allow him to be Ordained in the Province; That it was also likely that the Metropolitans had a Right to Ordain the Bishops of the Province according to the Custom, without the leave of the Bishop of Constantinople: All the Bishops approved of this Re∣solution. The Legats of the Pope were the only Persons which said, That they ought not to debase the Holy See so much in their presence; They demanded, that they would put out of the Acts that which had passed the day before to the prejudice of the Ecclesiastical Constitutions; or if they would not, their Opposition might be annexed to the Acts, that they might make their re∣port of it to him that Governs the Apostolick See, who is the first Bishop of the World, who may judge himself of the Injury done to his See, and of the Subverting of the Canons. Not∣withstanding this Opposition, the Bishops declared, That they would go on, and the Commissi∣oners, without any regard to what was said by the Pope's Legats, said, That all the Synod had given their Approbation to their Determination.

All things being thus decreed, the Fathers of the Council made a long discourse to the Empe∣ror, in which having commended his Zeal and Piety, as well as S. Leo's Doctrine and Holiness, they related what had passed in the Council, they Explained the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, approved S. Leo's Letter, and opposed the Doctrine of Eutyches. They wrote also to S. Leo what had been done in the Council, and prayed him to consent to what they had decreed in favour of the Church of Constantinople. The Emperor made two Edicts to prevent all Oppo∣sition to the Synod. He confirmed the Council of Chalcedon; and invallidated by an Edict all that had been done against Flavian. He gave a check to the boldness of the Monks of Alexandria and Palestine, who would have thrust out Juvenal from his See, and put one Theodosius in his place. He gave order to punish this last.

I do not pursue the Story of the Troubles, raised after the Death of Martian, about the Council of Chalcedon, because it would draw me too far from my Subject. I shall only observe, that the Emperor Leo having consulted the Church about this Difference, they held several Coun∣cils in the Provinces, who wrote those Letters to the Emperor, which make up that Collection called Codex Encyclicus, which is reckoned the Third Part of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon.

Of the COUNCIL of RIES, Held in 439.

WE were not willing to interrupt the Connexion of the History of the Councils of * 1.186 Chalcedon and Ephesus, because these two Councils have a near Relation one to another. We will now resume our discourse of the private Councils.

The Council of Ries in France, and not Rhegium in Italy was called to Exa∣mine the Ordination of Armentarius, who had been Ordained Bishop of Ebredunum. This Ar∣mentarius was a Young Man, but a Person of Quality, who being led by the Advice of his Friends, was Ordained Bishop of Ebredunum by two Bishops, without the consent of the Bishops of the Province, or of the Metropolitan; but afterward acknowledging his fault withdrew him∣self, renounced his Episcopal Charge, and desired that his Name might be rased out of the num∣ber of the Bishops of Ebredunum. Hilarius Bishop of Arles, and twelve other Bishops of France were present at this Council. They declared, That the Ordination of Armentarius was Null, according to the Canons; That the two Bishops who performed it, and who begged pardon for their fault, should for the future never be present at any Synod, or Ordination. As to Armen∣tarius, that they might be favourable to him, they granted him, according to the Eighth Canon of the Council of Nice, that he should have the Title of a Suffragan Bishop, or to enjoy the Com∣munion granted to Strangers, but upon Condition. 1. That he shall dwell in some other Pro∣vince than that of the Sea-Alpes; and if he returns thither, he shall be liable to all the punish∣ments his Action deserves. 2. That if he be met in any place that is not Publick, he shall claim no other place, nor title, than what his Quality in the World gives him. 3. That he shall have no power to Ordain any Clergy-man, nor Celebrate the Sacrament in any Church whatsoever, unless any be given to him out of Charity. 4. That it shall not be lawful for any Bishop to give place to him, as the more ancient. 5. That he shall not do any Office at a distance from the Church assigned him, and shall only have a Right to confirm Novices, and celebrate Sacraments before the Priests. They granted him also power to pronounce the Blessings in the Church; which Priests only have in private places, to consecrate Virgins in the Church, wherein he shall acknowledge himself Inferior to Bishops, but Superior to Priests. That if he changes his Church, he shall not be received in the second, unless he renounce the first. As to the Ministers which he hath Ordained, the Bishop of Ebredunum shall be left at Liberty, whether he will own them, or reject them.

For prevention of the like disorder for the Future, they forbid any Bishop going to a vacant Church, unless it be the next Neighbouring Bishop, who ought to go as a Visitor to order all things at the Bishops interment, that is to say, till the 7th day after his decease, but must after∣ward immediately withdraw himself; and waste the Order of the Metropolitan to come thither with other Bishops: strictly forbidding all other Bishops to enter upon a Vacant Church, unless they are invited by the Letters of the Metropolitan. Then they revived the fifth Canon of the Council of Nice concerning Provincial Councils.

The I COUNCIL of ORANGE.

THIS Council was held Anno. 441. at Orange, or near that City. Hilarius Bishop of * 1.187 Arles was President in it, and sixteen other Bishops assisted at it.

In the first Canon of this Council it is Ordained, That Priests might confirm in the absence of the Bishops, such Hereticks, as being in danger of Death desire admission into the Church, by Chrism and Blessing of them.

The second Canon, which is not without reason put in the first place in most MSS, hath been the subject of a famous contest between Aurelius and F. Sirmondus. For the better understanding of it we must fix upon the true reading of it. The Negative Particle which we meet with in some Editions, but not in others, makes a clean different sense. In the Old Edition of Merlin it is read at the end of this Canon, Sed ut necessaria habeatur repititia Chrismatio; Crabb, and Binius have observed in the Margin among the different Readings, non Necessaria in stead of Necessaria. Lastly, F. Sirmondus hath inserted in the Text the Negative Particle upon the Credit of several

MSS, and the Authority of Isidorus. By considering the preceding part of the Canon it is easie to know, that we must add this Negative Particle. This is the Translation of it Word for Word: None of the Ministers, who are entrusted with the power to Baptize, ought to Administer it without having the Chrism, because we have a Custom among us to anoint with the Chrism but once; but if any Person be not anointed with the Chrism at his Baptism upon the account of some urgent ne∣cessity, the Priest shall admonish him of it in his Confirmation, for we have but one Blessing of Chrism likewise. After these Words come those which are the subject of the Contest. a 1.188 Non ut praejudi∣cans, sed ut non necessaria; Or, Necesiaria habeatur repitita Chrismatio. Now it is easie to see by the preceding Words, that the sense requires the Negative Particle, without which the Canon would contradict it self. And now having fixed the Reading of the Canon, it is necessary for the Explication of it to observe that in the beginning of the Church Baptism was always accom∣panied with Chrism and Imposition of Hands, as appears evidently by Tertulliam; but that after∣wards, when they began to separate Imposition of Hand, or Confirmation from Baptism, there were different usages of Confirmation or Unction. Some joyned it with Baptism, others with Impositions, and some others repeated it. In the Church of Rome there was a double Unction as is evident from S. Innocent's Letter I but the Churches of France followed a quite different Custom as appears by this Canon, which proves, that they used but One Unction which was joyned with Baptism, and did not repeat it at Confirmation; but when it was omitted in Baptism they Administred it at Confimation. This is the true sense of the Canon.

In the third Canon it is ordered, That those, who find themselves dangerously sick, when they are under Penance, shall be received into Communion, without the Imposition of Hands, in to∣ken of their Reconciliation; but if they recover, they shall still continue in a state of Penance, till they have compleated it, and then shall be received to Communion by Imposition of Hands, as Persons reconciled. This Communion without Imposition of Hands in token of Reconciliation, is in the judgment of some, the Eucharist without Absolution; according to others a private Absolution without the Eucharist. I rather think that this Communion consisted in nothing but in some bare marks, which the Church gave to shew, that they received the Sick Person into her Communion, without giving him Absolution. This Canon must be Explained by the Canons of other Councils, because the Bishops who made it, say, That they grant this Communion according to the definitions of the Holy Fathers, who have called this Communion a Viaticum, which re∣lates to the 13th Canon of the Council of Nice, where it is said, That they shall give dying Persons their last Viaticum, as the most Necessary thing, which makes it evident, that the Com∣munion of the Church is only meant. This is the Reason, that the Council adds, that when they desire the Eucharist, the Bishop shall not give it them, till he hath examined the Disposition of him that demands it, which shews, That the Church did grant to Penitents, who were at the point of Death, the Communion of the Church, without giving them the Sacrament, with an Injunction to perform their Penance, when they are recovered.

In the fourth Canon it is decreed, That if a Clergy-man shall desire to undergo Penance, he shall not be denied. This was Ordained, because it was forbidden by several Canons of the Church to put the Clergy to publick Penance. This Council excepts those who desire it them∣selves through Devotion, or otherwise.

In the fifth it is declared, That they ought not to deliver up those, who fly to the Churches for security; but they ought to be as in an Asylum, because of the respect which is due to that Holy place.

The sixth is against those who detained the Bond-Servants of Clergy-men in their Service, by way of Reprisal, instead of their own, who were fled into the Church.

The seventh is against those, who used them whom the Church had made free, as Slaves.

The eighth forbids a Bishop to Ordain a Clergy-man, who dwells in another Diocese. It or∣ders him to make him continue sometime in his Diocese, and then not to ordain him till he hath first consulted his own Bishop.

In the ninth it saith, That if a Bishop hath Ordained any Persons belonging to another Church if he hath nothing to object against them, he ought either to send them back again, or obtain leave of their own Bishops.

The tenth shews, That if a Bishop hath built a Church in the Territories of another Bishop for his own profit or conveniency, after he hath obtain'd leave of the Bishop of the place, who ought not to refuse him, he ought to reserve the Consecration of it to the Bishop of the place, who shall grant to the Bishop that built the Church, a liberty of Ordaining such persons Clerks to serve there as he shall present to him, or of approving such persons, who are already Ordained, as he shall choose. Lastly, He adds, That if any Lay-man build a Church he ought not to take any other Bishop to Consecrate it, than the Bishop of the Place. That which is said in this Canon concerning a Bishop that hath built a Church in anothers Territories, that he shall present or choose the Clerks, whom he is bound to Ordain, or approve for the service of that Church, may discover to us the

Original of Patronages. It appears plain enough, that the Bishop who builds a Church in ano∣ther's Territories hath right to the Presentation; but it doth not appear, that it held good to the Successors in the Bishoprick, or to those in his Family.

The 11th Canon forbids Bishops to receive Persons Excommunicate by the Bishop before he hath reconciled them, and it orders that the Examination of the Justice or Injustice of their Ex∣communication shall be reserved to the next Synod.

In the 12th Canon the Bishops of this Council declared, that they ought to baptize or accept their Repentance, who have lost their Senses on a sudden, provided that they do give, or have given any Marks that they did earnestly desire it.

In the 13th it is said, that we must grant to the Insensible, Quaecunque p••etatis sunt, which is not clear: 'Tis not probable that it means the Eucharist. I rather think it to be meant of pious Assistance, and some other Ceremonies. Timotheus of Alexandria observes Can. 13. that we may pray for a Fool that hath slain himself.

The 14th Canon prescribes, that the Energumeni should be accepted to the Communion, who do what they can to cure themselves, and who are guided by the Counsels and Admonitions of their Clergy, because the Sacrament can fortifie them against the Assaults of the Devil, and pu∣rifie them.

In the 15th it is Ordained, that the poffessed Catechumens be baptized.

The 16th forbids conferring Orders upon such Persons as have been openly troubled with an Evil Spirit, and deprives those of their Function, to whom it happens after their Ordination.

The 17th is almost unintelligible: Thus it is, Cum Capsa & Calix Offerendus è & admixtione Eueharistiae consecrandus. We must offer the Chalice with the Patin, and Consecrate it by ming∣ling the Eucharist. The only sense it is capable of is this, that when they Consecrate the Cha∣lice, or * Plate, they must celebrate the Sacrament in those Vessels.

The 18th commands, that the Gospels be read hereafter to the Catechumens in all Churches.

The 19th imports, that the Catechumens shall not be suffered to go into the Baptistery.

The 20th, that it shall not be allowed them to receive the Benediction with the Faithful, no not in Domestick or private Prayers; and they shall be admonished to come by themselves to receive the Blessing, and the Sign of the Cross.

In the 21st it is decreed, that if two Bishops Ordain a Bishop alone without the concurrence of other Bishops, if the Bishop were Ordained against his Will, he shall be put into the place of one of them who Ordained him, and another shall be Ordain'd in the place of the other Bishop; but if he that was Ordained was voluntarily Ordained, he also shall be deposed.

The 22d orders, that for the future no Married Persons shall be Ordained Deacons, unless they make a profession of living in Chastity.

The 23d orders, that if it be found out that one of those Deacons do not abstain from his Wife, he shall be deprived.

The 24th excepts from this Law, those who have been Ordained heretofore. The only Pe∣nalty it inflicts on them is, that they cannot obtain any higher Orders.

The 25th appoints, that such Persons as have been twice Married, although never so worthy, shall be admitted to no other Orders than that of a Sub-Deacon.

The 26th forbids the Ordinations of Deaconesses for the future, and orders those that are al∣ready Ordained to receive the Blessing with the mere Laicks. Nevertheless the Council of Nice ranks them among the Clergy, Can. 19. De Deaconessis, & omnibus qui in Clero censentur. S. Epi∣phanius witnesses, that they were Ordained, and the Council of Chalcedon says it expresly, Can. 15. as well as the Council of Epa••••a, Can. 21. and Justinian's Novels, Chap. 6.

The 27th Canon is concerning Widows professing Chastity, the Council requires, that it be done before the Bishop, and that it be discovered by their Widows-Garments, or by a kind of Vail put upon them, as it is the Roman Custom, and is decreed by the Council of Toledo, Can. 4. and by the Council of Carthage, Can. 104.

The Council of Orange adds, that the Ravishers of these Widows, and such as broke their Pro∣fession, shall be punished.

The 28th Canon Ordains, that such as break their Vow of Virginity, whether Men or Wo∣men, shall be made to do Penance.

In the 29th Canon the Bishops of the Council confirm the Decrees, that they had made, and require that they be observed by themselves, and their Brethren. They reprove them that nei∣ther come themselves, nor send their Deputies in their stead to the Provincial Synods, which ought to be held twice a Year. They give notice of the next Council, and charge Hilary to give notice of the time to those Bishops that were absent.

The last Canon appoints, that if a Bishop lose his Senses, or * 1.189 Tongue, it shall not be lawful for his Priests to perform the Episcopal Functions in his presence, but he shall send for a Bishop, who shall perform the Episcopal Functions in his Church.

The COUNCIL of VASIO.

THIS Council is much like the precedent, held at Vasio in 442. It made X Canons.

The I imports, that the French Bishops need not be examined before they be recei∣ved * 1.190 to the Communion, it is sufficient that it be not known they are excommunicated.

The II commands, that the Oblations of such Penitents, as dying suddenly could not receive the Sacraments of the Church; should be received and accepted, and their Memory ought to be celebrated at the Altar, since if they had lived, they ought not to be kept from the Eucharist.

The III orders, that the Priests or Ministers should every Year desire the Chrism of their own Bishop about the Feast of Easter, and either go themselves to fetch it, or send their Sub-Deacon for it, [if necessary business will not permit them to go.]

The IV is, that they shall be expelled the Church as Infidels, who keep back those Legacies which dying Persons have bequeathed to the Church.

The V is, that if any Person doth not submit to the Sentence of his Bishop, he shall have relief, from a Synod.

In the VI it is proved by the Testimony of the first Letter to S. Clement, that Christians ought not to hold any familiar Correspondence with the Enemies of Religion.

The VII, to prevent too much rashness in condemning the Guilty, enjoyns the Bishops to be gentle, although they believe that a Person hath deserved to be separated from the Church for a time, and content themselves at the intreaty of others to reprove, and threaten him; and if they think any Person to deserve Condemnation for a great Crime, they ought to consider, that they should do it, as being their Accusers.

The VIII Canon imports, that if a Bishop knows the Crime of another, but cannot prove it, he ought not to divulge it, but only to endeavour by private reproof to amend him, whom he believes to be guilty. But if he prove obstinate, and will not reform, the Bishop may by his own Authority separate him from his Communion, although he continue in Communion with others that know not of it.

The IX and X Canons were made to prevent, that such Persons as have out of Charity taken upon them the care and charge of Foundlings, should not be deterred from so great a piece of Charity through fear of being proceeded against by Law, as it often happens, and being accused to have stolen them. The Council decreed according to the Law of Honorius, that they who find out-cast Children, should give notice of it to the Church; and that there may be no cheat about it, the Council adds, that it shall be published at the Altar on Sunday, that an out-cast Child is found, that if any Person shall own it within 10 Days, it shall be restored, but afterward such a Demand shall not be received, or allowed. I do not speak of the other Synod held under Hilary Bishop of Arles against Proclus and Chelidonius, because we have nothing more of them, than what is said in the Life of that Author.

The II COUNCIL of ARLES.

THIS Council was held at Arles some time after the Council of Vasio, we have 56 Canons made by this Council, of which this is the Summary.

1. A Novice must not be chosen to be Ordained a Deacon, or Priest. * 1.191

2. No Man may be made a Priest, who is Marryed, unless he will renounce the use of Marriage, which they call by the Name of Conversion.

3. A Person in Holy Orders above a Deacon, ought not to cohabit with any other Woman beside his Grand-Mother, his Daughter, his Niece, or Wife.

4. He ought not to get any Woman into his Chamber, whether bond or free.

5. A Bishop must not be Ordained without his Metropolitan, or his Letter, nor unless there be at least three Bishops present, and the others be summoned; and if there be any difference among them about it, the Metropolitan shall follow the plurality of Voices in the Election.

6. A Bishop Ordained without the consent of his Metropolitan, ought not be a Bishop.

7. They, who not being able to subdue the Lusts of the Flesh, have made themselves Eunuchs, ought not to be received into the Clergy.

8. He that receives a Person Excommunicate shall give an account before a Council.

9. A Novation may not be received to Communion unless he renounce his Errour.

10 and 11. The 11 Canon of the Council of Nice shall be observed against them that fall into Idolatry.

12. They that die in the state of Penance, shall be received to Communion, and their Oblations received.

13. Clergymen shall not leave their Churches upon any Account whatsoever; and if it be found that one remaining in another Church be Ordained by the Bishop of that Church without the con∣sent of his own Bishop, that Ordination shall be void, and null.

14. If a Clergyman puts out Money to Usury, or farmeth of another, or does any scandalous business, he shall be deposed and excommunicated.

15. That a Deacon ought not to sit down in the Church, or distribute the Sacrament in the presence of a Priest; if he doth, he shall be degraded.

16. That the Paulianists and Photinians ought to be baptized.

17. As to the Bonosiaci, who baptize as well as the Arians in the Name of the Trinity, it is suf∣ficient to admit them into the Church by Chrism, and Imposition of Hands.

18. The Synod shall meet according as the Bishop of Arles pleases to command.

19. They that shall absent themselves, or go away before the Council is ended, shall be sepa∣rated from the Communion of the other Bishops.

20. Stage-Players and Comedians shall be kept from the Sacrament, as long as they act.

21. A Penitent may not Marry, or keep any suspicious Company.

22. Persons Married may not be put into a state of Penance.

23. If a Bishop neglect to root out such Superstitions as are found in his Diocese, he is guilty before God; and if the Author of them doth not amend, he shall not come to the Sacrament.

24. They that bring false Accusations against their Brethren for capital Crimes, shall be debar∣red of Communion till Death, if they do not make a satisfaction proportionable to the greatness of their Crime.

25. They, who having made Profession of Religion, do after apostatize from it, and do not fly to Repentance as a Remedy, shall not receive the Sacrament till they have done it, and shall never be admitted into the Number of the Clergy.

26. Such Hereticks, as at the point of Death desire to become Orthodox, shall be confirmed by a Priest in the absence of the Bishop by Blessing and Chrism.

27. Ministers who have Power to baptize, shall never be without Chrism, because it is a Cu∣stom among the French Bishops to give the Chrism but only once according to the Order of the Synod. This confirms the sense which we have given to the second Canon of the Council of Orange.

The following Canons as far as the 47th, contain the same Constitutions with those of the Council of Orange. The 47, 48, and 51, are the 4, 5, and 10, of the Council of Vasio.

The 49 imports, that if any Person be excluded from the Sacrament by the Bishops Authority, he ought to be deprived of the Company, and familiarity of the People, as well as of the Clergy.

The 50 is, that they who live in hatred one against another publickly, ought to be separated from the Communion, till they be reconciled one to another.

The 52 is against those who Marry, after they have vowed Virginity.

The 53 is, that a Master is not responsible, if a Servant kill himself.

The 55 establishes a new way of chusing a Bishop, ordering that to avoid Ambition and Si∣mony, the Bishops should name three Persons, of whom the Clergy and People should chuse one.

The 56, that no Person shall attempt any thing against the great Synod of the Metropolitan.

The COUNCIL of ANJOU.

THIS Council was assembled Anno 433. on Sept. 25. to Ordain Thalassius Bishop of Anjou. There was but seven Bishops with Thalassius. After he was Ordain'd they made twelve * 1.192 Canons.

The first forbids Clergymen to bring their Differences before the Secular Judges, or to go out of their Church without the permission of their Bishop.

The second commands Deacons to give due respect to the Priests.

The third forbids all Encroachments and Oppressions.

The fourth, that the Clergy should not dwell with Women.

The fifth decrees, that they shall be treated very severely, who forsake their state of Penance, or Virginity.

The sixth is against Adulteries.

The seventh and eighth are against those clerks or Monks, who forsake their sacred Functions in the Church, or their Monastick.

The ninth forbids Bishops Ordaining a Clergyman that belongs to another Bishop.

The tenth is very obscure, the sense of it can hardly be found out.

The 11th Ordains, that no Person shall be Ordained a Deacon or Priest, who hath had more than one Wife.

The 12th Decrees, that all Persons who will be converted shall be received to Penance, and shall be granted Absolution according to the Discretion of the Bishop.

The III COUNCIL of ARLES.

THIS Council was assembled about the Year 455. Octob. 30. to determine the difference which was between Faustus Abbot of Lerins, and Theodorus Bishop of Forum. July, about the Priviledges of the Monastery of Lerins. Here it was decreed that the Clergy, who Minister at the Altar, should be Ordain'd by Theodorus only, or by him whom he Com∣missions, that they shall receive the Chrism from him: If there be any Novices, he shall confirm them, and they shall not admit strange Clergymen to the Sacrament but by his Order, but all the Laymen of the Monastery should be subject to the Abbot only, and the Bishops shall not be con∣cerned with them, nor shall Ordain any of them against the consent of the Abbot.

The COUNCIL of CONSTANTINOPLE, An. 459.

THIS Council held under Gennadius [Patriarch of Constantinople] hath made an excellent Ca∣non against Simony. It was made upon 82 Bishops, whose Subscriptions M. Baluzius hath published.

The Letter of Lupus Bishop of * 1.193 Troyes, and Eu∣phronius Bishop of Augustodunum to Thalassius Bishop of Anjou.

THIS Letter contains, 1. Rules concerning the different ways of celebrating the Vigils of the Festivals. 2. About the Clergy, that have been twice Married. They say, that it may be tolerated in the Lesser Orders as high as a Porter, but Exorcists, and Sub-Deacons, ought not to have been twice Married. 3. They say, that it were better for the Clergy to ab∣stain from Marriage, but in this they must follow the Custom of the Churches. As to the Exor∣cists, and Sub-Deacons, they must not be suffer'd to Marry a second time; that in the Church of Augustodunum none of the Clergy, not the Porters themselves are allowed it. 4. That the Sub-Deacons may receive the Kiss of Peace in the Sanctuary, but not at the Altar, to which they are not to approach, but when they give Palls to the Deacon.

The COUNCIL of * 1.194 TOURS.

THIS Council was held in the time of Perpetuus Bishop of Tours in 461. The Archbishop of * 1.195 Bourges and † 1.196 Rouen were present at it with six other Bishops. The 1 and 2 Canons recom∣mends a single Life to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The 3. forbids them to dwell with Women. The 4. prohibits the Clergy, who might Marry, to Marry Widows. The 5. con∣demns those, that desert Ecclesiastical Functions. The 6, those that abuse the Virgins devoted to God. The 7. is against Manslayers. The 8. is against those, who forsake the state of Penance, which they have once entred upon. The 10. is against unlawful Ordinations. The 11. is against those, who leave their Churches with the leave of their Bishops. The 12. against those Clergy, who go without their Bishops Letters. The 13. forbids Usury to Clergymen.

The COUNCIL of VENNES.

THIS Council was soon after the Council of Tours. There were only five Bishops of the Province of Tours, who were assembled with Perpetuus their Metropolitan at Venice to * 1.197 Ordain a Bishop there. They made 16 Canons. They revived the Decrees made in the former Synods against Manslayers, c. 1. Against such Penitents as forsake their Penance, c. 3. Against such consecrated Virgins as desert their condition, c. 4. Against Clergy-men and Monks that go out of their Bishoprick, c. 5, 6. Or who go before Secular Judges, c. 9. Against Bishops, who Ordain the Clergy of other Bishops, c. 10.

There are also some other special Canons, as the 2d, which Excommunicates those, who Mar∣ry other Wives after the Divorce of the former, unless it be for Adultery. The 7th, which for∣bids the Monks to have separate Cells, unless they be very eminent for Virtue, or are sickly, and also upon condition that they remain within the Precinct of their Monastery, and under the Au∣thority of the Abbot. The 8th, which prohibits Abbots that they have not several Monasteries, or Dwellings. The 11th, which forbids Priests, Deacons, and Sub-Deacons, who are not al∣lowed to Marry, to frequent Banquetings and Meetings, where they sing Amorous Songs, and shew indecent Postures, for fear that those Eyes and Ears, which are set apart for the hearing of Holy Things, be not polluted with obscene Sights or Words. The 12th forbids all Clergymen going to the Jewish Feasts. The 13th orders that Clergymen, who are drunk, should be pu∣nished by separating them thirty Days, or some other bodily punishment. The 14th, that a Clergyman being in the City, who without a lawful Excuse absents himself from Divine Service, shall be separated from the Church-Communion seven Days. The 15th, that there shall be one way only of celebrating Divine Service, and singing in all the Province. The 16th, that such Persons shall be excluded from the Church, as pretend to prophesie, and foretel things, whether it be by Auguries, or other Superstitious Ceremonies, (called The Saints Lots,) or by any other way whatsoever. The Council dedicated these Canons to Thalassius Bishop of Anjou, and to Vi∣ctorius.

The Council of ROME under Pope Hilarius.

THIS Council consisted of 48 Bishops. They approved of the Ancient Canons concerning the Qualifications as such as may be Ordained, confirmed by Pope Hilarius. These Con∣stitutions * 1.198 are common, and often repeated, that a Person twice Married, or ignorant, or that had done publick Penance, shall not be Ordained. They add, that a Bishop newly Ordained, shall reform what his Predecessor hath done amiss. Lastly, the last Canon forbids Bishops chu∣sing their Successor against the abuse which was then common in Spain.

It hath been our Custom at the end of every Tome to give an Abridgement of the Doctrine, Dis∣cipline and Morality of the Age, which we have treated of in it; but things are so clear, and so often repeated in this Fifth Age, that it is needless to repeat them here, having spoken so often of them, being well assured, that they who will take the pains to read the Two Parts of this Volume with any Attention, will have a very true Idea of the Doctrine, Discipline, and Morality taught and practised in this Age.

[The Councils have been published by Binius in 4 Vol. Fol. at Colen in 1606. 1618. and in 10 Vol. at Paris 1636. and by Father Labbé and Cossartius in 18 Vol. at Paris 1672. in Fol. at large. Fr. Longus à Conolano, put out an Abridgement of the Councils in Folio, with his own Notes at Antw. 1623.]

Notes

• * 1.1

  The first Council of Ephesus.
• * 1.2

  Cyril Ep. ad Caelest. 1. p. Con. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 32. In Mar. Mercator and in the Acts of the Coun∣cil.
• * 1.3

  Act. conc. p. 1. c. 33. Act. conc. p. 1. c. 2. 1. p. of the Con. c. 12.
• * 1.4

  Conc. p. 1. c. 6.
• * 1.5

  p. 1. c. 7.
• * 1.6

  p. 1. c. 16.
• * 1.7

  p. 1. c. 3.
• * 1.8

  p. 1. c. 9.
• * 1.9

  Act 1. p. c. 12.
• * 1.10

  p. 1. c. 10. 11.
• * 1.11

  p. 1. c. ••4.
• * 1.12

  Nov. Col. Conc. tom. 1. p. 378.
• * 1.13

  enlive∣ned.
• * 1.14

  impossi∣ble.
• * 1.15

  p. 1. c. 22.
• * 1.16

  Ibid c. 23.
• * 1.17

  1. A Council at Rome.
• * 1.18

  Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 15. Ibid. c. 18.
• * 1.19

  Ibid. c. 19
• * 1.20

  Ibid. c. 20
• * 1.21

  Ibid. c. 21. 24.
• * 1.22

  Ibid. c. 25.
• * 1.23

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 3.
• * 1.24

  2. A Council in Aegypt.
• * 1.25

  S. Cyril's twelve Anathe∣ma's.
• * 1.26

  1. p. Act. Conc. c. 3, 4, 5.
• * 1.27

  Ibid. c. 20.
• * 1.28

  Ibid. c. 31.
• * 1.29

  Ibid. c. 31. (32.)
• * 1.30

  In Marius Mercator.
• * 1.31

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 4.
• * 1.32

  Act. Conc. p. 1. c. 33. and 34.
• * 1.33

  Ibid. c. 36
• * 1.34

  Ibid. c. 35
• * 1.35

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.
• * 1.36

  Coll. of Lupus, ch. 7.
• * 1.37

  Credible.
• * 1.38

  Act. I.
• † 1.39

  Coll. of Lupus. c. 9
• * 1.40

  Cite.
• * 1.41

  Sacrado∣tal, or Priestly.
• * 1.42

  Sancta Synodus. In Ephe∣so coacta. Nestorio, Novo Ju∣dae.
• * 1.43

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 15. 28.
• * 1.44

  In his Inn.
• * 1.45

  Act. 11.
• * 1.46

  Act. III.
• * 1.47

  Act IV.
• * 1.48

  Act V.
• * 1.49

  Act VI.
• * 1.50

  Act VII.
• * 1.51

  A trusty Person in the Habit of a Beg∣gar.
• † 1.52

  Which was made of an Hal∣low Read.
• † 1.53

  Hella∣dius Bi∣shop of Tarsus was, per∣haps, the 8th Bishop for the Eastern.
• * 1.54

  Sept. 4.
• * 1.55

  Collect. Lupus, c. 38. ibid. c. 66, 136, 141, 174, 201. Ibid. & Socr. l. 7. c. 34. Liberat. in brov. c. 6. Coll. of Lupus, c. 39.
• * 1.56

  Ibid. c. 43. Ibid. c. 44.
• * 1.57

  Ibid. c. 45. Ibid. c. 46. Ibid. c. 48. Ibid. c. 49. 3 Part of the Counc. of Ephe∣sus, c. 24.
• * 1.58

  C. 25. Ib. Collect. of Lupus, c. 51. 52.
• * 1.59

  Ibid. 50.
• * 1.60

  Ibid. c. 53. c. 58. c. 62.
• * 1.61

  C. 58. 62.
• * 1.62

  P. 3. c. 26.
• * 1.63

  C. 57, 58, 59, 60.
• * 1.64

  c. 60, 61. In Lupus's Collection from c. 54 to c. 74.
• * 1.65

  c. 77. 138 c. 78.
• * 1.66

  c. 80.
• * 1.67

  Act of the Counc. 3. p. c. 82.
• * 1.68

  c. 85.
• * 1.69

  c. 202, 203.
• * 1.70

  p. 3. Act. of the Counc. 30.
• * 1.71

  N. B.
• * 1.72

  Act. of the Conc. p. 3. c. 31. 32.
• * 1.73

  Coll. of Lupus. c. 2.
• * 1.74

  c. 86.
• * 1.75

  3. p. Act of the Cou. c. 27.
• * 1.76

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 87. & 88. c. 91, 95. c. 90, 92, 94, 95. c. 96. c. 97. c. 95. c. 97.
• * 1.77

  c. 100. c. 101.
• * 1.78

  c. 105, 106.
• * 1.79

  c. 110.
• * 1.80

  c. 111, 112, 113 c. 114.
• * 1.81

  c. 123.
• * 1.82

  c. 123, 124. c. 140. c. 126.
• * 1.83

  c. 127.
• * 1.84

  c. 130.
• * 1.85

  c. 131.
• * 1.86

  c. 132.
• * 1.87

  c. 133.
• * 1.88

  c. 135.
• * 1.89

  C. 142. C. 143. C. 144. C. 145. C. 146.
• * 1.90

  C. 148.
• * 1.91

  C. 149.
• * 1.92

  C. 151.
• * 1.93

  C. 151.
• * 1.94

  C. 157. 159.
• * 1.95

  C. 163. C. 160. &c.
• * 1.96

  C. 176.
• * 1.97

  C. 180. &c.
• * 1.98

  C. 185.
• * 1.99

  C. 186.
• * 1.100

  C. 190.
• * 1.101

  C. 192.
• * 1.102

  C. 194.
• * 1.103

  C. 165. C. 209. and 210.
• * 1.104

  C. 169.
• * 1.105

  Collect. of Lupus, C. 207.
• * 1.106

  C. 206.
• * 1.107

  Collect. of Lupus, C. 199, 200.
• * 1.108

  Facund. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.109

  Ibid. l. 8. c. 3, 5. l. 11. c. 14.
• * 1.110

  Fac. l. 1. c. 1. l. 8. c. 4, 5. l. 11. c. 1. 8.
• * 1.111

  Collect. of Lupus. c. 29.
• * 1.112

  Facund. l. 8. c. 22.
• * 1.113

  Act Conc. 5. Coll. 5.
• * 1.114

  Admit of.
• * 1.115

  The Coun∣cil of Chalce∣don.
• * 1.116

  Cyril. Ep. ad Coelest. 1. p. Conc. Ep. c. 14. Socr. l. 7. c. 3. 2.
• * 1.117

  Con••. Chal Act. 10.
• * 1.118

  Bishop of Con∣stantino∣ple.
• * 1.119

  Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. p. 150. &c. Council of Constan∣tinople, Act. 1.
• † 1.120

  John & Cossinius.
• * 1.121

  Act. 2.
• * 1.122

  Act. 3.
• * 1.123

  Sexton, or Church Clerk.
• * 1.124

  Act. IV.
• * 1.125

  Act. V.
• * 1.126

  agree.
• * 1.127

  Act. VI.
• * 1.128

  Act. VII.
• * 1.129

  The Se∣cond Sy∣nod of Constan∣tinople.
• * 1.130

  c. 5.
• * 1.131

  Ep. 20. Act of the Counc. c. 2.
• * 1.132

  Ep. 21. in the Acts of the Coun∣cil, c. 3.
• * 1.133

  Act. II. Counc. IV. 1. Part, af∣ter Ep. 80. of S. Leo, & t. 1 Mo∣num. Eccl. Graec. p. 50.
• * 1.134

  Acts of the Coun∣cil, p. 1. c. 6. Ep. 22.
• * 1.135

  Ep. 23.
• * 1.136

  Ep. 24.
• * 1.137

  Ep. 25.
• * 1.138

  Ep. 26.
• * 1.139

  Ep. 27.
• * 1.140

  Ep. 28.
• * 1.141

  Ep. 29.
• * 1.142

  Ep. 30, 31, 32, 33.
• * 1.143

  The Coun∣cil of Ephesus under Di∣oscorus.
• * 1.144

  Ep. 35.
• * 1.145

  Ep. 39.
• * 1.146

  Ep. 40. Ep. 41.
• * 1.147

  Ep. 42.
• * 1.148

  Ep. 43.
• * 1.149

  Ep. 44, 45, 46, 47.
• * 1.150

  Ep. 50.
• * 1.151

  Ep. 54, &c.
• * 1.152

  Marcian
• * 1.153

  [Theodo∣sius's Si∣ster.]
• * 1.154

  Council of Constan∣tinople. Act. A∣bundii a∣pud. Bar. ad Anno 449. & Act. 4. Conc. Ch.
• * 1.155

  Ep. 58, 59, 60.
• * 1.156

  Ep. 61.
• * 1.157

  Ep. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66.
• * 1.158

  Ep. 67.
• * 1.159

  Ep. 69, 70, 71.
• * 1.160

  Ep. 73.
• * 1.161

  Ep. 74.
• * 1.162

  Ep. 75.
• * 1.163

  The Coun∣of Chal∣cedon.
• * 1.164

  Act. I.
• * 1.165

  Act. II.
• * 1.166

  Act. III.
• * 1.167

  Periste∣ria a No∣ble Lady.
• † 1.168

  But more par∣ticularly Panso∣phia, a scanda∣lous Har∣lot.
• * 1.169

  Act IV.
• * 1.170

  Juvenal of Jerusa∣lem. Thalassius of Caesa∣rea. Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra. Eustathi∣us of Berytus. Basilius of Seleu∣cia.
• * 1.171

  Biblon, Botrys, Tripolis, Orthosias, Arias, Antara∣d••n.
• * 1.172

  Bishop of Sebasto∣polis.
• * 1.173

  Act. V.
• * 1.174

  Act VI.
• * 1.175

  This Re∣gulation is want∣ing in Ba∣ronius, and Lon∣gus.
• * 1.176

  Act VII.
• * 1.177

  Act VIII
• * 1.178

  Act IX.
• * 1.179

  Act X.
• * 1.180

  Act XI. and XII.
• * 1.181

  Act XIII.
• * 1.182

  Act XIV
• * 1.183

  Act XV.
• * 1.184

  Chor∣episcopus.
• * 1.185

  The Pa∣triarch.
• * 1.186

  The Coun∣cil of Ries.
• * 1.187

  The first Council of Orange.
• a 1.188

  This Clause Longus sets down thus, Non praeju∣dicantes cuiquam hoc dicimus, sed ut necessaria habea∣tur Chrismatio. Which seems full as agreeable if not more to the Custom of the Gallican Church, than our Authors reading; for the Negative Par∣ticle is made necessary only because of the word repitita, which is omitted in this reading, and I think it the best.
• * 1.189

  Speech.
• * 1.190

  The Coun∣cil of Vasio.
• * 1.191

  The II Council of Arles.
• * 1.192

  Concilium Andega∣vense.
• * 1.193

  Tricasi∣um.
• * 1.194

  Turo∣num.
• * 1.195

  Buturi∣gum.
• † 1.196

  Rotoma∣gus.
• * 1.197

  The Coun∣cil of Vennes.
• * 1.198

  The Coun∣cil of Rome.