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.

A Conference held at Constantinople between the Ca∣tholicks and Severians.

JUstinian being desirous to reconcile the Severians to the Catholicks, summon'd the Bishops and Priests on both sides in the Year 533, to confer together about their Differences, in the pre∣sence * 1.1 of Strategius a Commissioner sent from himself. When they were met together, the Bishop Hypatius made a Speech in behalf of the Catholicks. The first day the Severians said, That they had presented their Confession of Faith to the Emperor; and that in it they had explain'd every thing that might raise any Scruple. Hypatius answer'd, That they could not approve it, because therein

they blam'd what was done against Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon. He desir'd to know of the Severians, what they thought of Eutyches. They answer'd, That they believ'd him to be a He∣retick. He reply'd to them, That if this were so, the Council of Dioscorus had done ill to receive him. They answer'd▪ That they had receiv'd him as a Penite••••. Why then, said he to them, do ye condemn him. They confess'd that Dioscorus and his Council were then impos'd upon. Then, replys Hypatius, the Error of this Universal Council was corrected by another Universal Council. This Council was assembled at Chalcedon.

The Severians confess'd the Principle, but maintain'd that the Council of Chalcedon had not done what it ought to do. Here ended the first enterview.

In the second the Severians accu••'d the Council of Chalcedon of Novelty, because they had deter∣min'd that the two Natures in Jesus Christ were distinguish'd after their Union. They affirm, That we must say with St. Cyril, that he was compos'd of two Natures, but after the Union there was but one Hypatius ask'd them, Whether they condemn'd this Doctrine meerly because it appear'd to them to be new, or as false. They answer'd, That they condemn'd it both as new, and as false, because St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, the Popes Felix and Julius, St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, and St. Dio∣nysius the Areopagite, had declar'd that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ after the Union▪ Hypatius answer'd, That the Writings in which this was found were supposititions, that St. Cyril had taught the contrary, that in the Council of Ephesus, he had not produc'd any Testimony of the Fa∣thers where it was said, that there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ after his Incarnation.

The Severians said, Think you then that we have forg'd or falsified these Writings. Hypatius an∣swer'd, That he did not accuse them of this Forgery, but that he suspected the ancient Hereticks, the Apollinarists, to be guilty of it; that the Nestorians had also falsified the Letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus. The Severians added, That the same things are found in the Books written by St. Cyril against Diodorus and Theodorus. Hypatius answer'd, That these Books were also falsified; and where∣as his Adversaries insisted upon it, that they could produce ancient Manuscripts taken out of the Archieves of the Church of Alexandria. Hypatius answer'd, That if they could show such in the time of Proterius, or Timotheus Salophaciolus, they were certainly genuine; but that since that time, the Church of Alexandria having been in the possession of Hereticks, they were not oblig'd to trust to the Monuments which came out of the hands of their Enemies; that they had plainly prov'd that the Letter attributed to Pope Julius, was the Epistle of Apollinaris written to Dionysius, that Se∣verus and those of his Party would not sign the Confession of Faith, which they say was St. Gregory Thaumaturgus's; and lastly, that the Books attributed to St. Dionysius were forged.

Here the Severians ask'd, Why the Council of Chalcedon had not receiv'd the Letter of St. Cyril, which contains twelve Chapters, wherein he denies that there are two Subsistences in Jesus Christ. Hypatius answer'd, That the Council of Chalcedon had not rejected this Letter, but had preferr'd the other Letter, because it is more clear.

The Severians urg'd, That St. Cyril us'd the word Subsistence for Nature. Hypatius answer'd, That indeed the ancient Fathers and the Latins confounded them, but the Orientalists distinguish'd them, and gave the name of Subsistence to the Person; that it is no where found that St. Cyril did ever affirm, that there were three▪Subsistences in the Trinity. The Severians reply'd, That in the Letters of St. Cyril approv'd in the Council of Chalcedon, it was said that Jesus Christ was made up of two Natures, ex duabus Naturis, which signifies, say they, according to his language, that he is one Nature made up of two, ex duabus naturis unam. Hypatius answer'd them, that this Expression, ex duabus naturis, is so far from signifying what they pretend, that Flavian made use of it; and to prove this, they reci••e the Letter of Fl•…•… to the Emperor Theodosius.

The Severians always insisted upon two Testimonies of St. Ceril. Hypatius answer'd them, That none is oblig'd to take any thing for a Rule of Faith but the Synodical Letters approv'd in the Coun∣cils, and not what a Father may have said or written upon different Occasions: As, says he, we must be guided by the Decision of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, and not by what every A∣postle might write or practise before this common Decision; that in the Letter of St. Cyril to Ne∣storius, the Union of the two Natures without confusion or mixture was establish'd; that in his Letter to the Orientalists he had approv'd their Declaration, which clearly contains the distinction of the two Natures after their Union; that it was more reasonable to give credit to these publick Letters, then to some private Letters which might easily be corrupted. The Severians did not o∣mit to produce the Letter to Eulogius, and that which is address'd to his Successor, and Hypatius ex∣plain'd them, protesting always that he did not receive them for genuine. After this another Que∣stion was debated. The Severians complain'd that the Names of Councils were put into the Dipryches, they said that this tended only to encrease the Division. Hypatius answer'd that this would do no hurt; that since the Names of particular Bishops were recited in them, it was but just that those of Councils should be plac'd in them, and that this could offend none but Hereticks. The Severians said against the Council of Chalcedon, that it had receiv'd Ibas and Theodoret. Hypatius answer'd that it had not done it till they had pronounc'd an Anathema against Nestorius: And whereas the Severians alledg'd that they did it only to deceive them, and that immediately after they relaps'd. Hypatius answer'd, That if they condemn the Council of Chalcedon upon this ac∣count, they must also condemn that of Nice, for receiving Eusebius and Theogins; that he did not defend Theodoret but the Council, which had done what they ought to do upon this occasion; that

St. Cyril himself had receiv'd John of Antioch, and written to Theodoret. The affair of Ibas was more difficult, because he had written a reproachful Letter against St. Cyril. Hypatius answer'd, * 1.2 That it was publish'd during the Life of St. Cyril, that this did not hinder them from being recon∣cil'd, that it may be thought that this Letter was sorg'd, that Ibas was not receiv'd until he had Ana∣thematiz'd Nestorius; and lastly, that St. Cyril had us'd less precaution as to Ibas and Theodoret then the Council of Chalcedon, since he had only desir'd them to consent to the Condemnation of Nesto∣rius, and the Ordination of Maximianus, whereas the Councils of Chalcedon had oblig'd them to pro∣nounce an Anathema against Nestorius.

The third Enterview was in the presence of the Emperor, who caus'd Epiphanius the Patriarch of Constantinople to come there. He spoke to them with much mildness, and exhorted them to Peace and Union. The Severians objected to the Catholicks, That they deny'd that Jesus Christ had suf∣fer'd in his Flesh, and that he was one of the Persons of the Trinity. They explain'd themselves, and said, That Jesus Christ was passible in his Flesh, and impassible in his Divinity, that one might say, that he suffer'd in his Flesh according to his Humanity; and that according to his Divinity he was one of the Persons of the Trinity.

This Conference had the same Conclusion, which commonly all these Conferences have, i. e. That both Parties continued in the same Sentiment, without convincing one another; but which is unusual, these things were handled there without heat, and with much meekness and moderation on both sides. Nevertheless there were some Monks and some Priests of the East and of Syria, who were reconcil'd to the Catholicks. One of the Bishops there present drew up this Relation, whereof we have here given an Abridgment.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A Confe∣rence be∣tween the Catholicks and Seve∣rians.
• * 1.2

  The second Council of Orleans.