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 second Council of Constantinople, which is commonly call'd the fifth General Council.

THe Commotions wherewith the Eastern Church had been toss'd after the Council of Chalcedon, seem'd to be appeas'd by the Deposition of Anthimus, and the Condemnation of Severus. The Bishops of the great Sees were all of one and the same Communion, and profess'd to follow the Do∣ctrine of the Council of Chalcedon. Egypt, where the Error of the Eutychians had been more deep∣ly rooted then in any other place, was almost wholly recover'd from it's defection, by the Care of Paul, whom Mennas had ordain'd Bishop of Alexandria; for this Bishop having obtain'd Orders of the Emperor, address'd to the Governors and Intendants of the Province, was careful and diligent to drive away all the Hereticks, and to cause the Council of Chalcedon to be receiv'd in the Churches and Monasteries of Alexandria. 'Tis probable that Elias General of the Militia of Egypt, did not favour Paul's undertaking, which made this Bishop resolve to have him recall'd. Psoius Deacon and Steward of the Church of Alexandria, immediately acquainted Elias with the design which Paul had against him. One of the Letters of Psoius falling into the hands of Paul, he resolv'd to be re∣veng'd upon him, to call him to an account for the management of the Churches Possessions, and for this reason prosecuted him before the Governor, call'd Rhodon. This Magistrate put the Steward in Prison, and caus'd him to be put to death, some days after, in Prison, at the sollicitation of one nam'd Arsenus. The Children and Kinsfolk of Psoius, having desir'd Justice of the Emperor, he remov'd Rhodon from the Government of Egypt, and sent Liberius in his room, whom he order'd to inform himself of this Murder. Rhodon was not wanting in his own defence to say, That he put Psoius to death by order of the Bishop Paul; but he had no proof against him: and there was proof

that Arsenus was the cause of this Murder. Nevertheless, either because Paul was not fully justifi∣ed, or because he was accus'd of other Crimes, he was banish'd to Gaza, where he was depriv'd of the Pallium, and depos'd by Pelagius Surrogate of the Roman Church, and by three Bishops who or∣dain'd Zoilus in his room in the Year 539, or 540.

Pelagius returning from this Dispatch of Affairs, brought along with him some Monks of Jerusa∣lem. These Monks were call'd Eulogius, Conon, Cyriacus, and Pancratius. They brought with them some Propositions taken out of Origen's Books, with a design to have them condemn'd with Origen himself. Pelagius and Mennas supported their Pretensions, out of a secret Aversion which they had to Theodorus Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a great Defender of Origen. Justinian the Emperor being mightily pleas'd to find this occasion of judging in Ecclesiastical Matters, caus'd to be present∣ly drawn up a large Declaration against the Errors o•• Origen, which he address'd to all the Patri∣archs. This Edict, which was publish'd in the Year 541, is found after the Acts of the fifth Coun∣cil, altho it should precede them. It begins with these words: We have often earnestly desir'd to pre∣serve the Christian Faith in its purity, and to maintain the Catholick Church in peace: And this was al∣ways our chief and greatest care, being fully perswaded that it is the best means to preserve that Secular Empire which God has given us, to conquer the Enemies of our State, and to feel the happy Effects of the Divine Mercy in another Life. Now tho the Enemy of Mankind seeks all occasions to destroy Men, yet the goodness and mercy of God defeats all the Efforts of his Malice, and by confounding his Enemies, pre∣serves his own Flock from the Infection and Desolation which he threatens it. We speak thus, adds the Emperor, because we are told of some Persons who have not the Fear of God before their Eyes, and who have forsaken the Rule of Truth, without which there is no Salvation, by departing from the Doctrine of the Scripture, and of the Doctors of the Catholick Church, who have maintain'd the Orthodox Faith, and condemn'd all Heresies, by adhering to Origen, and maintaining his impious Doctrines, like to those of the Arians, Manicheans, and other Hereticks. After this Preface Justinian recounts the Errors which he ascribes to Origen. The first is about the Trinity: The second about the Plurality of Worlds: The third about the Prae-existence of Souls: The fourth, That the Heavens and Stars are animated: The fifth, That the glorified Bodies shall be of a round Figure: The sixth, That the Torments of the Damned shall have an end. After he has refuted these Errors, he orders Mennas to call an Assembly of Bishops who shall meet at Constantinople, and of Abbots of Monasteries, and to cause them to Anathematize Origen, and the Errors which he had noted before. He forbids for the future to ordain Bishops or Abbots, unless they do the same. He adds, That he has sent Copies of this Letter to Pope Vigilius, and to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, of Antioch and Jerusalem. He subjoyns to this Letter the Propositions extracted out of Origen, and nine Anathematisms against the preceding Errors, together with a tenth against the Person of Origen.

He wrote also at the same time another Letter to the Bishops who were to assemble, wherein he exhorts them to read his Letter, to condemn the Errors which he had related in it, and to anathema∣tize Origen, and all those who are of his Judgment in these things.

Menas having receiv'd this Letter call'd an Assembly at Constantinople, where the Emperor's Orders were exactly obey'd, as appears by the Synod's Letter to the Emperor, reported by Evagrius B. 4. of his Hist. ch. 38.

Theodorus of Caesarea, out of hatred to whom Pelagius resolv'd to procure the Condemnation of Origen, thought it his best way to be reveng'd, to make use of a like Artifice. He was of the Sect of the Acephali, i. e. of the Eutychian Opinions, and an Enemy to the Council of Chalcedon. The Empress Theodora favour'd this Party: but the Emperor Justinian would have the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon put in execution, and prepared to publish an Edict against the Acephali. Theo∣dorus of Caesarea, being desirous to avoid this Blow, and at the same time to be reveng'd for what was done against Origen, represented to Justinian, That it was needless to make an Edict against them, assuring him that they would all be re-united, and approve the Council of Chalcedon, if he would give order to Anathematize Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and his Writings, to condemn the Wri∣tings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and the Letter of Ibas, which was read in the Council of Chal∣cedon.

Theodorus of Caesarea had two designs in making this Proposal; The first was to be reveng'd on those who had procured the Condemnation of Origen, by causing Theodorus of Mopsuesta to be Ana∣thematiz'd also, who had written against him, and was hated of the Origenists. The second was to weaken the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, by causing those Persons and Writings to be condemn'd which it seem'd to have approved. The Emperor, who did not penetrate into the depth of these Designs, imagining that he might do much good to the Church, in procuring the reconci∣liation of many Persons, by condemning three dead Writers, whose Reputation was very doub••ful, made no scruple to promise Theodorus what he desir'd. But he fearing lest the Emperor, who was na∣turally inconstant, should change his Resolution, when he should foresee the Scandal which this Un∣dertaking would produce, did cunningly ingage him to publish an Edict, containing a Condemnation of the three Articles we have just now mention'd, which were afterwards so famous under the Name of the three Chapters.

This Edict was publish'd toward the end of the Year 545, and is related after the Acts of the fifth Council, p. 683. 'Tis entituled, The Emperor Justinian's Confession of Faith against the three Chapters, and address'd to the Assembly of the Catholick and Apostolick Church. 'Tis indeed a ve∣ry

large Exposition of Faith, which the Emperor proposes to all the World, endeavouring to re-unite all Sects to the true Faith. First, He explains in a few words the Doctrine of the Church concerning the Trinity; but he enlarges very much upon the Mystery of the Incarnation, which he does very exactly explain, rejecting all the contrary Errors, and chiefly those of the Nestorians and Eutychians. He subjoyns to it Anathematisms for condemning them yet more formally. He pro∣nounces an Anathema against Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius and Eutyches. If he had stop'd there his Edict had been very useful, and had not been the cause of any Disturbance. But he adds lastly, three other Anathematisms; one against the Doctrine and Person of Theodorus of Mopsuesta; another against the Writings of Theodoret; and the last against the Letter of Ibas to Maris Persanus. Now since these three last Anathematisms were the moving Cause which made Ju∣stinian undertake to publish this Confession of Faith, it is not to be wondred that he endeavours to justifie them. First he labours to prove that the Council of Chalcedon did not approve the Letter of Ibas, and that it was impious. Afterwards he proceeds to Theodorus of Mopsuesta; and because ma∣ny scrupled to Condemn him upon the account of his being dead, he endeavours to show that the Dead may be anathematized. This he proves, 1. Because the Church has many times anathema∣tized Hereticks after their death. 2. Because the Council of Constantinople anathematized Arius and Macedonius by name, whom the Council of Nice had not nam'd. 3. Because the Church of Mop∣suesta had already remov'd out of the Diptychs the name of Theodorus. 4. Because Theodorus ha∣ving taught an impious Doctrine, could not be partaker of the Kingdom of Heaven, and conse∣quently ought to be anathematized. He adds, That Damasus and the Bishops of Sardica had ana∣thematized the Bishops who departed from the Faith of the Nicene Council, the Dead as well as the Living; that the Council of Chalcedon had condemn'd Domnus after his death, for believing only that he must not speak of the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril; that besides, it was not true that St. Cyril had prais'd Theodorus of Mopsuesta, but on the contrary, he had condemn'd him; that tho he should have prais'd him, yet this would no•• justifie him, since many Fathers have commended Hereticks, as St. Athanasius and St. Basil who wrote in praise of Apollinarius, and St. Leo who praised Eutyches, be∣fore they knew of their Impiety: That the Letter of St. Gregory Nazianzene to Theodorus, is not to him of Mopsuesta, but to him of Tyana in Cappadocia; Lastly, That the practice of the African Church authorizes the Condemnation of the Dead: That St. Austin had declar'd, That if Caecilian were found guilty of the Crimes whereof he was accused, that he would pronounce an Anathema against him, tho he died in the Communion of the Church; and that it was ordain'd in a Synod of Africa, That the Catholicks who should leave their Possessions to a Heretick, should be anathema∣tized even after their death: That Dioscorus had been anathematiz'd by the Roman Church after his death, tho he had done nothing contrary to the Faith, but only to the Discipline of the Church: That if an impious Person dying in his Impiety could not be anathematized, then the Anathema pronounc'd against an innocent Person, if he died under it, could not be revok'd; and yet the con∣trary was very justly practised with respect to St. John Chrysostom.

Justinian did not only make this Edict, but would have it approv'd in a Synod of Bishops, and that it might have the more Authority, he caused one to be assembled at Constantinople, to which he addressed the Letter which is in Greek after the Edict of Justinian. In it he testifies, That the Em∣perors have always taken care to procure the Condemnation of Heresies, and to maintain the Faith and Peace of the Church, by calling Councils. He brings the Examples of Constantine, who had assembled that of Nice, of Theodosius who had call'd that of Constantinople, of Theodosius the younger, who had conven'd that of Ephesus against Nestorius, and of Martianus who had Summon'd one to be held at Chalcedon. He adds, That since the Celebration of these four Councils, the followers of Nestorius endeavoured to revive his Errors, by defending the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, of Theodoret and Ibas. He exhorts the Bishops to examine them, and to condemn them as impious.

The Council having receiv'd this Letter from the Emperor, made a Decree in these words: The Council of Chalcedon rebuk'd sharply Theodoret and Ibas, and did not receive them but upon conditi∣on that they should condemn their own Writings, together with Theodorus and Nestorius. And we now Condemn the Hereticks condemned and excommunicated in the preceding Councils, and toge∣ther with them Theodorus who was Bishop of Mopsuesta, and his impious Books: We condemn also what Theodoret has written amiss against the true Faith, against the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and against the Council of Ephesus for the Defence of Theodorus and Nestorius: We condemn also the Letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris Persanus, wherein he denies that the Word of God was born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God▪ and reckons St. Cyril for a Heretick: He accuses the first Synod of Ephesus, as having condemn'd Nestorius without knowledge of the Cause, &c. He rejects the twelve Chapters of St. Cyril, and defends the Opinions and Writings of Theodorus and Nestorius.

This is all that now remains of the first Council held in the Year 546 at Constantinople: In it there were other Anathematisms pronounced, which the Bishops were made to ▪sign. Facundus re∣ports one of them in the last Chapter of his fourth Book, wherein an Anathema is denounc'd against those who shall affirm, That this Decree was made to destroy the Authority of the Council of Chal∣cedon. This Decision being made without consulting the Bishop of Rome by a Cabal of the Enemies of Agapetus, could not be approv'd by those who were concern'd for the See of Rome. Mennas, who ow'd all that he had to this See, did not without much difficulty resolve to undertake it, and agree

to it; but the Authority of the Emperor had more power with him then the Interest of the Pope. Nevertheless to carry himself fair, between the one and th'other, he says, That he would not sign but upon condition that the Pope would approve what he did, otherwise he would withdraw his Subscription. This was the Answer which he gave to Stephen the Deacon and Surrogate of the Ro∣man Church, who being then at Constantinople, opposed this Condemnation. Zoilus of Alexandria made his Excuse to the Pope, that he was forc'd to Subscribe. Ephrem of Antiech had resolved not to sign, but that he was threatned to be turn'd out if he did not. Peter of Jerusalem, who at first declaim'd against the Condemnation of the three Chapters, yielded also▪ Lastly, many of the Bi∣shops Protested at their signing, and gave Declarations to the Deacon Stephen, that they did not do it freely. The Deacon Stephen immediately separated from the Communion of Mennas, and his Example was follow'd by some other Bishops.

The Pope Vigilius, who was coming to Constantinople, having receiv'd in Sicily the News of all that had pass'd, and being angry that the thing was done so quickly, and that they had not waited for his Coming before the Decree was made, wrote smartly against what was done, prais'd his Dea∣con for separating from the Communion of Mennas, and demanded that every thing which had been done in his absence, should be null'd, and threatned to be reveng'd for this Enterprize, if he did not receive satisfaction. These Threatnings were not vain, for being arrived at Constantinople on the twentieth of January in the Year 547, he separated from the Communion of Mennas, and the other Bishops who had sign'd the Condemnation of the three Chapters. Nevertheless some Months after having gone to Prayers with the Empress, he was reconcil'd to them, and receiv'd Mennas into his Communion, tho he continued stedfast in his first Resolution not to condemn the three Chapters. But he had not Constancy enough to resist for a long time the Promises and Threatnings of the Em∣press; for he agreed that the next year an Assembly should be held at Constantinople, wherein he caus'd Suffrages to be given in writing; and lastly, made a Decree call'd Judicatum, wherein he condemned the three Chapters, but with this Declaration, that he did not pretend to meddle with the Council of Chalcedon. Facundus and the other Bishops of Afric, as well as those of Illyria and Dalmatia, were much displeas'd with this Writing of Vigilius, and upon that account separated from his Communion. The Deacons Rusticus and Sebastianus openly attack'd his Decision, and every where accus'd him of violating the Council of Chalcedon. This rumor spreading into Gaul and Ita∣ly, Aurelianus of Arles wrote about it to Vigilius, who defended himself in two Letters, wherein he endeavour'd to show that he had done nothing against the Council of Chalcedon, and degraded Rusti∣cus and Sebastianus.

The Emperor, or rather Theodorus of Caesarea, were not satisfied with what the Pope had done. They wish'd that he had absolutely condemn'd the three Chapters without mentioning the Council of Chalcedon. The Pope for his part was troubled, that he had brought upon himself the hatred of al∣most all the Western Bishops. To bring this Affair to some Accommodation, Vigilius propos'd to the Emperor to summon a General Council to meet at Constantinople, to which the Bishops of Afric and Illyria should be cited, and in the mean time to leave things in the same state that they were before this Controversie, and for this end he withdrew his Judicatum, and the Subscriptions of the other Bishops, and he resolved that no more should be said of this Affair until the Meeting of the Coun∣cil. Vigilius thought he had found out a way to put a stop to this Contest; for the Bishops of Afric and Illyria had no Safe-conduct to come to Constantinople, where they foresaw that they should be forc'd to consent to the Will of the Emperor, and they not appearing, Vigilius had a good Excuse for not being present. In the mean time he had by way of Preparation, withdrawn for ever the Writing which had so much displeased the Occidentalists, and was free to take what side he would. But this Artifice did not succeed well, for the Emperor being provok'd with the Delays which the Bishops of Afric and Illyria made, and seeing that Vigilius had trapp'd him, caus'd an Edict which was made against the three Chapters, and was kept secret till then, to be publish'd at the beginning of the Year 551. Vigilius had presently recourse to the ordinary Weapons of Popes, by declaring those who should receive this Edict to be Excommunicated. He caus'd the same thing to be done also by Dacus of Milan.

'Tis easie to conceive the Anger in which Justinian was to see himself treated so harshly: And Vi∣gilius, to shun the Effects of it, retired into the Church of St. Peter. The Emperor sent thither an Officer who would have drawn him forth by force, but the People beat him back, so that Vigilius did not come out till the Emperor had promised him with an Oath that he would do him no hurt. After he had received this Promise he returned into the Palace of Placidia: But finding that they were continually drawing up Indictments, and making Snares for him, he withdrew by night to Chalce∣don to the Temple of St. Euphemia. The Emperor sent to him six Senators to perswade him to re∣turn, but neither they, nor Peter, the Master of Requests to the Church of Constantinople, could make him resolve to surrender himself to the Will of the Emperor; but on the contrary, he publish'd the Sentence of Excommunication against Theodorus of Caesarea, and of Suspension against Mennas, which he had given six Months before, and sent a Circular Letter wherein he represented the Mise∣ries which he was forc'd to endure.

This Firmness of Vigilius astonish'd his Adversaries, and made them take up a Resolution of hand∣ling things with more Moderation. They sent him therefore a Confession of Faith, wherein ha∣ving approv'd the Decrees of the first four General Councils, and the Letters of St. Leo, they consent

that all the Formularies made for the Condem••ation of the three Chapters, should be put into his hands. As to the Reproaches and ill Treatment he might have receiv'd, they disallow of them, and ask his pardon for communicating with those whom he had Excommunicated. This Formulary was sent to Vigilius by Mennas, Theodorus of Caesarea, Andrew of Ephesus, Theodorus of Antioch in Pi∣sidia, by Peter of Tarsus, and by many other Bishops, who did all sign it in a distinct Co∣py.

Vigilius having thus compass'd his Design return'd to Constantinople, towards the end of the year 552, where he receiv'd a second Confession of Faith, in the name of Eutychius, who succeeded Men∣nas lately deceas'd on the day of Theophany, i. e. on the sixth of January of the year 553. It was also sign'd by Apollinaris of Antioch, whom the Emperor had plac'd in the room of Zoilus, either because Zoilus would not sign the Edict of Condemnation of the three Chapters, as is reported in the Chronicle of Victor, or because Paul, to whom Zoilus succeeded, had given Money to the Emperor to remove him, in hopes of being restor'd to that See, as Procopius thinks in his Secret History. Howsoever it was, Vigilius who complain'd in his Sentence against Theodorus of the Deposition of Zoilus, and the Appointment of Apollinaris, acknowledges here Apollinaris to be a lawful Bishop by receiving his Confession of Faith; which shows the Inconstancy of this Pope. In short, Domnus the ancient Bishop of Antioch, Elias of Thessalonica, and all the other Bishops of the East, subscrib'd to this second Confession of Faith, in which they made the like distinction as in the former. In it they profess'd to adhere inviolably to the Faith decreed in the four first General Councils, and in the Let∣ters of the Popes, and particularly in those of St. Leo; and afterwards they desire, that since it is necessary to decide the Difference about the three Chapters for restoring Peace to the Church, that this Matter may be handled in an Assembly of Bishops where the Pope shall preside, and where things shall be treated of with that Meekness and Moderation which becomes Bishops. Petimus prae∣sidente nobis vestra Beatitudine, sub tranquilitate & Sacerdotali mansuetudine, communi tractatu eadem Capitula in medio proponenda quaeri & conferri, & finem quaestioni imponi.

The Pope Vigilius accepted this Proposition by his Letter January the sixth of the same year; but he desires that this Council may meet in Italy, or in Sicily, and that the Bishops of Afric, and the o∣ther Western Bishops, may be cited to come there. The Emperor not being willing to pass this▪ Article, it was determin'd that at least he should Summon to the Council those Western Bishops, whom Vigilius should signifie to him. In fine, sometime before Easter it was agreed, as Vigilius had said, That an equal number of Eastern and Western Bishops should be summon'd to meet and treat of this Affair.

The Emperor being vex'd that the thing was delay'd so long, and desiring to determine this Af∣fair to his own advantage, caus'd the Council to meet on the third of a 1.1 May, in the year 553. Eutychius the Patriarch of Constantinople held the first place in it; after him Apollinaris the Patriarch of Alexandria, Domnus the Patriarch of Antioch, two Bishops deputed from the Bishop of Jerusalem, and 147 Bishops dependents upon these Patriarchs b 1.2.

All these Bishops being assembled in the Episcopal Praetorium of Constantinople, Diodorus the Arch-deacon and chief of the Notaries, declar'd to them, That Theodorus, Gentleman of the Chamber, was sent in the Emperor's name to their Assembly, Eutychius having order'd that he should be admitted, he presented to the Synod a Letter from the Emperor. It was read in the Council. Here follow the Contents of it.

Justinian intending to prove that the Emperors did always take care to maintain the Faith of the Church in its purity, relates what pass'd in the four first General Councils by their Authority: Nei∣ther does he forget what he had done himself to support the Authority of the Council of Chalcedon, against the Followers of Nestorius and Eutyches, and to drive out of the Churches those who would not receive it. He adds, That a little while ago some Nestorians desiring to insinuate their Doctrine, and not being able to do it under the name of Nestorius, consulted how to do it under the name of Theodorus the Master of Nestorius, who had asserted Blasphemies and Impieties, even greater then that Heretick: That they had also made use of the Writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and of the impious Letter of Ibas, which, they say, was approv'd in the Council of Chalcedon, to cover their Impiety under the name of this Council, their design being to order the matter so, that it shall no more be said, That the Word of God was made Man, and that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. That to put a stop to the progress of this Heresie, he had consulted the Bishops about the three Chapters, and had condemn'd them; but that some Persons, intending still to maintain them, notwithstanding this Condemnation, he found himself oblig'd to call this Assembly, that they might * 1.3

once more decl••re what their Opi••ion was about this subject: That Vigilius having come from Rome to Constan••••nople, had carefully examin'd them, and condemn'd and anathematiz'd them ma∣ny times, even in writing. That he had also discover'd how firm and stedfast he was in this Judg∣ment, by condemning Rusticus and Sobastianus, who after they had at first receiv'd the Constitution which he made upon this subject, did ••e••ract what they had done, and defend the three Chapters: That he had also written upon this subject to Valentinian Bishop of Scythia, and to Aurelian Bishop of the Church of Arles, which is s••y•• the Emperor, the first Church of the Gauls: That after they were come to Constantinople, it was agreed with him, that a Council should be as∣sembled to treat of this Affair together: That in consequence of this he had declar'd to him by his Magistrates, that he should be present at the Assembly of Bishops, to condemn there with the rest the three Chapters; or to defend them if he thought they could be maintain'd: But he had made An∣swer, That he would acquaint the Emperor with his thoughts about the three Chapters; That he exhorted them also to treat of this matter in the Synod. He declares afterwards, That he receives the Decrees of the four first General Councils; that he rejects the Errors which did not agree with their Doctrine; that he follows the holy Doctors of the Church, viz. St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. ••regory N••zianzon, St. Gregory Nyssen, St. Ambrose, Theophilus, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril, St. Austin, Proc••••s, and St. Leo, and that he approved all that they had written for the Faith against Errors: That he own'd for Ca••••oli••••s those who believ'd what was decreed by the four first Gene∣ral Councils, and ••aught by the Holy Fathers. But since the Hereticks, who would vindicate Ne∣storius, dat'd to affirm 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Counc•••• of Chalced••n had approv'd Theodorus, he exhorts them upon this occasion, to ••••quire what was the Judgment of this Council, and of that at Ephesus; whether they did not anathematize the Creed of Theodorus, and whether he was not already condemn'd, and his name raz'd out of the Ecclesiastical Diptychs. He desires them also to examine, Whether we may not anathematize the dead, and whether the Examples of John and Flavianus does not prove that it may be done. In fine, He recommends to them the Examination of the Letter of Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret, and to compare the Doctrine with that of the Council of Chalcedon. He admonishes them above all things, to have nothing before their eyes but the fear of God, and the love of Truth, and to return him an Answer quickly, because when there is a long time taken to an∣swer about a matter of Faith, 'tis a ••••gn that the Person is not well dispos'd to maintain the Truth: And that moreover, when a Question or Answer about the Faith is handled, we must nei∣ther confider who is the first, nor who is the last, but that he who is most ready to answer is most acceptable to God: Which words are plainly written against Vigilius.

After the reading of this Letter, Theodorus was order'd to go forth; and the Letter of Eutychius to Vigilius, and the Answer of Vigilius to Eutychius were read, wherein the Pope had consented, that a Council should be held about the Affair of the three Chapters, and promis'd to be present at it. After which three Patriarchs were sent Deputies to him, with the most considerable Bishops of the Council, to invite him to come to the Assembly. He answer'd them, That he could give no Answer to day, because of his Indisposition, but he would acquaint them to morrow what he thought of their Assembly. The Deputies came to report this to the Council, and the matter was delay'd till to morrow. This is what pass'd on the first Collation or Conference of the Council held on the third of May.

The second Conference was on the eighth of the same Month. The Deputies reported, That be∣ing to wait upon Pope Vigilius on the sixth of May to know his Answer, be told them, That he could not assemble with them, because there was a very great number of Eastern Bishops, and he had but a few We••••ern Bishops with him: That they had remonstrated to him, that he had promis'd and subsorib'd that he would be present at their Assembly; that it was not necessary there should be at the Council a considerable number of Western Bishops; that there had been but few in the greater part of the preceding General Councils; that he had with him the Bishops of Afric and Illyria: That notwithstanding this, Vigilius could not resolve to come to their Assembly, but that he had propos'd that the three Patriarchs should come with a fourth Bishop, who should find with him three Western Bishops, and that they together might regulate these matters: That they had represented to him how indecent it would be, that three Patriarchs should have only one Bishop with them, and that eight Bishops alone should make Synodical Decrees, while there was a very great number of them in the Assembly: That having press'd him to answer, he had desir'd of them twenty days de∣lay, in which time he had promis'd to discover his mind and will, and if he should not do it, he would follow their Opinion: That they had made answer to him that it was not fit to abuse thus the Patience of the Emperor, and to give Scandal to the People: That now this Cause had conti∣nued already for the space of seven years; that they were urg'd in the Emperor's name to give a speedy Answer; that he ought not to refuse to come to the Assembly to treat there of this Affair with them: That at least he should promise them, that if he did not in twenty days remove the Scandal which he had given in defending the three Chapters, he should not separate from their Communion: That they could not draw from him any other Answer upon this Subject: That they had promis'd to report these Answers to the Emperor; that having done it, the Emperor had sent with them Ma∣gistrates to the Pope.

These Magistrates appear'd here at Council, and declar'd, That they had twice waited upon Vi∣gilius in the Emperor's Name, and that he had told them, that he had no other Answer to give them, but what they might find at the Council, where he should have liberty to say what he would for the Prohibition of the three Chapters. That Vigilius had often answer'd them, that he would give his Opinion alone: That they had told him, that he had many times already condemn'd the three Chapters in private by himself, but the design of the Emperor was, that he should be present at Council, that there the Matter might receive a publick decision by common consent. That as to the delay it should be granted him, and even a greater then he had desir▪d, provided he would pro∣mise to treat of this Affair in the publick Assembly; but if he would give his Decision in private, the Emperor would also know the private Judgment of other Bishops. That notwithstanding all this, the Pope continued firm in his first Resolution. This Report was confirm'd by the Bishops that were deputed, and the Magistrates withdrew after they had exhorted the Bishops to determine this Affair speedily. When they had withdrawn, the Council order'd four Western Bishops to be cited, who were at Constantinople, viz. Primasius of the Province of Byzacena in Afric, Sabinianus and Pro∣jectus of Illyria, and Paul the Bishop of the second Justinianea. The first answer'd, That he would not come to the Synod where the Pope was not; and the others excus'd themselves because their Archbishop was not there. These Answers being reported to the Synod, it disapproved of their Con∣duct; and as to Primasius it declar'd, that they would handle him according to the rigor of the Ca∣nons, in due time and place: As to the other three, that they should have leave to go and find out their Archbishop Benenatus, who communicated with the Bishops of the Council, and who had also deputed a Bishop of his Diocese, call'd Phocas, who was present at the Council. This Matter being thus order'd, they put off the Affair till the morrow.

They did not again debate the Question about the three Chapters, but only made a Profession, That they do embrace the Faith of the four General Councils, and follow the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers. This is all that there is in the third Conference. They use almost the same words that the Emperor made use of.

In the fourth Conference held on the twelfth of May, the Examination of the Affair for which the Council was assembled, begun, by the Reading of many Extracts taken out of the Books of Theo∣dorus of Mopsuesta. The Creed was also read which was attributed to him, and is reported in the Council of Ephesus. When this was ended, the Bishops without any further Examination did all cry out, Anathema against the Writings, against the Creed, and against the Person of Theodorus, an A∣nathema to those who do not Anathematize him. After many Acclamations of this kind, among which it was not forgotten to wish a long Life to the Emperor, it was determin'd, That tho the Blas∣phemies of Theodorus which they had just now read, were more then sufficient to procure his Con∣demnation, yet it was convenient to enquire further, what there was against him: which was put off to another Assembly.

It was held the next day according to some, according to others it was delay'd to the seventeenth of the same Month. However this were, in this Session were read the Testimonies which could be found against Theodorus of Mopsuesta. Here follows a Catalogue of them. 1. Extracts out of a Book of St. Cyril against Theodorus. 2. A Libel presented to Proclus of Constantinople, by the Priests and Deacons who call'd themselves the Deputies of the Churches of Armenia, Perfis, and other Na∣tions, who accuse him of having preach'd in their Houses Nestorianism. 3. An Extract out of the Answer of Proclus, who condemns sufficiently in general the Error of Nestorius, and blames those who sow bad Doctrines, yet without saying any thing against Theodorus. 4. Five Letters of St. Cyril against Theodorus. 5. An Extract out of the Ecclesiastical History of Hesychius a Priest of Jerusa∣lem, who affirms, That Theodorus of Mopsuesta is he to whom St. Chrysostom wrote two Books, per∣swading him to forsake his disorderly Courses, who accuses him of being void of all Piety, and de∣nying that the Word was truly Incarnate. 6. Two Laws of the Emperors Theodosius and Valenti∣nian against the followers of Nestorius, where Theodorus is joyn'd with this Heretick. 7. A Letter of Theophilus against those who maintain the Heresie of Nestorius, where it was pretended that he speaks of Theodorus. 8. A Letter of St. Gregory Nyssen to Theophilus, against them who writing a∣gaing Apollinarius, fall into the Error of Nestorius. 9. Some Extracts out of the Writings of Theo∣doret, which prove that Theodorus was accus'd by St. Cyril. 10. An Extract out of the Treatise of St. Cyril against Theodorus, where he commends the diligence of this Author, and condemns his impious Doctrine.

After this, some Letters of St. Gregory Nazianzen address'd to a Bishop call'd Theodorus, were ex∣amin'd; and it was prov'd both by the Letters themselves, and by the Testimony of the Bishops, that they were written to Theodorus of Tyana, and not to Theodorus of Mopsuesta.

Lastly, This other Question was debated, Whether we may condemn the dead. At first two passages of St. Cyril of an indefinite sense were recited, which prov'd nothing. But Sextilianus Bi∣shop of Afric, being deputed from Primosus Bishop of Carthage, related many passages of St. Austin to show, that the dead may be condemned, who were not condemned during their life. After∣wards Benignus Bishop of Heraclea, being deputed from the Bishop of Thessalonica, alledg'd some Examples of this Practice very unlikely; and added, that Theodorus himself had been condemned after his death, by Rambulas Bishopof Edessa.

This Question being thus decided, a Letter of St. Cyril was examin'd, which was supposed to be written to John of Antioch, wherein he says, That he ought not to separate from the Communion of Theod••rus; and some pretend that it was convicted of Forgery, by repeating many other Let∣ters of St. Cyril; wherein he does openly condemn Theodorus. To these Testimonies of St. Cyril was added that of Proclus of Constantinople, and the Testimonies of St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom, which appear'd favourable to Theodorus, were evaded, by observing that the Fathers did some times praise Hereticks thro Ignorance.

One of the chief Monuments inserted into this Conference is an Enquiry made by a Council held in the year 550, to know whether the name of Theodorus of Mopsuesta was in the Diptychs. Here the whole Acts are related, at the beginning of which there are two Letters of the Emperor Justini∣an; one to John of Anazarbus, wherein he gives him order to call the Synod; and the other to Cos∣mas Bishop of Mopsuesta, wherein he acquaints him that he had given him this Order. Eight Bishops of the Province were present there, together with John of Justinianople their Metropolitan. The Priests, the elder Inhabitants, and the Churchwardens were sent for. In the first place the Diptychs were demanded of the Churchwarden. He presented those which he now made use of, and two Rolls more ancient. In them were read the names of the Bishops of Mopsuesta, since the Faith of Nice was restor'd to Mopsuesta. The name of one Theodorus was found in two of these Diptychs, and it was not found in the last. This place of History informs us both of the Succession of Bishops, and of the Form of the Dyptychs. It is express'd in these words: Pro requiescentibus Episcopis Pro∣togene, Zozimo, Olympio, Cyrillo, Thomas, Bassiano, Joanne, Auxentio, Palatino, Jacobo, Theo∣doro, Simione. Afterwards the Priests and ancient People are ask'd, and they do all unanimously depose, That they have never heard the name of the old Theodorus read in the Diptychs, but that they do well remember that of Cyril; and that the Theodorus, whose name was in the Diptychs, was ano∣ther Theodorus of Galatia, who died about three years ago. The Bishops made an Act of these things, and wrote of them to the Emperor, and to the Pope Vigilius.

This Conference of the fifth Council ended with the reading of the Extracts taken out of the Books of Theodoret, which are thought to favour too much the Error of Nestorius. In them was found a Letter address'd to John of Antioch, which was pretended to be against the Memory of St. Cyril. Some have thought it supposititious, as well because of the sharp style wherein it was written, as because it is probable that St. Cyril did not die till after John. Mr. de Marca thinks that Domnus should be put instead of John; but it is not certain that he speaks of St. Cyril in this Letter; on the contrary, he of whom Theodoret speaks was a Bishop in the Diocese of Antioch. Procurandum, says he to John of Antioch, & oportet tuam sanctitatem hanc suscipere festinantiam, & Jubere Collegio mor∣tuos asportantium, lapidem aliquem maximum & gravissimum sepulchro imponere, ne iterum perveniret.

The sixth Conference on the nineteenth of May, begun with the reading of the Letter of Ibas to Maris of Persis, written upon occasion of the Differences which were between St. Cyril of Alexan∣dria and the Eastern Bishops. In it he supposes that Nestorius and St. Cyril had fall'n into two oppo∣site Errors: That the latter had affirm'd there was but one Nature in Jesus Christ, and that Nesto∣rius having deny'd that the Virgin was the Mother of God, had given occasion to believe that he follow'd the Sentiment of Paulus Samosatenus: That the Doctrine of the Church is, that there are two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ. That the Emperor had assembled a Council at Ephesus about the Contests between St. Cyril and Nestorius: That St. Cyril being arriv'd at Ephesus before John of Antioch and the Orientalists, had procur'd the condemnation of Nestorius, and the approbation of his 12 Chapters: That John of Antioch and the Orientalists being arriv'd, had done the quite contrary by condemning the Chapters of St. Cyril, & deposing him, and excommunicating the Bishops who comply'd with his desires; that both of them had withdrawn without being reconcil'd; that thus the Eastern Bi∣shops had continued in a Separation from those of the other Dioceses; that this had given a great Scandal to the Church, and that many Bishops under a pretence of being zealous for the Faith, che∣rished Divisions, and made cruel Wars one upon another; that among the rest a Bishop in their Quarters (of Edessa) whom he calls a Tyrant, had cruelly reproach'd the Memory of Theodorus, be∣ing mov'd by a secret hatred which he had to him: That the Emperor desiring to put an end to these Commotions, had perswaded John of Antioch to be reconcil'd to St. Cyril: That he had sent to him Paul Bishop of Emesa, with a Confession of Faith, and an Order to Communicate with him, if he would consent to it; and if he would Anathematize those who said that the Divinity of Jesus Christ had suffer'd, and that the Divinity and Humanity are in him only one Nature: That God had touch'd the heart of this Egyptian, that he had satisfied the desires of John of Antioch, and that these two Bishops being reconcil'd, Peace was restor'd to the Church. These are the principal Points contain'd in the Letter of Ibas, which indeed is not written in a very respectful manner towards St. Cyril, but it contains nothing but what is very Orthodox.

Afterwards was read a Letter of Proclus, wherein it appear'd that Ibas had been accus'd of tran∣slating into Syriack, and publishing the Nestorian Propositions which Proclus had condemn'd, and which he had sent to John of Antioch, that he might be oblig'd to retract them, and to make a Pro∣fession of the Faith of the Church. After the reading of this Letter, Theodorus added, That after the death of John, the same Accusers of Ibas address'd themselves to Domnus his Successor, and that Domnus refusing to hearken to them, they came to wait upon the Emperor and Flavian the Bishop, Successor to Proclus in the See of Constantinople, who had referr'd this Affair. 'Tis remarkable that

this Reference is attributed as well to the Emperor as to the Patriarch. Precibus susceptu, tam divi∣nae re••••rdationis Theodasius, quam Flavianus sanctae memoriae, delegaverlint examinationem, who had referr'd, I say, the decision of this Accusation to Photius of Tyre, and Eutycbius of Berytus, and ap∣pointed for putting this Order in Execution on behalf of the Emperor Damascius, and on behalf of Flavian Eulogius the Deacon, who caus'd Ibas and his Accusers to appear before the two Bishops that were nominated: That Ibas being accus'd of taxing St. Cyril and his Chapters of Heresie, and of despising the Council of Ephesus, as having judg'd without mature Examination of the Matter under consideration, declar'd, That since the Reconciliation he had never spoken ill of St. Cyril, but only before he was reconcil'd to John of Antioch. The Judges ordain'd that Ibas should return to Edessa, and that he should Anathematize Nestorius, and receive the Council of Ephesus as a lawful Council, and of equal Authority with that of Nice: That Ibas refusing to obey this Sentence, was depos'd as well as Domnus, and that even Nonnus, who was ordain'd in his room, was present at the Council of Chalcedon, as a lawful Bishop: That in this Council of Chalcedon his Letter was read, but not at all approv'd; that on the contrary the decision of Photius and Eustathius was confirm'd, who oblig'd Ibas to make Profession of the contrary to that which was affirm'd in his Letter; and that the greater part of the Bishops had receiv'd Ibas as a Penitent, in consequence of the Declaration which he had made, that he condemned Nestorius, and was troubled with remorse for the evil he had spoken of St. Cyril. After Theodorus had finish'd this Relation, then were read the Passages of the Acts of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, wherein they treat of the Faith of the Church about the Incarnation, and after that the Decree of Faith made by the Council of Chalcedon, was compar'd with some places of the Letter of Ibas, and it was pretended that there were manifest Contradictions between them. Indeed there are such found in that part which concerns the Memory of St. Cyril, and the Authority of the Council of Ephesus, and it may be also in some ways of expressi∣on; but as to the substance, the Doctrine is the same. Nevertheless, here the Letter of Ibas was condemn'd as Heretical and Blasphemous; and this Conference ended with the same kind of Accla∣mations as the former.

While the Council was thus preparing to condemn the three Chapters, Pope Vigilius sent his O∣pinion in Writing to the Emperor, as he had promised: This Act is call'd Constitutum. After he has related what had pass'd since it was agreed to hold a Council about the three Chapters, and the Reasons which he had for refusing to be present in the Assembly of the Eastern Bishops, he tran∣scribes sixty Extracts out of the Books of Theodorus, which were condemn'd in the third Session of this Council, and condemns them in the bad sense which they are capable of. Yet he spares the Person of Theodorus because he died in the Communion of the Church; and pretends that in this he follows the Conduct and Example of St. Cyril, of Proclus, and of the Councils of Ephesus and Chal∣cedon. He maintains that there is a Canon against condemning those who die in Communion; and shows that it is the Practice of the Roman Church, by reciting the Authorities of the Popes, St. Leo and Gelasius, who affirm that we can neither condemn nor absolve the dead. He adds, that the Ro∣man Church had not derogated from this Custom in the Affair of St. Chrysostom, nor in that of Fla∣vianus, since they died in her Communion. He quotes also an Example of Denys of Alexandria, taken out of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, wherein it appears that this Bishop had condemn'd the Doctrine of Nepos, about the Reign of Jesus Christ on Earth for a thousand years, without med∣ling with his Person, because he died in the Communion of the Church. As to the Writings of Theo∣ret, he thinks, That since the Council of Chalcedon requir'd nothing more of him, but only to A∣nathematize Nestorius, it was not convenient for them to do any thing more against him, and that it was sufficient to condemn in general the Writings and Doctrines that favour'd the Nestorians and Eutychians, without mentioning the Writings of those Bishops who died in the Communion of the Church. Lastly, That as to Ibas, the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon having receiv'd and ap∣prov'd him, after the reading of his Letter, which was Orthodox, altho by a mistake in matter of Fact it condemn'd St. Cyril, his Letter could not be condemn'd as Heretical, without violating the Decision of that Council. Lastly, Vigilius confirms the Authority of that Council, and exhorts the Emperor to leave things in the same state as that Council left them, without changing or adding any thing to it. He forbids all Persons, by the Authority of the Holy Apostolical See to say or write any thing against what he had now propos'd concerning the three Chapters. This Decree was sign'd by nineteen Bishops, and is dated the fourteenth of May.

The Emperor, without being stopp'd by this Decision, caus'd the Examination of the Affair of the three Chapters to be still continued, and that he might oppose the Authority of Vigilius to Vigi∣lius himself, he caus'd three Letters of Vigilius to be read in the seventh Conference of this Council, wherein he expresly approv'd the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and condemn'd them him∣self. The first of these three Letters is to Rusticus, and to Sebastianus a Deacon, whom he sharply reproves, because they had blam'd his Conduct for having condemn'd the three Chapters: The se∣cond is to Valerian Bishop of Tomi; and the third to Aurelian Bishop of Arles.

Mr. Baluzius has publish'd from a Manuscript of Mr. Joly two other Letters of the same Pope; address'd to the Emperor and the Empress, wherein he declares that he is no Heretick, and that he never was; that he demands the Rights and Prerogatives due to his See; that he will by no means defend Hereticks, and that he Anathematizes the Letter of Ibas, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Person of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, and that he believes there is in Jesus Christ only one Substance, one Person, and one Operation.

These Letters were produc'd in the sixth Council at Sess. 13 and 14, but the Pope's Legats accus'd them of Forgery; and after Examination of the Matter, they were found to be in the Greek Copy of the fifth Council, which was in the Archieves of the Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, but they were not to be found in the Latin Copy, and it appear'd that the Patriarch Paul had caus'd them to be translated and copied out in a new Roll, which he had added to the ancient Version of this Council. Justinian makes mention of these Letters in his Epistle to the fifth Council. Last∣ly, Facundus and Victor do assure us, That Vigilius had condemn'd the three Chapters to please the Emperor and Empress, according to his Oath before his Ordination; insomuch that it was look'd upon as a thing most evident, that these Letters were Vigilius's. But it is not so certain that they were read and inserted into the fifth Council, and it may be that they were afterwards added. The same Judgment is to be made of the Oath to condemn the three Chapters taken by Vigilius in the presence of Theodorus of Caesarea, and Patricius Cethegus, which is also found in the Manuscript of Mr. Joly, and which Mr. Baluzius has also publish'd, to supply the omission of those who had the care of publishing the Councils, who pass'd it by, altho they had seen the Manuscript of Mr. Joly.

At the same Conference there was also read by the Emperor's Order, a Letter which was written about some Ecclesiasticks, who had solemnly carried about in the Church of Cyrus an Image of Theo∣doret, and had made a Commemoration of him, of Diodorus, of Theodorus and Nestorius. By this Letter the Emperor order'd Hypatius to inform himself of the Matter of Fact, and to enquire whe∣ther Sergius Bishop of Cyrus had not approv'd this proceeding. 'Tis said, that this being found that he had done it, Sergius was turn'd out of his Church. After the reading of this Letter, the Fathers commended the good Intentions of the Emperor, who shall be, say they, rewarded by the Divine Goodness in another Life, and for which end we offer up our Prayers in this Life. The finishing of the Affair about the three Chapters was put off to another day.

There is also in the Manuscript of Mr. Joly a Letter of the Emperor against Vigilius, wherein he forbids to place his Name in the Diptychs. This Letter being dated July the fourteenth, is po∣sterior to this Conference which was on the six and twentieth of May, and to the next, which was on the second of June; which proves evidently that the Letter was never read in the Council, but inserted afterwards when it was reduc'd into Acts.

In the eighth and last Conference, after they have prov'd the necessity of Ecclesiastical Assem∣blies and Conferences for the Decision of Matters of Faith, by the Example of the Apostles, and the four first Councils, they make a Recapitulation in a few words of all that had been done till that time.

This Recapitulation being ended, they made Profession of receiving the four first General Coun∣cils, and of Anathematizing the Errors and Persons whom they condemn'd, and to whom were ad∣ded the Person and the Writings of Theodorus, the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, who are Anathematiz'd, together with those who undertake to write in Defence of these three Ar∣ticles.

This General Decree was follow'd with fourteen Anathema's against many particular Errors, chiefly about the Incarnation. The three last contain yet more formally the Condemnation of the three Chapters, whose Defenders are also anathematiz'd.

Mr. Baluzius has also publish'd fifteen other Anathematisms against the Errors of the Origenians concerning the Souls of Men. If it were evident that these Chapters were made by the fifth Gene∣ral Council, it would be past all doubt that the Affair of Origen was decided there. But this is a Question which has difficulties on both sides: 'Tis certain that in the eight Conferences of the Coun∣cil, there is no mention of any other Business but only that of the three Chapters, and that the Af∣fair of Origen was not at all inquir'd into. Now there is no probability that after these three were held two others Assemblies, as some suppose without any foundation; and it is so much the less pro∣bable, because Evagrius, who has made an Abridgment of this Council, says nothing of them in Canon 11. of the eighth Conference, and because Origen is plac'd in the number of Hereticks al∣ready condemn'd, and Theodorus speaks of him in the same manner in Conference 5. But on the other side, the seventh General Council, and all the Greek Historians, do testifie, That the Cause of Origen, of Evagrius, and of Didymus, was decided in the fifth Council, and that their Writings were there examin'd and condemn'd. Yet 'tis easie to reconcile this apparent Contradiction, by re∣flecting on what we have said after Liberatus: That in the year 540 the Emperor made an Edict against the Writings of Origen, and caus'd his Doctrine to be condemn'd in a Synod held at Con∣stantinople under Mennas. In this Synod it was that the Cause of Origen, of Didymus and Evagri∣us was examin'd, and the Acts of this Council being joyn'd to those of the Council held for the Condemnation of the three Chapters, as well as the Acts of the Synod of Mennas against Anthimus, Severus, Peter and Zoaras; what was done by these three Councils, was look'd upon as done by one and the same, to which the name of the fifth General Council was given. Photius sufficiently disco∣vers this in his first Letter to Michel Duke of Bulgaria, where 'tis said that Mennas and Eutychius presided one after another in the fifth Council, and that in it the three Chapters were condemn'd, together with Origine and Didymus, Anthimus, Severus, and Zoaras. The same Condemnations are attributed to the fifth Council in the Profession of the Popes, which is related in the Diurnus Romano∣rum Pontificum, publish'd by Father Garneus. Sophronius the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Syno∣dical

Letter to Sergius, which is related in the sixth Council, speaking of the fifth Council, places the Condemnation of Origen and Evagrius, before that of the three Chapters, which discovers that it was done in the preceding Council. Constantinus Pogonatus confirm'd the sixth Council, Act 18. Cedrenus and the other Greek Writers follow the same Order. Lastly, Evagrius, and the other Greek Historians, who say that Origen was condemn'd in the fifth Council, suppose that the Edict of Justinian against Origen was address'd to this Council: Now 'tis certain that this was to the Sy∣nod held under Mennas, before that Vigilius was at Constantinople. 'Tis manifest therefore, that what they say of the Condemnation of Origen in the fifth Council, concerns what pass'd in the Council held in 540 under Mennas, which made a part of the fifth Council. And in effect, Binius observes that he found in a Manuscript Acts of the Council held against Anthimus, entituled, Acta Synodi V. Const. and in the Latin Collections, whatsoever concerns these three Synods, is attributed to the fifth General Council, which is said to have been held under Silverius and Vigilius. The same is to be said of the Greek Canons against Origen, which are attributed to the fifth Council in the Title, be∣cause they belong to the Council held under Mennas against Origen.

Vigilius refusing to appear in the Synod, and much more to approve its Decision, was banish'd by the Emperor's Order, who commanded, as we have already observed, that his Name should be raz'd out of the Diptychs. But this Pope being always inconstant according to his old want, quick∣ly chang'd his Opinion and Resolution; For on the eighth of December he wrote a Letter to Euty∣chius, wherein he blam'd the Conduct he had observ'd, in refusing to be present at the Council, and retracted what he had written in Defence of the three Chapters, which he condemn'd in very sharp terms, and pronounc'd an Anathema against those who should defend them. Some thought that this Letter was supposititious, because it is very submissive, and Vigilius speaks in it very much to his own disadvantage. But this Conjecture is very weak. His natural Inconstancy, the state to which he was reduc'd, the desire he had to come out of Exile, the necessity of satisfying the Emperor, &c. might determine him to write this Letter. Who knows also but it might be suggested to him by Eutychius or Theodorus? Moreover, it contains no sign of Forgery. It was transcribed more then 400 years ago by a Greek Copy from a Manuscript of the Library of the Church of Rome, where it had been kept since the year 753. Besides, it is prov'd by the Testmonies of Photius, and by a Title which is found in an Ancient Arabick Collection, that Pope Vigilius approv'd what was done by the fifth General Council about the Affair of the three Chapters. This seems also to be the sense of the Letter of Pope Pelagius to the Bishops of Istria. And moreover, Justinian had never suffer'd him to return from Banishment, if he had not submitted to his Will. But altho the Letter be the first Act of Consent given by Vigilius to the fifth Council, yet it is not the only one: For we have one much longer and more authentick, publish'd a little while ago by Mr. Baluzius from a Manuscript of the Library of Mr. Colbert. It is a most precious and excellent Monument; 'tis dated Febr. 23. in the year 554. 'Tis probable that Vigilius compos'd it after he was return'd from his Banishment. There he recites in the first place the Acts of the fifth Session of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Letter of St. Leo. After this he repeats what pass'd there upon occasion of the Letter of Ibas, and endeavours to show, against what was establish'd in the preceding Constitution, that the Council believ'd the Letter of Ibas to be Heretical, and refutes the Reasons which might be alledg'd to prove the contrary. After he has made a long Dissertation upon this first Chapter, he enlarges much less upon the Condemnation of Theodorus, from which he did not much differ before, and says very lit∣tle of the Writings of Theodoret. Lastly, He anathematizes Theodorus, the Letter of Ibas, and the Writings of Theodoret, and all those who would maintain them, and declares all that he had done and written himself in their Defence to be null and void.

This is the last Constitution of Vigilius about the three Chapters. He continued some time after in the East, and died in the year 558, as he was returning to Italy. Pelagius was ordain'd in his room, whom the Emperor call'd back from Banishment he had endur'd for defending the three Chapters, after he had promis'd to condemn them if he was chosen Pope. The Emperor spar'd not the other Bishops in the West who would not sign the Condemnation of the three Chapters. He caused Reparatus Bishop of Carthage to be turn'd out, and Primasius to be ordain'd in his room, who presently condemn'd the three Chapters. This Man persecuted the African Bishops who would not communicate with him, and prevail'd so far, that he made the greater part of the Africans to con∣sent to it. In Illyria the Bishops were divided in their Opinions. Benenatus Archbishop of Thessa∣lonica, condemn'd the three Chapters: The greater part of the other Bishops of Illyria defended them, and even separated from the Communion of Benenatus upon this occasion. The Bishops of Italy did not much concern themselves in this Controversie; where only some Deacons and Priests defended the three Chapters, who for the most were banish'd. The Bishops of Tuscany resisted long enough, as we learn from the sixth Letter of Pelagius. In the Gauls there was none almost but Da∣cus, the Bishop of Milan, who was concern'd in this Affair, and as he had followed Vigilius in de∣fending the three Chapters, so when he saw him abandon the Cause, he yielded: But the Bishops of Istria and Liguria, who were under the Dominion of the Lombards, fearing no Persecution from the Emperor, maintain'd the three Chapters with much boldness.

Thus I have given an account in a few words of every thing almost that was done about the Affair of the three Chapters in the East and in the West: where you may see the Church in a won∣derful Confusion for a matter of a very small consequence. For what was the advantage of con∣demning

the three Chapters? and why were they defended with so much stiffness? Those who con∣demn'd them, and those who maintain'd them, made Profession of the same Faith, they acknow∣ledg'd the same Councils, they protested that they adhered to the Decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. Why then did they not live in Peace with one another? Why do they Condemn, why do they Ex∣communicate, why do they Persecute one another? It had been much better for the Church, if Theodorus had never invented the Condemnation of the three Chapters, and if the Emperor Justi∣nian had never resolv'd to have them condemn'd by all the Bishops, whether they would or no: Then the Church had enjoy'd a Profound Peace, then many holy Bishops both of the East and West had never been remov'd from the Government of their Diocese, to attend frivolous Disputes; many great Persons, who were capable of doing very good Service to the Church, had never been banish'd, persecuted and forc'd away. Lastly, Then the People had not been scandaliz'd with seeing such a deadly Division in the Church, and so great Animosities among its Pastors. If any ask who were to be blam'd at the bottom, those who condemn'd, or those who defended the three Chapters, it is a Question very intricate, and very difficult to be resolv'd: For if it was so obscure ••nd knot∣ty at the time when it was debated, with what darkness and difficulties will it not be envelopp'd now? yet it may be, that we being free from those Passions which disturb'd the Minds of Men at that time, may judge of it more soundly then they. But besides, that these Passions are not yet extinct, and Prejudice makes us engage with some warmth for the Interest of the Dead, we have not now the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, which caus'd a great Contest; neither have we a perfect knowledge how the Churches stood effected with respect to Theodoret and Ibas. Neverthe∣less let us try to say something about it which appears to us most reasonable, without obliging any Per∣son to submit to our Judgment.

First, As to the Writings of Theodorus of Mopsuesta, 'tis certain that they were full of very harsh Expressions, and which seem'd to favour the Opinion of those who admitted two Persons in Jesus Christ. But as he wrote before the Condemnation of the Error of Nestorius, it seems that these Expressions should be pardon'd him, especially since the like are found in other Authors, and he in other places profess'd to acknowledge one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ.

As to his Person, supposing that his Dogmes were damnable, and that he had asserted manifest Impieties; It may be asked, Whether it were lawful to condemn and anathematize him after his Death, who deceas'd in the Communion of the Church? 'Tis certain that the Church cannot, pro∣perly speaking, condemn nor absolve the Dead; i. e. remove them from, or restore them to the Commu∣nion of the Church: For this Communion consisting in the Participation of the Sacraments, and in o∣ther Offices which the Faithful do to one another, 'tis impossible to refuse or grant this Communion to the Dead. All that can be done in this Case, is to signifie that Respect or Hatred is due to their Me∣mory, by pronouncing an Anathema against them, or by declaring that they were unjustly Ana∣thematiz'd during their Life; by putting their Name into the Diptychs of the Church, or by cau∣sing their Name to be blotted out of the Ecclesiastical Tables. There is no doubt but in this sense the Church can Absolve and Condemn the Dead, by restoring them to, or removing them from this kind of Communion, which, properly speaking, is no true Communion. But whether she ought to do it or no, this is not so very clear. The Practice of the Church of Afric was for it, that of the Church of Rome was against it. It seems to be more Human and Natural, not to meddle with the Memory of the Dead, and to leave them all that Reputation wherewith they departed out of this Life: But then is it also just to suffer the Memory of an innocent Person to continue under Reproach, because he was unjustly condemn'd in his Life-time? Is it fit to suffer a wicked and impious Person to enjoy that Reputation which he never deserv'd? I think that when the thing is clear and evident, we should declare for the Truth: But in a doubtful Case it is better to leave things as they are.

As to the Chapter concerning the Letter of Ibas, there is no doubt but that it is reproachful a∣gainst St. Cyril, and even against the Council of Ephesus; but then we must not condemn it as He∣retical upon that account. The Council of Chalcedon did not formally approve it; but tolerated it, and look'd upon it as a Proof of the Orthodox Faith of Ibas, since at the same time that he did most oppose St. Cyril, he made this Profession, That there was but one Person and two Natures in Jesus Christ.

As to the Writings of Theodoret, they ought not to be condemn'd as Heretical: For tho this Au∣thor did never approve the Anathematisms of St. Cyril, and had defended the Person of Nestorius; yet he always rejected his Error. And therefore the most that he can be accus'd of, is his being too partial, his not understanding aright the Sentiment of St. Cyril; but he cannot be accus'd of being an Heretick. And indeed, if John of Antioch, and the Orientalists, were not oblig'd to approve the Anathematisms of St. Cyril, if they were not forc'd to retract what they had said and written be∣fore the Union, why is Theodoret treated more harshly. Lastly, The Council of Chalcedon having ne∣ver requir'd Theodoret to retract his Writings, it was needless to condemn them.

Nevertheless it must be confess'd, That the fifth Council having condemn'd the three Chapters, and the greatest part of all the Bishops in the World, having subscrib'd this Condemnation, it was conve∣nient for Peace-sake to agree to it, and that those behav'd themselves very ill, who did not only obsti∣nately refuse to subscribe this Condemnation, but also separated from the Communion of those who sign'd it. For nothing is more to be desir'd then Peace; and many times it is very fit to sacrifice out private Interests for the Repose and Tranquality of the Church.

Notes

• a 1.1

  There it is, 4to Nonas, which is the 2d, but it must be corrected according to the Manuscript of Mr. Joly, 30 Nonas, which is the 3d, being a Sunday. This Correction is prov'd, because the Deputies sent to Vi∣gilius, were sent to him on the day of this Confe∣rence, two days before the second Session.
• b 1.2

  So it must be read and understood, in secretario venerabilis Episcopi hujus regiae Civitatis: & Secreta∣rium, is properly the Tribunal of the Patriarch of Constantinople. There were two of them at Constan∣tinople, as is observ'd by Mr. du Cange, whose death hath afflicted all learn'd Men, who cannot sufficiently regret so great a loss.
• * 1.3

  (c) Silenciers were considerable Officers of the Emperor, who entred into his secret Chamber, which was call'd Silentium, as who should say, the Gentle∣men of the Chamber.