older than himself, and had been handed down CENT. from the earliest times of the Christian church; V. and for this reason they absolutely refused the PART II. title of Nestorians. And, indeed, if we examine the matter attentively, we shall find, that Barsumas and his followers, instead of teaching their disciples precisely the doctrine of Nestorius, rather polished and improved his uncouth system to their own taste, and added to it several tenets of which the good man never dreamt.

XIII. A violent aversion to the Nestorian errors The Eutyled many into the opposite extreme. This was chian sect. the case with the famous Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at Constantinople, and founder of a sect, which was in direct opposition to that of Nestorius, yet equally prejudicial to the interests of the Christian church, by the pestilential discords and animosities it produced. The opinions of this new faction shot like lightning through the east; and it acquired such strength in its progress, as to create much uneasiness both to the Greeks and Nestorians, whose most vigorous efforts were not sufficient to prevent its rising to a high degree of credit and splendor. Eutyches began these troubles, A. D. 448, when he was far advanced in years; and to exert his utmost force and vehemence in opposing the progress of the Nestorian doctrine, he expressed his sentiments concerning the person of Christ in the very terms which the Egyptians made use of for that purpose, and taught, that in Christ there was but one nature, viz. that of the incarnate word [a]. Hence he was thought to

[a] That Cyril expressed himself in this manner, and appealed, for his justification in so doing, to the authority of Athanasius, is evident beyond all possibility of contradiction. But it is uncertain whether or no this manner of expression was adopted by Athanasius, since many are of

V.

CENT. deny the existence of the human nature in Christ, and was accused of this, by Eusebius of Dorylæum, PART II, in the council that was assembled by Flavianus at Constantinople, probably this same year. By a decree of this council he was ordered to renounce the above-mentioned opinion, which he obstinately refused to do, and was, on that account, excommunicated and deposed; little disposed, however, to acquiesce in this sentence, he appealed to the decision of a general council.

The council which was

XIV. In consequence of this appeal, the emcalled Con- peror Theodosius assembled an ecumenical counventus La- cil at Ephesus, A. D. 449, at the head of which

tronum.

he placed Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, the successor of Cyril, the faithful imitator of his arrogance and fury, and a declared enemy to the bishop of Constantinople. Accordingly, by the influence and caballing of this turbulent man, matters were carried on in this council with the same want of equity and decency that had dishonoured a former Ephesian council, and characterized the proceedings of Cyril against Nestorius. For Dioscorus, in whose church a doctrine almost the same with that of the Eutychians was constantly taught, confounded matters with such artifice and dexterity, that the doctrine of one incarnate nature triumphed, and Eutyches was acquitted of the charge of error that had been brought against him. Flavianus, on the other

opinion, that the book in which it is found, has been falsely attributed to him. See Mich. Le Quien Dissert. ii. in Damasenum, p. 31. Christ. Aug. Salig, De Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 112. It appears, by what we read in the Biblioth. Oriental. &c. of Assem. tom. i. p. 219, that the Syrians expressed themselves in this manner before Eutyches, though without designing thereby to broach any new doctrine, but rather without well knowing what they said. We stand yet in need of a solid and accurate history of the Eutychian troubles; notwithstanding the labours of the learned Salig upon that subject.

V. PART IL

hand, was, by the order of this unrighteous coun- CENT, cil, publicly scourged in the most barbarous manner, and banished to Epipas, a city of Lydia, where soon after he ended his days [b]. The Greeks called this Ephesian council, a band, or assembly of robbers, συνοδον ληστρικην, to signify that every thing was carried in it by fraud or violence [c]. And many councils, indeed, both in this and the following ages, are equally entitled to the same dishonourable appellation.

cedon.

XV. The face of affairs soon changed, and The counassumed an aspect utterly unfavourable to the cil of Chalparty whom the Ephesian council had rendered triumphant. Flavianus and his followers not only engaged Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, in their interests (for the Roman pontiff was the ordinary refuge of the oppressed and conquered party in this century), but also remonstrated to the emperor, that a matter of such an arduous and important nature required, in order to its decision, a council composed out of the church universal. Leo seconded this latter request, demanded of Theodosius a general council, which no entreaties could persuade this emperor to grant. Upon his death, however, his successor Marcian consented to Leo's demand, and called, in the year 451, the council of Chalcedon (d), which is reckoned the fourth general orœcumenical council.

[b] See the Concilia Jo. Harduini, tom. i. p. 82. Liberati Breviarium, cap. xii. p. 76. Leonis M. Epist. xciii. p. 625. Nicephori Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. xiv. cap. lxvii. p. 550, &c.

[c] Though Flavianus died soon after the council of Ephesus, of the bruises he had received from Dioscorus and the other bishops of his party in that horrid assembly, yet, before his death, he had appealed to Leo; and this appeal, pursued by Leo, occasioned the council, in which Eutyches was condemned, and the bloody Dioscorus deposed.

[d] This council was, by the emperor's summons, first assembled at Nice, but afterwards removed to Chalcedon;

V.

PART II.

CENT. The legates of Leo, who, in his famous letter to Flavianus, had already condemned the Eutychian doctrine, presided in this grand and crowded assembly. Dioscorus was condemned, deposed, and banished into Paphlagonia, the acts of the council of Ephesus were annulled, the epistle of Leo received as a rule of faith [e]; Eutyches, who had been already sent into banishment, and deprived of his sacerdotal dignity by the emperor, was now condemned, though absent; and the following doctrine, which is at this time almost generally received, was inculcated upon Christians as the object of faith, viz. "That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, and that without any change, mixture, or confusion."

Warm con

tests succeed the

Chalcedon.

XVI. The remedy applied by this council, to heal the wounds of a torn and divided church, council of proved really worse than the disease. For a great number of Oriental and Egyptian doctors, though of various characters and different opinions in other respects, united in opposing, with the utmost vehemence, the council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo, which it had adopted as a rule of faith, and were unanimous in maintaining an unity of nature, as well as of person, in Jesus Christ. Hence arose deplorable discords and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried

that the emperor, who, on account of the irruption of the Huns into Illyricum, was unwilling to go far from Constantinople, might assist at it in person.

[e] This was the letter which Leo had written to Flavianus, after having been informed by him of what had passed in the council of Constantinople. In this epistle, Leo approves of the decisions of that council, declares the doctrine of Eutyches heretical and impious, explains, with great appearance of perspicuity, the doctrine of the Catholic church upon this perplexed subject; so that this letter was esteemed a masterpiece both of logic and eloquence, and was constantly read, during the Advent, in the western churches.

V.

PART II.

to the most excessive and incredible lengths. CENT. Upon the death of the emperor Marcian, the populace assembled tumultuously in Egypt, massacred Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus, and substituted in his place Timotheus Elurus, who was a zealous defender of the Eutychian doc trine of one incarnate nature in Christ. This latter, indeed, was deposed and banished by the emperor Leo; but, upon his death, was restored by Basilicus both to his liberty and episcopal dignity. After the death of lurus, the defenders of the council of Chalcedon chose in his place, Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, while the partisans of the Eutychian doctrine of the one nature, elected schismatically Peter Moggus to the same dignity. An edict of the emperor Zeno obliged the latter to yield. The triumph, however, of the Chalcedonians on this occasion was but transitory; for, upon the death of Timotheus, John Talaia, whom they had chosen in his place, was removed by the same emperor [f]; and Moggus, or Mongus, by an imperial edict, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was, in the year 482, raised to the see of Alexandria.

Armenia.

XVII. The abbot Barsumas (whom the reader Contests in must be careful not to confound with Barsumas of Syria and Nisibis, the famous promoter of the Nestorian doctrines) having been condemned by the council of Chalcedon [g], brought the Eutychian opinions into Syria, and, by the ministry of his disciple

[f] See Liberati Breviarium, cap. xvi. xvii. xviii. Evagr. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. viii. lib. iii. cap. iii. Lequien, Oriens Christianus, tom. ii. p. 410.

[g] The Barsumas, here mentioned, was he who assisted the bishop of Alexandria (Dioscorus) and the soldiers, in beating Flavianus to death in the council of Ephesus, and to shun whose fury, the orthodox bishops were forced to creep into holes, and hide themselves under benches, in that pious assembly.