Thebais, where he died,' A. D. 440, after having endured many trials and hardships. After John of Antioch had become reconciled with the Catholic party, the eastern provinces, which had been up to this time under his leadership, transferred their allegiance to Nestorius. When the followers of Nestorius were threatened by imperial edict with severe punishment, many of their more prominent men-such as Theodoret, Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, and Andreas, Bishop of Samosata-professed, at least externally, to be in ecclesiastical communion with John of Antioch, but still refused to approve the condemnation of Nestorius. Those who obstinately persisted in continuing in the schismatical party were banished, and all Nestorians threatened with the extreme rigor of the law.

These measures, though effective for the moment, could not insure permanent peace or entirely suppress that wide-spread theological movement, which had received so powerful an impulse from the popular and clever writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the real father of the Nestorian heresy. This heresy had its advocates also in the School of Edessa, founded by Ephraëm the Syrian, the most conspicuous of whom were the priest Ibas and the learned Thomas Barsumas. These two were closely watched by Rabulas, the zealous Catholic Bishop of Edessa, who branded with anathema the works of Deodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, which, he affirmed, were the source of the Nestorian heresy.

Acacius of Melitene and Rabulas warned the bishops of Armenia of the dangerous tendency of these writings, and, at their instance, Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople; John, Patriarch of Antioch; and Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, joined them in this admonition. These did not, however, join in the vulgar clamor which demanded that sentence of anathema should be passed upon Theodore, because, as Cyril remarked, such a course would bring fresh and greater disasters upon the Church, which had as yet barely secured the blessings of peace. This excellent bishop had proved by his conduct in

1For an account of the last events in the life of Nestorius, see Evagrius, h. e. I. 7.

the reconciliation at Antioch how dear the peace of the Church was to his heart.

Ibas wrote a letter to Maris, Bishop of Hordashir, in which he gives an ironical account of the zeal of Bishop Rabulas, whom he humorously styles another Goliath. This letter became, later on, an important document.1

The Nestorians, who had been turned out of their homes at Edessa, found a powerful protector in Ibas, who, on the death of Rabulas, succeeded to the episcopal throne (A. D. 436-457). They were also protected by Barsumas, Bishop of Nisibis (A. D. 435-489), who had himself been banished from Edessa, and, under his successor, perfected their church organization. The Arian heresy had now almost entirely disappeared. Encouraged by these successes, the Nestorians, after the year 496, styled their bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon a Universal Bishop (Jacelich, i. e. Catholic). Their adversaries always called them Nestorians. They called themselves. Chaldean Christians, and in India the Christians of St. Thomas. They spread as far as China.

2

§ 120. Heresy of Eutyches-Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.

Acacii, down to 486, Liberatus, cf., above, Documents in Mansi,

Breviculus hist. Eutychianistar. seu gesta de nomine perhaps by Pope Gelasius (Mansi, T. VII., p. 1060 sq.) Literature, heading ? 119. Evagr. h. e. I. 9 sq., II. 2. T. VI., VII., and in Harduin, T. I., II. Theodoreti, Eranistes seu Polymorphus dial. III. (opp. omn., ed Schulze, T. IV., p. 1-263). The Ch. H. by John of Ephesus, transl. into German by Schönfelder, Munich, 1862. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 295–544. Walch, Hist. of Heretics, Pt. VI., p. 1–640. Katerkamp, Ch. H., Vol. III., p. 160-265.

The reconciliation between St. Cyril and John of Antioch,

1 1In Mansi, T. VII., p. 227-242; Harduin, T. II., p. 522–527; an abridgment of it in Fuchs' Library of Councils, Vol. IV., p. 480 sq. Conf. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 468 sq.

2J. S. Assemani de Syris Nestorianis (bibl. Orient., T. III., Pt. II., Rom. 1728, fol.) An abridgment of this library by Pfeifer, Erlang. 1776-1777, 2 vols.; Vol. II., pp. 239 sq. and 448 sq. Ebedjesu, de Christ. relig. veritate (being an Apology of Nestorianism), in A. Maji nova collect. script. vett., T. X. Conf. "Morgenland" (the "East," a periodical), year V., Basle, 1842, and the article "Nestorians," in the Freiburg Eccl. Cyclop., Vol. VII., p. 522–530. Ritter, Geography, Vol. V.

which was at best but a compromise, was no sooner effected than both parties began to show signs of restlessness, and the tokens of a new heresy became apparent.

Eutyches, a man of advanced age, and the archimandrite or abbot of a monastery at Constantinople, had, during the struggle against Nestorius, been conspicuous for the energy and activity which he displayed during the controversy. In his solicitude for the integrity of the truth, he wrote to Pope Leo the Great, expressing his apprehensions that the doctrine of Nestorius might again become formidable. One should hardly expect that this zealous monk would fall into just the opposite error to that which he combated with so much. earnestness.

Eutyches, as it would appear, embracing the doctrine of Origen on the preëxistence of souls, asserted that "before the union of the Logos with human nature there had existed two natures, but that after this union he admitted only one," thereby implying that the human nature had been mingled and blended with the divine and absorbed by it. "As," said he, "a drop of water let fall into the ocean is quickly absorbed, and disappears in the vast expanse, so also the human. element, being infinitely less than the divine, is entirely absorbed by the divinity." Hence the expression that Christ is of two natures-èz dúo qúoswv-and not in two natures-3v dúo quσcon-would be unobjectionable.

Holding this doctrine, Eutyches could not stop here, but was forced to accept also the conclusions which inevitably followed from it. He therefore asserted that, since after the union of the two natures in our Lord there resulted but one nature, it was the Deity who immediately suffered and was crucified; and that as the flesh, by its union with the Godhead, had passed into another nature, the body of Christ was not in substance a human body, but only appeared to be so to the external sense. Both the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies aimed direct blows at the mystery of the incarnation. This heresy, which was afterward known as Monophysitism, appeared under many forms, and was exhaustively refuted (C. A. D. 446) by Bishop Theodoret, in his work entitled the Beggar" (paviorys), so called because it represented the

66

heresy as begging its tenets from many others, and passing through a great variety of modifications (ñolúμop405).

Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, censured the doctrines of Eutyches, in a letter addressed to the emperor, and openly asserted that he was infected with Apollinarian errors.

Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, in Phrygia, next brought a more definite accusation against him before Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople. He was then accused at a synod at Constantinople (úvodos èvonμovoa), A. D. 448, his doctrine condemned, and he himself deposed from the priesthood and deprived of his abbey, because he had appealed against the Fathers to the authority of Holy Scripture.

He now endeavored to gain favor at the imperial court, and was fortunate enough to obtain the sympathy which he sought. He, moreover, wrote letters to Pope Leo the Great, to Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, and to Dioscorus, who had succeeded to St. Cyril in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. Dioscorus was a man of violent temper and of immoderate ambition, and was, besides, dishonest and hypocritical; for, previously to the death of St. Cyril, he pretended to be of the orthodox party, and now, since he had himself come into authority, he disturbed his whole patriarchate by efforts to disseminate the new heresy.

Pope Leo wrote his celebrated dogmatic epistle to Flavian, in which he approved the proceedings of the synod at Constantinople, and besides refuting the extreme errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, gave a clear and accurate exposition of the Church's doctrine on the mystery of the incarnation.1

On the other hand, Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, embraced the interests of Eutyches, in the hope of being able to humble the Orientals, who, he alleged, were Nestorians, and of revenging himself on Flavian, against whom he entertained a personal dislike. He, through the favor of the eunuch Chrysaphius, who exercised an unbounded influence over the mind of the empress Eudoxia, induced the emperors Theo

1Leon. opp. ed. Quesnell., ep. 24; ed. Ballerini, ep. 28. This letter in Latin and German, in Hefele's Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 335–346, and in Rössler's Library of the Fathers of the Church, Pt. X., p. 176–189.

dosius II. and Valentinian III. to convoke a council at Ephesus (A. D. 459), at which he himself was to preside and enjoy plenary powers. He appeared with a retinue of his own followers and a company of fanatical monks; at once refused to recognize the privilege of the three Papal Legates to preside, and did not even permit them to read the epistle of Leo, declaring that the object of the synod was simply to examine the decrees of the Synod of Constantinople, held A. D. 448. Dioscorus treated Flavian with such violent outrage that he died within three days after from the effects of the wounds. he had received in the tumult. He obliged the other bishops to subscribe to a document, which asserted the orthodoxy of Eutyches and condemned the teaching of the Dyophysites, or those who held that there were two natures in Christ, as erroneous. He also excommunicated Flavian, Eusebius, Domnus, Theodoret, Ibas, and others of the principal leaders of the orthodox party, and pretended to depose the Pope. Theodoret wrote his memorable letter of appeal to Pope Leo, in which he entreated him, in virtue of his primacy, to endeavor to remove the troubles of the Eastern Church. This assembly has been branded in history with the opprobious epithet of Latrocinium or Robber-Synod (ovvodos knot pizý). Theodosius II. nevertheless ratified the decrees of this synod, but Pope Leo, in a synod held at Rome in the same year, declared them invalid, excommunicated Dioscorus, and did all in his power to remove this stain from the Greek Church,' which, owing to the violence of party spirit, had now touched upon the confines of wickedness. He would not have succeeded in his humane intentions had he not been aided by the efforts of Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius, who, upon the death of the latter, which occurred A. D. 450, succeeded to the throne, and married the magnanimous general Marcianus. Even the Monophysite Anatolius, who had been elevated to the patriarchal see of Constantinople through the efforts of Dioscorus, was obliged to consent to hold a synod, in conjunction with

The acts of this "Robber-Synod," together with those of the subsequent Council of Chalcedon, in Mansi, T. VI. and VII. 6; Harduin, T. II. Conf. Tillemont, mémoires, T. XV. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 350–370. Lewald, The so-called Robbers' Synod (Illgen's Journal, Vol. VIII., nro. 1).