IT having been decided that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, out of that decision there now arose another question involving the nature of Christ. That question was: How was the divine nature related to the human so that Mary could truly be called the Mother of God? That is, Did the divine nature become human? or was the divine nature only joined to the human? In other words: Were there two natures in Christ? or was there but one?
It was now A.D. 448, and the Eutychian controversy began. For a clear understanding of the case, it will be best formally to introduce the leading characters.
Theodosius II was still emperor of the East; Valentinian III was emperor of the West.
Eutyches was the abbot, or superior, of a monastery close to Constantinople. He had been the chief leader of the monks in the contest against Nestorius. "At his bidding the swarms of monks had thronged into the streets, defied the civil power, terrified the emperor, and contributed more than any other cause, to the final overthrow of Nestorius. He had grown old in the war against heresy." -- Milman.1
Flavianus was now the occupant of the episcopal seat of Constantinople.
Chrysaphius was another eunuch, who had risen to the place of chief minister of Theodosius II, and was also the godson of Eutyches. He was carrying on a court intrigue to break the power of Pulcheria, by exalting the influence of Eudocia. He hoped also to place Eutyches on the episcopal throne of Constantinople. The accession of Flavianus to that dignity had prevented this design for the time being, but he still held it in mind. When Flavianus was installed in the bishopric, Chrysaphius demanded that he should make to the emperor the offering of gold that was customary on such occasions. Instead of bringing gold, Flavianus brought only three loaves of consecrated bread. This, Chrysaphius so employed as to prejudice the emperor against the archbishop.
Dioscorus was now archbishop of Alexandria. In this place it will be sufficient description of him simply to remark that he was a second Cyril, and leave it to the progress of the narrative to reveal him exactly as he was.
Leo I, "the Great," was bishop of Rome, and regarded Dioscorus as "a prelate adorned with many virtues, and enriched with the gifts of the Holy Ghost."2
Eusebius was bishop of Doryleum, to which office he had been appointed from a civil office in the household of Pulcheria. He also had been an early, ardent, and persistent adversary of Nestorius. This Eusebius now stood forth as the accuser of Eutyches.
At a small which had been called for another purpose at Constantinople, November 8, A.D. 448, Eusebius presented a written complaint against Eutyches and asked that it be read. The complaint was to the effect that Eutyches had accused of Nestorianism orthodox teachers -- even Eusebius himself. To the complaint was appended a demand that Eutyches should be summoned before the present synod to answer.
As for Eusebius himself, he announced that he was ready to prove that Eutyches had "no right to the name of Catholic," and that he was "far from the true faith." Flavianus expressed surprise, and told Eusebius that he ought to go to Eutyches, and, by a private interview, try to convince him of the true faith; and if then he really showed himself to be a heretic, he would cite him before the synod. Eusebius said he had been to him several times. Flavianus asked him to go again; but he refused, and then the synod sent a priest and a deacon, as deputies to convey to Eutyches the accusations, and summon him to the synod which would meet again in four days.
The synod met again, November 12, and Eusebius renewed his complaint, with the addition that by conversations and discussions, Eutyches had misled many others. He then suggested that the synod should give expression to the true faith on the question that had been raised. Flavianus produced a letter which Cyril had written to Nestorius at the beginning of the controversy between them; the act of the Council of Ephesus which approved this letter; and another letter, which Cyril had written, about the close of that controversy. He required the bishops present to assent to the statements therein contained, as the expression of the true faith according to the Nicene Creed, which they had always believed and still believed, namely: --
"Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, is true God and true man, of a reasonable soul and a body subsisting, begotten of the Father before all time, without beginning, according to the Godhead, but in the last times, for us men and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood; of one substance with the Father according to the Godhead, and of one substance with his mother, according to the manhood. We confess that Christ after the Incarnation consists of two natures in one hypostasis [personality] and in one person; one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Whoever asserts otherwise, we exclude from the clergy and the church."3
This they all signed, and then at the suggestion of Eusebius it was sent to those who were absent for them to sign.
The next session of the synod was held November 15, and the deputies who had been sent to Eutyches reported that he had refused to come, for the reason that when he became a monk, he resolved never to leave the monastery to go to any place whatever. Besides, he told them that the synod ought to know that Eusebius had long been his enemy, and that it was only out of malice that he now accused him. He said he was ready to affirm and subscribe the declarations of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus. The synod summoned him again, and again he refused to come. Then Eusebius declared, "The guilty have ever ways of escaping; Eutyches must now be brought here, even against his will." The synod then summoned him the third time.
At the next meeting a messenger came from Eutyches, saying that he was sick. Flavianus told him the synod would wait until Eutyches got well, but that then he must come. At the next meeting, the deputies who had been sent with the third summons, reported that Eutyches had told them that he had sent his messenger to the archbishop and the synod that he might in his name give his assent to the declarations of the councils of Nice and Ephesus, "and to all that Cyril had uttered." At this Eusebius broke in with the declaration, "Even if Eutyches will now assent, because some have told him that he must yield to necessity and subscribe, yet I am not therefore in the wrong, for it is with reference, not to the future, but to the past, that I have accused him."4 The deputies then closed with the information that he would come to the synod on the next Monday.
At the appointed time, Eutyches came; but he did not come alone. He came accompanied by a messenger of the emperor's privy council, and escorted by a great crowd composed of soldiers, and servants of the praetorian prefect, and "a rout of turbulent monks." The emperor's representative bore a letter to the synod, in which the emperor said: --
"I wish the peace of the church and the maintenance of the orthodox faith, which was asserted by the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus; and because I know that the patrician Florentius is orthodox, and proved in the faith, therefore it is my will that he be present at the sessions of the synod, as the faith is in question."5
At this the bishops cried out, "Many years to the emperor, his faith is great! Many years to the pious, orthodox, high-priestly emperor." Then the emperor's commissioner took his place, and Eusebius and
Eutyches, the accuser and the accused, placed themselves in the midst. The first thing was to read the proceedings from the beginning up to this point, the vital part of which was the declarations to which they had demanded that Eutyches should give his assent. The reader the Nicene Creed, and there was no dissent. He read the first of Cyril's letters, yet there was no dissent. He read the decision of the Council of Ephesus, and still there was no dissent. Then he began the second of Cyril's letters and read: --
"We confess our Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man, and as of one substance with the Father according to the Godhead, and of one substance with us according to the manhood; for a union of the two natures has taken place, therefore we confess one Christ, one Lord, and, in accordance with this union without confusion, we call the holy Virgin God bearer, because God the Logos was made flesh and man, and in the conception united the temple which he assumed from her with himself -- 6
At this point Eusebius broke in. Seeing the reading was nearly finished with no sign of dissent, he was afraid that Eutyches would actually approve all the declarations, which doubtless he would have done. He therefore interrupted the reading, with the exclamation, "Certainly such is not confessed by this man here; he has never believed this, but the contrary, and so he has taught every one who has come to him." Florentius asked that Eutyches might be given a chance to say for himself" whether he agreed with what had been read." To this Eusebius vehemently objected, for the reason, said he, "If Eutyches agrees to it, then I must appear as having been lightly a slanderer, and shall LOSE MY OFFICE" !!
Florentius renewed his request that Eutyches might be allowed to answer; but Eusebius strenuously objected. And he only consented at the last, on the express condition that no prejudice should lodge against him, even though Eutyches should confess all that was required. Flavianus confirmed this condition, with the assurance that not the slightest disadvantage should come to Eusebius. But even then Eutyches was not allowed to answer in his own way, because the predicament in which Eusebius had found himself, involved in a measure the whole synod also, as they had given full credit to the charges of Eusebius, and had refused all the assurances of Eutyches that he agreed to all the documents which they had cited. Flavianus and Eusebius, therefore, in order to save themselves from defeat and perhaps deposition, if the matter should come to a general council, determined if possible to entrap Eutyches in some statement which they could condemn. The proceedings then were as follows: --
Flavianus. -- "Say now, dost thou acknowledge the union of two natures?"
Eutyches. -- "I believe that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, but here I stop, and advise you do so too."
Eusebius. "Dost thou confess the existence of two natures, even after the incarnation, and that Christ is of one nature with us after flesh, or not?"
Eutyches. -- "I have not come to dispute, but to testify to your Holiness what I think. My view, however, is set down in this writing; command, therefore, that it be read."
Flavianus. -- "If it is thine own confession of faith, why shouldst thou need the paper?"
Eutyches. -- "That is my belief: I pray to the Father with the Son, and to the Son with the Father, and to the Holy Ghost with the Father and Son. I confess that his bodily presence is from the body of the holy Virgin, and that he became perfect for our salvation. This I confess before the Father, before the Son, and before the Holy Ghost, and before your holiness."
Flavianus. -- "Dost thou confess also that the one and the same Son, our Lord Christ, is of one substance with the Father as to his Godhead and of one substance with his mother as to his manhood?"
Eutyches. -- "I have already declared my opinion; leave me now in peace." Flavianus. -- "Dost thou confess that Christ consists of two natures?"
Eutyches. -- "I have not hitherto presumed to dispute concerning the nature of my God; but that he is of one substance with us, have I hitherto, as I affirm never said. Up to this present day have I never said that the body of our Lord and God is of one substance with us. I do confess, however, that the holy Virgin is of one substance with us, and that our God is made of our flesh."
Flavianus, Florentius, and Basil of Seleucia. -- "If thou dost acknowledge that Mary is of one substance with us, and that Christ has taken his manhood from her, then it follows of itself that he, according to his manhood, is also of one substance with us."
Eutyches. -- "Consider well, I say not that the body of man has become the body of God, but I speak of a human body of God, and say that the Lord was made flesh of the Virgin. If you wish me to add further that his body is of one substance with ours, then I do this; but I do not understand this as though I denied that he is the Son of God. Formerly I did not generally speak of a unity of substance, but now I will do so, because your Holiness thus requires it."
Flavianus. -- Thou does it then only of compulsion, and not because it is thy faith?"
Eutyches. -- "I have not hitherto so spoken, but will do now in accordance with the will of the synod." Florentius. -- "Dost thou believe that our Lord, who was born of the Virgin, is of one substance with us, and that after the incarnation he is of two natures, or not?"
Eutyches. -- "I confess that before the union he was of two natures, but after the union I confess only one nature."
At this "the whole council was in an uproar, and nothing was heard but anathemas and curses, each bishop there present striving to distinguish himself above the rest, by being the foremost in uttering the most bitter and severe his zeal could suggest." -- Bower.7 When the noise had ceased, Flavianus, in the name of the synod, demanded of Eutyches a public declaration of his faith in, and a curse upon every view that did not accept, the doctrines which had been set forth by the synod.
Eutyches. -- "I will now indeed, since the synod so requires, accept the manner of speech in question; but I find it neither in Holy Scripture nor in the Fathers collectively, and therefore cannot pronounce a curse upon the non-acceptance of the question, because that would be cursing the Fathers."
All together (springing to their feet). -- "Let him be accursed!"
Flavianus. -- "What does this man deserve who does not confess the right faith, but persists in his perverseness?"
Eutyches. -- "I will now indeed accept the required manner of speaking in accordance with the will of the synod, but cannot pronounce the curse."
Florentius. -- "Dost thou confess two natures in Christ, and his unity of substance with us?"
Eutyches. "I read the writings of St. Cyril and St. Athanasius: before the union they speak of two natures, but after the union only of one."
Florentius. -- "Dost thou confess two natures even after the union? If not, then wilt thou be condemned."
Eutyches. -- "Let the writings of Cyril and Athanasius be read."
Basil of Seleucia. -- "If thou dost not acknowledge two natures after the union also, then thou acceptest a mingling and confusion."
Florentius. -- He who does not say "of two natures," and who does not acknowledge two natures, has not the right faith."
All together. -- "And he who accepts anything only by compulsion does not believe in it. Long live the emperors!"
Flavianus, announcing the sentence. -- " Eutyches, a priest and archimandrite, has, by previous statements, and even now by his own confessions, shown himself to be entangled in the perversity of Valentinus and Apollinaris, without allowing himself to be won back to the genuine dogmas by our exhortation and instruction; therefore we, bewailing his complete perversity, have decreed, for the sake of Christ whom he has reviled, that he be deposed from every priestly office, expelled from our communion, and deprived of his headship over the convent. And all who henceforth hold communion with him, and have recourse to him, must know that they too are liable to the penalty of excommunication."8
The sentence was subscribed by all the synod, about thirty in number, and the synod was dissolved, November 22, A. D. 448.
It is not necessary to follow the particulars any farther; as in every other controversy, the dispute speedily spread far and wide. The decree of the synod was sent by Flavianus to all the other bishops for their indorsement. As soon as the action of the synod had been announced, Dioscorus, with all his powers, espoused the cause of Eutyches. Through Chrysaphius the Eunuch, Eutyches was already powerful at court, and added to this the disfavor in which Flavianus was already held by the emperor, the war assumed powerful proportions at the start.
The next step was, of course, for both parties to appeal to the bishop of Rome. Eutyches felt perfectly safe in appealing to Leo, because he had the words of Julius, bishop of Rome, saying, "It must not be said that there are two natures in Christ after their union; for as the body and soul form but one nature in man, so the divinity and humanity from but one nature in Christ."9 This being precisely the view of Eutyches, he felt perfectly confident in his appeal to Leo, for he could not suppose that Leo would contradict Julius. He shortly found that such a hope was altogether vain.
The emperor also wrote to the bishop of Rome. It seems that Leo did not make any answer to Eutyches direct. To Flavianus he sent a request for a fuller account of the whole matter, and that it should be sent by an envoy. To the emperor he wrote rejoicing that Theodosius "has not only the heart of an emperor, but also that of a priest, and is rightly anxious that no discord should arise; for then is the empire best established when the holy Trinity is served in unity."10
Dioscorus seeing now a chance of humbling the archbishop of Constantinople, joined Eutyches in a request to the emperor to call a general council. Chrysaphius, seeing again a prospect of accomplishing his favorite project to make Eutyches archbishop of Constantinople, strongly supported this request. But Theodosius, after his experience with the council at Ephesus, dreaded to have anything to do with another one, and sought to ward off another calamity of the kind. But there was no remedy; the thing had to come.
Accordingly, March 30, A. D. 449, a message in the name of the two emperors, Theodosius II and Valentinian III, was issued, announcing that "as doubts and controversies have arisen respecting the right faith, the holding of an oecumenical synod has become necessary." Therefore the archbishops, metropolitans, and "other holy bishops distinguished for knowledge and character," should assemble at Ephesus August 1. A special edict was sent to Dioscorus, saying: --
"The emperor has already forbidden Theodoret of Cyrus, on account of his writings Cyril, to take part in the synod, unless he is expressly summoned by the synod itself. Because, however, it is to be feared that some Nestorianizing bishops will use every means in order to bring him with them, the emperor following the rule of the holy Fathers, will nominate Dioscorus to be president of the synod. Archbishop Juvenal of Jerusalem and Thalassius of Caesarea, and all zealous friends of the orthodox faith will support Dioscorus. In conclusion, the emperor expresses the wish that al who shall desire to add anything to the Nicene confession of faith, or take anything from it, shall not be regarded in the synod; but on this point Dioscorus shall give judgment, since it is for this very purpose that the synod is convoked."
Leo was specially invited; and a certain Barsumas, a priest and superior of a monastery in Syria, was called as the representative of the monks, and Dioscorus was directed to receive him as such, and give him a seat in the council.
Not willing to wait for the decision of the question by the coming general council, Leo took occasion to assert his authority over all; and June 13 sent a letter to Flavianus, in which he indorsed the action of the Synod of Constantinople as far as it went, but reproved the synod for treating the matter so mildly as it had done, and himself took the strongest ground against Eutyches. In answer to the request of the emperor that he should attend the general council, Leo declined to attend in person, but promised to be present by Legates a Latere.
The council, composed of one hundred and forty-nine members, met in the Church of the Virgin Mary at Ephesus, and was formally opened August 8 A. D. 449. Dioscorus, the president, was seated upon a high throne. Two imperial commissioners, Elpidius and Eulogius, were in attendance with a strong body of troops to keep order in the council, and preserve peace in the city. The council was opened with the announcement by the secretary, that "the Godfearing emperors have from zeal for religion, convoked this assembly. Then the imperial message calling the council was read, and next the two legates of the bishop of Rome announced that though invited by the emperor, Leo did not appear in person, but had sent a letter. Next Elpidius, the imperial commissioner, made a short speech, in which he said: --
"The Logos has on this day permitted the assembled bishops to give judgment upon him. If you confess him rightly, then he also will confess you before his heavenly Father. But those who shall prevent the true doctrine will have to undergo a severe two-fold judgment, that of God and that of the emperor."12
Next was read the emperor's instructions to the two imperial commissioners, which ran as follows: -- "But lately the holy Synod of Ephesus has been engaged with the affairs of the impious Nestorius, and pronounced a righteous sentence on him. Because, however, new controversies of faith have arisen, we have summoned a second synod to Ephesus in order to destroy the evil to the roots. We have therefore selected Elplidius and Eulogius for the service of the faith in order to fulfill our commands in reference to the Synod of Ephesus. In particular they must allow no disturbances and they must arrest every one who arouses such, and inform the emperor of him; they must take care that everything is done in order, must be present at the decisions, and take care that the synod examine the matter quickly and carefully, and give information of the same to the emperor. Those bishops who previously sat in judgment on Eutyches (at Constantinople) are to be present at the proceedings at Ephesus, but are not to vote, since their own previous sentence must be examined anew. Further, no other question is to be brought forward at the synod, and especially no question of money, before the settlement of the question of faith. By a letter to the proconsul, we have required support for the commissioners from the civil and military authorities, so that they may be able to fulfill our commissions which are as far above other business as divine above human things."13
Following this was read a letter from the emperor to the council, in which he said: --
"The emperor has adjudged it necessary to call this assembly of bishops, that they might cut off this controversy and all its diabolical roots, exclude the adherents of Nestorius from the church, and preserve the orthodox faith firm and unshaken; since the whole hope of the emperor and the power of the empire, depend on the right faith in God and the holy prayers of the synod."14
The council was now formally opened, and according to the instructions of the emperor they proceeded first to consider the faith. But upon this a dispute at once arose as to what was meant by the faith. Some insisted that this meant that the council should first declare its faith; but Dioscorus interpreted it to mean not that the faith should first be declared, for this the former council had already done, but rather that they were to consider which of the parties agreed with what the true faith explains. And then he cried out: "Or will you alter the faith of the holy Fathers?" In answer to this there were cries, "Accursed be he who makes alterations in it; accursed be he who ventures to discuss the faith."
Next Dioscorus took a turn by which he covertly announced what was expected of the council. He said: "At Nicaea and at Ephesus the true faith has already been proclaimed; but although there have been two synods, the faith is but one." In response to this there were loud shouts for the assembly, "No one dare add anything or take anything away. A great guardian of the faith is Dioscorus. Accursed be he who still discuss the faith; the Holy Ghost speaks by Dioscorus."15
Eutyches was now introduced to the council, that he might explain his faith. He first commended himself to the holy Trinity, and censured the Synod of Constantinople. He then handed to the secretary a written confession, in which he repeated the Nicene Creed, indorsed the acts of the Council of Ephesus and the doctrine of the Holy Father Cyril, and cursed all heretics from Nestorius clear back to Simon Magus, who had been rebuked by the apostle Peter. He then gave an account of the proceedings against himself. When this had been read, Flavianus demanded that Eusebius should be heard; but the imperial commissioners stopped him with the statement that they were not called together to judge Eutyches anew, but to judge those who had judged him, and that therefore the only legitimate business of the council was to examine the acts of the Synod of Constantinople.
Accordingly the proceedings of that synod were taken up. All went smoothly enough until the reader came to the point where the synod had demanded of Eutyches that he should acknowledge two natures in Christ after the incarnation. When this was read, there was an uproar against it in the council, as there had been against the statement of Eutyches in the synod; only the uproar here was as much greater than there, as the council was greater than the synod. The council cried with one voice, "Away with Eusebius! banish Eusebius! let him be burned alive! As he cuts asunder the two natures in Christ, so be he cut asunder!"16
Dioscorus asked: "Is the doctrine that there are two natures after the incarnation to be tolerated?" Aloud the council replied: "Accursed be he who says so." Again Dioscorus cried: "I have your voices, I must have your hands. He that cannot cry loud enough to be heard, let him lift up his hands." Then with uplifted hands the council unanimously bellowed: "Whoever admits the two natures, let him be accursed; let him be driven out, torn in pieces, massacred."17
Eutyches was then unanimously pronounced orthodox and declared restored to the communion of the church, to the government of his monastery, and to all his former privileges; and he was exalted as a hero for "his courage in daring to teach, and his firmness in daring to defend, the true and genuine doctrine of the Fathers. And on this occasion, those distinguished themselves the most by their panegyrics, who had most distinguished themselves by their invectives before." -- Bower.18
Dioscorus having everything in his own power,now determined to visit vengeance upon the archbishop of Constantinople. Under pretense that it was for the instruction of his colleagues, he directed that the acts of the previous Council of Ephesus concerning the Nicene Creed, etc., should be read. As soon as the reading was finished, he said: "You have now heard that the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who teaches otherwise than the Nicene Creed, or makes alterations in it, and raises new or further questions. Every one must now give his opinion in writing as to whether those who, in their theological inquiries go beyond the Nicene Creed, are to be punished or not."19
This was aimed directly at Flavianus and Eusebius of Dorylaeum, as they expressed the wish that the expression "two natures" might to be inserted in the Nicene Creed. To the statement of Dioscorus several bishops responded at once: "Whoever goes beyond the Nicene Creed is not to be received as Catholic." Then Dioscorus continued: "As then the first Synod of Ephesus threatens every one who alters anything in the Nicene faith, it follows that Flavianus of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum must be deposed from their ecclesiastical dignity. I pronounce, therefore, their deposition, and every one of those present shall communicate his view of this matter. Moreover everything will be brought to the knowledge of the emperor."
Flavianus replied: "I except against you," and, to take time by the forelock, placed a written appeal in the hands of the legates of Leo. Several of the friends of Flavianus left their seats, and prostrating themselves before the throne of Dioscorus, begged him not to inflict such a sentence, and above all that he would not ask them to sign it. He replied, "Through my tongue were to be cut out, I would not alter a single syllable of it." Trembling for their own fate if they should refuse to subscribe, the pleading bishops now embraced his knees, and entreated him to spare them; but he angrily exclaimed: "What! do you think to raise a tumult? Where are the counts?
At this the counts ordered doors to be thrown open, and the proconsul of Asia entered with a strong body of armed troops, followed by a confused multitude of furious monks, armed with chains, and clubs, and stones. Then there was a general scramble of the "holy bishops" to find a refuge. Some took shelter behind the throne of Dioscorus, others crawled under the benches -- all concealed themselves as best they could. Dioscorus declared: "The sentence must be signed. If any one objects to it, let him take care; for it is with me has to deal." The bishops, when they found that they were not to be massacred at once, crept out from under the benches and from other places of concealment, and returned trembling to their seats.
Then Dioscorus took a blank paper, and accompanied by the bishop of Jerusalem and attended by an armed guard, passed through the assembly and had each bishop in succession to sign it. All signed but the legates of the bishops of Rome. Then the blank was filled up by Dioscorus with a charge of heresy against Flavianus, and with the sentence which he had just pronounced upon Flavianus and Eusebius. When the sentence was written, Flavianus again said: "I except against you;" upon which Dioscorus with some other bishops rushed upon him, and with Barsumas crying out, "Strike him! strike him dead!" they beat him and banged him about, and then threw him down and kicked him and tramped upon him until he was nearly dead; then sent him off immediately to prison, and the next morning ordered him into exile. At the end of the second day's journey he died of the ill usage he had received in the council.20
All these proceedings, up to the murder of Flavianus, were carried out on the first day. The council continued three days longer, during which Dioscorus secured the condemnation and deposition of Domnus of Antioch, and several other principal bishops, although they had signed his blank paper, for having formerly opposed Cyril and Eutyches. He then put an end to the council, and returned to Alexandria.
The emperor Theodosius, whom Leo had praised as having the heart of a priest, issued an edict in which he approved and confirmed the decrees of the council, and commanded that all the bishops of the empire should immediately subscribe to the Nicene Creed. He involved in the heresy of Nestorius, all who were opposed to Eutyches, and commanded that no adherent of Nestorius or Flavianus should ever be raised to a bishopric. "By the same edict, persons of all ranks and conditions were forbidden, on pain of perpetual banishment, to harbor or conceal any who taught, held, or favored, the tenets of Nestorius, Flavianus, and the deposed bishops; and the books, comments, homilies, and other works, written by them or passing under their names, were ordered to be publicly burnt."21 He then wrote to Valentinian III, that by the deposition of the turbulent prelate Flavianus, "peace had in the end been happily restored to all the churches in his dominions."
As the doctrine which the council had established was contrary to that which Leo had published in his letter, he denounced the council as a "synod of robbers," refused to recognize it at all, and called for another general council. But in every respect this council was just as legitimate and as orthodox as any other one that had been held from the Council of Nice to that day. It was regularly called; it was regularly opened; the proceedings were all perfectly regular; and when it was over, the proceedings were regularly approved and confirmed by the imperial authority. In short, there is no element lacking to make second Council of Ephesus as thoroughly regular and orthodox as the first Council of Ephesus, which is held by the Church of Rome to be entirely orthodox, or even as orthodox as the Council of Nice itself.
1 [Page 429] "History of Latin Christianity," book ii, chap. iv, par. 22.
2 [Page 430] Bower's "History of the Popes," Leo, par. 22.
3 [Page 431] Hefele's "History of the Church Councils," sec. 172, par. 3.
4 [Page 432] Id., par. 13.
5 [Page 433] Id., par. 21.
6 [Page 433] Id., par. 22.
7 [Page 434] "History of the Popes," Leo, par. 24.
8 [Page 437] Hefele's "History of the Church Councils," sec. 172, par. 22-24; and Bower's "History of the Popes," Leo, par. 46.
9 [Page 438] Bower, Id., par. 25.
10 [Page 438] Hefele's "History of the Church Councils," sec. 173, par. 10.
12 [Page 440] Id., sec. 178, par. 5.
13 [Page 441] Id., sec. 175 par. 3.
14 [Page 441] Id., par. 6.
15 [Page 442] Id., sec. 178, par. 6, 7.
16 [Page 442] Milman's "History of Latin Christianity," book ii, chap. iv, par. 30.
17 [Page 443] Bower's " History of the Popes," Leo, par. 31.
18 [Page 443] Id.
19 [Page 443] Hefele's "History of the Church Councils," sec. 178, par. 15.
20 [Page 445] Bower's "History of the Popes," Leo, par. 32; Milman's "History of Latin Christianity," book ii, chap. iv, par. 30; and Hefele's of the Church Councils," sec. 178, par. 16, and sec. 179.
21 [Page 446] Bower, Id., par. 34.