The Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon:
The First Session
4. The most
magnificent and glorious officials and the exalted senate47 were seated in the centre in front of the
rails of the most holy sanctuary. On their left were seated the most sacred
representatives of the most Godbeloved and holy Archbishop Leo of Senior Rome,
Anatolius the most religious archbishop of imperial Constantinople, Maximus the
most devout bishop of Antioch, Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea,
Stephen the most devout bishop of Ephesus, and the other most devout bishops of
the dioceses of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, except those of
Palestine.
On their
right were seated likewise Dioscorus the most devout archbishop of Alexandria,
Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem, the most devout bishop Quintillus,
representing Anastasius the most devout bishop of Thessalonica, Peter the most
devout bishop of Corinth, and the other most devout bishops of the dioceses of
Egypt and Illyricum, and also the most devout bishops of Palestine. In the
centre was placed the most holy and immaculate gospel-book.
5.
Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, took his
stand in the centre together with his companions and said: ‘We have {at hand}48 instructions from the most blessed and
apostolic bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the churches, in which he
has thought it right to declare that Dioscorus should not take a seat at the
assembly, and that if he has the effrontery to attempt to do so, he should be
expelled.49 This we are obliged to
observe. Therefore, if it pleases your greatness, either he must leave, or we
shall leave.’
6. When these
words had been translated into Greek by Veronicianus, the hallowed secretary of
the divine consistory,50 the most
glorious officials and the eminent senators51
said: ‘What particular charge do you bring against Dioscorus the most devout
bishop?’
7.
Paschasinus, the most devout bishop and guardian of the apostolic see, said:
‘His entrance makes it necessary to oppose him.’
8. The most
illustrious52 officials and the most
eminent senators said: ‘As we have already proposed, let the charge against him
be specified.’
9. Lucentius
the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said:53 ‘He should render an account of his
judgement. Although he did not possess the role of a judge, he usurped it. He
presumed to hold a council without the leave of the apostolic see, which has
never been allowed and has never been done.’54
10.
Paschasinus the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We
cannot go against the instructions of the most blessed and apostolic bishop who
occupies the apostolic see, nor against the ecclesiastical canons or the
traditions of the fathers.’
11. The most
illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘You need to make
clear his specific offence.’
12. Lucentius
the most devout bishop, representing the apostolic see, said: ‘We will not
tolerate so great an outrage both to you and to us as to have this person
taking his seat when he has been summoned to judgement.’
13. The most
illustrious officials and the most eminent senators said: ‘If you are taking
the role of a judge, you cannot in that capacity plead your cause.’55
14. When at
the bidding of the most glorious officials and of the holy56 senate Dioscorus the most devout bishop of
Alexandria had taken a seat in the centre, and the most devout Roman bishops
had also sat down in their proper places and had ceased speaking, Eusebius the
most devout bishop of the city of Dorylaeum came to the centre and said: ‘By
the preservation of the masters of the world, order my petition to be read,57 in accordance with the wishes of our most
pious emperor. I have been wronged by Dioscorus; the faith has been wronged;
Bishop Flavian was murdered.58 He
together with me was unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Order my petition to be
read.’
15. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the petition be read.’ sending
from here brethren of mine … who can represent me’ (ep. 37). Wholly similar was
the way in which the Council of Chalcedon was convened contrary to Leo’s wishes
but with his acquiescence in the imperial will (Documents before the Council
5–7). Lucentius’ charge was therefore unfounded. When at the bidding of all
Eusebius the most devout bishop had taken a seat in the centre, Veronicianus
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory received his petition from him
and read out:
16. To our Christ-loving59 and most pious emperors Flavius Valentinian and
Flavius Marcian perpetual Augusti from Eusebius the most insignificant bishop
of Dorylaeum, speaking on behalf of himself, of the orthodox faith, and of
Flavian, [now] among the saints, late bishop of Constantinople.
It is the concern of your authority to
provide for all your subjects, and to extend a hand to all who are wronged, especially
those enrolled in the priesthood; in this you serve the Godhead from whom you
have received rule and authority over what is under the sun. Since the Christian
faith and we ourselves have suffered many outrages, contrary to all good order,
at the hands of Dioscorus the most devout bishop of the great city of
Alexandria, we come to your piety to ask for justice. The facts of the case are
as follows.
At the recent council in the
metropolis of Ephesus – would that it had never taken place and had not filled
the world with trouble and confusion! – this admirable60 Dioscorus set at naught both considerations
of justice and the fear of God. Sharing the doctrines and views of the vain and
heretical Eutyches, and deceiving the many, as he revealed himself later, he
found his opportunity in the accusation which I had brought against the
like-minded Eutyches and in the sentence which Bishop Flavian of sacred memory
had delivered against him.61
Gathering a huge and disorderly mob and using money to procure power, he did as
much damage as he could to the pious religion of the orthodox and confirmed the
heresy of the monk Eutyches, which had previously and from the first been
condemned by the holy fathers.
Since his offences against the
Christian faith and against us are far from trivial, we beg and petition your
authority to decree that the most devout Bishop Dioscorus must answer the charges
we have brought against him, with, of course, the reading before the holy
council of the minutes of his proceedings against us; these will enable us to
prove that he is a stranger to the orthodox faith and has given his support to
heresy steeped in impiety, and that he deposed us unjustly and did terrible
things to us. May you send divine and venerable instructions to the holy and
ecumenical council of most God-beloved bishops, that they are to hear the case
between the aforesaid Dioscorus and us and bring all the proceedings to the knowledge
of your piety, according to the will of your immortal head. If we obtain this,
we shall offer up ceaseless prayers for your everlasting reign, O most divine
emperors.
17. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘May these charges be dealt
with.’
18. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The most pious emperor ordered a
council to be convened, and it convened according to the divine will of our
most pious emperor. Regarding the proceedings relating to Flavian, then bishop
of the holy church of Constantinople, minutes were taken at the holy council,
and I ask that they be read.’62
19. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘We too make the same request.’
20. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let everything relating to
this affair be read in proper order.’
21. Before
the reading, Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I ask your
magnificence that the matters of faith be examined first.’
22. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘What is required immediately
is for you to answer the accusations. Wait now while the acts are read, as you
yourself have requested.’
23.
Constantine the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory said: ‘I have to
hand the various divine letters concerning the recent council, and I shall read
them.’
And he read
from a codex:
Theodosius of divine memory to Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria
24. The emperors and Caesars Theodosius
and Valentinian, triumphant victors, most great and ever-venerable Augusti, to
Dioscorus. It is clear to everyone that the condition of our state and all
human affairs are secured and strengthened by piety towards the Godhead, and
that it is when the Almighty is favourably disposed that affairs tend to go
well and to proceed according to plan. Therefore, since divine Providence appointed
us to rule, we necessarily take as much care as we possibly can for the piety
and welfare of our subjects, so that both true religion and our state may
flourish, assisted by pure worship and piety towards the Almighty.
At the present time, as regards the
defence of the catholic and apostolic teaching of our orthodox faith, a dispute
has suddenly arisen which, seducing people with a variety of opinions, disturbs
and confuses, as is natural, the perception and souls of men. Considering it
intolerable to overlook such a gross impropriety, lest this might appear to
involve outrage against the Almighty, we have decreed that sacred and most
God-beloved men who have the highest reputation for piety and for orthodox and
true faith are to assemble together, so that after thorough examination they
may resolve all vain controversy and confirm the true faith dear to God, that
is, the orthodox faith.
Therefore your sacredness, together
with ten most devout metropolitan bishops in the same diocese and ten other most
sacred bishops endowed with intellect and character and outstanding before all
for their orthodoxy and for their knowledge and teaching of the unerring and
true faith, is to make haste to go without delay to Ephesus, the metropolis of
Asia, on the coming Kalends of August; the most holy council is not to be
troubled by the attendance of any apart from those aforesaid. Our aim, when all
the most sacred and God-beloved bishops whose convening we have decreed by our
divine letters have gathered at the aforesaid city and carried out an exact
investigation and examination, is that every false error be extirpated and that
the doctrine of the true orthodox faith, most dear to Christ our Saviour, be confirmed
and be resplendent as usual, the doctrine which everyone in future will keep
inviolate and irrefragable through the favour of the Almighty.
But if anyone should choose to
disregard this council, so necessary and dear to God, and not exert himself to
reach the designated place by the appointed time, he will have no excuse either
before the Almighty or before our piety; by absenting himself with no good
conscience from this priestly assembly he will assuredly be punished in his
soul. But as for Theodoret bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, whom we have already
ordered to attend exclusively to the affairs of his own church, we decree that
he is not to come to the holy council, unless the entire holy council, after it
has assembled, should decide that he should attend and participate in the same
holy council; if there should arise any dissension over him, we order the holy
council to assemble without him and deal with the agenda we have laid down.
Issued three days before the Kalends
of April at Constantinople in the consulship of the most illustrious Zeno and
Postumianus.63
25.
Constantine the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory said: ‘The other
most devout bishops received letters in the same tenor summoning them to the
council.’
26. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most devout Theodoret
enter and take part in the council, since the most holy Archbishop Leo has
restored his see to him, and since the most divine and pious emperor has
decreed his attendance at the holy council.’64
27. When the
most devout Bishop Theodoret entered, the most devout bishops of Egypt,
Illyricum and Palestine exclaimed: ‘Have mercy, the faith is being destroyed.
The canons exclude him. Drive him out. Drive out the teacher of Nestorius.’65
28. The most
devout bishops of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace exclaimed: ‘We signed
blank sheets. We suffered blows and we signed.66
Drive out the Manichees. Drive out the enemies of Flavian. Drive out the enemies
of the faith.’
29. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Why is Cyril being cast out, who
was anathematized by this man?’
30. The most
devout bishops of the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace exclaimed: ‘Drive out
Dioscorus the murderer. Who doesn’t know of the actions of Dioscorus?’
31. The most
devout bishops of Egypt, Illyricum and Palestine exclaimed: ‘Many years to the
Augusta!’67
32. The most
devout Oriental68 bishops and those
with them exclaimed:
‘Drive out
the murderers.’
33. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘The Augusta
expelled Nestorius: many years to the orthodox one! The council does not admit
Theodoret.’
34. Theodoret
the most devout bishop came forward to the centre and said: ‘I have delivered a
petition to the most divine, pious and Christ-loving masters of the world. I
have appealed against the attacks of which I have been the victim, and I demand
that they be investigated.’
35. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘The most devout Bishop
Theodoret, restored to his see by the most holy archbishop of the renowned city
of Rome, has now appeared in the role of accuser. Lest the hearing be
disrupted, let us conclude what we have initiated. The presence of the most
devout Theodoret will be prejudicial to no one, since, obviously enough, full
right of speech is assured after this both for you and for him, if you should
wish to raise any matters in turn, even though we have a particular and oral
witness to his orthodoxy in the most devout bishop of the great city of
Antioch.’
36. When the
most devout Bishop Theodoret was seated in the centre, the most devout Oriental
bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘He is worthy, he is worthy.’
37. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Do not call him a
bishop, he is not a bishop. He is not a bishop. Drive out the enemy of God.
Drive out the Jew.’69
38. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘[Admit] the
orthodox one to the council. Drive out the troublemakers. Drive out the
murderers.’
39. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘Drive out
the enemy of God. Drive out the blasphemer against Christ. Many years to the
Augusta! Many years to the emperor! Many years to the orthodox emperor! This
man anathematized Cyril.’
40. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘Drive out
Dioscorus the murderer.’
41. The
Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Many years to the senate! He does
not have a voice. He was condemned in the presence of the whole council.’
42. Basil the
most devout bishop of Trajanopolis in Rhodope rose and said: ‘We also condemned
Theodoret.’
43. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Theodoret accused
Cyril. We exclude Cyril if we admit Theodoret. The canons have expelled him. He
is rejected by God.’
44. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘These vulgar outbursts are not
becoming to bishops, nor useful to either party. Allow everything to be read.’70
45. The
Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Expel that one man, and we
shall all listen. Our interjections are for the sake of piety. We speak on
behalf of the orthodox faith.’
46. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Allow, rather, the hearing to
be conducted according to God, and permit everything to be read in order.’
When all were
silent, Constantine, the hallowed magistrianus and secretary of the divine
consistory, read from the same codex:
A divine letter written to Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria
47. It has come to the hearing of our
serenity that many of the most devout archimandrites of the east together with
the orthodox laity are indignant with certain bishops in some of the Oriental
cities who are said to be infected with the impiety of Nestorius, and are
fighting on behalf of the orthodox faith. For this reason it has seemed good to
our divinity that the most religious presbyter and archimandrite Barsaumas,71 who has a good reputation for purity of life
and orthodox faith, should go to the city of Ephesus and as the representative
of all the most religious archimandrites in the Orient should take his seat
together with your holiness and all the most holy fathers assembled there, and
that decisions pleasing to God should be taken on all matters accordingly. So
may your religiousness, recognizing that our only concern is for the orthodox
faith, give a favourable reception to the aforesaid most devout archimandrite
and make him take part in your holy council. Issued at Therallum on the Ides of
May in the consulship of the most illustrious Protogenes and the one to be
designated.72 In the same tenor to
Juvenal the most devout bishop of the church of Jerusalem.
He read from
the same codex:
A divine letter sent to the most
devout archimandrite Barsaumas
48. It has not escaped our piety how
the most religious and holy archimandrites in the eastern parts are arrayed in
combat, battling on behalf of the orthodox faith and opposing some of the
bishops in the cities of the Orient who are infected with the impiety of
Nestorius, while the orthodox laity share the combat with these most religious
archimandrites. Since the great labours that your holiness has endured on behalf
of the orthodox faith have come to the notice of our piety, we deem it right
that your sacredness, with your reputation for purity of life and orthodox
faith, should go to the city of Ephesus and as the representative of all the
reverent archimandrites in the east take your seat at the holy council that has
been ordered to assemble there, and with the other holy fathers and bishops
decree what is pleasing to God. Issued on the day before the Ides of May at
Alexandrianae.73
Veronicianus
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same codex:
A divine mandate addressed to
Helpidius, the admirable count of the divine consistory
49. The blasphemy against God of the
impious Nestorius was the occasion of the holy council already held previously
at Ephesus, and therefore received condign condemnation from the holy fathers
assembled there.
Since there has now arisen another
dispute over the divine faith, we have decreed that there take place this
second council at Ephesus, in our concern to excise the root of evil
completely, so that by suppressing everywhere the unsettling of doctrine we may
preserve in its purity proper prayer in men’s minds and thereby secure the
protection of the state and of human blessings.74 We
have therefore chosen both your wondrousness and Eulogius the admirable tribune
and praetorian notary to serve the faith, since you are of good repute in other
respects and also pure worshippers of the Almighty, and are well able to
execute our commands faithfully regarding the proceedings of the holy council
of Ephesus and to prevent any disturbance of any kind. If you observe anyone
causing a disturbance or disruption to the detriment of the most holy faith,
you are to put him in custody and notify us; you are to ensure the good order
of the proceedings, expedite the decisions, and make sure that the
deliberations of the holy council be both speedy and considered, and be
communicated to us. Those who previously judged the most devout archimandrite
Eutyches are to attend without taking part; they are not to exercise the role
of judges, but to await for the joint decision of all the other holy fathers,
since it is their own sentence that is now under examination. You are not to
allow any other matter of business to be brought up until the question of the
orthodox faith has been settled. We have therefore, by writing to the admirable
proconsul, assigned to you the assistance of both the civic and local military75 authorities, so that, with your own zeal reinforced
by this assistance, you may be able to fulfil all your instructions, a thing
that surpasses all other blessings in that divine matters surpass human ones,
and to inform us of the proceedings in this affair.76
In the same
tenor to the admirable tribune and notary Eulogius. Veronicianus the hallowed
secretary of the divine consistory read from the same codex:
A divine letter to Proclus the
admirable proconsul of Asia
50. The blasphemy against God of the
impious Nestorius was the occasion of the holy council already held previously
at Ephesus, and therefore received condign condemnation from the holy fathers
assembled there. Since there has now arisen another dispute over the divine
faith, we have decreed that there take place this second council at Ephesus, in
our concern to completely excise the root of evil, so that by suppressing
everywhere the unsettling of doctrine we may preserve in its purity proper
prayer in men’s minds and thereby secure the protection of the state and of
human blessings.
We have therefore chosen for this task
Helpidius the admirable count of our divine consistory and Eulogius the
admirable tribune and notary, as well capable of serving religion and with
sufficient testimonials to this effect. It is our wish that you give them
assistance in their need, in carrying out the instructions from our serenity to
prevent any disruption of the proceedings and to allow no disturbance of any
kind. If we hear from them that you have not carried out this decree or
satisfied their wishes, we shall give orders that you pay for your negligence.
The same
hallowed Veronicianus secretary of the divine consistory read from the same
codex:
51. To the most holy council at
Ephesus
It was our wish to keep the holy
churches of God free from disturbance, and that you should stay in your most
holy churches to serve the cult of the Almighty as usual and not be burdened
with such labour and trouble. But when the most God-beloved Bishop Flavian decided
to raise some questions about the holy faith in opposition to the most devout
archimandrite Eutyches, summoned a tribunal and initiated proceedings, we wrote
to the same most God-beloved bishop repeatedly in an attempt to still the
turmoil he had stirred up, in our conviction that the orthodox creed which the
holy fathers at Nicaea handed down and the holy council at Ephesus confirmed satisfies
our needs. We repeatedly pressed the same most religious bishop to drop the
inquiry, lest it be a cause of disturbance to the whole world, but he refused.
Since we did not consider it without danger for such an inquiry into the faith
to be put in motion without reference to your holy council and all the
presidents of the holy churches, we deemed it necessary for your holinesses to
assemble, so that, by investigating the inquiry that has been put in motion and
the attendant proceedings, you could excise every diabolical root, expel from
the holy churches the promoters and supporters of the impious blasphemy of
Nestorius, and decree the preservation of the orthodox faith, sure and sound,
since all our hopes and the strength of our empire are founded on orthodox
faith in God and your holy prayers.
The same
hallowed Veronicianus secretary of the divine consistory read from the same
codex:
52. To Dioscorus the most devout
bishop of Alexandria
We recently decreed that Theodoret
bishop of the city of Cyrrhus should not attend the most holy council, until
the holy council makes a decision in his case; we debarred him because he had dared
to compose attacks on the writings on the faith of Cyril of holy memory, then
bishop of the great city of Alexandria. Since it appears that some of
Nestorius’ followers have attempted to exert themselves on his behalf to secure
his attendance somehow or other at the holy council, we have thought it
necessary to write this divine letter to your religiousness, to make clear to
your religiousness and to the entire holy council that we, following the canons
of the holy fathers, on account not only of Theodoret but of all the members of
the holy council now convened, entrust the responsibility and presidency to
your religiousness, since we know for certain that Juvenal the most religious archbishop
of Jerusalem, the most religious archbishop Thalassius,77 and every fervent lover and champion of
orthodoxy will be of one mind with your holiness, outstanding as you are by the
grace of God in both dignity of life and soundness of faith. Those who dare to
make any addition to, or subtraction from, the exposition of the faith by the
holy fathers at Nicaea and later at Ephesus we do not allow to have any right
of speech at all at the holy council, and we place such persons under your
judgement. It is indeed for this reason that we decreed that the holy council
should now convene.78
A letter in
the same tenor was sent to Juvenal the most devout bishop of Jerusalem.
53. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Your clemency has heard that our
divine emperor did not entrust judgement to me alone but gave responsibility
for the council to the most religious Bishop Juvenal and the most sacred Bishop
Thalassius as well. We pronounced judgement accordingly, and the whole council
gave its assent. Why are these people singling me out for attack? Responsibility
was given to the three of us equally, and the whole council, as I have said,
concurred with our judgement: it uttered its own sentence, it signed, and the
matter was referred to the most pious emperor Theodosius of blessed memory, who
confirmed all the judgements of the holy and ecumenical council by a general
law.’
54. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘No one concurred, force
was used, force with blows. We signed blank paper. We were threatened with
deposition. We were threatened with exile.
Soldiers with
clubs and swords stood by, and we took fright at the clubs and swords. We were
intimidated into signing. Where there are swords and clubs, what kind of
council is it?79 This is why he had
soldiers with him.
Drive out the
murderer. The soldiers killed Flavian.’
55. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘They were
the first to sign. Why are the clerics now shouting? This is a council of
bishops not of clerics. Drive out the supernumeraries. May those who signed
come to the centre; we signed after you.’
56. Stephen
the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘That it all took place by force and
constraint, God is witness, and that we signed the deposition of the blessed
Flavian unwillingly, God is witness.80 As
bishop, I received all his clergy who had come to Ephesus, held communion with them,
and showed them every kindness.’
57. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Who used force on you?’
58. Stephen
the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘I received into communion the
presbyter Helpidius and the other deacons and Bishop Eusebius – Bishop Eusebius
himself knows that I received them. But then Helpidius81 and Eulogius, with soldiers and Eutyches’
monks, about three hundred persons, came to me in the episcopal palace, and
were about to kill me, saying, “You received the enemies of the emperor, you
are an enemy of the emperor.” I said, “I am hospitable; I have nothing to do
with the matter. I cannot excommunicate those who come in communion.” So it was
that everything took place by force and constraint.’
59. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Did the most devout Dioscorus
use force on you?’
60. Stephen
the most devout bishop of the city of Ephesus said: ‘All his men, and the
counts. I was not allowed to leave the chancery of the church until I had
signed the sentence of Dioscorus, Juvenal, the lord Thalassius,82 and the other bishops who had received
letters.’
61.
Thalassius the most devout bishop of the city of Caesarea said: ‘I was named in
the sacra,83 but I didn’t know why.
Nevertheless when some incidents occurred, I tried to put a stop to it, wanted
to secure a deferment, and did my best to do so. There are witnesses.’
62. Theodore
the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria said:
‘Dioscorus
and Juvenal and all those who signed first had, as orthodox, been entrusted by
the master of the world with passing judgement in matters of faith. Plotting
nefariously among themselves, they made us act as judges, who were sitting
there in all innocence as men ignorant of the affair. The minutes84 were read, Flavian of blessed memory was
praised, and during this we remained silent, presuming that the proceedings had
been in order.
But
afterwards, to frighten us, they invoked as similar the heresy of Nestorius,
shouting at us, ‘Cut into two those who say two natures! Cleave, kill, and
drive out those who say two!’ – so that, out of fear of the Nestorian heresy,
we would not be judged orthodox but condemned as heretics.85 Each of us was afraid that, if expelled as a
heretic, he would ruin those he had baptized; the danger affected not so much
him as those who had been baptized after professing their faith in Christ. We
should not at this point have remained silent, but they then did something
else. The council had been ordered by the master of the world to judge the case
of Flavian first. But they held many sessions together; without signing or
giving notice of their resolutions, or reading them out to anyone, with some of
us not knowing [what was happening], they brought us blank sheets – Dioscorus
and Juvenal – accompanied by a mob of disorderly people, with a mass of them shouting
and making a tumult and disrupting the council. We were one hundred and
thirty-five in all;86 forty-two were
ordered to keep silent; the rest were Dioscorus and Juvenal and the disorderly
mob; that left only fifteen of us. What could we do? They made sport of our
lives. They, the heretics, all spoke with one voice. They terrified us. They
said we were heretics, and we were excluded as heretics.’
63. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘We all
agree. That is how it was.’
64. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘A Christian
fears no one. An orthodox fears no one. Bring fire, and we shall learn. If they
had feared men, there would never have been martyrs.’
65. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Since they say that they didn’t
hear the sentences and decrees but simply signed a blank sheet passed to them,
it was quite improper of them to sign without being assured about the
pronouncements of the council, especially since matters of faith were at stake.
Since they are making accusation that they were given a blank sheet to sign,
who then composed their declarations? I ask your magnificence to make them
answer.’
66. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the proceedings be read.’
Constantine,
the consecrated magistrianus and assistant to the divine secretariat, read from
a document provided by Aetius, archdeacon of the most holy church of imperial
Constantinople:87
67. Divine
letter to the most devout Bishop Dioscorus about his attendance at the council
at Ephesus, which has been inserted above [introduced by the words] ‘he read
from a codex’.88 He read from the
same document:
(Ephesus II)
68. In the
consulship of the most illustrious Zeno and Postumianus, six days before the
Ides of August, or 15 Mesori in the Egyptian calendar, in the third indiction.89 After a council had convened in the
metropolis of Ephesus by decree of our most God-beloved and Christ-loving
emperors, there took their seats in the most holy church called after Mary the most
God-beloved and most sacred bishops: (1) Dioscorus of Alexandria, (2) Bishop
Julius, representing the most holy and sacred Leo bishop of the church of Rome.
(Chalcedon)
69. During
the reading the most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘He
was expelled; no one accepted the name of Leo.’ Constantine the hallowed
secretary read what followed in the same document: (Ephesus II)
70. (3)
Juvenal of Jerusalem, (4) Domnus of Antioch (5) Flavian of Constantinople.
(Chalcedon)
71. During
the reading the most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘Flavian went in as if already condemned. There is a blatant case of corrupt
prosecution. Why was Flavian not seated in his proper place? Why was the bishop
of Constantinople put in fifth place?’90
72.
Paschasinus the most devout bishop said: ‘Look, in accordance with the will of
God we give first place to the lord Anatolius. But they put the blessed Flavian
fifth.’91
73. Diogenes
the most devout bishop of the church of Cyzicus said: ‘Because you know the
canons.’
74. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We request, drive out
the supernumeraries. The emperor summoned bishops. This is a council of
bishops. Why are the supernumeraries shouting?’
75. Theodore
bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria said: ‘It is the notaries of Dioscorus who
are shouting.’
76. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have only two notaries. How can
the two of them cause a disturbance?’
77. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the sequel be read.’
Constantine
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same document
what follows: (Ephesus II)
….
79. John
presbyter of Alexandria and protonotary said: ‘It seemed good to our most pious
and Christ-loving emperors on this occasion also to decree that your holy and
great council should convene here to investigate the new excrescences on our
orthodox and unimpeachable faith and pull them out by the roots, lest they
entice and inveigle at times some of the simple-minded and cast them into the
pits of heresy and error. This shows how great is their concern for piety and
for the need to preserve continuously from all harm and disturbance the decrees
on our orthodox religion formerly issued by the most blessed fathers who met at
Nicaea and more recently confirmed by those who convened in this city, who were
in such agreement with each other in their confession that there was absolutely
no difference in their opinions or definitions. We have in our hands this holy
letter, and we submit it to the pleasure of your holiness.’
80. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Let the pious and God-beloved
letter be read which the Christ-loving emperors sent to each of the
metropolitans, and let it stand at the head of the minutes of the proceedings.’
81. John
presbyter and protonotary read:
The emperors
and Caesars Theodosius and Valentinian, triumphant victors, most great and
ever-venerable Augusti, to Dioscorus. It is clear to everyone that the condition
of our state and all human affairs are secured and strengthened by piety
towards the Godhead – and the rest as given above [24].
82. Bishop
Julius, representing the most holy Leo archbishop of the Church of Rome, with
Florentius bishop of Lydia acting as interpreter, said:
‘Our most
holy Pope Leo ruler of the church of Rome received a summons from the most pious
and Christ-loving emperors in the same form.’
83. Hilary
deacon of Rome, with Florentius bishop of Lydia acting as interpreter, said:
‘The most glorious and Christian emperor95
out of his attachment and devotion to orthodoxy sent a venerable letter to
summon our most blessed Bishop Leo of the apostolic see to attend this
venerable and holy assembly. This could have pleased his piety, had there been some
precedent for it. As your holinesses know well,96 the pope of the most holy see did not attend the holy
councils at Nicaea or Ephesus or any such holy assembly. Therefore, following
this habitual principle, he has sent us; this most holy man does not doubt that
he is present here in us, who, he knows, will do everything that pertains to
the purity of the catholic faith and to respect towards the most holy apostle
Peter.
Through us he
has sent to your beatitude a letter appropriate for the assembly of the holy
fathers: receive it and order it to be read.’97
84. Dioscorus
bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Let the letter to this holy and ecumenical council
from our most sacred brother and fellow Bishop Leo be received.’
85. When it
had been received, John presbyter and protonotary said:
‘Another
pious decree was sent to our most holy and God-beloved Archbishop Dioscorus,
which we have in our hands for the pleasure of your holiness.’
86. Juvenal
bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘Let it be read and inserted in the guarantee of the
minutes.’
(Chalcedon)
87. During
the reading Aetius archdeacon of Constantinople said: ‘The letter of the most
sacred Archbishop Leo was neither received nor read.’
88. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed:
‘The letter
was not read to us. If it had been read, it would assuredly be included [in the
minutes].’
89. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘It was not read. He [Dioscorus] kept
back the conciliar letter.’
90. Aetius
archdeacon of Constantinople said: ‘The letter was neither received nor read.
He swore seven times in the presence of all to have it read, but it was not
read and he perjured himself.’
91. Theodore
the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis in Isauria said: ‘That he swore is known
to us all; that it was not read is agreed by us all.’
92. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most devout bishops
who were then given by the imperial head responsibility for the proceedings say
why the letter of the most sacred Archbishop Leo was not read, especially since
there had been a previous declaration ordering that it be read.’
93. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The acts prove that I called a
second time for the letter of the most devout bishop of Rome to be read.’
94. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘So why is it that after your
declaration the reading of the letter did not take place?’
95. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The other bishops to whom the
matter had been entrusted should also be asked why it was not read.’
96. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Who in particular do you want
to be asked? Give a clear answer.’
97. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The most religious Bishop Juvenal
and the most religious Bishop Thalassius.’
98. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘In first place answer yourself
why the reading did not take place; they will be asked in their turn.’
99. Dioscorus
the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have said once already that I
proposed its reading a second time.’
100. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘He is lying.’
101. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most God-beloved
Bishop Juvenal explain why, after the most God-beloved Bishop Dioscorus had proposed
the reading of the letter of the most holy archbishop of Rome, the reading did
not happen.’
102. Juvenal
the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘John the presbyter and primicerius
of the notaries suddenly announced that he had in his hands a pious letter from
the most God-beloved and pious emperors, and I replied that the imperial letter
should be read.’
103. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘So after the reading of the
divine letter was the letter of the most devout Archbishop Leo also read?’
104. Juvenal
the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘Neither the primicerius of the
notaries nor anyone else said that he still had in his hands the letter of the
most devout bishop of Rome.’
105. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the most devout Bishop
Thalassius now also explain why the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo was
not read.’
106.
Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said:
‘I only know
that I did not prevent it, and that I did not have the authority to order the
reading on my own.’
107. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the sequel of the
proceedings be read.’
Constantine
the hallowed secretary {of the divine consistory}98 read from the same document:
(Ephesus II)
John
presbyter and protonotary read:
108. A divine letter to the most devout Dioscorus
about the attendance of Barsaumas, which was inserted above [47], when read
from the codex.
109. Juvenal
bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘I received a similar letter from the most pious
emperors about the most devout priest and archimandrite Barsaumas. So let him
rightfully attend the holy council.’
110.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Let the spectabiles Count Helpidius and
Eulogius the tribune and notary say if they have any instructions concerning
the matter in hand.’
111.
Helpidius the admirable count said: ‘The demon who is the originator of evil
can never relax in his war against the holy churches. The most pious emperor
always opposes his unrighteous warfare, rightly realizing that he will have a
defender for his empire if he himself takes up arms in the battles for
religion. He has not impugned this conviction of his, for his many affairs have
prospered more through help from above than by recourse to arms. This is why he
joined you in condemning the madness of Nestorius, because, although appointed
to serve the Almighty, he became the father and teacher of impious doctrines,
as if he had received the priesthood on behalf of demons and not of piety. He
was, however, condemned in the meantime to the appropriate place, to await
inexorable punishment in the life to come, because he both fell himself into so
great impiety and persuaded many others to follow him. The dispute that has now
arisen the most divine emperor entrusts to you as fathers and judges; he
expects from you a resolution of the controversy, such as will win common
protection both for himself and his subjects. The instructions the most divine
emperor has given to us and written to you I shall now explain to you, keeping
in mind that I am one of those correctly initiated by you into religion. Today
the Master of the universe, God, Word and Saviour, entrusts himself to your
sentence, is content to have you as his judges, and honours you with the power
of giving sentence, in order, if he finds you doing justice in his case, that
he may then honour you and acknowledge you in turn before the Father,99 while, if he
finds any of you expelling genuine religion from your minds and using sophistry
to bring matters of faith into dispute, contrary to the teaching of the holy
fathers, alas for sentence that will be delivered against them by God and the
emperor jointly! It would be better for them if they had not been born,100 since, after
the brigand, the tax-collector, the harlot and the Canaanite woman,101 they do not
acknowledge sincerely in the presence of the glory [of God] the one in whom we
believe because he humbled himself for our sakes.102 I shall read to you the instructions I received from
our most divine autocrat the emperor.’
112.
Helpidius the admirable count read the divine mandate given both to him and
Eulogius the admirable tribune and notary, which was inserted above [49], when
read from the document.
113.
Helpidius the admirable count said: ‘Now order the letter to you from the
divine head be received and read.’
114.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Let the sacred letter to the holy council
from the Christ-loving emperors be received and read.’
115. John
presbyter and protonotary read:
A divine letter to the council at
Ephesus about Bishop Flavian’s stirring up a debate about the faith in
opposition to Eutyches, which was inserted above [51], when read from the
codex.
116.
Thalassius bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: ‘The most pious and
Christ-loving emperor, in his desire to preserve unshaken the faith that has
lasted till now, has ordered that nothing be discussed or decided at the holy
council until the question of the faith is settled. So let everything else wait
while the faith takes priority.’
117. Bishop
Julius, representing the most holy Leo bishop of the church of Rome, with
Florentius bishop of Lydia acting as interpreter, said: This accords with our
instructions.’
118.
Helpidius the admirable count said: ‘Since then this creed because of which you
have assembled is the very foundation of the faith,103 deign, with the approval
of God, to determine the question of the faith, in such a way there may follow
in order in second place a reading of the proceedings in the imperial city
regarding the most devout archimandrite Eutyches.’
119.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The pious letters of the most God-beloved
emperors have been made known to us, and that they have given orders for the
council to meet because of certain matters that were raised at Constantinople.
What was raised should therefore first be clarified, and then the decrees of
the previous holy councils should be produced. The canonical rules are clear,
and the conciliar decrees are clear; we must not depart from them. In response
to certain novelties our most pious and Christ-loving emperor gave orders for
this holy council to convene, not in order to duplicate the definition of the
faith already issued by our fathers but to examine whether the novelties in
question agree with the decrees of our holy fathers. We must therefore first investigate
these novelties and test whether they agree with the decrees of the holy
fathers. Or do you wish to invalidate the creed of the holy fathers?’
120. The holy
council said: If anyone invalidates it, let him be anathema.
If anyone
elaborates on it, let him be anathema. Let us preserve the creed of the
fathers.’
(Chalcedon)
121. During
the reading the most devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We
didn’t say this. Who said this?’
122. Theodore
the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis said: ‘Let him bring in his notaries,
for he expelled everyone else’s notaries and got his own to do the writing. Let
the notaries come and say if this was written or read in our presence, and if
anyone acknowledged and signed it.’
123. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘In whose hand are the minutes
written?’
124.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Each one wrote through
his own notaries. Mine recorded my statements, those of the most religious
Bishop Juvenal recorded his, those of the most religious Bishop Thalassius
recorded his, while the other most devout bishops had many notaries who kept a
record. So the text is not the work of my notaries; each has his own.’
125. Juvenal
the most devout bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘I had one notary of my own who kept
a record alongside the other notaries.’
126.
Thalassius the most devout bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: ‘And I had
one who kept a record.’
127.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Look, the notary of
Bishop Juvenal kept a record, as did the notary of Bishop Thalassius and that
of the bishop of Corinth. Was it only my notaries?’
128. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘I request that the most God-beloved
Bishop Stephen of Ephesus be asked if his notaries recorded the minutes of the
holy council, and what they suffered at the hands of the notaries of the most
God-beloved Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria.’
129. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘What does the most devout
Bishop Stephen say in reply to this?’
130. Stephen
the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘My own notaries, Julian who is now the
most devout bishop of Lebedos and the deacon Crispinus, were keeping a record,
but the notaries of the most devout Bishop Dioscorus came and erased their tablets,
and almost broke their fingers in the attempt to snatch their pens. I didn’t
get copies of the minutes, and I don’t know what happened next, but on the very
day the investigation took place we signed the sheet, and the bishops who
hadn’t signed it did so under my guarantee on the following day.’
131. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘I request the most God-beloved
Stephen bishop of Ephesus to say what sort of sheet they signed.’
132. Stephen
the most devout bishop of Ephesus said: ‘A blank paper, since the signing took
place immediately, at the very same time as the deposition.’104
133.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Let the testimony of the
most devout Bishop Stephen be read. Did I force him to make it?’
134. Acacius
the most devout bishop of Ariaratheia said: ‘We signed a blank sheet, under
compulsion and duress and after countless outrages. We subscribed not
voluntarily but as the victims of despotism. They kept us shut up in the church
till evening, and when we felt indisposed they would not let us recuperate or
withdraw or come to ourselves, but set on us soldiers with clubs and swords, as
well as monks, and in this way made us subscribe.’
135. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Let the rest be read.’
Constantine
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same document:
(Ephesus II)
136.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘In order to convince everyone, to confirm
the faith and refute the novelties, I am examining the fathers, those at Nicaea
and at Ephesus.’
137. The holy
council said: ‘This saves the world. This strengthens the faith.’
(Chalcedon)
138. During
the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘Look, he says,
“I am examining”; but this is what I did myself.’
139.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I said “I am examining”,
not “I am innovating”. For the Saviour gave us this order: “Examine the
scriptures.”105 He who examines scripture is not innovating.’
140. Eusebius
the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘The Saviour said, “Seek and you will
find.”’106
Constantine
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same document:
(Ephesus II)
141.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Even though one speaks of two councils,107 they relate
to one faith.’
142. The holy
council said: ‘The fathers issued a comprehensive definition. If anyone goes
against it, let him be anathema. No one shall add to it, no one shall take away
from it.’
143.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘God approves your affirmations and you
yourselves agree that they are valid and pleasing to God. If anyone questions
or scrutinizes or revises the proceedings or the decrees of the fathers who met
at Nicaea or convened here, let him be anathema.’
144. The holy
council said: ‘To Archbishop Dioscorus, the great guardian of the faith!’
145.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘I have this to add, which is fearful and
awesome: “If”, it says, “a man sinning sins against a man, they will pray for
him to the Lord; but if he sins against the Lord, who will pray for him?”108 If then the
Holy Spirit sat together with the fathers, as indeed he did, and decreed what
they decreed, whoever revises those decrees rejects the grace of the Spirit.’
146. The holy
council said: ‘We all say the same: “Let whoever revises them be anathema. Let
whoever invalidates them be expelled.”’
147.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘No one decrees what has already been
decreed.’
148. The holy
council said: ‘These are the sayings of the Holy Spirit. To the guardian of the
canons! The fathers live through you. To the guardian of the faith!’
(Chalcedon)
149. During
the reading Theodore the most devout bishop of Claudiopolis said: ‘No one said
this.’
150.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘They want to deny
everything that is agreed. Let them also say, “We were not there.”’
Constantine
the hallowed secretary of the divine consistory read from the same document:
(Ephesus II)
151.
Helpidius the admirable count said: ‘Since your decisions on the matter of the
holy faith are evident, and since the common voice of all has agreed and
approved the sentence of those of you who preside, order the most devout
archimandrite Eutyches, who is the subject of the judgements that have been
made, the occasion of all your proceedings, and the main subject of the divine
letter, to appear and inform your religiousness of his opinions.’109
152. The holy
council said: ‘It is fitting.’
153. Juvenal
bishop of Jerusalem said: ‘It is right that the most religious archimandrite
Eutyches should appear and have the opportunity to defend himself.’
154. When he
had entered, Thalassius bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia said: ‘Let the most
devout archimandrite Eutyches set out his due defence before this holy and
great council.’
155. Eutyches
the archimandrite said: ‘I have commended myself to the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit and to the truthfulness of your justice, and I have you as
witnesses to my faith, for which I fought alongside you together with the holy
council that convened here before you, as your sacredness bears witness. I have
to hand the petition regarding my faith. Order it to be read with the
profession of faith contained in it.’
156. Stephen
bishop of Ephesus said: ‘It is right that the profession and plaint of the most
devout archimandrite Eutyches should be received and inserted in the text of
the minutes.’
When they had
been presented, John priest and protonotary read:
157. To the most holy and God-beloved ecumenical
council assembled at the metropolis of Ephesus from the archimandrite Eutyches.
Giving thanks to the all-holy God for
this day on which piety has through you recovered its right of speech, I inform
your holy council of what happened in my regard, or rather in opposition to the
true faith. Right from my youth it was my wish to live a quiet and carefree
life till old age and stay away from all turmoil. I was not allowed, however,
to fulfil my intention, but as a result of intrigue I was subjected to extreme danger
because, in accordance with the decree of your earlier holy council here, I
refused to hold an opinion contrary to the faith defined by the holy fathers at
Nicaea. Before I can instruct you about what happened, I need, in order to
convince your sacredness, to recite again my own profession of the holy
doctrine, with God as my witness, and with your holinesses as my witness, with
whom I have always striven, to the best of my power, on behalf of the orthodox
faith and against the heretics.
I believe in one God, Father,
Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus
Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father as only-begotten, that is, from
the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true
God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, and through whom all
things came into being, both those on heaven and those on earth; who for us men
and for our salvation came down, was enfleshed, became man, suffered, and rose
on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge the living
and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. Those who say, ‘There was when he was
not’, and ‘Before being begotten he was not’, and that he came into being from
things that are not, or assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis
or essence or is changeable or alterable, the catholic and apostolic church
anathematizes.110
This is what I received from my
forefathers from the beginning; this is what I have believed and still believe.
This is the creed in which I was born and immediately dedicated to God and
accepted by his mercy. With this creed I received the seal of baptism and have
lived till today, praying also to die in it. This is the creed that was also
confirmed by the aforesaid holy and ecumenical council held here earlier at
which our father Bishop Cyril of blessed and sacred memory presided, and at which
he issued a decree that whoever added to it in thought or teaching is subject
to the penalties then laid down.111 Our father the aforesaid Bishop Cyril, [now] among
the saints, sent me a written copy of this decree, which I have to hand. I
accordingly submitted to the holy council and have observed its decree till
this day.
(Chalcedon)
158. During
the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘He lied! There
is no such decree; there is no canon that states this.’
159.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘There are four documents
containing this decree. If the bishops decreed it, is it not a decree? Does he
think it a canon? It is not a canon. But a canon is one thing, a decree another.112 Impugn the
five conciliar documents. I have a copy, and so does such a one and such a one;
let them all bring their documents.’
160. Diogenes
the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘He adduced the council of the holy
fathers at Nicaea deceptively, since additions were made to it by the holy
fathers on account of the evil opinions of Apollinarius, Valentinus, Macedonius
and those like them, and there were added to the creed of the holy fathers the
words “He came down and was enfleshed from the Holy Spirit and Mary the
Virgin”. This Eutyches omitted, as an Apollinarian.
For
Apollinarius also accepted the holy council at Nicaea, but interpreted what it
said according to his own heresy, and avoided saying “from the Holy Spirit and
Mary the Virgin” in order not to profess at all the union of the flesh. The
holy fathers who came after clarified the words “was enfleshed” of the holy
fathers at Nicaea by adding “from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin”.’113
161. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘No one admits any
addition or subtraction.114 Confirm the work of Nicaea; the orthodox emperor has
commanded this.’
162. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Eutyches said that.’115
163. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them said: ‘No one admits any addition.
Confirm the work of the fathers. Confirm the work of Nicaea. Confirm the work
of the Holy Spirit. The orthodox emperor has commanded this.’
Constantine,
the hallowed magistrianus and secretary of the divine consistory, read from the
same document:
(Ephesus II)
[Eutyches’
plaint, continued]
164. Like your religiousness I have held all the
holy fathers to be orthodox and faithful, and have adopted them as my teachers.
I anathematize Mani, Valentinus, Apollinarius and Nestorius, and all the
heretics since Simon Magus, including those who say that the flesh of our Lord
and God Jesus Christ came down from heaven.116
(Chalcedon)
165. During
the reading Eusebius the most devout bishop of Dorylaeum said: ‘He avoided the
expression “from heaven” but did not add from where.’
166. Diogenes
the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘Where then did he say it came from? By
your authority we pressed him, “Lord Eutyches, where then did it come from?
Tell us.” But he didn’t comply.’117
167. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia said: ‘We pressed him then, as the lord
Eusebius and Sozon of Philippi will remember, to specify the mode of the taking
flesh and becoming man, if he recognized that God the Word become man by
assuming flesh. But they118 ruled
that this should be left unexamined and didn’t accept our demand.’
168.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘The most religious Bishop
Basil attacked his own statement in the minutes when he said, “I didn’t say
that; it’s a forgery.”119 If Eutyches holds opinions contrary to the doctrines
of the church, he deserves not only punishment but hell fire.
For my
concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith and not for any human being. My
mind is fixed on the Godhead, and I do not look to any person nor care about
anything except my soul and the true and pure faith.’120
169. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘When the minutes of the
proceedings relating to Eutyches were read, there was read publicly the
statement I made expressing agreement with the fathers who earlier met at
Ephesus and approval of the letter of the most blessed Cyril who presided at
that blessed council, in which he refuted the insane Nestorius who
misinterpreted the creed of the 318 fathers. I asserted in my statement, as I
still do now, that I worship our one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son
of God, God the Word, acknowledged in two natures after taking flesh and
becoming man.’121
170. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Let no one separate the
indivisible. No one says that the one Son is two.’
171. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Anathema to those who
divide! Anathema to those who separate!’
172. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘Anathema to those who
divide, anathema to those who separate, the two natures after the union!
Anathema also to those who do not recognize the distinctive properties of the
natures!’
173. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘As he was begotten, so
he suffered. [Report] our words to the emperor. One Lord, one faith! No one
says that the one Lord is two. This was what Nestorius held. That is what
Nestorius proclaimed.’
174. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Anathema to Nestorius
and Eutyches!’
175. The most
devout Egyptian bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘Do not divide the Lord
of glory. Do not divide the indivisible.’
176. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘What I said was
“acknowledged in two natures after the union”, perfect Godhead and perfect
manhood. The former he had from the Father eternally, while he took the latter
from his mother according to the flesh and united it to himself hypostatically,
and so the Son of God was called the son of man. When this statement was read,
someone – I don’t know who, for the confusion of the events distracted both the
eye of my mind and that of my body – thrust himself to the centre and began
saying, “It is this statement that has thrown the church into turmoil.” Then
all the Egyptians and the monks accompanying Barsaumas and the whole crowd rose
up and began saying, “He who says two natures should be cut in two. He who says
two natures is a Nestorian.” Afterwards my statement was read again, after the
impious and absurd statement of Eutyches. When asked by the most God-beloved
Bishop Eusebius if he said two natures in Christ, he said that he recognized
Christ to be from two natures before the union but one nature after the union.
As reading the minutes has reminded me, I then said: “If you do not say two natures
undivided and unmixed after the union, you imply mixture and confusion.” When
this statement was read, there was such an uproar from them that we were all
shaken in our souls, especially those of us who were being judged and had been
ordered to await the sentence of the council. In the confusion of the moment I
said, “I don’t remember if I said it in precisely those words, but I know that
I said, ‘If you say “one nature” after the union without qualification, you
imply confusion and mixture; if, however, you add [to the phrase] “enfleshed
and made man”, and understand taking flesh and becoming man just as the most
blessed Cyril did, then you say the same as we do.’ For it is clear that his
Godhead from the Father is one thing and the manhood from his mother another.”
And those who condemned me at first later approved of my having said this.122
177. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘If your teaching was so
orthodox, why did you sign the deposition of Flavian of sacred memory?’
178. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘Because I was delivered
for judgement to one hundred and twenty or thirty bishops, and forced to submit
to their decisions.’
179.
Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘This fulfils the words of
scripture, “From your own mouth you will be justified, and from your own mouth
you will be condemned.”123 Have you, out of respect for human beings,
transgressed what is correct and rejected the faith? Have you not heard the
words, “Do not be put to shame to your downfall”?’124
180. Basil
the most devout bishop of Seleucia in Isauria said: ‘If I had been up before
secular officials, I would have borne witness; after all, I displayed boldness
of speech at Constantinople. But if one is judged by one’s father, one cannot
defend oneself. Death to a child who defends himself against his father!’125
181. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We all sinned, we all
beg forgiveness.’
182. The most
glorious officials and the exalted senate said: ‘Yet you declared earlier that
you were forced by violence and compulsion to sign the deposition of Flavian of
sacred memory on a blank sheet.’
183. The most
devout Oriental bishops and those with them exclaimed: ‘We all sinned, we all
beg forgiveness.’
184.
Thalassius, Eustathius and Eusebius the most devout bishops126 said: ‘We all sinned, we all beg
forgiveness.’ Veronicianus, the hallowed magistrianus and secretary of the
divine consistory, read from the same document:
(Ephesus II)
[Eutyches’
plaint, continued]
185. But while I was living in this faith and
persevering in prayer, I was subjected as a result of intrigue to an accusation
by Eusebius bishop of Dorylaeum, who submitted a plea against me to the most
devout Bishop Flavian and to those from various places who were then staying in
the imperial city on personal business; in it he insolently called me a heretic
without specifying in his plea any particular heresy, in the hope that under
the testing conditions of a trial I would make some slip of the tongue as a
result of the uproar, as was to be expected, and fall of a sudden into the
error of uttering some novelty. In response to this bill of accusation the
aforesaid most devout bishop ordered me to come and answer my accuser, because
he was continually in his company and virtually inseparable from him, and because
he thought that I, accustomed as I always have been to stay put in my
monastery, would not appear and so could be condemned on this ground, that of
not answering the summons. Subsequently, when I left my monastery for the
imperial city, he heard of it from the most wondrous silentiary Magnus (whom
our most pious and faithful emperor had assigned to protect me from the danger
that threatened my safety), and replied that my presence was now dispensable
since I had been condemned even before the trial, as is proved by the
subsequent testimony of the same most wondrous silentiary.127
When nevertheless I went to defend
myself at the tribunal,128 he neither accepted nor allowed to be read the
statement of profession that I had composed and signed in conformity with the
creed issued by the holy fathers at Nicaea and with that confirmed at Ephesus
by the previous holy council. The tribunal became disorderly and tumultuous, as
a crowd of people pressed forward in no order at all and deafened me from all
sides with their shouting, as is proved by the statements about the disorder
that were subsequently issued by the judges in writing. When in response to an
order to make a personal profession of faith I declared that my beliefs
accorded with the decree issued by the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and confirmed
at the holy council of Ephesus, he required me to make certain statements that
went beyond the definitions at Nicaea and at the previous council at Ephesus. Out
of fear of transgressing the decree of the holy council formerly convened here
by the will of God and the definition of faith of the holy fathers who met at
Nicaea, I demanded that my case be referred to your holy council, since I am
ready to abide by your judgement; but while I was speaking, they suddenly read
out the condemnation against me which had been composed long before in accordance
with his wishes.129 Subsequently and separately, some of their statements
and mine and other declarations (especially where I professed belief according
to the holy fathers at Nicaea and those who assembled later at Ephesus) were
altered in the minutes, as is proved by\ the recorded proceedings that took
place subsequently at my request and on the orders of our most pious and Christ-loving
emperor.130 But
the most devout Bishop Flavian took no notice of my appeal to your sacredness,
nor did he respect the grey hairs of one who has grown old in battle with the
heretics and in the profession of religion;131 but as if possessing the authority to settle all
matters of faith by himself alone and entrust no jurisdiction in so important a
case to your holinesses, he condemned me and cut me off from the church (as he
thought), stripped me of the priesthood (as he supposed) and excluded me from
the communion of the divine mysteries,132 deposed me uncanonically from being superior of my
monastery, and finally handed me over to a crowd gathered for this purpose in
the episcopal palace and the public square to be done to death as a heretic,
blasphemer and Manichee – if divine providence had not rescued me that day and
preserved me for your holinesses.
After my appeal he ordered the sentence
in my case to be read out in various oratories and the memorial chapels of the
saints, and anathematized me. Without waiting for the judgement of your holinesses,
he excluded from divine communion those who visited me to discuss the matter,
and he forced the monasteries to subscribe to my condemnation,133 even though,
as your godliness knows, this practice has not prevailed even in the case of
heretics. He also sent the papers to the Orient and to many other regions to be
signed by other most religious bishops and monks who had taken no part in the
trial, even though he ought rather to have sent them first of all to the
bishops to whom I had made my appeal.134
After my narrow escape, I then set out
what had happened in a plaint addressed to your religiousness, and requested
the most pious and faithful emperor to appoint you as judges of the sentence
delivered, since you are sacred and God-beloved and abominate all injustice and
intrigue. I now beg your holinesses to consider the false accusation and plot
contrived against me, the turmoil this has brought about in the most holy
churches everywhere, and the scandal it has caused to many; I request you in
your Christ-loving wisdom to subject those who are responsible for it to the
laws of the church, and to excise every root of blasphemy and impiety. From the
very beginning I appealed to the judgement of your beatitude, and I yet again bear
witness, in the presence of ‘Jesus Christ who before Pontius Pilate witnessed
the good confession’,135 that my beliefs, convictions and opinions correspond
to the creed handed down to us by the holy fathers assembled at Nicaea and
confirmed by the holy fathers at the second council, that of Ephesus.136 If anyone
holds views contrary to this creed, I anathematize him in accordance with their
definition.
I, Eutyches, archimandrite, believe as
is written above, have signed in my own hand, and have presented this plaint.
186. Flavian
bishop of Constantinople said: ‘Eusebius was his accuser. Order him to appear.’
46 Maras was too
ill to make the journey from Nicaea (IV. 9.37); he must have been represented
throughout the council by another cleric, perhaps the presbyter Verus who spoke
for him in the fourth session.
47 Regularly in
the Acts, with only a few exceptions, the senators present are referred to as
‘the senate’, which they represented.
48 Supplied from
the Latin version.
49 The Latin is
milder: ‘Dioscorus should not sit in the council but should be admitted in order
to be heard [i.e., as a defendant].’
50 This clause
is placed here in the Latin version, but before 5 in the Greek text (for
reasons analyzed by Schwartz 1933, 247). Regularly the papal representatives
spoke in Latin, and their statements were then translated into Greek. The Latin
version generally gives a Latin retroversion, but occasionally preserves,
either in whole or in part, the original Latin wording (e.g., XVI. 10–16), as
noted by Schwartz 1933.
51 This or a
similar phrase is regularly used in the Acts to refer to the lay chairman, the magister
militum Anatolius, accompanied as he was by other high-ranking officials.
52 The word is
λαμπρ τατ
ς in the Greek and clarissimus in the Latin.
53 We translate
the original Latin of Lucentius’ speech, which is preserved in an annotation by
Rusticus (for whom see pp. 84–5). The Greek is identical in meaning.
54 Ephesus II
was in fact called by Theodosius II. He summoned Pope Leo to it, who responded,
‘I have exerted myself to obey your clemency’s commands in some measure by
55 This remark
has generally been taken as a rebuke to Lucentius for acting as prosecutor when
seated as a judge. But surely it is addressed to Dioscorus, and expresses
agreement with the view Lucentius has just expressed, that Dioscorus as defendant
cannot sit among the judges. Accordingly he now takes a place in the centre of
the church.
56 The word is
ερ ς not γι
ς, the honorific used for church councils.
57 Rusticus ad
loc. informs us that the Greek Acoemete MS he perused at Constantinople (see
Schwartz 1933, 247) read in place of the preceding words, ‘I adjure you by the
holy Trinity, which is the protector of princes and which you worship and in
which you were baptized and by invoking which you are saved: order my petition
to be read, most clement officials.’
58 In the
preceding sentence the Acoemete MS read according to Rusticus, ‘I adjure you by
the preservation of the emperors I adjure you: Flavian was wickedly killed.
Merciful judges, have pity, and assist the faith which has been violated by
Dioscorus.’ In addition Rusticus’ Latin text adds at this point, ‘I am filled
with tears’.
59 ‘Christ-loving’
(ιλ
ρστ
ς) is an epithet regularly reserved in the Acts to the emperors, or sometimes, by extension, to the city of Constantinople as the imperial capital.
60 ‘Admirable’
translates
ρηστς, an ordinary item of vocabulary, not an honorific. Honorifics are never used ironically in the Acts, nor do speakers descend to omitting honorifics, where they are due, as a subtle insult. See, however, 644 (with our note) for a speaker referring to an honorific as requiring a particular level of conduct from its holder.
61 Eusebius
directly accuses Dioscorus of heresy. When Dioscorus was formally tried and deposed
at the third session of the council, the charge of heresy was much less
prominent; see our commentary on the third session, vol. 2, 33–4.
62 Hefele-Leclerq,
II.2, 671 understands Dioscorus to be requesting the reading of the minutes of
the Home Synod of Constantinople of 448, but he is surely referring to the condemnation
of Flavian at Ephesus II.
63 30 March 449.
64 Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrrhus from 423 to c.466, was the leading theologian of the Antiochene
school (whence the accusation that he was a ‘Jew’ at 37) and at the height of
the Nestorian controversy had accused Cyril of Alexandria of heresy (whence
Dioscorus’ outburst at 29); he was accordingly deposed at Ephesus II. He
attended the first session of Chalcedon as a plaintiff (194, 196), sitting
apart from the other bishops (36), and was not formally restored to his see
until the eighth session. But he participated as a full member of the council
in the second and fourth sessions (II. 26, IV. 9.41).
65 The Illyrian
bishops were formally under the jurisdiction of Rome, and were to support Rome
in its opposition to Canon 28 on the privileges of the see of Constantinople,
which none of them signed (XVI. 9). This makes their refusal to be impressed by
Pope Leo’s reinstatement of Theodoret all the more striking.
66 The Oriental
bishops are explaining why they had subscribed at Ephesus II to Theodoret’s condemnation.
Dioscorus’ supporters, in an acclamation omitted from the minutes, must have
made the point that Theodoret’s present supporters had earlier condemned him.
67 The empress
Pulcheria.
68 That is, of
the diocese of the Orient, specifically that part of it that fell in the
patriarchate of Antioch.
69 ‘Jew’ in the
sense of denying the divinity of Christ.
70 That is, the
complete Acts of the first session of Ephesus II.
71 Barsaumas
(see DHGE 6, 946–7) was a leading Syrian archimandrite who took part as a full
member of Ephesus II (78.131), where he incited the monks against Flavian of Constantinople
and his sympathizers (176, 851; IV. 77–8); having a monk as a full member of an
ecumenical council was an innovation. See IV. 66–95 for his dramatic intervention
at the Council of Chalcedon. After refusing to accept the decrees of the
council, he returned to Syria where he campaigned against them until his death
in 458. He is venerated as a saint in the Oriental Orthodox churches.
72 15 May 449.
73 14 May 449.
74 The reference
is to liturgical prayer carried out by churches in communion with one another.
Cf. the letter of the emperor Constantine to Aelafius vicar of Africa in 313–14
in relation to the Donatist schism: ‘I shall really and fully be able to feel
secure and always hope for prosperity and every good gift from the instant
goodwill of the most powerful God, only when I see everyone worshipping the
most holy God in the proper cult of the Catholic religion in constant fraternal
harmony’ (Appendix to Optatus III).
75 ‘Military’ in
a broad sense, meaning government servants in general.
76 The Collectio
Novariensis (the original Latin documentation of the condemnation of Eutyches)
gives the date of this mandate as 15 May 449 (ACO 2.2. p. 46).
77 Of Caesarea,
the metropolis of Cappadocia Prima.
78 A Syriac
version dates this letter to 6 August (ACO 2.1 ad loc.).
79 The claim by
bishops at Chalcedon that they had only agreed to Flavian’s deposition under
the grossest physical intimidation damned Ephesus II in the eyes of posterity
and seems to confirm Pope Leo’s claim that the council was a latrocinium, or ‘den
of thieves’. But of course the bishops were not impartial witnesses: they
needed to place all the blame on Dioscorus in order to exculpate themselves. It
must still be asked whether Ephesus II was notably less free than many other
church councils; the coercion of dissentients also occurred at Chalcedon.
80 But it is
clear from the Acts of Ephesus that Stephen was an active henchman of Dioscorus
at the council (156, 200, 879).
81 The Helpidius
mentioned immediately above, who was one of Flavian’s presbyters and received
hospitality from Stephen (and may well be identical to the Helpidius of III.
9–11), is to be distinguished from this Helpidius who was an ally of Eutyches
and here protests at this hospitality, and who may well be identical to the
monk Helpidius who appears at IV. 64–88 as a petitioner on behalf of Dioscorus.
82 ‘Lord’ (κρις)
was a title that could be applied, like ‘the most devout’, not only to bishops
(as in this case) but to other ranks as well: at X. 22 it is used of a deacon.
83 The imperial
letter given at 52 above, to which the preceding paragraph also refers.
84 The minutes
of the Home Synod of 448, given below at 223–552.
85 This is the
literal meaning of the Greek, but what Theodore intended to say was, surely, not
that Dioscorus’ supporters wanted to condemn them as heretics but that they themselves
were afraid of such an outcome.
86 See the list
of 135 participants at 68–78 below.
87 After the
council Anatolius of Constantinople removed Aetius from the important office of
archdeacon by making him the presbyter of a church outside the city. Pope Leo,
whose ally he had become, protested strongly in March 453 in letters to Marcian
(ep. 111) and Pulcheria (ep. 112), and he was reinstated. See DHGE 1, 668–9.
88 The quotation
is from 23 fin., introducing the document given at 24.
89 8 August 449.
90 It was only
at the Council of Constantinople of 381 that the see of Constantinople was
accorded primacy in the east. But the status of this council was not clarified
until Chalcedon itself, where for the first time (at I. 1072 and in the later
sessions) it was treated as an ecumenical council.
91 Rusticus
comments ad loc., ‘After the council this was specially and openly annulled by
the holy Leo.’ In reaction to Canon 28 of the council, which proclaimed the
primacy of Constantinople in the east, Leo insisted on the superior status of
the ancient patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria. See our commentary on
Session XVI, vol. 3, 71–2, and Documents after the Council 9, 10, 13.
….
95 Rusticus ad
loc. draws attention to the fact that the Greek has ‘emperor’ in the singular,
while the Latin version has ‘emperors’ in the plural; the latter is likely to
have been the original text, reflecting the constitutional fiction that Marcian
and Valentinian III always acted as colleagues (even if at this date
Valentinian had not yet recognized Marcian as Augustus).
96 We follow the
Latin in the Collectio Novariensis (ACO 2.2 p. 44), which offers a superior
sense to the Greek, ‘But, even if this were the better course, your holinesses
know that …’.
97 Leo’s letter
to the council (ep. 33: Latin version ACO 2.4 pp. 15–16; Greek ACO 2.1. pp.
43–4) stressed the authority of the Roman see and condemned Eutyches, referring
to his letter to Flavian (the Tome, read out at Chalcedon at II. 22) as a
fuller treatment of the issues. It was clearly Leo’s intention that both this
letter and the Tome itself (both dated to 13 June 449) should be read to the
council. These letters were received courteously (84) but not read out; with
their unconditional condemnation of Eutyches they were merely an embarrassment
to a council summoned to acquit him.
98 Supplied from
the Latin version.
99 Mt. 10:32.
100 Mt. 26:24.
101 Mt. 15:22–8.
102 Phil. 2:8.
103 Literally,
‘Since this faith … is the very foundation of the faith.’ The word πστις is used
equally for ‘faith’ generally and for the expression of that faith in a
formulary, specifically the Nicene Creed; it can, as here, shift between the
broader and specific meanings in a single utterance. We vary our translation
accordingly.
104 The
condemnation of Bishop Flavian of Constantinople.
105 Jn 5:39.
106 Mt. 7:7.
107 Nicaea and
Ephesus I. Treating the Council of Constantinople of 381 as equal in authority was
an innovation at Chalcedon (see the Definition, V. 31–3).
108 1 Sam. 2:25.
109 As Rusticus
notes ad loc., Dioscorus had restored Eutyches to communion even before the
council quashed the verdict of the Home Synod which had condemned him. This
enabled Eutyches to appear in person at Ephesus.
110 This is the
original text of the Nicene Creed (as at II. 11). ‘Catholic’ as a note of the
church indicates both universality and orthodoxy.
111 The reference
is to Canon 7 of Ephesus, given below at 943, which forbids the composition or
use of any creed apart from the Nicene. Eutyches artfully adduces this canon as
justifying his appeal to be acquitted on the basis of his profession of the
creed without any further investigation into his orthodoxy.
112 Dioscorus is
insisting that the decree in question, the so-called Canon 7 of Ephesus, is not
a mere canon (often issued by local synods) but a conciliar decree with full
conciliar status.
113 The addition
was made in the creed attributed to the Council of Constantinople of 381, which
condemned Apollinarius for denying that Christ had a rational human soul and
condemned Macedonius for denying the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. This
creed enjoyed none of the status of the Creed of Nicaea, and only achieved general
circulation when recited at Chalcedon (II. 14) and incorporated in the
Definition (V. 33); Eutyches could scarcely be blamed for not having cited it.
114 The first of
many appeals at the council to Canon 7 of Ephesus I, forbidding supplementation
of the Nicene Creed.
115 The Syrian
bishops are trying to undermine the appeal to Canon 7 by stressing how Eutyches
had exploited it in his appeal at 157 above.
116 Eutyches’
denial that Christ’s body is consubstantial with ours (516) was understood by his
opponents to imply that he held it to be of heavenly origin.
117 This can only
have been at Ephesus II, since Diogenes did not attend the Home Synod of 448.
But it is improbable that any of the bishops at Ephesus II had the opportunity,
or the courage, to challenge Eutyches publicly.
118 Dioscorus and
the other bishops who presided at Ephesus II.
119 See 546–8.
120 Dioscorus’
readiness to abandon the cause of Eutyches shows that he did not insist on all
the decrees of Ephesus II, which had included a formal judgement in Eutyches’
favour (884).
121 See 301. The
letter of Cyril referred to is his Second Letter to Nestorius (given below at 240)
which argued convincingly that the Nicene Creed supported his own view of the
nature of Christ. For the meaning of ‘acknowledged in two natures’ see vol. 2,
189, n. 15.
122 See 545, 791.
123 Mt. 12:37.
124 Sir. 4:22.
125 Cf. Lev.
20:9. Rusticus comments aptly, ‘He misunderstood the passage: the commandment does
not relate to the faith.’
126 Of Caesarea
(Cappadocia), Berytus and Ancyra respectively.
127 For
confirmation of this claim see 838, 842.
128 See 498–551.
129 See 838, 842.
130 See 555–828.
131 The meaning
is not ‘in the religious life’ but ‘in defence of orthodoxy’.
132 See 551.
133 See
552.31–53.
134 Whether
Eutyches registered an appeal at the Home Synod itself was disputed; see 818–24.
He certainly appealed subsequently to the emperor and the pope as well as to
various eastern bishops; see Kidd 1922, III, 298–300.
135 1 Tim. 6:13.
136 For Nicaea
and Ephesus I as the ‘two councils’, cf. Dioscorus speaking at Ephesus II (141
above).
137 Rusticus ad
loc. expresses surprise at Eusebius calling Ephesus II ‘holy’, but the honorific
is automatic and Chalcedon had not yet declared the proceedings of the council
null and void (for which see X. 145–59).
