Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/561

 EPHESUS

495

EPHESUS

Patre et FiKo (Rome, 1661); "Rivington, The Roman Primacy, iiO-l^l (London. 1899); Bethune-Baker. Neslorius and his Teaching (Cambridge, 1908); Mahe, Les anathematismes de S. Cyrille et les evegues orientaux in Revue d'hist, eccl. (Louvain, 1906), VII, 3.

John Chapman.

Ephesus, Robber Council of (Latrocinium). — The Acts of the first session of this synod were read at the Council of Chalcedon, 451, and have thus been pre- served to us. The remainder of the Acts (the first ses- sion being wanting) are known only through a Syriac translation by a Monophysite monk, published from the British Museum MS. Addit. 14,530, written in the year 535. On the events which preceded the opening of the council, 8 August, 449, .see DioscuRUS. The emperor had convoked it, the pope had agreed. No time had been left for any Western bishops to attend, except a certain Julius of an unknown see, who, to- gether with a Roman priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and the deacon Hilarus, afterwards pope, repre- sented St. Leo. The Emperor Theodosius II gave to Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, the presidency — ri]!' avBevrlav Kal ra irpureia. The legate Julius is mentioned next, but when this name was read at Chal- cedon, the bishops cried: " He was cast out. No one represented Leo." Next in order was Juvenal of Jeru- salem, above both the Patriarch of Antioch, Domnus, and St. Flavian of Constantinople. The number of bishops present was 127, with eight representatives of absent bishops, and lastly the deacon Hilarus with his notary Dulcitius. The question before the council by order of the emperor was whether St. Flavian, in a synod held by him at Constantinople in November, 448, had justly deposed and excommunicated the Archimandrite Eutyches for refusing to admit two na- tures in Christ. Consequently Flavian and six other bishops, who had been present at his synod, were not allowed to sit as judges in the council. The brief of convocation by Theodosius was read, and then the Roman legates explained that it would have been con- trary to custom for the pope to be present in person, but he had sent a letter by them. In this letter St. Leo had appealed to his dogmatic letter to Flavian, which he intended to be read at the council and ac- cepted by it as a rule of faith. But Dioscorus took care not to have it read, and instead of it a letter of the emperor, ordering the presence at the council of the fanatical anti-Nestorian monk Barsumas, was pre- sented. The question of faith was next proceeded with. Dioscorus declared that this was not a matter for inquiry: they had only to inquire into the recent doings. He was acclaimed as a guardian of the Faith. Eutyches then was introduced, and declared that he held the Nicene Creed, to which nothing could be added, and from which nothing could be taken away. He had been condemned by Flavian for a mere slip of the tongue, though he had declared that he held the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, and had appealed to the present council. He had been in danger of his life. He now asked for judgment against the calumnies which had been brought against him.

The accuser of Eutyches, Bishop Eusebius of Dory- IfEum, was not allowed to be heard. The bishops agreed that the Acts of the condemnation of Eutyches, at a council held at Constantinople in November, 448, should be read, but the legates asked that the pope's letter might be heard first. Eutyches interrupted with the complaint that he did not trust the legates; they had been to dine with Flavian, and had received much courtesy. Dio.scorus decided that the Acts of the trial should have precedence, and so the letter of St. Leo was never read at all. The Acts were then read in full (for an account of them see Eutyche.s), and also the account of an inquiry made on 13 April into the allegation of Eutyches that the synodal Acts had been incorrectly taken down, and of another in- quiry on 27 April into the accusation made by Euty-

ches that Flavian had drawn up the sentence against him beforehand. While the trial was being related, cries arose of belief in one nature, that two natures meant Nestorianism, of "Burn Eusebius", and so forth. St. Flavian rose to complain that no oppor- tunity was given him of defending himself. The Acts of the Robber Council now give a list of 114 votes in the form of short speeches absolving Eutyches. Even three of his former judges joined in this, although by the emperor's order they were not to vote. Barsumas added his voice in the last place. A petition was read from the monastery of Eutyches, which had been ex- communicatetl by Flavian. On the assertion of the monks that they agreed in all things with Eutyches, and with the holy Fathers, the synod absolved them.

Next in order to establish the true Faith an extract was read from the Acts of the first session of the Coun- cil of Ephesus of 431. Many of the bishops, and also the deacon Hilarus, expressed their assent, some add- ing that nothing beyond this faith could be allowed. Dioscorus then spoke, declaring that it followed that Flavian and Eusebius must be deposed. No less than 101 bishops gave their votes orally, and the signatures of all the 135 bishops follow in the Acts. Flavian and Eusebius had previously interposed an appeal to the pope and to a council under his authority. Their formal letters of appeal have been recently published by Amelli. The evidence given at Chalcedon is con- clusive that the account in the Acts of this final scene of the session is not to be trusted. The secretaries of the bishops had been violently prevented from taking notes. It was declared that both Barsumas and Dios- corus struck Flavian, though this may be exaggera- tion. But we must believe that many bishops threw themselves on their knees to beg Dioscorus for mercy to Flavian, that the military were introduced and also Alexandrian Parabolani, and that a scene of violence ensued ; that the bishops signed under the influence of bodily fear, that some signed a blank paper, and that others did not sign at all, the names being afterwards filled in of all who were actually present.

The papal legate Hilarus uttered a single word in Latin, Contradicitur, annulling the sentence in the pope's name. He then escaped with difficulty. Fla- vian was deported into exile, and died a few days later in Lydia. No more of the Acts was read at Chalcedon. But we learn from Theodoret, Evagrius, and others, that the Robber Council deposed Theodoret himself, Domnus, and Ibas. The Syriac Acts take up the his- tory where the Chalcedonian Acts break off. Of the first session only the formal documents, letters of the emperor, petitions of Eutyches, are known to be pre- served in Syriac, though not in the same MS. It is evident that the Monophysite editor thoroughly dis- approved of the first session, and purposely omitted it, not because of the high-handed proceedings of Dios- corus, but because the Monophysites as a general rule condemned Eutyches as a heretic, and did not wish to remember his rehabilitation by a council which they considered to be oecumenical.

In the ne.xt session, according to the Syriac Acts, 113 were present, including Barsumas. Nine new names appear. The legates were sent for, as they did not appear, but only the notary Dulcitius could be found, and he was unwell. The legates had shaken off the flust of their feet against the assembly. It was a charge against Dioscorus at Chalcedon that he " had held an (oecumenical) council without the Apostolic See, which was never allowed". This manifestly re- fers to his having continued the council after the de- parture of the legates. The first case was that of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa. This famous champion of the An- tiochian party had been accused of crimes before Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, and had been acquitted, soon after Easter, 448. His accusers had gone to Constantinople and obtained a new trial from the em- peror. The bishops Photius of Tyre, Eustathius of