thers, who, subsequently, assembled in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians, that the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers ought to be the only rule-while they anathematize every stumbling-block enacted at Chalcedon to the faith of the orthodox people, and utterly eject them from the churches, as an impediment to the general happiness and our own. Those, moreover, who, after the issuing of these our sacred letters, which we trust to have been uttered in accordance with the will of God, in an endeavour to accomplish that unity which all desire for the holy churches of God, shall attempt to bring forward, or so much as to name, the innovation upon the faith which was enacted at Chalcedon, either in discourse or instruction or writing, in whatever manner, place, or time; with respect to those persons, as being the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the whole of our subjects, and enemies to God and our safety, we command (in accordance with the laws ordained by our predecessor, Theodosius, of blessed and sacred memory, against such sort of evil designs, which laws are subjoined to this our sacred circular) that, if bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laics, that they be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation, and the severest penalties: for so the holy and homoousian Trinity, the Creator and Vivifier of the universe, which has ever been adored by our piety, receiving at the present time service at our hands in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol, and being thereby rendered favourable and gracious to our souls and to all our subjects, shall ever aid us in the exercise of our sway, and preserve the peace of the world."

CHAP. V.-RECEPTION OF THE CIRCULAR.

ACCORDING to Zacharias, the rhetorician, Timotheus, who, as I said, was just returned from banishment, agrees to these circular letters; as does also Peter, president of the church of Antioch, surnamed the Fuller, who also attended Timotheus at the imperial city. After these proceedings, they also determined that Paul should occupy the archiepiscopal throne of the church of Ephesus. This author also says, that AnasSee below, chap. 6.

tasius, the successor of Juvenalis as president of Jerusalem, subscribes the circular, and very many others; so that those who repudiated the tome of Leo and the synod of Chalcedon, amounted to about five hundred and also that a written petition was addressed to Basiliscus by the Asiatic bishops, assembled at Ephesus,1 a part of which is couched in the following terms "To our entirely pious and Christ-loving lords,

1 Concerning this Ephesine council, which was held in the times of the emperor Basiliscus, Baronius in his Annals, at the year of Christ 476, writes very slightly and negligently; remarking this only, that it was celebrated by the Eutychians. But he mentions neither upon what account it was assembled, nor what was transacted therein. Valesius supplies the following account. After the circular letters sent forth by the emperor Basiliscus against the Chalcedon council, Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, the only person of the patriarchs subject to the Eastern empire, refused subscribing to these letters, nor would he ever endure to expunge the Chalcedon synod out of the ecclesiastical tables. Moreover, the monks of Constantinople resolutely opposed Basiliscus. Lastly, the Constantinopolitan populace began to be most grievously tumultuous, threatening to fire the city and the palace, if the emperor should persist to put a force upon Acacius and the catholics. Basiliscus on this fled from the imperial city, took from the Constantinopolitan church their rights and privileges, and forbade the senators to speak to or salute Acacius. But afterwards, when he heard that Zeno was on his return out of Isauria, being stricken with fear, he came into the church together with his wife and children; and excusing himself to Acacius and the clergy of the imperial city, restored their rights to the Constantinopolitan church, and set forth his anti-circular, that is, letters contrary to his circular letters. The Eutychians therefore, when they saw Acacius contend with so much fierceness for the confirmation of the Chalcedon synod; and that not only the monasteries, but the people also of the imperial city, and other priests everywhere, were excited by Acacius against Basiliscus; convened a council of bishops of their own party in the city Ephesus. Where they condemned and deposed both Acacius and some other bishops who embraced the same sentiments with him; and then they entreated the emperor Basiliscus, that he would persist in his former opinion, and would not promulge a constitution contrary to his own circular letters. In the same synod, Paul is ordained bishop of Ephesus by the bishops of the same province, and the patriarchal privilege is restored to the Ephesine see, as Evagrius relates in the following chapter. This Ephesine council was held A. D. 477, after the consulate of Basiliscus and Armatus. Timotheus Elurus seems to have presided at this council. For he came to Ephesus in the reign of Basiliscus, and seated Paul in his episcopal chair. Nor is it likely that Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, should have been deposed by any other person than the Alexandrian bishop, who held the dignity of a patriarch equal to Acacius. For who can believe that the Constantinopolitan bishop was deposed by the bishops of Asia, who long before this, from the times of St. John Chrysostom, were subject to the bishops of Constantinople? Vales.

Basiliscus and Marcus, ever victorious emperors." Presently it proceeds: "Whenever the faith has been hated and assailed, you, all pious and Christ-loving sovereigns, have made it manifest throughout that you were equally assailed." And further on: "A certain fearful retribution of judgment and fury of divine fire and the just wrath of your serenity shall suddenly involve the adversaries, those who endeavour with vauntful assault to battle down the mighty God and your sovereignty fortified by the faith; who also in various ways have not spared our humble selves, but have continually slandered and belied us, as having subscribed to your sacred and apostolic circular letters by compulsion and violence, which we, in fact, subscribed with all joy and readiness." And further on: "Let it therefore be your pleasure, that nothing be put forward otherwise than as accords with your sacred circular, being assured that, as we have before said, the whole world will be turned upside down, and the evils which have proceeded from the synod at Chalcedon will be found trifling in comparison, notwithstanding the innumerable slaughters which they have caused, and the blood of the orthodox which they have unjustly and lawlessly shed." And further on: "We conjure your piety, in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, to maintain the just and canonical and ecclesiastical condemnation and deposition which has been inflicted on them, and especially on him who has been on many points convicted of having unduly exercised the episcopate of the imperial city." The same Zacharias also writes as follows: "On the issuing of the imperial circulars, those in the capital who were infected with the phantasy1 of Eutyches, and followed the monastic rule, believing themselves to have chanced on a prize in the person of Timotheus, and hoping by the circulars to catch their own profit, flock to him with all speed, and again retire, as if convinced by Timotheus that the

1 By pavraoiav, phantasy, or imagination, Zacharias means the opinion of Eutyches, who asserted that the flesh of Christ was not true nor consubstantial with that of ourselves, but only imaginary. Hence the Epistles of Avitus, bishop of Vienna, wherein he confutes Eutyches's error, have this title, Contra Phantasma, Against the Phantasm. From this passage it may be gathered, that Zacharias Rhetor was not an Eutychian, as Baronius thought, A. D. 476. For he would never have expressed himself thus, had he been a follower of the sect of Eutyches.

Word of God is consubstantial with ourselves as to flesh, and consubstantial with the Father as respects the Godhead."

CHAP. VI.-PROCEEDINGS OF TIMOTHY ÆLURUS.

THE same author says, that Timotheus, setting out from the imperial city, visited Ephesus, and there enthroned Paul as archpriest; who had already been ordained, according to the more ancient custom,2 by the bishops of the province, but had been ejected from his see: and he also restored to Ephesus the dignity of the patriarchate,3 of which the synod at Chalcedon had deprived it, as I have already mentioned. Proceeding thence, he arrives at Alexandria, and uniformly required all who approached him to anathematize the synod at Chalcedon. Accordingly, there abandon him, as has been recorded by the same Zacharias, many of his party, and among them Theodotus, one of the bishops ordained at Joppa by Theodosius, who had, by means of certain persons, become bishop of Jerusalem, at the time when Juvenalis betook himself to Byzantium.

CHAP. VII.-COUNTER-CIRCULAR OF BASILISCUS.

THIS author also says, that Acacius, president of the church of Constantinople, in consequence of these proceedings, stirred up the monastic body and the populace of the imperial city, on the plea that Basiliscus was a heretic and that the latter repudiated the circular, and issued a constitution to the effect, that transactions precipitated by overbearing influence were utterly null; and also sent forth a counter-circular in recommendation of the synod at Chalcedon. This countercircular, as he terms it, he has, however, omitted, having

1 See the preceding chapter.

2 It was the ancient usage, that the bishop of Ephesus should be ordained by the bishops of his own province. For, from St. Timothy, who was the first bishop of the Ephesians, down to Heraclides, whom St. John Chrysostom ordained, all the bishops of the Ephesians were ordained in the same city by the bishops of that province. Vales.

By the dignity of the patriarchal privilege, is meant the right of primacy, or the privilege of ordaining metropolitans. Compare the sixth canon of the Nicene council.

See below, b. iv. ch. 5.

written the whole work under passionate feelings. It is as follows:

THE COUNTER-CIRCULAR OF BASILISCUS.

"We, the emperors, Cæsars, Basiliscus and Marcus, thus ordain: that the apostolic and orthodox faith, which has held sway in the catholic churches from the very first, both until the beginning and during the continuance of our reign, and ought to sway in all coming time, into which also we were baptized, and in which we believe; that this alone continue to sway uninjured and unshaken, and ever prevail throughout the catholic and apostolic churches of the orthodox ; and that no question tending otherwise be a subject of debate. On this account we also enjoin, that all acts during our reign, whether circular letters or others, or anything whatever relating to faith or ecclesiastical constitution, be null; while we at the same time anathematize Nestorius, Eutyches, and every other heresy, with all who hold like sentiments; and that no synod or other debate be held on this subject, but that the present form remain unimpaired and unshaken. Also, that the provinces,' the ordination to which was possessed by the see of this imperial and glorious city, be restored to the most reverend and holy patriarch and archbishop Acacius, the present bishops, highly beloved of God, retaining their respective sees; provided that no prejudice thence arise after their demise to the right of ordination belonging to the illustrious see of this imperial and glorious city. That this our sacred ordinance has the force of a sacred constitution is a matter of doubt to none.'

Such was the course of these transactions.

When, by the emperor Basiliscus's circular letters, the Chalcedon synod had been wholly abrogated, the privileges of the Constantinopolitan see, which had been established in that council, seemed to have been taken away by that same sanction. Acacius therefore used his utmost endeavour, that the emperor Basiliscus should revoke his own constitution. Besides, in the Ephesine synod, the patriarchal privilege had been restored to the see of Ephesus, as we have seen above: and consequently all jurisdiction over the Asiatic diocese, which had been given to the bishop of Constantinople by the decree of the Chalcedon synod, was taken away from that see. There was therefore need of a new constitution, whereby its rights and privileges might be restored to the see of Constantinople. This therefore the emperor Basiliscus now performs, by the pub lication of these his anti-circular letters. Vales.