11. To no one of all its friends is the Nestorian faith more indebted than it is to Barsumas. Ejected from the school of Edessa with his associates, and created in the year 435 bishop of Nisibis, he laboured from the year 440 to the year 485 with incredible assiduity and dexterity, to procure for Nestorianism a permanent establishment in Persia. Maanes, bishop of Ardaschir, was his principal coadjutor. His measures were so successful that all the Nestorians in Chaldea, Persia, Assyria, and the neighbouring countries, deservedly venerate him to this day as their only parent and founder. He persuaded the Persian monarch Pherozes to expel the Christians who adhered to the opinions of the Greek fathers, and not only to admit Nestorians in their place, but to allow them to make the first cities in Persia, Seleucia, and Ctesiphon, their primary seat, which their patriarch or Catholic has occupied down to our times. He also erected the famous school at Nisibis, from which issued those who, in this and the following century, carried the Nestorian doctrines into Egypt, Syria, Arabia, India, Tartary, and even to China.1· See also Theodorus Lector, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. p. 558. [Some additional materials have been furnished by the researches of Cardinal Mal, towards enabling us to form more correct ideas of the history of this sect. In the tenth and last volume of his valuable collection, he has given in Latin and Syriac the canons of the Nestorian churches, as compiled by Ebediesu, metropolitan of Nisibis and Armenia in the commencement of the 14th century; and at the end of the same volume he has printed, also in Syriac and Latin, the same bishop's Liber Margarite which appears to be a defence of the Nestorian tenets.-R. All these transactions are well illustrated by the before mentioned Asseman, Biblio. Orient. Clement. Fatic. tom. iii. pt ii. p. 77, &c. [The Nestorians are not called by this name in the East (for they regard their doctrines as apostolic, and they never had any connexion with the person of Nestorius) but are generally called Chaldaic Christians (because their principal or head church is in the ancient Chaldea), and in some part of the East Indies, St. Thomas Christians, because they suppose they received Christianity from the apostle Thomas-They constitute a large Christian community which has no connexion with others, have their own forms of worship, their own bishops, and their own ecclesiastical councils. Their church extends through all Asia and exists partly in the Persian, partly in the Turkish, and partly in the Mogul empires. The patriarch resides in a monastery not far from Mosul, and has a great many bishops under him. The enmity of the Persians and afterwards of the Muhammedans and Saracens against the Romans, contributed much to further the spread of this sect; for they received all refugees from the Roman empire, and extended full protection to such Christians as were not tolerated in the Roman provinces, and whom of course they could not suspect of any understanding with the Romans. Ibas, bishop of Edessa, was one of the greatest defenders of Nestorius among the orientals; and on that account his epistle to Marin, the Persian bishop of Ardaschir, was rejected by some councils. but the chief persons among them were Barsumas and his assistant Maanes. After the death of Barsumas, the archbishop of Seleucia, Babacus became the head of the party, and from this time onward the patriarchs (catholici or jacekich resided at Seleucia, until under the caliphs Bagdat and Mosul were selected for that purpose. This Babacus held a council in the year 499, in which not only 2 12. Before this sect became fully formed and established, there was some difference of opinion in it. Some said that the manner in which the two natures in Christ were combined was wholly unknown, but others denied any other connexion than that of will, operation, and dignity. But this disagreement wholly disappeared from the time that the Nestorian community became duly consolidated; for it was decreed by synods assembled at Seleucia that there were in the Saviour of mankind two persons or Toorάous, namely a divine, that of the Word, and a human, that of Jesus; yet that both persons constituted but one Aspect, or as they (following Nestorius) expressed it, one Barsopa, that is, goowTov; that this union of the Son of God with the Son of man took place at the moment of conception and would never end, but that it was not a union of natures or persons, but only of will and affection; Christ therefore must be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in Christ as in his temple (as Nestorius had said), and that Mary should never be called the mother of God, but only the mother of Christ. They reverence Nestorius as a holy man, and worthy of everlasting remembrance; but they maintain that his doctrine was much more ancient than he, being de the whole Persian church professed itself to belong to the Nestorian community, but regulations were also made that all bishops and priests must be married, and second marriages of the clergy were not merely permitted but declared to be necessary. (See Asseman, Biblio. Orient. tom. iii. pt. ii. p. 177.) The Nestorians differ from other Christians in the following particulars; that they will not call Mary the mother of God, and wholly reject the expressions, God was crucified and died; that they admit no natural and personal, but only a friendly union of the Word that was God (for so they speak) with the man Jesus; that they teach there are in Christ two natures and two substances, each of which has its own personality; that thay reject the council of Ephesus, execrate Cyril as being a wicked wretch, and venerate Nestorius and Theodorus of Mopsuestia as being saints; that they worship no images, and perform their worship, which is very simple, in the Syriac language. Together with baptism, which they generally administer on the fortieth day after the birth, and the Lord's supper, in which they use leavened bread, they make the consecration of priests to be a sacrament. They also practise anointing with oil as a ceremony of worship, and likewise in slight diseases and even in commencing journeys, as a sort of consecration. See Baumgarten's Geschichte der Religionspartheyen, p. 586.— Schl [Much valuable information on the present condition of the Nestorians in the East, is given in Wolff's Journal; in Grant's Nestorian Christians settled in Ooroomia, Koordistan, &c. Lond. 1841; in Perkins' Residence of Eig t Years in Persia among the Nestorian Christians, Andover (U. 8.), 1843, 8vo, a very interesting work by an American missionary; and in Wingard's Review of the Present State of the Church of Christ, translated from the Swedish, Lond. 1845, 12mo, p. 56. Since these works were written, the Nestorians have suffered much from the Kurds; and in 1846 numbers are reported to have been massacred in the mountains of Kurdistan.-R. 2 Leontius Byzantinus, Adv. Nestorianos et Eutychianos; in Canisius, Lectiones Antiq. tom. i. 537, and Bashage, Prolegom. ad Canisium, tom. i. cap. ii. p 19, &c. rived from the earliest ages of the church, he was supposed to deny the humanity of and therefore they do not wish to be called Jesus Christ, and was accused by Eusebius Nestorians. And it appears in fact that of Doryleum before a council called by Barsumas and his associates did not incul- Flavianus perhaps in this very year at Concate on their followers the precise doctrines stantinople. And as Eutyches refused to taught by Nestorius, but they in some mea- give up his opinions at the bidding of this sure polished his imperfect system, enlarged council, he was cast out of the church and it, and connected with it other doctrines deprived of his office; and not acquiescing which Nestorius never embraced.1 in this decree, he appealed to a general council of the whole church.3 14. The emperor Theodosius therefore convoked at Ephesus in the year 449 such 13. While avoiding the fault of Nestorius many ran into the opposite extreme. The most noted of these was Eutyches, abbot of a certain convent of monks at Constanti-a council as Eutyches had requested, and nople, from whom originated another sect placed at the head of it Dioscorus, bishop directly opposite to that of Nestorius, but of Alexandria, a man as ambitious and restequally troublesome and mischievous to the less as Cyril, and as hostile to the bishop of interests of Christianity; and which, like Constantinople. In this council the busithat, spread with great rapidity throughout ness was conducted with the same kind of the East, and acquired such strength in its fairness and justice as by Cyril in the council progress that it gave immense trouble both of Ephesus against Nestorius; for Diosto the Nestorians and to the Greeks, and corus, in whose church nearly the same became a great and powerful community. things were taught as Eutyches had adIn the year 448 Eutyches now far advanced vanced, so artfully managed and controlled in years, in order more effectually to put the whole of the proceedings, that the docdown Nestorius, to whom he was a violent trine of one nature incarnate was triumfoe, explained the doctrine concerning the phant, and Eutyches was acquitted of all person of Christ in the phraseology of the error. On the contrary, Flavianus was Egyptians, maintaining that there was only severely scourged and banished to Epipa, a one nature in Christ, namely, that of the city of Lydia, where he soon after died." the Word, who became incarnate. Hence On the whole of this Nestorian controversy the student would do well to consult the section (section 88) devoted to this subject, with its valuable references and extracts, in Gieseler, Lehrbuch, &c. Davidson's Transl. vol. i. p 389, &c. He should also compare with it the Roman Catholic view of the same controversy and of the respective tenets of Nestorius and Cyril, as given by a recent historian of that church, Döllinger, History of the Church translated by Cox, vol. ii. p. 148, &c.-R. That Cyril had so expressed himself, and had appealed to the authority of Athanasius to justify the phraseology, is beyond controversy. But whether Athanasius actually used such language is doubtful, for many think the book in which it occurs was not a production of Athanasius. See Le Quien, Diss. ii. in Damascenum, p. 31, &c and Salig, De Eutychianismo ante Eutychen, p. 112, &c. That the Syrians used the same phraseology before Eutyches' times and without offence, is shown by Asseman, Biblio. Orient. tom. i. p. 219.-We are yet in want of a solid and accurate history of the Eutychian troubles, which however Salig left in manuscript. [This has not yet been published, but Walch has given a very elaborate and full history of the Eutychian and Monophysite sects, filling the whole sixth, seventh, and eighth volumes of his Hist. der Ketzer. Lips. 1773, 76-78, 8vo, and Schroeckh has treated the subject well in his Kirchenges. vol. xviii. pages 433-636, Lips. 1793, 8vo. -The points in controversy between Eutyches and his friends on the one part and their antagonists on the other, during the first period of the contest or till the council of Chalcedon in 451, according to Walch (ubi supra, vol. vi. pages 611-619) were in amount as follows. Both held alike-1, the perfect correctness of the Nicene Creed. And of course, 2, both held the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the Godhead; 3, that God, the Word, was made flesh; 4, that Christ was truly God and truly man united; and 5, that after the union of the two natures he was one person. But Eutyches inaintained, 6, that the two natures of Christ after the nnion did not remain two distinct natures, but coustituted one nature; and therefore, 7, that it was correct to say Christ was constituted of or from two natures, but not that he existed in two natures. For 8, the union of the two natures was such that, although neither of then was lost or was essentially changed, yet together they constituted one nature, of which com. pound nature and not of either of the original natures alone, must thenceforth be predicated each and every property of both natures. He accordingly denied, 9, that it is correct to say of Christ that, as to his human nature, he was ouoovσios (of the same nature) with us. It is to be remembered that Eutyches was solicitous chiefly to confute Nestorius, who kept the two natures almost entirely distinct, and seemed to deny any other union than that of purpose and co-operation; and in particular be disliked all phrases which predicated the acts and sufferings of the human nature, of the divine nature; and to enable him to overturn this error he so blended the two natures that they could not afterwards be distinguished.—Mur. 3 This was an occasional council assembled for other purposes, before which Eusebius appeared and accused Eutyches. The council peremptorily required him to give up his opinions, and on his refusal proceeded at once to excommunicate him. See the Acts of this council in Harduin's Concilia, tom. ii. p. 70, &c. See also Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vi. pages 108-158. -Mur. 4 See Harduin, Concilia, tom. I. p. 82, &c.; Liberatus, Breviarium, cap. xii. p. 76; Leo Magn. Epist. xciii. p. 625; Nicephorus, Hist. Eccles. lib. xiv. cap. xlvii. p. 550, &c. [Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversamm. p. 301, &c. and Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vi. pages 175— 264; Bower's Lives of the Popes (Leo), vol. ii. pages 42-48, 4to. The aged emperor Theodosius II. was managed by the Eutychians, and therefore he called such a council as would accomplish their wishes. In the council, Eutyches offered a confession of faith which did not touch the point in debate, and this was accepted without allowing his accusers to be heard. By accla mation the doctrine of two natures in the incarnate Word was condemned. Dioscorus then proposed to condemn Flavianus and Eusebius. Here opposition was made, and Dioscorus called on the imperial commissioners, who threw open the doors of the church; a band of soldiers and an armed mob rushed in. The terrified bishops no longer resisted. Every member (in Christ there is but one person yet two distinct natures no way confounded or mixed.' The Greeks call this Ephesine council | most to this day do believe, that in Jesus súvodov Anorgixnv, an Assembly of robbers, to signify that everything was carried in it by fraud and violence. This name indeed would be equally applicable to many councils of this and the subsequent times. 15. But the scene changed soon after. Flavianus and his adherents engaged Leo the Great, the Roman pontiff, on their side a course which was commonly taken in that age by those who were foiled by their enemies and also represented to the emperor that an affair of such magnitude demanded a general council to settle it. Theodosius however could not be persuaded to grant the request of Leo, and call such a council; but on his death Marcian, his successor, summoned a new council at Chalcedon in the year 451, which is called the fourth general council. In this very numerous assembly the legates of Leo the Great (who had already publicly condemned the doctrine of Eutyches, in his famous Epistle to Flavianus) were exceedingly active and influential. Dioscorus therefore was condemned, deposed, and banished to Paphlagonia, the Acts of the Ephesine council were rescinded, the Epistle of Leo was received as a rule of faith, Eutyches, who had already been divested of his clerical dignity and exiled by the emperor, was condemned though absent, and not to mention the other decrees of the council, all Christians were required to believe, what all one hundred and forty-nine) signed the decrees. Flavianus was deposed and banished. Eusebius of Doryleum, Theodoret of Cyprus, Domnus of Antioch, and several others were also deposed. The decisions of this council were ratified by the emperor, and ordered to be everywhere enforced.-Mur. 1 This is the last of the four great œcumenical councils, whose determinations on the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ are universally received, not merely by the Greek and Roman churches, but by Protestant churches, on the ground of their being consonant with Scripture. Hooker in his Eccles. Polity (book v. sec. 54) has made the following pithy observations on these councils, which distinctly set forth the purport of their respective decisions:-"There are but FOUR things which concur to make complete the whole state of our Lord Jesus Christ-his deity, his manhood, the conjunction of both, and the distinction of the one from the other being joined in one. FOUR principal heresies there are which have in those things withstood the truth: Arians, by bending themselves against the deity of Christ; Apollinarians, by maiming and misinterpreting that which belongeth to his human nature; Nestorians, by rending Christ asunder and dividing him into two persons; the followers of Eutyches, by confounding in his person those natures which they should distinguish. Against these there have been FOUR most famous ancient general councils: the council of Nice [325], to define against Arians; against Apollinarians, the council of Constantinople (381); the council of Ephesus [4311, against Nestorians; against Eutychians, the Chalcedon council [451] In Fork wordsαληθώς, τελέως, ἀδια Cénes, dovyxúτws, truly, perfectly, indivisibly, distinctly; the first applied to his being God; and the second to his being man; the third to his being of both, one; and the fourth to his still continuing in that one, both " -R 16. This remedy, which was intended to heal the wounds of the church, was worse than the disease; for a great part of the Oriental and Egyptian doctors, though holding various sentiments in other respects, agreed in a vigorous opposition to this council of Chalcedon and to the Epistle of Leo the Great, which the council had adopted, and contended earnestly for one nature in Christ. Hence arose most deplorable discords and civil wars almost exceeding credibility. In Egypt the excited populace, after the death of the emperor Marcian [A.D. 457] murdered Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus, and appointed in his place Timotheus Elurus, a defender of the doctrine of one incarnate nature. And although Elurus was expelled from his office by the emperor Leo, yet under the [second succeeding] emperor, Basiliscus, he recovered it. After his death [A.D. 476] the friends of the council of Chalcedon elected Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, and the advocates for one nature chose Peter Moggus. But Salophaciolus being dead, in the year 482 Moggus, by order of the emperor Zeno and by the influence of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, obtained full possession of the see of Alexandria, and John Talaia, whom the Chalcedonians had elected. was removed.3 2 See the Acts of this council in all the Collections of Councils; e.g. Harduin, tom. ii. p. 1, &c. See also Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. ii. iv.; Cave, Hist. Liter. vol. i. pages 482-487; Walch, Hist. der Kirchenversamm. pages 307-314; and Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vi. pages 293-489; Bower, Lives of the Popes (Leo I., vol. ii. pages 56-100, 4to; Münscher, Dogmenges. iv. 96; Gieseler's Text-book by Cunningham i. 240. The exposition of faith in the 5th action of this coun cil, was designed to guard against both Eutychian and Nestorian errors. After recognising the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, with Leo's letter to Flavianus, &c. they say:-" Following therefore these holy fathers, we unitedly declare that one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is to be acknowledged as being perfect in his Godhead and perfect in his humanity; truly God and truly man with a rational soul and body; of like essence (ouoovσios) with the Father as to his Godhead, and of like essence (ouoovσios) with us as to his manhood; in all things like us, sin excepted; begotten (yevvn@eis) of the Father from all eternity as to his Godhead; and of Mary the mother of God (BEOTÓKOV) in these last days, for us and for our salvation as to his manhood; recognised as one Christ, Son, Lord, Onlybegotten; of two natures, unconfounded, unchanged, undivided, inseparable (dovy úтws, áтρÉTтws, adiαipéτws, axwpioTws); the distinction of natures not all done away by the union, but rather the peculiarity (idórs) of each nature preserved, and combining (ovvTREXONS) into one substance (vróσraow); not separated or divided into two persons (pówna), but one Son, Only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets before [taught] concerning him, so he the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and the creed of the fathers hath transmitted to us." ."-Mur. 3 See Liberatus, Breviarium Hist. cap. xvi. xvii. xviii.; Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. cap. viii. lib. iii cap. iii.: Le Quien, Oriens Christ. tom. ii. p. 410, &c. 17. In Syria the abbot Barsumas (a dif- | consequence of this dispute was, that the ferent person from Barsumas of Nisibis, who western Christians rejected this form of the established the Nestorian sect) having been hymn, which they understood to refer to the condemned by the council of Chalcedon, whole Trinity, but the oriental Christians went about propagating the doctrine of continued to use it constantly, even down Eutyches. He also spread this doctrine to modern times, without offence, because among the neighbouring Armenians about they refer the hymn to Christ only, or to the year 460 by means of his disciple Samuel; but one person in the Trinity. yet the Syrians are commonly represented as afterwards giving up this harsher form of the Eutychian doctrine, under the guidance of Zenaias or Philoxenus, the bishop of Mabug [or Hierapolis], and the famous Peter [the Fuller] Gnapheus in Greek and Fullo in Latin; for these men denied what Eutyches is said to have taught, that the human nature of Christ was absorbed in the divine, and simply inculcated that Christ possessed one nature, which yet was a twofold or compound one. Still, as this doctrine was equally inconsistent with the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, the believers in it most stedfastly rejected that council.' 18. Peter, who was surnamed the Fuller, because while a monk he pursued the trade of a fuller, got possession of the see of Antioch; and although he was often ejected and condemned on account of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, yet in the year 482 he obtained a full establishment in it by authority of the emperor Zeno, through the influence of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. This man, who was formed to promote discord and controversy, occasioned new contests, and was thought to aim at establishing a new sect called the Theopaschites, because he recommended to the eastern churches an addition to the hymn called Trisagium, by inserting after the words O Holy God, Holy Almighty, Holy Eternal, the clause-who wast crucified for 1 Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. ii. p. 1-10, and his Diss. De Monophysitis prefixed to this volume, p. 2, &c. [According to Walch, the parties were continually coming nearer together in doctrine, so that the theological dispute was sinking fast into a mere logomachy. But several questions of facts or acts of the parties became the subjects of lasting dispute and contention. See Walch's Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vi. p. 796, &c. 825-832.- Mur. Valesius, Diss. de Petro Fullone et de Synodis adversus eum collectis, annexed to his Scriptores Histor. Eccles. tom. iii. p. 173, &c. 19. To settle these manifold dissensions, which exceedingly disquieted both church and state, the emperor Zeno, in the year 482, by the advice of Acacius the bishop of Constantinople, offered to the contending parties that formula of concord which is commonly called his Henoticon. This formula repeated and confirmed all that had been decreed in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians, but it made no mention of the council of Chalcedon; for Zeno had been led by Acacius to believe that the opposition of the disaffected was, not to the doctrine of the council of Chalcedon but to the council itself. This formula of concord was subscribed by the leaders of the Monophysite party, Peter Moggus, bishop of Alexandria, and Peter Fullo, bishop of Antioch. It was likewise approved by Acacius of Constanti 3 See Noris, De uno ez Trinitate carne passo, in his Opp. tom. iii. Diss. i. cap. iii. p. 782; Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. i. p. 518, &c. tom. ii. p. 36, 180, &c. [and Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vii. p. 237, &c. 329, 339, &c.-Mur. Thus 4 Evagrius, Hist. Ecel. lib. iii. cap. xiv; Liberatus, Breviarium Hist. cap. xviii. [in both of which the Henoticon is given. Mosheim's description of this famous decree is very imperfect. In it the emperor explicitly recognises the creed of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan councils, as the only established and allowed creed of the church, and declares every person an alien from the true church who would introduce any other. This creed he says was received by that council of Ephesus which condemned Nestorius, whom with Eutyches the emperor pronounces to be heretics. He also acknow ledges the twelve chapters of Cyril of Alexandria to be sound and orthodox, and declares Mary to be the mother of God and Jesus Christ to possess two natures, in one of which he was ouoovotos of like substance with the Father, and in the other, ouoovotos with us. he fully recognised the doctrines of the council of affirming that these doctrines were embraced by all Chalcedon, without alluding at all to that body, and members of the true church, he calls upon all Christians to unite on this sole basis, and "anathematizes every person who has thought or thinks otherwise, either now or at any other time, whether at Chalcedon or in any other synod whatever, but more especially the aforesaid persons. Nestorius and Eutyches, and such as embrace their sentiments," and concludes with renewed exhortations to a union on this basis. This formula of union was happily calculated to unite the more considerate of both parties. It required indeed some sacrifice of principle on the part of the Monophysites, or at least of their favourite phraseology; but it also required the dominant party to give up the advantage over their foes which they had obtained by the general council of Chalcedon. In Egypt, the Henoticon was extensively embraced, but the bishops of Rome were opposed to it, and were able to render it generally inefficient. Mur. [See a dissertation on this subject, De Henotico Zenonis in Jablonski, Opuscula, Ed. Te Water, vol. iv. p. 332. See also Milman's Gibbon's Decl. and Fall, vol. viii. p. 315, &c.-R. nople and by all the more moderate of both | pontiffs, because he denied by his actions parties; but the violent on both sides re- the supremacy of the Roman see, and was sisted it, and complained that this Henoticon extremely eager to extend the jurisdiction did injustice to the council of Chalcedon.1 and advance the honour of the see of ConHence arose new controversies as trouble- stantinople. The Greeks defended the some as those which preceded. character and memory of their bishop against the aspersions of the Romans. This contest was protracted till the following century, when the pertinacity of the Romans triumphed, and caused the names of Acacius and Peter Fullo to be struck out of the sacred registers, and consigned as it were to perpetual infamy. 20. A considerable part of the Monophysites or Eutychians considered Peter Moggus as having committed a great crime by acceding to the Henoticon, and therefore they united in a new party, which was called that of the Acephali, because they were deprived of their head or leader. Afterwards this sect became divided into three parties, the Anthropomorphites, the Barsanuphites, and the Esianists; and these sects were succeeded in the next age by others, of which the ancients make frequent mention.3 Yet the inquirer into the subject must be informed that some of these Eutychian sects are altogether imaginary, that others differed not in reality but only in terms, and that some were distinguished, not by their sentiments but by some external rites and other outward circumstances. And they were likewise of temporary duration; for in the next century they all became extinct, through the influence especially of Jacobus Baradæus. 5 22. The cause of so great a series of evils appears to be a very small matter. It is said that Eutyches believed that the divine nature of Christ absorbed his human nature, so that Christ consisted of but one nature, and that the divine; yet whether this was the fact or not is not sufficiently clear. This sentiment however together with Eutyches, was abandoned and rejected by the opposers of the council of Chalcedon, who were guided by Xenias and Peter Fullo, and therefore they are more properly called Monophysites than Eutychians; for all who are designated by this name hold that the divine and human natures of Christ were so united as to constitute but one nature, yet 21. The Roman pontiff, Felix III. with without any conversion, confusion, or comhis friends attacked Acacius, the bishop of mixture; and that this doctrine may not be Constantinople, who had favoured the He- understood differently from their real meannoticon, as a betrayer of the truth, and ex-ing, they often say there is but one nature cluded him from church communion. To in Christ, yet it is twofold and compound." justify this hostility Felix and his successors With Eutyches they disclaimed all contaxed Acacius with favouring the Monophy-nexion, but they venerate Dioscorus, Barsites and their leaders, Peter Moggus and Peter Fullo, with contempt for the council of Chalcedon, and with some other things. But in reality, as many facts demonstrate, Acacius became thus odious to the Roman 2 Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xiii.; Leontius Byzant. De Sectis, in Canisius, Lection. Antiq. tom. i. The Eccles. Gra. tom. iii. p. 409. [From the time of the * These sects are enumerated by Basnage, Prolegom. ad Caninii Lection. Antiq. cap. iii. and Asseman, Diss. de Monophysitis, p. 7, &c. sumas, Xenias, and Peter Fullo, as pillars of their sect, and reject the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, together with the epistle of Leo the Great. The doctrine of the Monophysites, if we may judge from the language they used, appears to differ from the doctrine established by the council of Chalcedon, not substantially, but only in the mode of stating it; yet if we attend carefully to the metaphysical arguments 5 Valesius, Diss. de Synodis Romanis in quibus damnatus est Acacius, subjoined to the third volume of his Scriptores Hist. Eccles. p. 179, &c.; Basnage, Hist. de Eglise, tome i. p. 301, 380, 381, &c.; Nouveau Diction Hist. Crit. tome i. art. Acacius, p. 75, &c.; Blondell, De la Primauté dans l' Eglise, p. 279, &c.; Acta Sanctorum, tom. iii. Februarii, p. 502, &c. [Bower's Lives of the Popes (Felix III.) vol. ii. p. 198, &c. 4to.-Mur. 6 See the quotations from works of Monophysites, by that excellent and at times sufficiently ingenuous writer, Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. ii. p. 25, 26, 29, 34, 117, 133, 135, 277, 297, &c. 7 Many learned men consider this controversy as a mere strife about words. Among the Monophysites Gregory Abulpharajus, the most learned of the sect, was of this opinion. Asserman, Biblioth. Orient, Vatic. tom. ii. p. 291. Add the Biblioth. Italique, tom. xvii. 4 For an account of Jacobus Baradæus and his p. 285; La Croze, Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, p. labours in resuscitating the fallen sect of the Monophy-23; and Hist. du Christ. d' Ethiopie, p. 14, &c. Even sites, see Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. viii, pages 481 Asseman (ubi supra, p. 297), though living at Rome, -491-Mur. came near to avowing this opinion. |