Alexandria; and John Talaia, whom the Chalcedonians had elected, was removed." § 17. In Syria, the abbot Barsumas, (a different person from Barsumas of Nisibis, who gave stability to the Nestorian sect,) having been condemned by the council of Chalcedon, went about propagating the doctrine of Eutyches. He also spread this doctrine among the neighbouring Armenians, about the year 460, by means of his disciple Samuel. Yet from the harsher form of the Eutychian doctrine, the Syrians afterwards departed under the guidance of Zenaias, or Philoxenus, the bishop of Mabug', and of the very famous Peter Gnapheus, or in Latin form, the Fuller.2 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, and this 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 steadfastly rejected that council.3 § 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, and the influence of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople.* This man, who was formed to promote discord and controversy, occasioned new contests, and was looked upon as inclined to establish a new sect, which has been called the Theopaschites; because, to the very celebrated hymn, called Trisagius by the Greeks, Holy God, Holy Almighty, 9 See Liberatus, Breviarium, cap. 16, 17, 18. Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 8; lib. iii. c. 3. Mich. le Quien, Oriens Christianus, tom. ii. p. 410, &c. 1 [Or Hierapolis. Tr.] 2 Fullo. 3 Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. ii. p. 1-10, and his Diss. de Monophysitis, prefixed to this tome, p. ii. &c. [According to Dr. 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 Historie der Holy Eternal, he enjoined upon the eastern churches this addition, who wast crucified for us. He made undoubtedly this addition with sectarian views, intending to establish men more firmly in his beloved doctrine, that of but one nature in Christ. But his adversaries, especially Felix of Rome and others, perverted his meaning; charging him with an intention to teach, that all the three persons in the Godhead were crucified: wherefore such as approved this form of the hymn were called Theopaschites. The consequence of this dispute was, that the western Christians rejected this form of the hymn, which they understood to refer to the whole Trinity; but the oriental Christians have used it. constantly, ever since, without offence, because they refer it to Christ as one person in the Trinity 6. § 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 inculcated all that had been decreed in the councils of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, against the Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians; but made no mention of the council of Chalcedon." For Zeno had been led by Acacius to 6 See Hen. Noris, de uno ex Trinitate carne passo Liber, in his Opp. tom. iii. Diss. i. c. 3, p. 782. Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. i. p. 518, &c. tom. ii. p. 36, 180, &c. [and Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. vii. p. 237, &c. 329. 339, &c. Tr.] Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 14. Liberatus, Breviarium Histor. c. 18, [in both of which the Henoticon is given. Dr. Mosheim's description of this famous decree is very imperfect. In it the emperor explicitly recognizes 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 acknowledges 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 duoovoios of like substance with the Father, and in the other, duoovolos with us. Thus he fully recognized the doctrines of the council of Chalcedon, without alluding at all to that body: and affirming, that these doctrines were embraced by all 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 believe, that war was not waged against the doctrine of the council of Chalcedon, but only against 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 Constantinople, and by all the more moderate of both parties. But the violent, on either side, stoutly resisted, and complained that this Henoticon did injustice to the most holy council of Chalcedon. Hence arose new controversies, as troublesome as those which preceded. 8 § 20. A considerable part of the Monophysites or Eutychians considered Peter Moggus to have 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 Esaianists. And these sects were succeeded in the next age by others, of which the ancients make frequent mention. 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 all likewise of temporary duration; for, in the next century, they gradually became extinct, chiefly through the influence of Jacobus Baradæus.2 Egypt, the Henoticon was extensively embraced; but the bishops of Rome were opposed to it, and were able to render it generally inefficient. Tr.] 8 See Facundus Hermianensis, Defensio trium Capitulorum, 1. xii. c. 4. 9 Evagrius Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 13. Leontius Byzant. de Sectis, tom. i. Lection. Antiquar. Hen. Canisii, p. 537. Timotheus Presbyter, in Joh. Bapt. Cotelier, Monument. Ecclesiæ Græcæ, tom. iii. p. 409. [From the time of the council of Chalcedon, the Eutychians gradually receded from the peculiar views of Eutyches; and, therefore, discarded the name of Eutychians, and assumed the more appropriate one of Monophysites, which indicated their distinguishing tenet, that the two natures of Christ were so united as to constitute but one nature. The whole party, Yet therefore, having long renounced Euty- These sects are enumerated by Ja. &c. [For an account of Jacobus Baradæus, and his labours in resuscitating the fallen sect of the Monophysites, see Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. viii. p. 481-491. Tr.] § 21. The Roman pontiff, Felix III., with his friends, attacked Acacius, the bishop of Constantinople, who had favoured the Henoticon, as a betrayer of the truth, and excluded him from church communion. To justify this hostility, Felix and his successors taxed Acacius with favouring the Monophysites, 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 odious to the Roman pontiffs, merely because he denied by his actions the supremacy of the Roman see, and was extremely eager to gain an increase of power and dignity for the bishop of new Rome. The Greeks defended the 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 stricken from the sacred registers, and consigned as it were to perpetual infamy.3 § 22. The thing itself, which produced so great a series of evils, appears to be but slight. It is said, that Eutyches himself thought the divine nature of Christ to have 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 adversaries to the council of Chalcedon, under the guidance of Xenias and Peter Fullo; and, therefore, they are more properly called Monophysites than Eutychians. For all who are designated by this name held that the divine and human natures of Christ were so united as to constitute but one nature; yet without any conversion, confusion, or commixture: and that this doctrine might not be understood differently from their real meaning, they often said, there is but one nature in Christ, yet it is twofold and compound. With Eutyches they disclaimed all connexion; but 3 Hen. Valesius, Diss. de Synodis Romanis, in quibus dumnatus est Acacius, subjoined to the third volume of his Scriptores Histor. Eccles. p. 179, &c. J. Basnage, Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 301. 380, 381, &c. Nouveau Dictionnaire Hist. Crit, tom. i. art. Acacius, p. 75, &c. Dav. Blondel, 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. ed. Lond. 1750, 4to. Tr.] 4 See the quotations from works of the Monophysites, by that excellent, and at times sufficiently ingenuous writer, Jos. Sim. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. ii. p. 25, 26. 29. 34. 117. 133. 135. 277. 297, &c. they venerate Dioscorus, Barsumas, 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. This view of things, if it be estimated by the language used, appears to have differed from the doctrines established at Chalcedon, in the mode of stating them, but not in reality. Yet, if we attend carefully to the metaphysical arguments and subtleties by which it is supported, perhaps we shall conclude, that the Monophysite controversy with the Chalcedonians was not wholly about words. § 23. Other troubles invaded the church in this century from the West, and continued down through subsequent ages. Pelagius and Celestius, the former a Briton, and the latter 5 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. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. ii. p. 291. Add the Biblioth. Italique, tom. xvii. p. 285. Matur. Veis. la Croze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, p. 23; and Hist. du Christ. d'Ethiopie, p. 14, &c. Even Asseman, (loc. cit. p. 297,) though living at Rome, came near to avowing this opinion. See the subtle disputation of Abulpharajus, in Asseman, tom. ii. p. 288. [Pelagius, the heresiarch, was probably a Welchman, whose real name, it is said, was Morgan or Marigena, which was translated Пeλáуios, Pelagius. He was a British monk, went to Rome about the year 400, imbibed the opinions of Origen, and began to publish his heretical sentiments concerning original sin and free grace, about A. D. 405. In the year 408, when the Goths were laying waste Italy, he and Coelestius retired to Sicily, and, in 411, to Africa. Colestius remained there, but Pelagius proceeded on to Egypt, to visit the monks of that country. In 415, he removed to Palestine, where he enjoyed the protection of John, bishop of Jerusalem. Orosius (now in the East) impeached him; but he so far purged himself, before the council of Diospolis in 417, as to be acquitted. But the next year he was condemned by the councils of Carthage and Milevi, as well as by the popes, Innocent and Zosimus; and the emperor Honorius ordered him and his adherents to be expelled from Rome. Theodotus of Antioch now held a council, which condemned him. His subsequent history is unknown. He was a man of distinguished genius, learning, and sanctity. Yet he was accused of dissembling as to his real sentiments.-He wrote fourteen books of Commentaries on Paul's Epistles; (perhaps the very books published among the works of Jerome, and ascribed to that father;) also an Epistle to Demetrius, de Virginitate, A. D. 413; (falsely ascribed both to Jerome and to Augustine, and published as theirs ;)—a Confession of his Faith, addressed to Innocent, bishop of Rome, A. D. 417. His last works are, de Fide Trinitatis, lib. iii. · Liber evλoyiv sive Testimoniorum; (Collections from Scripture, in support of some doctrines ;)-de Libero Arbitrio, lib. iv. de Natura Liber; and several Epistles.-See Cave's Historia Litteraria, i. p. 381, &c. Tr.] 8 [Coelestius, of honourable birth, was a student at Rome when Pelagius arrived there. Embracing the views of his fellow islander, he accompanied him to Sicily in 408, and to Africa in 411, where he remained some years. In 412, he was accused before the bishop of Carthage for heresy, and condemned by a Council there. He appealed to the bishop of Rome; but went to Ephesus, where he became a presby ter. He now disseminated his errors widely in Asia and the islands. In 416 he went to Constantinople, and the next year to Rome, when he so far satisfied Zosimus, as to obtain from him a recommendation to the bishops of Africa to restore him. But in 418 he was condemned by a synod at Rome, |