rived from the earliest ages of the church, and therefore they do not wish to be called Nestorians. And it appears in fact that Barsumas and his associates did not inculcate on their followers the precise doctrines taught by Nestorius, but they in some measure polished his imperfect system, enlarged it, and connected with it other doctrines which Nestorius never embraced.1

he was supposed to deny the humanity of Jesus Christ, and was accused by Eusebius of Doryleum before a council called by Flavianus perhaps in this very year at Constantinople. And as Eutyches refused to give up his opinions at the bidding of this council, he was cast out of the church and deprived of his office; and not acquiescing 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 immense trouble both of Ephesus against Nestorius; for Diosprogress that it gave to 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.2 Hence

but not that he existed in two natures. For 8, the On the whole of this Nestorian controversy the union of the two natures was such that, although student would do well to consult the section (section neither of them was lost or was essentially changed, yet 88) devoted to this subject, with its valuable refe- together they constituted one nature, of which comrences and extracts, in Gieseler, Lehrbuch, &c. David-pound nature and not of either of the original natures son's Transl. vol. i. p. 389, &c. He should also com- alone, must thenceforth be predicated cach and every pare with it the Roman Catholic view of the same property of both natures. He accordingly denied, 9, controversy and of the respective tenets of Nestorius that it is correct to say of Christ that, as to his human and Cyril, as given by a recent historian of that church, nature, he was oμoovolos (of the same nature) with us. Döllinger, History of the Church translated by Cox, It is to be remembered that Eutyches was solicitous vol. ii. p. 148, &c.-R. 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.

2 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-Mur. 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 maintained, 6, that the two natures of Christ after the union did not remain two distinct natures, but constituted one nature; and therefore, 7, that it was correct to say Christ was constituted of or from two natures,

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 175264; 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

The Greeks call this Ephesine council | most to this day do believe, that in Jesus obvodov Anorginny, 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.

17. In Syria the abbot Barsumas (a different person from Barsumas of Nisibis, who established 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 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.1

year

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 continued to use it constantly, even down to modern times, without offence, because they refer the hymn to Christ only, or to but one person in the Trinity.3

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

4

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 482 he obtained a full establishment in it 3 See Noris, De uno ex Trinitate carne passo, in his by authority of the emperor Zeno, through Opp. tom. iii. Diss. i. cap. iii. p. 782; Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. i. p. 518, &c. tom. ii. p. 36, the influence of Acacius, bishop of Constan- 180, &c. [and Walch, Hist. der Kelzer. vol. vii. p. tinople. This man, who was formed to 237, &c. 329, 339, &c.-Mur. 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

us.

2

Thus

4 Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. 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 acknowledges the twelve chapters of Cyril of Alexandria to be He undoubtedly made this addition sound and orthodox, and declares Mary to be the with sectarian views, intending to establish mother of God and Jesus Christ to possess two natures, in one of which he was ouoovotos of like substance with men more firmly in his favourite doctrine, the Father, and in the other, ouoouσtos with us. that of but one nature in Christ. But his he fully recognised the doctrines of the council of adversaries, especially Felix of Rome and Chalcedon, without alluding at all to that body, and affirming that these doctrines were embraced by all others, perverted his meaning, and main-members of the true church, he calls upon all Christained that he intended to teach that all the tians to unite on this sole basis, and "anathematizes every person who has thought or thinks otherwise, three persons in the Godhead were crucified, either now or at any other time, whether at Chalcedon and therefore such as approved this form of or in any other synod whatever, but more especially the aforesaid persons, Nestorius and Eutyches, and such as the hymn were called Theopaschites. The 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 Mliman's Gibbon's Decl. and Fall, vol. vili. p. 315, &c.-R.

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 Wulch's Hist. der Ketzer. vol. vi. p. 796, &c. 825-832.-Mur.

2 Valesius, Diss. de Petro Fullone et de Synodis adversus eum collectis, annexed to his Scriptores Histor. Eccles. tom. iil p. 173, &c.

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.' and advance the honour of the see of ConHence arose new controversies as troublesome as those which preceded.

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.1

stantinople. 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 struck out of the sacred registers, and consigned as it were to perpetual infamy.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

I See Facundus Hermianensis, Defensio trium Capitulorum, lib. xii. cap. iv.

2 Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. cap. xiii.; Leontius Byzant. De Sectis, in Canisius, Lection. Antiq. tom. i. p. 537; Timotheus Presbyter, in Cotelier's Monum. Eccles. Græ. 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 therefore having long renounced Eutyches as their leader, when some of them also renounced Peter Moggus, they were indeed Acephali, without a head. Yet all the branches of this sect continued to bear the name of Monophysites till late in the sixth century, when Jacobus Baradaus raised them up from extreme depression through persecution, and they assumed the name of Jacobites, a name which they bear to this day.-Mur.

3 These sects are enumerated by Basnage, Prolegom. ad Canisii Lection. Antiq. cap. iii. and Asseman, Diss. de Monophysitis, p. 7, &c.

4 For an account of Jacobus Baradæus and his labours in resuscitating the fallen sect of the Monophysites, see Walch, Hist. der Ketzer. vol. viii. pages 481

-49Mur.

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 l'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. Asseman, Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. ii. p. 291. Add the Biblioth. Italique, tom. xvii. p. 285; La Croze, Hist. du Christianisme des Indes, p. 23; and Hist. du Christ. d' Ethiopie, p. 14, &c. Even Asseman (ubi supra, p. 297), though living at Rome, came near to avowing this opinion.

i

23. Other troubles from the West invaded the church in this century, and continued down through subsequent ages. Pelagius and Cœlestius,3 the former a Briton and the latter an Irishman, both monks living at Rome and in high reputation for their virtues and piety, conceived that the doctrines of Christians concerning the innate de

and subtleties by which they supported their | pravity of man and the necessity of internal
views,' perhaps we shall conclude that their divine grace in order to the illumination
controversy with the Chalcedonians was not and renovation of the soul, tended to dis-
wholly a strife about words.
courage human efforts, anu were a great
impediment to the progress of holiness, and
of course ought to be rooted out of the
church. They therefore taught that what
was commonly inculcated and believed, re-
specting a corruption of the human nature
derived to us from our first parents, was not
true; that the parents of the human race
sinned only for themselves and not for their
posterity; that men are now born as pure
and innocent as Adam was when God
created him; that men therefore can, by
their natural power, renovate themselves
and reach the highest degree of holiness;
and that external grace is indeed needful to
excite men to efforts, but that they have no
need of any internal divine grace. These

1 See the subtle disputation of Abulpharajus in Asseman, ubi supra, tom. ii. p. 288.

2 Pelagius, the heresiarch, was probably a Welchman whose real name it is said was Morgan or Marigena, which was translated Heλáytos, 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. Cœlestius 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 Commentaries on Paul's Epistles (perhaps the work published among those of Jerome and ascribed to that father); also an Epistle to Demetrius, De Virginitate, A.D. 413 (falsely ascribed both to Jerome and to Augus-dom of heaven, from which an heirship to another's tine, 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, Liber evλoyiv sive Testimoniorum (Collections from Scripture in support of some doctrines); De Libero Arbitrio, De Natura, and several Epistles. See Cave's Hist. Liter. i. p. 381, &c.-Mur. [See Wiggers, Versuch einer Pragmatischen Darstellung des August. und Pelagian. Berlin, 1821, translated with additions by Professor Emerson, Andover (U. S.), 1840.-R.

3 Cœlestius, 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 presbyter. 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, and was banished from the empire by the emperor. He now concealed himself in the East. In 429 the emperor forbade his coming to Constantinople. In 430 a synod at Rome condemned him, and also the council of Ephesus in 431. From that time we hear no more of him. He wrote a confession of his faith, several Epistles, and some short pieces; but none of his works have reached us entire, except his Confession of faith and perhaps some Epistles among those of Jerome. See Cave, Hist. Liter. tom. i. p. 384, &c. Mur. [That Coelestius was an Irishman is evident from Jerome (Prol. ad lib. prim. et tert. Comment. in Jerem.) who calls him a Scot, which in the language of that contury means a native of Ireland. This is also the opinion of Ussher (Brit. Ecc. Primordia, p. 208, 786) Noris (Hist. Pelag. lib. i. cap. ill.) and Jerome's editor, Martianay (Note ubi supra.)-R.

4 According to Walch (Hist. der Ketzer. vol. iv. p. 735, &c.) as abridged by Schlegel, the system of Pelagius was as follows. 1. Men as they now come into the world are, in respect to their powers and abilities, in the same state in which Adam was created. 2. Adam sinned, but his sinning harmed no one but himself. 3. Human nature therefore is not changed by the fall, and death is not a punishment for sin; but Adam would have died had he not apostatized. For death is inseparable from our nature, and the same is true of the pains of child-birth, diseases, and outward evils, particularly in children. 4. Much less is the guilt of Adam's sin imputed to his offspring, for God would be unjust if he imputed to us the actions of others. 5. Such imputation cannot be proved by the fact that Christ has redeemed infants; for,this redemption is to be understood of their heirship to the kingguilt will not follow. 6. Neither does the baptism of infants prove such an imputation; for they thereby obtain the kingdom of heaven, which Christ has promised only to baptized persons. 7. When children die without baptism they are not therefore damned. They are indeed excluded from the kingdom of heaven, but not from eternal blessedness. For the Pelagians held to a threefold state after death; damnation for sinners, the kingdom of heaven for baptized Christians who live a holy life and for baptized children, and eternal life for unbaptized children and for unbaptized adults who live virtuous lives. 8. Much less is human nature depraved in consequence of the fall of Adam. There is therefore no hereditary sin. 9. For though it may be granted that Adam is so far the author of sin, as he was the first that sinned and by his example has seduced others, yet this is not to be understood of a propagation of sin by generation. 10. This supposed propagation of sin is the less admissible, because it would imply a propagation of souls, which is not true. 11. Neither can such a propagation be maintained without impeaching the justice of God, introducing unconditional necessity, and destroying our freedom. 12. It is true there are in men sinful propensities, in particular the propensity for sexual intercourse, but these are not sins. 13. If sin was propagated by natural generation, and every motion of the sinful propensities and every desire therefore were sinful, then the marriage state would be sinful. 14. As man has ability to sin, so has he also not only ability to discern what is good, but likewise power to desire it and to perform it. And this is the freedom of the will, which is so essential to man that he cannot lose it. 15. The grace which the Scriptures represent as the source of morally good actions in man, Pelagius understood to denote various things. For he understood the word (a) of the whole constitution of our nature and especially of the endowment of free will; (b) of the promulgation of the divine law; (c) of the forgiveness of past sins without any influence on the future conduct: (d) of the