SESSION I


EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS


[The Emperor's Letter which was read to the Fathers.]
In the Name of our Lord God Jesus Christ. The Emperor Flavius
Justinian, German, Gothic, etc., and always Augustus, to the most
blessed bishops and patriarchs, Eutychius of Constantinople,
Apollinarius of Alexandria, Domninus of Theopolis, Stephen, George,
and Damian, the most religious bishops taking the place of that man
of singular blessedness, Eustochius, the Archbishop and Patriarch of
Jerusalem, and the other most religious bishops stopping in this
royal city from the different provinces.
[The following is the letter condensed, including Hefele's
digest. History of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 298.]
The effort of my predecessors, the orthodox Emperors, ever aimed
at the settling of controversies which had arisen respecting the
faith by the calling of Synods. For this cause Constantine assembled
318 Fathers at Nice, and was himself present at the Council, and
assisted those who confessed the Son to be consubstantial with the
Father. Theodosius, 150 at Constantinople, Theodosius the younger,
the Synod of Ephesus, the Emperor Marcian, the bishops at Chalcedon.
As, however, after Marcian's death, controversies respecting the
Synod of Chalcedon had broken out in several places, the Emperor Leo
wrote to all bishops of all places, in order that everyone might
declare his opinion in writing with regard to this holy Council.
Soon afterwards, however, had arisen again the adherents of
Nestorius and Eutyches, and caused great divisions, so that many
Churches had broken off communion with one another. When, now, the
grace of God raised us to the throne, we regarded it as our chief
business to unite the Churches again, and to bring the Synod of
Chalcedon, together with the three earlier, to universal acceptance.
We have won many who previously opposed that Synod; others, who
persevered in their opposition, we banished, and so restored the
unity of the Church again. But the Nestorians want to impose their
heresy upon the Church; and, as they could not use Nestorius for
that purpose, they made haste to introduce their errors through
Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, who taught still
more grievous blasphemies than his. He maintained, e.g., that God
the Word was one, and Christ another. For the same purpose they made
use of those impious writings of Theodoret which were directed
against the first Synod of Ephesus, against Cyril and his Twelve
Chapters, and also the shameful letter which Ibas is said to have
written. They maintain that this letter was accepted by the Synod of
Chalcedon, and so would free from condemnation Nestorius and
Theodore who were commended in the letter. If they were to succeed,
the Logos could no longer be said to be "made man," nor Mary called
the Mother (genetrix) of God. We, therefore, following the holy
Fathers, have first asked you in writing to give your judgment on
the three impious chapters named, and you have answered, and have
joyfully confessed the true faith. Because, however, after the
condemnation proceeding from you, there are still some who defend
the Three Chapters, therefore we have summoned you to the capital,
that you may here, in common assembly, place again your view in the
light of day. When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came
hither, he, in answer to our questions, repeatedly anathematised in
writing the Three Chapters, and confirmed his steadfastness in this
view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and
Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then
he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematised the Three
Chapters, with the words, Et quoniam, etc. You know that he not only
deposed Rusti-

303

cus and Sebastian because they defended the Three Chapters, but also
wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of
Aries, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum. When
you afterwards came hither at my invitation, letters were exchanged
between you and Vigilius in order to a common assembly.(1) But now
he had altered his view would no longer have a synod, but required
that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion
with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the
matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the
synod. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal
for decision, or to hold a smaller assembly, at which, besides him
and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and
voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese. * We further
declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils, and
in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil,
Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John
(Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and
their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are
resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their
impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the
Synod of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to
the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed
which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and
anathematized by each synod with those who had so held or did so
hold; and we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers
have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our
predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians
have set forth concerning him.(2) You will thence see that he and
his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name
has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of
Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to
be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to
follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who
condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after
their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who
had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and
wrote their names in the sacred diptychs; which took place in the
case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of
Constantinople.(3) Moreover we exhort you to examine the writing of
Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas, in which the incarnation
of the Word is denied, the expression "Mother of God" and the holy
Synod of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and
Nestorius defended and praised. And as they say that the Council of
Chalcedon has received this letter, you must compare the
declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents
of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the
matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off
his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right
faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of
faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the
more ready with a right confession, that is acceptable to God. May
God keep you, most holy and religious fathers, for many years. Given
IV. Nones of May, at Constantinople, in the xxviith year of the
reign of the imperial lord Justinian, the perpetual Augustus, and in
the xiith year after the consulate of the most illustrious Basil.

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.

SESSION VII.

(From the Paris manuscript found in Hardouin Concilia, Tom.
III., 171 et seqq.; Mansi, Tom. ix., 346 et seqq. This speech is not
found in full in any other MS. The Ballerini [ Hefele notes] raise
objections to the genuineness of the additions [in Noris. Opp., Tom.
IV., 1037], but Hefele does not consider the objections of serious
moment. [Hist. of the Councils, Vol. IV., p. 323, note 2.] All the
MSS. agree that The most glorious quaester of the sacred palace,
Constantine, was sent by the most pious Emperor, and when he had
entered the Council spake as follows: "Certum est vestrae
beatitudini, quantum, etc." The rest of the speech differs in the
different manuscripts. I follow that of Paris.)
You know how much care the most invincible Emperor has always
had that the contention raised up by certain persons with regard to
the Three Chapters should have a termination. ... For this intent he
has required themost religious Vigilius to assemble withyou and draw
up a decree on this matter in accordance with the Orthodox faith.
Although therefore, Vigilius has already frequently condemned the
Three Chapters in writing, and has done this also by word of mouth
in the presence of the Emperor, and of the most glorious judges and
of many members of this synod, and has always been ready to smite
with anathema the defenders of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the
letter which was attributed to Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret
which be set forth against the orthodox faith and against the twelve
capitula of the holy Cyril:(1) yet he has refused to do this in
communion with you and your synod.
Yesterday Vigilius sent Servus Dei, a most reverend Subdeacon of
the Roman Church, and invited Belisarius,(2) Cethegus, as also
Justinus and Constantine the most glorious consuls, as well as
bishops Theodore,Ascidas, Benignus, and Phocas, to come to him as he
wished to give through them an answer to the Emperor. They came, but
speedily returned and informed the most pious lord, that we had
visited Vigilius, the most religious bishop, and that he had said to
us: "We have called you for this reason, that you may know what
things have been done in the past days. To this end I have written a
document about the disputed Three Chapters, addressed to the most
pious Emperor,(3) pray be good enough to read it, and to carry it to
his Serenity." But when we had heard this and had seen the document
written to your serenity, we said to him that we could not by any
means receive any document written to the most pious Emperor without
his bidding. "But you have deacons for running with messages, by
whom you can send it." He, however, said to us: "You now know that I
have made the document." But we, bishops, answered him: "If your
blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy
Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the
Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form
of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and
the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a
farmer and primate. But if your holiness has drawn up a document for
the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by
them." And when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus
Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And
when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid
most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry
back this message to the most religious Vigilius: "We invited him
(you) to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other
religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the
Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say
that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on

305

the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with
those things which you did before, we have already many such
statements and need no more; but if you have written now something
contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have
condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from
orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect
us to receive such a document from you?"
And when this answer was given by the most pious Emperor, he did
not send through the same deacon any document in writing from
himself. And all this was done without writing as also to your
blessedness.
[He then, according to all the MSS., presented certain documents
to be read, in the MS. printed by Labbe and Cossart, Tom. V., col.
549 et seqq. These are fewer than in the Paris MS., which last also
contains the following just after the reading of the documents and
after the Council had declared that they proved the Emperor's zeal
for the faith.]
Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, said: While I am still
present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the
documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the
most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod,
concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the
holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he
defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in
the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are
intrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by
God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will
perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity
of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.

[The letter was then read.]
The holy Synod said: What has seemed good to the most pious
Emperor is congruous to the labours which he bears for the unity of
the churches. Let us preserve unity to (ad) the Apostolic See of the
most holy Church of ancient Rome, carrying out all things according
to the tenor of what has been read. De proposita vero quaestione
quod jam promisimus procedat.

NOTES.

Hefele understands that the Council heard and approved this
letter of the Emperor's, but that the "Emperor did not mean entirely
to break off communion with the Apostolic see, neither did he wish
the Synod to do so" (Hist. Councils, Vol. IV., p. 326), as indeed he
says in his letter.
The Ballerini consider this letter of the Emperor's to be
spurious, but (says Hefele) "on insufficient grounds" (l. c., p.
326, note 3). The expressions used by the Emperor may not
unnaturally be somewhat startling to those holding the theological
position of the Ballerini: "We will not endure to receive the
spotless communion from him nor from any one else who does not
condemn this impiety ... lest we be found thus communicating with
the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore." It is noteworthy that the
Fifth Ecumenical Council should strike the name of the reigning Pope
from the diptychs as a father of heresy; and that the Sixth
Ecumenical Synod should anathematize another Pope as a heretic!

THE SENTENCE OF THE SYNOD.

(From the Acts. Collation VIII., L. and C., Conc., Tom. V., col.
562.)
Our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, as we learn from the
parable in the Gospel, distributes talents to each man according to
his ability, and at the fitting time demands an account of the work
done by every man. And if he to whom but one talent has been
committed is condemned because he has not worked with it but only
kept it without loss, to how much greater and more horrible judgment
must he be subject who not only is negligent concerning himself, but
even places a stumbling-block and cause of offence in the way of
others? Since it is manifest to all the faithful that whenever any
question arises concerning the faith, not only the impious man
himself is condemned, but also he who when he has the power to
correct impiety in others, neglects to do so.(1)
We therefore, to whom it has been committed to rule the church
of the Lord, fearing the curse which hangs over those who
negligently perform the Lord's work, hasten to preserve the good
seed of faith pure from the tares of impiety which are being sown by
the enemy.
When, therefore, we saw that the followers of Nestorius were
attempting to introduce their impiety into the church of God through
the impious Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, and through his
impious writings; and moreover through those things which Theodoret
impiously wrote, and through the wicked epistle which is said to
have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, moved by all these
sights we rose up for the correction of what was going on, and
assembled in this royal city called thither by the will of God and
the bidding of the most religious Emperor.
And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius
stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with
regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally
and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in
writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us
the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith
might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor,
according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and
us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should
after common discussion impose a common faith. On this account we
besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was
not right that tile scandal with regard to these Three Chapters
should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby.
And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples
left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For
although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the
Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in
the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on
the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles,
until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several
sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.
And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they
wrote to the Gentiles: "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to
us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things,
that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled, and from fornication."
But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the
four holy councils, following the example of tile ancients, have by
a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and
questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by
common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each
side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.
Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made
manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each
one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of
Solomon: "A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a
walled city; and he shall be strong

307

as a well-founded kingdom;" and again in Ecclesiastes he says: "Two
are better than one; because they have a good reward for their
labour."
So also the Lord himself says: "Verily I say unto you that if
two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall
seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For
wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them."
But when often he had been invited by us all, and when the most
glorious judges had been sent to him by the most religious Emperor,
he promised to give sentence himself on the Three Chapters
(sententiam proferre): And when we heard this answer, having the
Apostle's admonition in mind, that "each one must, give an account
of himself to God" and fearing the judgment that hangs over those
who scandalize one, even of the least important, and knowing how
much sorer it must be to give offence to so entirely Christian an
Emperor, and to the people, and to all the Churches; and further
recalling what was said by God to Paul: "Fear not, but speak, and be
not silent, for I am with thee, and no one can harm thee."
Therefore, being gathered together, before all things we have
briefly confessed that we hold that faith which our Lord Jesus
Christ, the true God, delivered to his holy Apostles, and through
them to the holy churches, and which they who after thorn were holy
fathers and doctors, handed down to the people credited to them.
We confessed that we hold, preserve, and declare to the holy
churches that confession of faith which the 318 holy Fathers more at
length set forth, who were gathered together at Nice, who handed
down the holy mathema or creed. Moreover, the 150 gathered together
at Constantinople set forth our faith, who followed that same
confession of faith and explained it. And the consent of fire 200
holy fathers gathered for the same faith in the first Council of
Ephesus. And what things were defined by the 630 gathered at
Chalcedon for the one and the same faith, which they both followed
and taught. And all those wile from time to time have been condemned
or anathematized by the Catholic Church, and by the aforesaid four
Councils, we confessed that we hold them condemned and
anathematized. And when we had thus made profession of our faith we
began the examination of the Three Chapters, and first we brought
into review the matter of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and when all the
blasphemies contained in his writings were made manifest, we
marvelled at the long-suffering of God, that the tongue and mind
which had framed such blasphemies were not immediately consumed by
the divine fire; and we never would have suffered the reader of the
aforenamed blasphemies to proceed, fearing [as we did] the
indignation of God for their record alone (as each blasphemy
surpassed its predecessor in the magnitude of its impiety and moved
from its foundation the mind of the hearer) had it not been that we
saw they who gloried in such blasphemies stood in need of the
confusion which would come upon them through their manifestation. So
that all of us, moved with indignation by these blasphemies against
God, both during and after the reading, broke forth into
denunciations and anathematisms against Theodore, as if he had been
living and present. O Lord be merciful, we cried, not even devils
have dared to utter such things against thee.
O intolerable tongue! O the depravity of the man! O that high
hand he lifted up against his Creator! For the wretched man who had
promised to know the Scriptures, had no recollection of the words of
the Prophet Hosea, "Woe unto them! for they have fled from me: they
are become famous because they were impious as touching me; they
spake iniquities against me, and when they had thought them out,
they spake the violent things against me. Therefore shall they fall
in the snare by reason of the wickedness of their own tongues. Their
contempt shall turn into their own bosom: because they have
transgressed my covenant and have acted impiously against my laws."
To these curses the impious Theodore is justly subject. For the
prophecies concerning Christ he rejected and hastened to destroy, so
far as he had the power, the great mystery of the dispensation for
our salvation; attempting in many ways to show the divine words to
be nothing but fables, for the mirth of the gentiles, and spurned
the other prophetic announcements made against the impious,
especially that which the divine Habacuc said of those who teach
falsely, "Woe unto him that

308

giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him and
makest him drunken that thou mayest look on their nakedness," that
is, their doctrines full of darkness and altogether foreign to the
light.
And why should we add anything further? For anyone can take in
his hands the writings of the impious Theodore or the impious
chapters which from his impious writings were inserted by us in our
acts, and find the incredible foolishness and the detestable things
which he said. For we are afraid to proceed further and again to
remember these infamies.
There was also read to us what had been written by the holy
Fathers against him, and his foolishness which exceeded that of all
heretics, and moreover the histories and the imperial laws, setting
forth his impiety from the beginning, and since after all these
things the defenders of his impiety, glorying in the injuries
uttered by him against his Creator, said that it was not right to
anathematize him after death, although we knew the ecclesiastical
tradition concerning the impious, that even after death, heretics
are anathematized; nevertheless we thought it necessary concerning
this also to make examination, and there were found in the acts how
divers heretics had been anathematized after death; and in many ways
it was manifest to us that those who were saying this cared nothing
for the judgment of God, nor for the Apostolic announcements, nor
for the tradition of the Fathers. And we would like to ask them what
they have to say to the Lord's having said of himself: "Whosoever
should have believed in him, is not judged: but who should not have
believed in him is judged already, because he hath not believed in
the name of the only begotten Son of God," and of that exclamation
of the Apostle: Although we or an angel from heaven were to preach
to you another gospel than that we have preached unto you, let him
be anathema: as we have said, so now I say again, If anyone preach
to you another gospel than that you have received, let him be
anathema."
For when the Lord says: "he is judged already," and when the
Apostle anathematizes even angels, if they teach anything different
from what we have preached, how can even those who dare all things,
presume to say that these words refer only to the living? or are
they ignorant, or is it not rather that they feign to be ignorant,
that the judgment of anathema is nothing else than that of
separation from God? For the impious person, although he may not
have been verbally anathematized by anyone, nevertheless he really
is anathematized, having separated himself from the true life by his
impiety.
For what have they to answer to the Apostle again when he says,
"A man that is an heretic reject after the first and second
corrections. Knowing that such a man is perverse, and sins, and is
condemned by himself."
In accordance with which words Cyril of blessed memory, in the
books which he wrote against Theodore, says as follows: They are to
be avoided who are in the grasp of such awful crimes whether they be
among the quick or not. For it is necessary always to flee from that
which is hurtful, and not to have respect of persons, but to
consider what is pleasing to God. And again the same Cyril of holy
memory, writing to John, bishop of Antioch, and to the synod
assembled in that city concerning Theodore who was anathematized
together with Nestorius, says thus: It was therefore necessary to
keep a brilliant festival, since every voice which agreed with the
blasphemies of Nestorius had been cast out no matter whose. For it
proceeded against all those who held these same opinions or had at
one time held them, which is exactly what we and your holiness have
said: We anathematize those who say that there are two Sons and two
Christs. For one is he who is preached by us and you, as we have
said, Christ, the Son and Lord, only begotten as man, according to
the saying of the most learned Paul. And also in his letter to
Alexander and Martinian and John and Paregorius and Maximus,
presbyters and monastic fathers, and those who with them were
leading the solitary life, he so says: The holy synod of Ephesus,
gathered together according to the will of God against the Nestorian
perfidy with a just and keen sentence condemned together with him
the empty words of those who afterwards should embrace or who had in
time past embraced the same opinions with him, and who presumed to
say or write any such thing, laying upon them an equal condemnation.
For it fol-
309

lowed naturally that when one was condemned for such profane
emptiness of speech, the sentence should not come against one only,
but (so to speak) against every one of their heresies or calumnies,
which they utter against the pious doctrines of the Christ,
worshipping two Sons, and dividing the indivisible, and bringing in
the crime of man-worship (anthropolatry), both into heaven and
earth. For with us the holy multitude of the supernal spirits adore
one Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover several letters of Augustine, of
most religious memory, who shone forth resplendent among the African
bishops, were read, shewing that it was quite right that heretics
should be anathematized after death. And this ecclesiastical
tradition, the other most reverend bishops of Africa have preserved:
and the holy Roman Church as well had anathematized certain bishops
after their death, although they had not been accused of any falling
from the faith during their lives: and of each we have the evidence
in our hands.
But since the disciples of Theodore and of his impiety, who are
so manifestly enemies of the truth, have attempted to bring forward
certain passages of Cyril of holy memory and of Proclus, as though
they had been written in favour of Theodore, it is opportune to fit
to them the words of the prophet when he says: "The ways of the Lord
are right and the just walk therein; but the wicked shall be weak in
them." For these, evilly receiving the fixings which have been well
and opportunely written by the holy Fathers, and making excuses in
their sins, quote these words. The fathers do not appear as
delivering Theodore from anathema, but rather as economically using
certain expressions on account of those who defended Nestorius and
his impiety, in order to draw them away from this error, and to lead
them to perfection and to teach them to condemn not only Nestorius,
the disciple of the impiety, but also his teacher Theodore. So in
these very words of economy the Fathers shew their intention on
tiffs point, that Theodore should be anathematized, as has been
abundantly demonstrated by us in our acts from the writings of Cyril
and Proclus of holy memory with regard to the condemnation of
Theodore and his impiety. And such economy is found in divine
Scripture: and it is evident that Paul the Apostle made use of this
in the beginning of his ministry, in relation to those who had been
brought up as Jews, and circumcised Timothy, that by this economy
and condescension he might lead them on to perfection. But
afterwards he forbade circumcision, writing thus to the Galatians:
"Behold, I Paul say to you, that if ye be circumcised Christ
profiteth you nothing." But we found that that which heretics were
wont to do, the defenders of Theodore had done also. For cutting out
certain of the things which the holy Fathers had written, and
placing with them and mixing up certain false things of their own,
they have tried by a letter of Cyril of holy memory as though from a
testimony of the Fathers, to free from anathema the aforesaid
impious Theodore: in which very passages the truth was demonstrated,
when the parts which had been cut off were read in their proper
order, and the falsehood was thoroughly evinced by the collation of
the true. But in all these things, they who spake such vanities,
"trusted in falsehood," as it is written, "they trust in falsehood,
and speak vanity; they conceive grief and bring forth iniquity,
weaving the spider's web." When we had thus considered Theodore and
his impiety, we took care to have re cited and inserted in our acts
a few of these things which had been impiously written by Theodoret
against the right faith and against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril
and against the First Council of Ephesus, also certain things
written by him in defence of those impious ones Theodore and
Nestorius, for the satisfaction of the reader; that all might know
that these had been justly cast out and anathematized. In the third
place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris
the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that
it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety
was manifest to all. And it was right to make the condemnation and
anathematism of the aforesaid Three Chapters, as even to this time
there had been some question on the subject. But because the
defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were
scheming in some way or other to confirm these persons and their
impiety, and were saving that this impious letter, which praised and
defended Theodore and

310

Nestorius and their impiety, had been received by the holy Council
of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was
free of the impiety which was contained in that letter, that it
might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the
favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may
confirm their own impiety. And it was shewn in the acts that in
former times Ibas had been accused because of the very impiety which
is contained in this letter; at first by Proclus, of holy memory,
the bishop of Constantinople, and afterwards by Theodosius, of pious
memory, and by Flavian, who was ordained bishop in succession to
Proclus, who delegated the examination of the matter to Photius,
bishop of Tyre, and to Eustathius, bishop of the city of Beyroot.
Afterwards the same Ibas, being found guilty, was cast out of his
bishopric. Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume
to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of
Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it
throughout? Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the
holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing
so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to
wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles
of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime
Pope of Old Rome. And since we had learned from these that nothing
written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been
proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we
interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of
the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so
that we might compare the things in the epistle with this decree.
And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of
the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition.
For the definition agreed with the one and unchanging faith set
forth as well by the 318 holy Fathers as by the 150 and by those who
assembled at the first synod at Ephesus. But that impious letter, on
the other hand, contained the blasphemies of the heretics Theodore
and Nestorius, and defended them, and calls them doctors, while it
calls the holy Fathers heretics.
And this we made manifest to all, that we did not have any
intention of omitting the Fathers of the first and second
interlocutions, which the followers of Theodore and Nestorius cited
on their side, but these and all the others having been read and
their contents examined, we found that the aforesaid Ibas was not
allowed to be received without being compelled to anathematize
Nestorius and his impious teachings, which were defended in that
epistle. And this the rest of the religious bishops of the aforesaid
holy Council did as well as those two whose interlocutions certain
tried to use.
For this they observed in the case of Theodoret, and required
him to anathematize those things of which he was accused. If
therefore they were willing to allow the reception of Ibas in no
other manner unless he condemned the impiety which was contained in
his letters, and subscribed the definition of faith adopted by the
Council, how can they attempt to make out that this impious letter
was received by the same holy council? For we are taught, "What
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what
communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ
with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols."
Having thus detailed all that has been done by us, we again
confess that we receive the four holy Synods, that is, the Nicene,
the Constantinopolitan, the first of Ephesus, and that of Chalcedon,
and we have taught, and do teach all that they defined respecting
the one faith. And we account those who do not receive these things
aliens from the Catholic Church. Moreover we condemn and
anathematize, together with all the other heretics who have been
condemned and anathematized by the before-mentioned four holy
Synods, and by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Theodore who
was Bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, and also those
things which Theodoret impiously wrote against the right faith, and
against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, and against the first
Synod of Ephesus, and also those which he wrote in defence of
Theodore and Nestorius. In addition to these we also anathematize
the impious Epistle which Ibas is said to have

311

written to Maris, the Persian, which denies that God the Word was
incarnate of the holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and
accuses Cyril of holy memory, who taught the truth, as an heretic,
and of the same sentiments with Apollinaris, and blames the first
Synod of Ephesus as deposing Nestorius without examination and
inquiry, and calls the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril impious,
and contrary to the right faith, and defends Theodorus and
Nestorius, and their impious dogmas and writings. We therefore
anathematize the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the
impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and
those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter
which is said to be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have
written or do write in defence of them, or who dare to say that they
are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their
impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council
of Chalcedon. These things therefore being settled with all
accuracy, we, bearing in remembrance the promises made respecting
the holy Church, and who it was that said that the gates of hell
should not prevail against her, that is, the deadly tongues of
heretics; remembering also what was prophesied respecting it by
Hosea, saying, "I will betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and
thou shalt know the Lord," and numbering together with the devil,
the father of lies, the unbridled tongues of heretics who persevered
in their impiety unto death, and their most impious writings, will
say to them, "Behold, all ye kindle a fire, and cause the flame of
the fire to grow strong, ye shall walk in the light of your fire,
and the flame which ye kindle." But we, having a commandment to
exhort the people with right doctrine, and to speak to the heart of
Jerusalem, that is, the Church of God, do rightly make haste to sow
in righteousness, and to reap the fruit of life; and kindling for
ourselves the light of knowledge from the holy Scriptures, and the
doctrine of the Fathers, we have considered it necessary to
comprehend in certain Capitula, both the declaration of the truth,
and the condemnation of heretics, and of their wickedness.

THE CAPITULA OF THE COUNCIL.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. V., col. 568.)

I.
If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is one, as also the force
and the power; [if anyone does not confess] a consubstantial
Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three subsistences or
Persons: let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the
Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through
whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.
II.
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two
nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time
and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from
heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of
God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.

III.
IF anyone shall say that the wonder-working Word of God is one
[Person] and the Christ that suffered another; or shall say that God
the Word was with the woman-born Christ, or was in him as one person
in another, but that he was not one and the same our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Word of God, incarnate and made man, and that his
miracles and the sufferings which of his own will he endured in the
flesh were not of the same [Person]: let him be anathema.

IV.
If anyone shall say that the union of the Word of God to man was
only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of
honour, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according
to good pleasure in this sense that God the Word was pleased with a
man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the
senseless Theodorus, or [if anyone pretends that this union exists
only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians
understand, who call also the Word of God Jesus and Christ, and even
accord to the man the names of Christ and of Son, speaking thus
clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one
Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honour, or his
dignity, or his worship; if anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy
Fathers teach, that the union of God the Word is made with the flesh
animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is
made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is
only one Person, to wit: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy
Trinity: let him be anathema. As a matter of fact the word "union"
(ths enwsews)has many meanings, and
the partisans of Apollinaris and Eutyches have affirmed that these
natures are confounded inter se, and have asserted a union produced
by the mixture of both. On the other hand the followers of Theodorus
and of Nestorius rejoicing in the division of the natures, have
taught only a relative union. Meanwhile the Holy Church of God,
condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognises
the union of God the Word with the flesh synthetically, that is to
say, hypostatically. For in the mystery of Christ the synthetical
union not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united,
but also allows no separation.

V
If anyone understands the expression "one only Person of our
Lord Jesus Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many
hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of
Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having intro-

313

duced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour
or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written;
if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending
that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious
sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is
united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is
but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of
Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord
Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity
has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been
increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

VI.
IF anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a
false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the
Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense,
believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was
not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word
resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who
was born [of her];(1) if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of
Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God
according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call
her the mother of a man anqrwpotokon or the Mother of
Christ (Xristotokon), as if Christ were not God, and
shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God,
because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the
Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if
anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of
Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be
anathema.

VII.
IF anyone using the expression, "in two natures," does not
confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the
divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression
a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is
unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word
was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that
of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union
being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the
mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or
recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word
made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical
manner(2) the difference of the natures which compose him, which
difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is
composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of
the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons
properly so called: let him be anathema.(3)

VIII.
IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that
a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the
expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall
not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught,
to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an
hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions
shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture]
of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in
teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to
humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual
confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it
was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore
there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the
Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as
touching his

314

manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by
the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine
dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that
mystery.

IX.
IF anyone shall take the expression, Christ ought to be
worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to
introduce thus two adorations, the one in special relation to God
the Word and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone to get
rid of the flesh, [that is of the humanity of Christ,] or to mix
together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of
one only nature or essence (fusin
hgoun ousian) of the united (natures),
and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God
the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has
taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.

X.
IF anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was
crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of
the Holy Trinity: let him be anathema.

XI.
IF anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their
impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and
anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the
aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally
anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their
impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those
heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema.

NOTES.

HEFELE.

(Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 336.)
Halloix, Garnier, Basnage, Walch and others suppose, and
Vincenzi maintains with great zeal, that the name of Origen is a
later insertion in this anathematism, because (a) Theodore Ascidas,
the Origenist, was one of the most influential members of the Synod,
and would certainly have prevented a condemnation of Origen;
further, (b) because in this anathematism only such heretics would
be named as had been condemned by one of the first four Ecumenical
Synods, which was not the case with Origen; (c) because this
anathematism is identical with the tenth in the
omologia of the Emperor, but in the latter the name
of Origen is lacking; and, finally, (d) because Origen does not
belong to the group of heretics to whom this anathematism refers.
His errors were quite different.
All these considerations scent to me of insufficient strength,
or mere conjecture, to make an alteration in the text, and
arbitrarily to remove the name of Origen. As regards the objection
in connection with Theodore Ascidas, it is known that the latter had
already pronounced a formal anathema on Origen, and certainly he did
the same this time, if the Emperor wished it or if it seemed
advisable. The second and fourth objections have little weight. In
regard to the third (c) it is quite possible that either the Emperor
subsequently went further than in his omologia, or
that the bishops at the fifth Synod, of their own accord, added
Origen, led on perhaps by one or another anti-Origenist of their
number. What, however, chiefly determines us to the retention of the
text is: (a) that the copy of the synodal Acts extant in the Roman
archives, which has the highest credibility, and was probably
prepared for Vigilius himself, contains the name of Origen in the
eleventh anathematism; and (b) that the monks of the new Lama in
Palestine, who are known to have been zealous Origenists, withdrew
Church communion from the bishops of Palestine after these had
subscribed the Acts of the fifth Synod. In the anathema on the Three
Chapters these Origenists could find as little ground for such a
rupture as their friends and former colleague Ascidas; it could only
be by the synod attacking their darling Origen. (c) Finally, only on
the ground that the name of Origen really stood in the eleventh
anathematism, can we explain the widely-circulated ancient rumour
that our Synod anathematized Origen and the Origenists.

315

XII.
IF anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has
said that the Word of God is one person, but that another person is
Christ, vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the
flesh, and separated little by little above that which is inferior,
and become better by the progress in good works and irreproachable
in Iris manner of life, as a mere man was baptized in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and obtained by
this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of
Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to the Person of God the
Word (just as one worships the image of an emperor) and that he is
become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and
altogether without sin. And, again, this same impious Theodore has
also said that the union of God the Word with Christ is like to that
which, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, exists between a
man and his wife, "They twain shall be in one flesh." The same
[Theodore] has dared, among numerous other blasphemies, to say that
when after the resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples,
saying, "Receive the Holy Ghost," he did not really give them the
Holy Spirit, but that he breathed upon them only as a sign. He
likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when
he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of
the Lord, viz.: "My Lord and my God," was not said in reference to
Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the
resurrection, thus thanked God who had raised up Christ. And
moreover (which is still more scandalous) this same Theodore in his
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato,
Manichaeus, Epicurus and Marcion, and says that as each of these men
having discovered his own doctrine, had given his name to his
disciples, who were called Platonists, Manicheans, Epicureans and
Marcionites, just so Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had
given the name Christians to his disciples. If, then, anyone shall
defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which
he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others
besides against our Great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if
anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as
all those who protect or defend him, or who assert that his exegesis
is orthodox, or who write in favour of him and of his impious works,
or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them
and still continue unto the end in this heresy: let him be anathema.
XIII.
IF anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret,
directed against the true faith and against the first holy Synod of
Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his XII. Anathemas, and [defends]
that which he has written in defence of the impious Theodore and
Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid
Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or
shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who
profess the hypostatic union of God the Word; and if anyone does not
anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who
hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to
the true faith or against St. Cyril and his XII. Chapters, and who
die in their impiety: let him be anathema.

XIV.
IF anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have
written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Word of
God incarnate of Mary, the Holy Mother of God and ever-virgin, was
made man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a
Temple, as though the Word of God was one Person and the man another
person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic,
when he teaches the right faith of Christians, and charges him with
writing things like to the wicked Apollinaris. In addition to this
he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it
deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination.
The aforesaid impious epistle styles the XII. Chapters of Cyril of
blessed memory, impious and contrary

316

to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their
impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the
aforementioned epistle and shall not anathematize it and those who
defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or
if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its
favour, or in defence of the impieties which are contained in it, as
well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which
it contains in the name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Synod of
Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offences unto the end: let him
be anathema.

EXCURSUS ON THE XV. ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.

That Origen was condemned by name in the Eleventh Canon of this
council there seems no possible reason to doubt. I have given in
connexion with that canon a full discussion of the evidence upon
which our present text rests. But there arises a further question,
to wit, Did the Fifth Synod examine the case of Origen and finally
adopt the XV. Anathemas against him which are usually found assigned
to it ? It would seem that with the evidence now in our possession
it would be the height of rashness to give a dogmatic answer to this
question. Scholars of the highest repute have taken, and do take
to-day, the opposite sides of the case, and each defends his own
side with marked learning and ability. To my mind the chief
difficulty in supposing these anathematisms to have been adopted by
the Fifth Ecumenical is that nothing whatever is said about Origen
in the call of the council, nor in any of the letters written in
connexion with it; all of which would seem unnatural had there been
a long discussion upon the matter, and had such an important
dogmatic definition been adopted as the XV. Anathemas, and yet on
the other hand there is a vast amount of literature subsequent in
date to the council which distinctly attributes a detailed and
careful examination of the teaching of Origen and a formal
condemnation of him and of it to this council.
The XV. Anathemas as we now have them were discovered by Peter
Lambeck, the Librarian of Vienna, in the XVIIth century; and bear,
in the Vienna MS., the heading, "Canons, of the 165 holy Fathers of
the holy fifth Synod, held in Constantinople." But despite this,
Walch (Ketzerhist., Vol. vii., p. 661 et seqq. and 671; Vol. viij.,
p. 281 et seqq.); Dollinger (Church History, Eng. Trans., Vol. v.,
p. 203 et seqq.); Hefele (Hist. Councils, Vol. iv., p. 221 sq.), and
many others look upon this caption as untrustworthy. Evagrius, the
historian, distinctly says that Origen was condemned with special
anathemas at this Council, but his evidence is likewise (and, as it
seems to me, too peremptorily) set aside.
Cardinal Noris, in his Dissertatio Historica de Synodo Quinta,
is of opinion that Origen was twice condemned by the Fifth Synod;
the first time by himself before the eight sessions of which alone
the acts remain, and again after those eight sessions, in connexion
with two of his chief followers, Didymus the Blind and the deacon
Evagrius. The Jesuit, John Garnier wrote in opposition to Noris; but
his work, while exceedingly clever, is considered by the learned to
contain (as Hefele says) "many statements [which] are rash,
arbitrary, and inaccurate, and on the whole it is seen to be written
in a spirit of opposition to Noris."(1) In defence of Noris's main
contention came forward the learned Ballerini brothers, of Verona.
In their Defensio dissertationis Norisianoe de Syn. V. adv. diss. P.
Garnerii, they expand and amend Noris's hypothesis. But after all is
said the matter remains involved in the greatest obscurity, and it
is far easier to bring forward objections to the arguments in
defence of either view than to bring forward a theory which will
satisfy all the conditions of the problem.

317

Those who deny that the XV. Anathemas were adopted by the Fifth
Synod agree in assigning them to the "Home Synod," that is a Synod
at Constantinople of the bishops subject to it, in A.D. 543. Hefele
takes this view and advocates it with much cogency, but confesses
frankly, "We certainly possess no strong and decisive proof that the
fifteen anathematisms belong to the Constantinopolitan synod of the
year 543; but some probable grounds for the opinion may be
adduced.(1) This appears to be a somewhat weak statement with which
to overthrow so much evidence as there can be produced for the
opposite view. For the traditional view the English reader will find
a complete defence in E. B. Pusey, What is of Faith with regard to
Eternal Punishment?
Before closing it will be well to call the attention of the
reader to these words now found in the acts as we have them:
"And we found that many others had been anathematised after
death, also even Origen; and if any one were to go back to the times
of Theophilus of blessed memory or further he would have found him
anathematised after death; which also now your holiness and
Vigilius, the most religious Pope of Old Rome has done in his
case."(2) It would seem that this cannot possibly refer to anything
else than a condemnation of Origen by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod,
and so strongly is Vincenzi, Origen's defender, impressed with this
that he declares the passage to have been tampered with. But even if
these anathemas were adopted at the Home Synod before the meeting of
the Fifth Ecumenical, it is clear that by including his name among
those of the heretics in the XIth Canon, it practically ratified and
made its own the action of that Synod.
The reader will be glad to know Harnack's judgment in this
matter. Writing of the Fifth Council, he says: "It condemned Origen,
as Justinian desired; it condemned the Three Chapters and
consequently the Antiochene theology, as Justinian desired," etc.,
and in a foot-note he explains that he agrees with "Noris, the
Ballerini, Moller (R. Encykl., xi., p. 113) and Loofs (pp. 287, 291)
as against Hefele and Vincenzi."(3) A few pages before, he speaks of
this last author's book as "a big work which falsities history to
justify the theses of Halloix, to rehabilitate Origen and Vigilius,
and on the other hand to 'remodel' the Council and partly to bring
it into contempt."(4) Further on he says: "The fifteen anathemas
against Origen, on which his condemnation at the council was based,
contained the following points. ... Since the 'Three Chapters ' were
condemned at the same time, Origen and Theodore were both got rid
of. ... Origen's doctrines of the consummation, and of spirits and
matter might no longer be maintained. The judgment was restored to
its place, and got back even its literal meaning."(5)

THE ANATHEMAS AGAINST ORIGEN.

IF anyone asserts the fabulous pre-existence of souls, and shall
assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be
anathema.

II.
IF anyone shall say that the creation (thu
paragwghn) of all reasonable things includes only
intelligences (noas) without bodies and altogether
immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity
between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by
their union with and knowledge of God the Word; but that no longer
desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse
things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have
taken bodies more or less subtile, and have received names, for
among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is
also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called
Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and
Dominations, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly
orders as there may be: let him be anathema.

III.
IF anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are
also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are
because they turned towards evil: let him be anathema.

IV.
IF anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the
divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as
ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the
lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and
are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema,.

V.
IF anyone shall say that a psychic (yukikhn)
condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and
moreover that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a
psychic condition, and that from a human state they may become again
angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either
all from those below or from those above, or from those above and
below: let him be anathema.

VI.
IF anyone shall say that there is a twofold race of demons, of
which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior
spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable
beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and
contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the
king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created(1) all the
bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and
earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient
than itself, and which exists by themselves, viz.: dryness, damp,
heat and cold, and the image (idean) to which it was
formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial
Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the
working intelligence (Nous dhmiourgos)
which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it
its being: let him be anathema.

VII.
IF anyone shah say that Christ, of whom it is said that he
appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time
with God the Word, and humbled himself in these last days even to
humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the divers
falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of
which he himself is part), and that to

319

restore them he passed through divers classes, had different bodies
and different names, became all to all, an Angel among  Angels, a
Power among Powers, has clothed I himself in the different classes
of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and
finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become man for
men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the
Word humbled himself and became man: let him be anathema.

VIII.
IF anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Word, of the same
substance with the Father and the Holy Ghost, and who was made flesh
and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the
word, but [shall affirm] that he is so only in an inaccurate manner,
and because of the abasement (kenwsanta), as they
call it, of the intelligence (nous); if anyone shall
affirm that this intelligence united (sunhmmenon) to
God the Word, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the
Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the
intelligence, and e converse that  the intelligence is only called
God because of the Logos: let him be anathema.

IX.
IF anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Loges made man by
taking an animated body with a yukh
logikh and noera, that he descended
into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the
Nous which has done this, that Nous of
which they say (in an impious fashion) he is Christ properly so
called, and that he is become so by the knowledge of the Monad: let
him be anathema.

X
IF anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the
Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall
be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord
himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who
rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be
annihilated: let him be anathema.

XI.
IF anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the
destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an
immaterial yusis, and that thereafter there will no
longer be any matter, but only spirit nous): let him
be anathema.

XII.
IF anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the
Devil and evil spirits are united with the Word of God in all
respects, as the Nous which is by them called Christ
and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they
say; and [if anyone shall say] that the Kingdom of Christ shall have
an end: let him be anathema.
XIII.
IF anyone shall say that Christ [i.e., the Nous
is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither
substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all
things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well
as he that is called by them Christ [the Nous, as
also they were in the reigned pre-existence of all things: let him
be anathema.

XIV.
IF anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be
united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the
bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world
to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection
of bodies as also the abolition of [all] names, and that there shall
be finally an identity of the gnpsis and of the
hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apocatastasis, spirits
only will continue to exist, as it was in the reigned pre-existence:
let him be anathema.

XV.
IF anyone shall say that the life of the spirits
(nopn) shall be like to the life which was in the
beginning while as yet the   spirits had not come down or fallen, so
that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end
shall be the true measure of the beginning: let him be anathema.

THE ANATHEMATISMS OF THE EMPEROR JUSTINIAN AGAINST ORIGEN.(1)

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. v., col. 677.)

Whoever says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, i.e., that
they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that, satiated
with the vision of God, they had turned to evil, and in this way the
divine love in them had died out (apyugeisas) and
they had therefore become souls (yukas) and had been
condemned to punishment in bodies, shall be anathema.

II.       If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord
pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation
and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema.

III.     If anyone says or thinks that the body of our Lord
Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin and
that afterwards there was united with it God the Word and the
pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.

IV.

If anyone says or thinks that the Word of God has become like to
all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim he was a cherub, for
the seraphim a seraph: in short, like all the superior powers, let
him be anathema.

V.
If anyone says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies
will rise spherical in form and unlike our present form, let him be
anathema.

VI.
If anyone says that the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars,
and the waters that are above heavens, have souls, and are
reasonable beings, let him be anathema.

VII.
If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time
will be crucified for demons as he was for men, let him be anathema.

VIII.

If anyone says or thinks that the power of God is limited, and
that he created as much as he was able to compass, let him be
anathema.

IX.     If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons
and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end,
and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take
place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these
opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked
doctrine? and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends
these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to
protect them.

THE DECRETAL EPISTLE OF POPE VIGILIUS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE
FIFTH                                  ECUMENICAL SYNOD.

HISTORICAL NOTE.

(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the
Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch
Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity
in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be
ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings
forward the example of
Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of
the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. "We
recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have
condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by
us or by others for the defence of the three chapters."

THE DECRETAL LETTER OF POPE
VIGILIUS.

(The manuscript from which this letter was printed was found in
the Royal Library of Paris by Peter de Marca and by him first
published, with a Latin translation and with a dissertation. Both of
these with the Greek  text are found in Labbe and Cossart's
Con-cilia, Tom. V., col. 596 et seqq.; also in Migne's Patr. Lat.,
Tom. LXIX., col. 121 et seqq. Some doubts have been expressed about
its genuineness and Harduin is of opinion that the learned Jesuit,
Garnerius, in his notes on the Deacon Leberatus's Breviary, has
proved its supposititious character. But the learned have not
generally been of this mind but have accepted the letter as
genuine.)

Vigilius to his beloved brother Eutychius.
No one is ignorant of the scandals which the enemy of the human
race has stirred up in all the world: so that he made each one with
a wicked object in view, striving in some way to fulfil his wish to
destroy the Church of God spread over the whole world, not only in
his own name but even in ours and in those of others to compose
diverse things as well in words as in writing; in so much that he
attempted to divide us who, together with our brethren and fellow
bishops, are stopping in this royal city, and who defend with equal
reverence the four synods, and sincerely persist in the one and the
same faith of those four synods, by his sophistries and machinations
he tried to part from them; so that we ourselves who were and are of
the same opinion as they touching the faith, went apart into
discord, brotherly love being despised.(1)
But since Christ our God, who is the true light, whom the
darkness comprehendeth not, hath removed all confusion from our
minds, and hath so recalled peace to the whole world and to the
Church, so that what things should be defined by us have been
healthfully fulfilled through the revelation of the Lord and through
the investigation of the truth.
Therefore, my dear brothers, I do you to wit, that in common
with all of you, our brethren, we receive in all respects the four
synods, that is to say the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, the first
Ephesian, and the Chalcedonian; and we venerate them with devout
mind, and watch over them with all our mind. And should there be any
who do not follow these holy synods in all things which they have
defined concerning the faith, we judge them to be aliens to the
communion of the holy and Catholic Church.
Wherefore on account of our desire that you, my brothers, should
know what we have done in this matter, we make it known to you by
this letter. For no one can doubt how many were the discussions
raised on account of the Three Chapters, that is, concerning
Theodore, sometime bishop of Mopsuestia, and his writings, as well
as concerning the writings of Theodoret, and concerning that letter
which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian: and
how diverse were the things spoken and written concerning these
Three Chapters. Now if in every busi-

322

ness sound wisdom demands that there should be a retractation of
what was propounded after examination, there ought to be no shame
when what was at first omitted is made public after it is discovered
by a further study of the truth. [And if this is the case in
ordinary affairs] how much more in ecclesiastical strifes should the
same dictate of sound reason be observed? Especially since it is
manifest that our Fathers, and especially the blessed Augustine, who
was in very sooth illustrious in the Divine Scriptures, and a master
in Roman eloquence, retracted some of his own writings, and
corrected some of his own sayings, and added what he had omitted and
afterward found out. We, led by their example never gave over the
study of the questions raised by the controversy with regard to the
before-mentioned Three Chapters, nor our search for passages in the
writings of our Fathers which were applicable to the matter.
As a result of this investigation it became evident that in the
sayings of Theodore of Mopsuestia (which are spoken against on all
hands) there are contained very many things contrary to the right
faith and to the teachings of the holy Fathers; and for this very
reason these same holy Fathers have left for the instruction of tile
Church treatises which they had written against him.
For among other blasphemies of his we find that he openly said
that God the Word was one [Person] and Christ another [Person],
vexed with the passions of the soul and with the desires of the
flesh, and that he little by little advanced from a lower to a
higher stage of excellence by the improvement
(prokiph, per profectum operum) of his works, and
became irreprehensible in his manner of life.(1) And further he
taught that it was a mere man who was baptized in the Name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and that he received
through ilia baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and merited his
adoption; and therefore that Christ could be venerated in the same
way that the image of the Emperor is venerated as being the persona
(eis proswpon) of God the Word. And he
also taught that [only] after his resurrection he became immutable
in his thoughts and altogether impeccable.
Moreover he said that the union of the Word of God was made with
Christ as the Apostle says the union is made between a man and his
wife: They twain shall be one flesh; and that after his
resurrection, when the Lord breathed upon his disciples and said,
Receive tile Holy Ghost, he did not give to them the Holy Spirit. In
like strain of profanity he dared to say that the confession which
Thomas made, when he touched the hands and side of the Lord after
his resurrection, saying, My Lord and my God, did not apply to
Christ (for Theodore did not acknowledge Christ to be God); but that
Thomas gave glory to God being filled with wonder at the miracle of
the resurrection, and so said these words.
But what is still worse is this, that in interpreting the Acts
of the Apostles, Theodore makes Christ like to Plato, and
Manichaeus, and Epicurus, and Marcian, saying: Just as each of these
were the authors of their own peculiar teachings, and called their
disciples after their own names, Platonists, and Munichaeans, and
Epicureans, and Marcionites, just so Christ invented dogmas and
called his followers Christians after himself.
Let therefore the whole Catholic Church know that justly and
irreproachably we have arrived at the conclusions contained in this
our constitution. Wherefore we condemn and anathematize Theodore,
formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, and his impious writings, together
with all other heretics, who (as is manifest) have been condemned
and anathematized by the four holy Synods aforesaid, and by the
Catholic Church: also the writings of Theodoret which are opposed to
the right faith, and are against the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril,
and against the first Council of Ephesus, which were written by him
in defence of Theodore and Nestorius.
Moreover we anathematize and condemn the letter to the Persian
heretic Maris, which is said to have been written by Ibas, which
denies that Christ the Word was incarnate of the holy Mother of God
and ever-virgin Mary, and was made man, but declares that a mere man
was born of her, and this man it styles a temple, so from this we
are given to understand that God the Word is one [Person] and Christ
another [Person]. Moreover it calumniates Saint Cyril, the master
and herald of the orthodox faith, calling him a heretic, and
charging him with writing things similar to Apollinaris; and it
reviles the first Synod of Ephesus, as having condemned Nestorius
without deliberation or investigation; it likewise declares the
twelve chapters of St. Cyril to be impious and contrary to the right
faith; and further still it defends Theodore and Nestorius, and
their impious teachings and writings.
Therefore we anathematize and condemn

323

the aforesaid impious Three Chapters, to-wit, the impious Theodore
of Mopsuestia and his impious writings; And all that Theodoret
impiously wrote, as well as the letter said to have been written by
Ibas, in which are contained the above mentioned profane
blasphemies. We likewise subject to anathema whoever shall at any
time believe that these chapters should be received or defended; or
shall attempt to subvert this present condemnation.
And further we define that they are our brethren and
fellow-priests who ever keep the right faith set forth by those
afore-mentioned synods, and shall have condemned the above-named
Three Chapters, or even do now condemn them.
And further we annul and evacuate by this present written
definition of ours whatever has been said by me (a me)or by others
in defence of the aforesaid Three Chapters.
Far be it from the Catholic Church that anyone should say that
all the blasphemies above related or they who held and followed such
things, were received by the before-mentioned four synods or by any
one of them. For it is most clear, that no one was admitted  by the
before-mentioned holy Fathers and especially by the Council of
Chalcedon, about whom there was any suspicion, unless he had  first
repelled the above-named blasphemies and all like to them, or else
had denied and condemned the heresy or blasphemies of which he was
suspected.

Subscription.

May God preserve thee in health, most honourable brother. Dated
VI. Id. Dec. in the xxijd year of our lord the Emperor Justinian,
eternal Augustus, the xijth year after the consulate of the
illustrious Basil.(1)

HISTORICAL EXCURSUS ON THE AFTER HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL.

Pope Vigilius died on his way home, but not until, as we have
seen, he had accepted and approved the action of the council in
doing exactly that which he "by the authority of the Apostolic See"
in his Constitutum had forbidden it to do.(2) He died at the end of
554 or the beginning of 555.
Pelagius I., who succeeded him in the See of Rome, likewise
confirmed the Acts of the Fifth Synod. The council however was not
received in all parts of the West, although it had obtained the
approval of the Pope. It was bitterly opposed in the whole of tile
north of Italy, in England, France, and Spain, and also in Africa
and Asia. The African opposition died out by 559, but Milan was in
schism until 571, when Pope Justin II. published his "Henoticon." In
Istria the matter was still more serious, and when in 607 the bishop
of Aquileia-Grado with those of his suffragans who were subject to
the Empire made their submission and were reconciled to the Church,
the other bishops of his jurisdiction set up a schismatical
Patriarchate at old Aquileia, and this schism continued till the
Council of Aquileia in 700. But before this the II. Council of
Constantinople was received all the world over as the Fifth
Ecumenical Council; and was fully recognized as such by the Sixth
Council in 680.