1. The case of Photius of Tyre, in the cognizance of which the Chalcedonian Fathers were engaged in the fourth session of this synod, I am bidden to weigh at present, intending to speak only of those three points which were this year prescribed for discussion to the men of this Academy, and which, under the eighth number, are expressed as regards the canons in the following order and words. First, whether the ancient custom alleged by Anatolius, in the fourth session, in the case of Photius bishop of Tyre—that the bishops residing at Constantinople together with the patriarch defined the cases of whatsoever persons had recourse to them—was legitimate; and, this being laid down, why the sentence in the case of Photius was revoked.
Secondly, whether in ecclesiastical cases judgment ought to be made according to the canons, or also according to the pragmatic sanction; concerning which matter it was dealt with in the fourth session in the same case of Photius. Thirdly, at last, whether a bishop, if he were unworthy of the episcopate, could be placed in a lower order—which the legates of the pope seem to deny, in the fourth session. In investigating all which, it would behoove me to deliver a long discourse, if I could freely range over the very wide field of such an argument. But since I ought by no means to abuse the kindness of the supreme, most clement, and most wise prince, therefore I shall not be able to review all the things that occur to be said; but I shall set forth at greater length some things not yet sufficiently explored;
I shall touch only on the better-known matters, and those which at length—being entangled by the more recent regalists with many cavils, in order to cast down or utterly overturn ecclesiastical government and above all the rights of the Apostolic See, when similar cases occur—are brought forward into the open, I shall not pass over in silence, but, treading in the footsteps of the Chalcedonian Fathers, I shall endeavor to refute them in a few words. 2. Before we set about resolving the heads of the present disputation, we must inquire what, and what manner of, cause it was, on account of which so many and so great dissensions arose between Photius of Tyre and Eustathius of Berytus.
That the city of Tyre was, first of all, the metropolis of all First Phoenicia, to which twelve other cities and bishops were subject from the beginnings of the Church up to the year four hundred and fifty—one of whom was the bishop of Berytus—has been ascertained from the ecclesiastical records. The first of all, then, who had attempted to violate the rights of this metropolitan, was Eustathius.
He, having set aside the rules of the Nicene Fathers, driven by the greatest zeal for enlarging his own see, obtained from the emperor Theodosius a pragmatic type or rescript, by which, the province of First Phoenicia being cut into two parts, and metropolitan rank and honor being attributed to the Church of the Berytians, he reduced into his own power the administration and ordinations also of the Churches of Tripolis, Byblos, Botrys, Orthosias, Arca, and Antaradus, which were subject to Photius of Tyre, their lawful metropolitan. So grave a misdeed Eustathius did not shudder at, since, accustomed to turn all the affairs of the Church upside down, he had been the author of many schisms and contentions;
since, namely, unable to control his wrath and hatred, in the robber-synod of Ephesus he did not shrink from playing the part of standard-bearer against the holy Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, Anatolius' predecessor, and against Eusebius of Dorylaeum, on behalf of the faction of Dioscorus and Eutyches, so that the catholic faith might be brought fully to ruin. And for this cause we read that the name of Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, was entered in the sacred records only with the utmost ignominy.
For when the Chalcedonian Fathers, in the prior session, undertaking to rescind and abolish the Acts of the preceding robber-synod, decreed that the authors of all the tumults and crimes should be smitten with the very same penalty which they themselves, by the greatest injustice, had branded upon the bishops praised above, namely Flavian and Eusebius. 2. But although in that predatory synod Eustathius, with five other bishops, the authors of the whole schism, had possessed power and command; although moreover he had procured for himself the favor of Dioscorus of Alexandria, and then of Chrysaphius and the other imperial ministers who patronized Eutyches;
yet he dared to employ no attempt either against Photius of Tyre or against his Church, deeming it enough for himself that he had then obtained such and so great supports, by which he might more easily, at a more opportune time, indulge his designs and his cravings for honor and authority. Wherefore, when in the year four hundred and nine, on the eleventh day before the Kalends of August, the robber-synod being concluded, Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, afflicted with blows, beatings, and insults, driven from his see, had been forced to go into exile, Eustathius nevertheless persuaded himself that he could more easily attain the longed-for honor if he held peace and friendship with the new bishop at length substituted in Flavian's place, for the more felicitous accomplishment of his business.
Hence it is by no means to be said that, the affairs of the East being placed in such peril, the Fathers of the pseudo-synod perpetrated that other most grievous misdeed, namely, that, Flavian being still alive, they substituted Anatolius in his place and ordained him bishop of Constantinople. For the contrary opinion, although very many writers, both catholic and heterodox, at some time approved it, yet that it savors of nothing but a pure and sheer fabrication, has been clearly made manifest both from the letters of Theodosius and from those of Anatolius himself to Saint Leo. For Flavian indeed departed from this light as a martyr only in the following year.
His death following, the emperor Theodosius charged the Constantinopolitan clergy to decree and approve those more fit to undertake that office, reserving to himself the election of the chief of all. But when, day by day, most grievous dissensions grew up among the Constantinopolitan clergy, chiefly by the action of Dioscorus' faction and of the emperor's ministers, Theodosius ordered (these are the words of Anatolius) that clergymen be sought out in the royal city, even from other cities, residing there for certain affairs (so it is put), so that from among them a more eminent man might be promoted to the episcopal dignity, as we have already observed in the preceding book in regard to this very matter. 4.
Many true things, and well worth knowing, would indeed present themselves to be said now, if the constraints of time and the present purpose of our discussion did not hinder it. That one matter alone, which seems to bear upon our affairs, I shall touch upon only lightly. Namely, that the elevation of Anatolius to the throne of Constantinople was exceedingly favored by the efforts of Eustathius, bishop of Berytus, but was beyond measure fatal to Photius, bishop of the Tyrians. For the closest bond of intimacy had existed between this Eustathius and Anatolius.
For when he was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria and the apocrisiarius of Bishop Dioscorus—by the zeal of whose schismatic faction he had been raised to the bishopric of Constantinople—he already had his mind made ready to indulge the wishes and petitions of those who had contended against the most holy Flavian on behalf of the Eutychian dogma. 5. In the meantime, then, various assemblies of bishops were held at Constantinople. In one of these, at the command of the Emperor Theodosius, and without awaiting the letters and the verdict of the Roman pontiff, the bishops consecrated Anatolius. Anatolius himself makes mention of this same council in his letter to Saint Leo.
"Hence this task fell upon the holy synod of bishops then residing at Constantinople, that they should proceed without delay to ordain me." The same holy pontiff then commanded that a second council be held; for, as the month of July of the year four hundred and fifty was drawing to a close, having received letters both from Anatolius and from the Emperor Theodosius concerning the death of Flavian and the election of the new prelate, and reflecting within himself upon the dreadful schism which had torn apart the Catholic communion in the East, he remained in suspense and hesitation, and was unwilling to declare the Acts of the election and consecration either valid or void; but he deferred communion with Anatolius until such time as the four legates of the Apostolic See.
the legates sent from the pontiff's own side, having set out for Constantinople, should receive from the new bishop a sincere profession of faith, uttered in the presence of all the clergy and people, signed with his own hand, and exactly conforming to the pontiff's wishes and mandates. There still survive several letters of the holy pontiff: to Theodosius, to the Augusta Pulcheria, to the clergy of Constantinople, to the archimandrites of that same city, and finally to the presbyter Martin; from which we not only thoroughly understand the sequence of events that took place, but also the holy pontiff's manner of acting, his zeal for religion, his strength of soul, and his supreme administration over all parts of the whole world shine forth more clearly than light. 6.
But in this last synod of Anatolius—which must be assigned at least to the ninth or tenth month of that same year—that nothing was transacted concerning the case of Photius of Tyre, becomes clearly evident from the weightiest conjectures. First of all, Theodosius the Younger, from whom Eustathius had obtained the pragmatic rescript, had ended his life on the eighteenth day of July, at which time his letters had scarcely been delivered to Saint Leo, and the pontifical legates who were to convoke this council had either not yet set out on their journey, or, if they had begun it, were still lingering in the suburbs of Rome. Indeed Leo's letters suggest this, since they were issued at Rome on the sixteenth of the Kalends of August, three days before Theodosius died at Constantinople.
It must then be believed that the pontifical legates, on account of the labors of the journey and the distance of the place, did not arrive at that city until the eighth or ninth month. Moreover these legates, desiring to discharge their office faithfully, would by no means have permitted Anatolius—brought under suspicion of a wounded faith—in the synod which they themselves, at the command of the Roman pontiff, were convoking, to play the leading roles, to arrange everything according to his own pleasure, and to abolish the ecclesiastical laws, when rather he himself, suspect of bad faith, ought to have presented himself before the legates and the other bishops as a defendant on trial. 7. Therefore the case of Photius must be referred entirely to another, preceding synod, which came before the death of Theodosius.
To this synod, when Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, had presented the surreptitiously obtained pragmatic decree which he had received from the emperor, all the bishops who had assembled at Constantinople—whether to gratify Anatolius, or deterred by threats of penalties, even against the prohibition of the ecclesiastical rules—gave their assent. Then accordingly, at the instigation of Chrysaphius and the other imperial ministers, who lavishly favored Eustathius, not only was the Theodosian rescript confirmed; but they took pains that Maximus, patriarch of Antioch—who was absent from such a synod, although he was sojourning at Constantinople—should be willing to hold as ratified and firm what had more recently been decreed for enlarging the dignity, honor, and prerogatives of the Church of the Berytians.
For under the administration and ordination of the patriarch of Antioch lay the province of First Phoenicia, with its Tyrian metropolitan and the other bishops. How these matters had truly come about, the same Maximus relates, being afterward questioned by the Fathers of Chalcedon: "I was at Constantinople. But when the council was being held concerning this matter, I was not present, but a document was brought to me, and I subscribed." What more? In this council of Anatolius, when everything was being done to the hatred of the most holy bishop Photius of Tyre and to the contempt of the ecclesiastical laws, by threats and terrors they more grievously shook the mind of Photius the metropolitan himself, and threatened the penalty of deposition, unless he should subscribe to the synodal decree.
To this (says Photius in the petition presented to the Emperor Marcian, the successor of the Augustus Theodosius) "to which, when I had subscribed, not of my own purpose, but out of fear of the threats that pressed upon me, I made known by my subscription the necessity imposed upon me. For I wrote that, being commanded, I subscribed, since I knew that this in no way prejudiced me, because the sacred and divine laws define that those things which are done not by deliberate purpose, but by necessity, have no force." 8. Whoever, then, shall diligently consider the Acts of such a synod of Anatolius—which we find scattered here and there among various ancient writers—will by no means deny that it was little unlike the rapacious Council of Ephesus, or that it can be called an appendix of it. Wherefore, since to the Fathers of Chalcedon
had been given the task of judging concerning matters of faith and concerning the violated rights of bishops, and of restoring and repairing everything that had been turned upside down to its former state, just as Saint Leo had instructed the legates of the Apostolic See, therefore, being about to judge the case of Photius, they laid chiefly three charges against Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. These three the imperial judges of civil causes indicated in few words, thus addressing the general Council of Chalcedon: "Let the holy synod declare whether it was lawful for the most holy archbishop Anatolius to send excommunication to the most reverend bishop Photius, who was absent, and to command that certain Churches in the province be taken away from him; and whether the assembly of bishops who reside in the royal city ought to be called a synod."
As to this last question, Tryphon, bishop of Chios, seriously affirmed that the assembly of bishops sojourning in the city could be called a synod. He perhaps, desiring to flatter both Anatolius and the imperial ministers, having first regarded the dignity and grandeur of the royal city, and then having reviewed the frequent influx of the bishops of the East—who, on account of the administration of civil affairs, whenever they labored under some oppression, had to gather at Constantinople to vindicate their rights—openly said: "It is called a synod, and they convene, and those who labor under some oppression obtain their rights."
To Tryphon's response neither the holy general synod nor any other of the bishops gave support, lest perchance the rights of the other patriarchs—namely the Alexandrian, the Antiochene, and the Jerusalemite—should be injured. For it is ascertained from the ecclesiastical records that the boundaries of the bishop of Constantinople were at that time very much contracted. For besides that part of Asia which extended toward the regions of Pontus, at first he could administer only the dioceses of Thrace, whose rights were afterward extended even to Illyricum by a rescript of Theodosius the Younger. On the contrary, the dioceses of First Phoenicia belonged to the patriarchate of Antioch, as we have said.
And therefore, to forestall all the disturbances which could arise, the whole synod judged that Tryphon's opinion and verdict were to be held neither valid nor void. 9. But it did not so happen when the other question—concerning the excommunication brought by the synod of Anatolius against the absent Photius of Tyre—was subjected to examination. For this, as a horrendous crime contrary to divine and human laws, the whole Council of Chalcedon execrated. For in that session we read that Atticus, bishop of Zela, said that no one should condemn a man who is absent. All the most reverend bishops acclaimed: "No one condemns an absent man." By this unanimous acclamation of the Fathers of Chalcedon, therefore, the synodal decrees of Anatolius were utterly abolished.
And when the mind of Anatolius, intemperate in its desire for honor and ambition, bore this indignantly, in order to clear himself of every mark of injustice and to consult the grandeur of his own see, he appealed to that custom about which we are presently disputing. But that this custom was utterly illegitimate, and that Anatolius appealed to it only that he might employ a studied evasion, whom could it escape? For a custom cannot be reckoned legitimate which is repugnant to divine and human laws.
And therefore both Eusebius of Nicomedia and Photius of Tyre, together with the whole synod, lest they should fall into contention concerning a custom which could pass for an abuse, most steadfastly rejected all of Anatolius's excuses as the fabrications of unjust ambition, by which he strove to conceal the truth of the matter. And indeed Eunomius of Nicomedia, turning to the judges, addressed them thus confidently: "Your Magnificence has inquired of us whether it is permitted to condemn an absent man. I give my answer with the voice of Rome, and using the words of the Apostle Paul (Acts 25:16), he spoke thus: 'Because it is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man before the accused has his accusers present, and is given a place to clear himself of the charges.'"
Photius, afterward agreeing with him, earnestly entreated the synod and the imperial judges that, every unjust custom being set aside and abolished, only the canonical laws should be committed to execution. "I ask nothing else (said Photius) and I beseech your just judgment, except that you cause the rules to stand, and that those who were lawfully ordained by me, but afterward expelled and made presbyters, be restored, and that I receive back my Churches." Then at last the whole synod, with no delay interposed, acclaimed: "This is a just demand. Let the rules hold. Just is the petition of the most reverend bishop Photius." 10.
By the words of this decree, the mind of Anatolius—panting after the grandeur of honor and power, since he desired that the dignity and authority of the see of Constantinople should be made equal in all the functions of the apostolic see of the divine Peter—was most grievously tormented. But not on this account, that he might request the case of Photius and Eustathius to be reserved for him to judge again; but because he understood that, once the judgment of his own synod had been declared void, the prelates of Constantinople, now greatly exalted, were being deprived of that power which, through injury to the canons, they were gradually attempting to usurp for themselves, to the loss of others' rights.
Now so great a pride had been kindled in the mind of the Constantinopolitans by the grandeur of the imperial city, the authority of the royal power, and the favor and protection of the imperial ministers—in which they took such great delight—that they contended that the ecclesiastical power of bishops was to be measured by the administration of civil affairs.
Moreover, since the emperors themselves wished to call Constantinople the New Rome, and adorned it after the likeness of old Rome with most noble buildings both sacred and profane, and since Constantine the Great and his sons, Arcadius and both the Theodosii, enriched it with the greatest resources, riches, honors, and privileges—therefore the bishops themselves, persisting in injurious customs, with evident contempt for the sacred canons, were attempting to draw to themselves the cognizance of all the ecclesiastical causes of the East. The pride and ambition of these same prelates was further increased by the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople. By which, namely, the One Hundred and Fifty Fathers of the East, under Theodosius the Elder, decreed:
"Let the bishop of Constantinople have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome." But what follows from that canon? For it could induce no legitimate custom, both because the apostolic see never ratified it, and because the rights of the Alexandrian and Antiochene patriarchs were thereby more grievously wounded. But even if we should freely grant that that canon, from the year 381 in which it was issued, held force down to the times of Anatolius, what then? Could the prelates of Constantinople have been made equal to the Roman pontiffs, and have taken cognizance of the causes of all the Easterners, and have responded to the consultations of all? Away with the fiction!
Only an honorary dignity of patriarchate was conferred upon them in favor of the Emperor Theodosius, not an enlargement of their power. For, in the preceding second canon, the same Fathers, adhering to the Nicene laws, asserted and confirmed their rights first to the Alexandrian and then to the Antiochene, enumerating for this purpose the individual regions and dioceses which were to depend upon their administrations and synods. Which we understand to have been done by them precisely so that the patriarch of Constantinople, content with honor alone, should not dare to meddle with the administration of all the Churches of the East. 11. But in the course of time the patriarchs of Constantinople threw everything into confusion;
and, wishing to add power to honor and an empty name, they usurped to themselves the ordinations of many bishops not due to them—namely of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace—so that, namely, they might make themselves equal to the patriarchs of old Rome. For this reason indeed Anatolius himself, in the general Council of Chalcedon, made many attempts to preserve the rights thus unjustly usurped, and to have privileges equal to the prerogatives of the Roman pontiffs decreed for himself and his see. And in order to accomplish this business more successfully and without contradiction, throughout the whole time of the council he strove to flatter the legates of the apostolic see with services, gifts, and other means;
affecting the utmost reverence toward the apostolic see itself, feigning that all honor and all the privileges of the Constantinopolitan prelates redounded to the glory, defense, and ornament of the Roman see; and finally affirming that the new canon, which he was swearing should be issued concerning the confirmation of the rights of his see, would be injurious to no one—led on by that vain pretext, that the long prescription of sixty years' time favored his cupidities.
All these things, however, although they were set forth by Anatolius in words and writings with much flattering entreaty, could in no way move the mind of the Roman pontiff and of his legates—as indeed I could demonstrate more fully from the most certain documents, without that partisan zeal, if either the constraint of time allowed it, or the mandates of others did not forbid me to wander beyond the questions proposed. This one thing alone I shall add: namely, that it is most thoroughly proven that the custom alleged by Anatolius must be referred both to the third canon of Constantinople of the second general council;
and then also to the most grievous abuses which, in the course of time, had crept into the Church in administering affairs and in carrying out the ordinations of metropolitans and bishops—as is most evidently proven from the letters of the divine Leo to the Emperor Marcian, to the Augusta Pulcheria, to Anatolius himself, and likewise to Julian, bishop of Cos. 12. It now remains for us to speak of the pragmatic sanction which Eustathius, bishop of the Berytians, had obtained by surreptitious means from the most pious Emperor Theodosius, as the reward of his preceding misdeeds. And first of all, the term "pragmatic sanction" has the meaning of a cause ventilated in the consistory of the prince in the presence of the nobles of the sacred palace.
Wherefore Gratian, who described it in these words, also added: "The prince's constitution, issued from the cognizance of a cause, was called a pragmatic sanction." Jacobus Gutherius, however—although he does not contradict Gratian—described the idea of the pragmatic sanction more clearly, saying: "A pragmatic order, or sanction, is not issued upon the petition of individuals concerning private affairs, but only upon the petitions of some body, college, city, or province." Moreover, it is established among the jurisconsults that these pragmatic orders are reckoned among the general laws. But the same praiseworthy Gutherius sets up some distinction between pragmatic orders and pragmatic sanctions, adding: "Pragmatic orders, which command something..."
Whether, then, we ought to reckon the pragmatic rescript concerning the metropolitan right of the Church of the Berytians among the imperial orders or sanctions, or whether it was issued upon the petitions of some body or city, it is not necessary to define. But if we had to speak of this latter point, we could at least surmise that it issued upon the petitions of the eunuch Chrysaphius and of the whole faction of Dioscorus, since Eustathius most especially, once and again, attested before the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in order to clear himself of the accusations, that he had not supplicated the emperor concerning this matter. And the very Theodosian law, inserted into the Justinianic code, has seemed to make manifest to us that this attestation rests upon truth. For the Emperor Theodosius himself asserts:
"On account of many and just causes, we decree that the city of Berytus, already crowned with its own virtues, be adorned with the name and dignity of a metropolis." Therefore he there makes no mention either of Eustathius's petitions or of his own merits. He merely praises the city of Berytus as crowned with many virtues. Besides this, we find other things in that rescript which lay bare the very great ambition of Anatolius and of Eustathius. For the emperor did not command that the rights of the Church of the Tyrians be diminished and torn apart into two equal metropolitans of the same province, but he decreed that Tyre should remain in its ancient right. Led by this reasoning, lest he render the decrees of his ancestors void, or lest the pragmatic rescript abolish the sacred canons.
"Let nothing (he says) be derogated from Tyre of its right. Let it be the mother of the province by the benefit of our ancestors; let this one (Berytus) enjoy by our benefit, and let both enjoy a similar dignity." If we, with the most learned Christianus Lupus, are willing to attend a little to the words of the Theodosian law, we shall understand that the emperor decreed to Berytus nothing other than the name and honor of a metropolis; but that he by no means adjudged to this new metropolitan either suffragan bishops, nor wished, through injury and alteration of the Tyrian metropolis, to enlarge its power in administering ecclesiastical affairs. 13. Why, then, did the synod of Anatolius interpret the Theodosian law otherwise;
why, without hearing Photius, the ancient metropolitan, were six suffragan Churches torn away from his subjection; why, finally, was the sentence of excommunication brought against the same absent Photius—from which he was not absolved until after one hundred and twenty-two days—has already been sufficiently and abundantly explained in the foregoing. In order that the Council of Chalcedon might snatch away all these evils, and at the same time heal the wounds of the Church of Tyre, it commanded that everything be restored to its former state.