Baring-Gould’s sources: Roman Martyrology, inserted by Baronius. Not in any ancient Martyrologies. Authorities: — Evagrius, Theodore the Lector, Theophanes, Ac.] We have had, on more than one occasion, to speak of the council of Chalcedon, which condemned Eutychianism, and deposed Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria. The decisions of the council of Chalcedon were regarded by the Egyptian party as sheer Nestorianism. There was therefore an insurrection of monks in Palestine, led on by one of their number, Theodosius, against Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and favoured by the widowed empress Eudoxia. Theodosius expelled Juvenal, and enthroned himself in his room. He maintained himself by acts of violence, pillage, and murder, more like one of the lawless bandits of the country than a Christian bishop. There was a similar revolt at Alexandria, where Proterius, appointed after the ejection of Dioscorus, occupied the patriarchal throne. Timothy, a monk, called “ the Weasel,” perhaps from his appearance, perhaps because he slunk by night to the secret meetings of the rabble, or because he had stolen into the bishopric of another, was elevated by the Eutychian faction to the position of rival metropolitan, and Proterius was fallen upon in the baptistery of his church and murdered, the ferocious heretics tearing out and gnawing his bowels in their cannibal rage. At Antioch another monk, Peter the Fuller, intrigued with the discontented party, and at the head of a procession of monks shouting, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God most high, who was crucified for us,” drove the patriarch Martyrius, trembling for his life, into voluntary abdication. In 476, the emperor Basiliscus declared in favour of the tl»iy 4.

Monophysites, 1 and by an encyclical letter required all bishops to condemn the council of Chalcedon. But Basiliscus was speedily dethroned, and Zeno the Isaurian recovered his throne. Zeno, acting probably on the advice of Acacius, patriarch [the title of the bishops of the great ancient sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem] of Constantinople, issued the Henoticon (482), or Edict of Union. This edict was aimed, not at reconciling the conflicting opinions which distracted the Church, but at maintaining mutual toleration.* The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, signed the Henoticon, and the prospects were encouraging. But the lull was only transient The Henoticon, without reconciling the two original conflicting parties, only gave rise to a third.

Pope Felix III. indignantly rejected the Henoticon, as leaving the decision of the Council of Chalcedon an open question. He anathematized all the bishops who had subscribed the edict, and at once excommunicated Peter the Fuller, patriarch of Antioch, and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople.

Acacius replied by excommunicating Pope Felix, and for forty years there was unhealed schism between East and West The patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem continued in communion with Acacius, and were involved in his excommunication.

On the death of Acacius, the metropolitan [the archbishop who heads a group of dioceses] throne was 1 Neatoriu* bad taught that in Christ were two persons. He was condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431). Eutyches, going to the other extreme, denied that in Christ were two natures. He was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 4$i. For an account of this Council, see April, p. 15a. tion, but avoided too close definition on mooted points of facts. It anathematised Nestorius [Nestorius (d. c. 451), whose teaching split Christ into two persons; condemned at Ephesus in 431] and Eutyches alike, as heretics who divide Christ or reduced him to a phantom. Without defining the number or the article of the word nature, as applied to Christ, it respectfully confirmed the system of S. Cyril, and the faith as tanght at Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. A microscopic examination fails to detect heresy in it. But it incurred suspicion and condemnation as evading the definite recognition of the doctrine proclaimed sr Chalcedon.

•SVS'. Flavian and Elias. occupied by Fravitas (489), who only held it four months, and on his death, Euphemius was elected. The emporor Anastasius was on the throne. An old quarrel rankled between him and Euphemius. Anastasius had been a servant in the palace under the late emperor, and there is a story that Euphemius had threatened on one occasion to shave his head. Anastasius was a man of upright character, and had acquired the respect of the people, who hailed his elevation to the throne with the cry, “ Reign as you have lived.” But his one blue and the other dark eye were taken as tokens of irregularity in his belief. His mother had been an Arian [followers of Arius, who taught that the Son is a created being, not fully God], and Euphemius would not suffer him to ascend the throne till he had sworn to oppose the doctrine of Eutyches. The bitterness of religious partisanship has transformed his virtues into vices. His charity becomes hypocrisy, his moderation irreligion, and the misfortunes of his reign divine judgments. An Isaurian rebellion troubled the first five years of his reign. Euphemius tampered in treasonable proceedings, and was deposed; Macedonius was exalted to the vacant see; Macedonius subscribed the Henoticon, and still the four great Eastern patriarchates maintained Christian fellowship.

But the compressed fires of religious discord were struggling to burst loose, and set the realm in conflagration. Macedonius, of Constantinople, though he had signed the Henoticon, was a partisan of the council of Chalcedon and the orthodox belief, and now Flavian sat in the patriarchal throne of Antioch, and Elias in that of Jerusalem. Flavian was a monk of Tilmognus in Ccelo-Syria, who had been ordained to the priesthood at Antioch, and had been sent as delegate by the patriarch on some affair of more or less importance to the emperor. Palladius the patriarch died (498), and the emperor appointed Flavian LNr 4.

to the vacant see. Flavian was suspected of Monophysite leanings. He was apparently a weak, well-meaning man, with no clearly defined views, and this left him a prey to stronger and designing partisans. One of his first acts was to send Solomon, a priest of his church, to Alexandria with synodical letters, which he was to give to John Talajas, the patriarch, an Eutychian [followers of Eutyches, who said Christ had only a divine nature; condemned at Chalcedon in 451]. But Flavian was not disposed to commit himself against the council of Chalcedon, as was Elias of Jerusalem; he adopted the moderate and safer ground of the Henoticon. But the Monophysite party in Syria, which seems to have been greatly reduced in numbers, suddenly having found a bold and reckless leader, burst out in fierce insurrection. Xenias, bishop of Hierapolis, began to agitate the whole region by accusing Flavian as a Nestorian. Flavian at once anathematized Nestorius and his doctrine. But Xenias was not satisfied, he must also anathematize indiscriminately a number of prelates who were supposed to have been tainted with Nestorian views, amongst whom was Theodoret of Cyrus. Flavian refused, then hesitated, and finally weakly complied.

Xenias, flushed with victory, next insisted on the unfortunate Flavian anathematizing and rejecting the council of Chalcedon, and all who maintained the two natures in Christ; and, on his refusal, he again charged him with Nestorianism. The patriarch thereupon drew up a confession of faith, and haltingly admitted that, though he approved of the condemnation of Eutyches by the council of Chalcedon,. he did not recognize the authority of that council in determining and teaching the faith. Xenias then separated from the communion of Flavian and Macedonius. At the same time he demanded of Elias, bishop of Jerusalem, a statement of his principles. This Elias put forth, and sent to the emperor by the hands of some >i followers of Xenias, who, he afterwards protested, altered and perverted his words.

The emperor Anastasius had been in the East fighting for three years with the Persians. He purchased a not inglorious peace, and returned to Constantinople to find the population of his capital fermenting with religious fanaticism. Rumours had been industriously spread that he was a Manichean at heart, and paintings on the palace walls were pointed out incapable of Christian interpretation, and savouring of Manichean symbolism. He was wrath with Macedonius for refusing to surrender to him the profession of hostility to Eutychianism, which Euphemius had wrung from him as a preliminary to his assuming the purple.

Xenias, seeking occasion against Macedonius, came to Constantinople, followed by a train of two hundred Eastern monks. Other monks of the opposite faction swarmed from Palestine. The two black-robed armies watched each other for some months, working in secret on their respective partisans.

The emperor, in the meantime, had received a deputation from John, patriarch of Alexandria, who offered to pay him two hundred pounds of gold if he would upset the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius urged on Macedonius to do as it was pretended that Elias of Jerusalem had done, anathematize the council of Chalcedon. Macedonius refused, and pronounced anathema against Flavian of Antioch for having refused to admit the authority of that council in deciding the question of the two natures.

The long brooding disturbance broke out one Sunday in the church of the Archangel in the palace. The Eutychian monks and the rabble at their heels had invaded the church, and when the choir sang “ Thrice holy,” they roared forth the burden Peter the Fuller had taught them, “ who war, crucified for us."

The orthodox monks, backed by another rabble, assembled in force the next Sunday in the metropolitan church; the Monophysites were also there, each party armed with stout cudgels and stones. The chanting of the angelic song was the signal for a wild fray. Sticks and stones flew about the church, and the sacred chant was drowned in mutual anathemas of the contending parties. The Monophysites were expelled the church, and Macedonius, borne along at the head of a raging multitude which he could not have controlled, had he cared to attempt it, was swept to the gates of the palace, where the whole furious mob shouted for the downfall, the death of their emperor, " The Manichean, the tyrant !”

Anastasius, who had bravely faced the Persians, trembled before that howling mob, and consented to receive, and reinstate in his favour, the patriarch Macedonius. The semblance of peace was restored, but the emperor waited his opportunity to be revenged on Macedonius. The patriarch had doubtless been unwillingly mixed up in these scenes of sacrilegious violence; and now that tranquillity was restored, he meekly signed a creed, in which he recognized only the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople. His silence about those of Ephesus and Chalcedon was interpreted as a rejection of their authority. His monkish masters broke out into invective. He meekly visited them in the monastery of S. Dalmatius, and expressed his adhesion to the council of Chalcedon. But this act had divided his adherents, and shaken the faith of the mob in his uncompromising orthodoxy. Anastasius saw his occasion, profited by it, and hurried the patriarch into exile (a.d. 51 1). On the morrow the emperor appointed, and had consecrated in his room, a priest named •S-S. Flavian and Elias.

Timothy, to whom the people gave a surname expressive of his incontinence. Timothy at once removed the pictures of Macedonius from the church in which they were erected, and pretending that his predecessor had denied the creed of Nicaea, he introduced the recitation of the Nicene symbol at every mass, it having formerly been only said on Good Friday. He sent synodal letters to John of Alexandria, and to Flavian of Antioch, and Elias of Jerusalem. The two latter, though they regretted, and objected to, the condemnation of Macedonius, did not refuse to acknowledge Timothy.

But timorous half-measures could not save Flavian and Elias. Severus, the ring-leader of the hideous riot in the church at Constantinople, suddenly appeared in Antioch as the rival of Flavian, backed by the influence of the emperor. Flavian wrote to the emperor, acknowledging the three first councils and the Henoticon, but without mentioning the council of Chalcedoa. Elias wrote also, and rejected the latter council, but not in terms sufficiently explicit to satisfy Xenias, who wrote to the emperor to induce him to banish both; and this he did forthwith. Severus thereupon became bishop of Antioch, and Flavian died in exile.

Neither Elias nor Flavian were in communion with Rome, as they lay under the anathema pronounced against all who accepted the Henoticon. The Latin Church has however, reversed her judgment of them, and those who would have been excluded from her altars when alive, are now with generous forgiveness invoked at them after their death.