Probably in the spring of 532 - only a few months after the Nika riots - there took place in Constantinople, under Justinian's auspices, a three day conference between five Chalcedonian bishops and five or more Syrian Orthodox ('Severan') bishops, the aim being 'the reunion of the churches' after the disruptions caused by the Chalcedonian definition. We are fortunate enough to know something of the proceedings from the two summarized accounts emanating from either side (something of a rarity for antiquity): from the Chalcedonian side there is the Letter of Innocentius, bishop of Maronia (one of the participants), addressed to the priest Thomas, of Thessaloniki, while from the Syrian Orthodox there exists a short anonymous summary of the proceedings which was published in 1919 by F. NAU in Patrologia Orientalis 13 (), from an eighth century manuscript, British Library Add. 12155. There also survives the plerophoria or doctrinal statement put out by the Syrian Orthodox bishops for the consideration of the emperor and his bishops.
To these sources can now be added an important new one, the full account (albeit preserved only fragmentarily) of the proceedings from the Syrian Orthodox point of view. Although this text is now acephalous, it is likely that it is the work of Severus' biographer, the abbot John bar Aphtonia, who accompanied the bishops and wrote an account of the proceedings (); it is also evident that it served as the source for the summary published by Nau.
Translation Harvard syr. 22
Brock
[..] prepared at their hands. Along with it he also gave the statement (plerophoria) (1) which the bishops made after they went up to the capital. And the bishops were urging that those
documents (chartai) be read in the presence of him (sc. Justinian) and the (state) officials who were there. But the emperor put off the matter, saying: 'I will read them when I have time'. With this speech the second meeting (syntychia) ended. 2 After a certain number of days there arrived at the capital the bishops from the opposing faction who had been summoned by the emperor; their names are as follows: Hypatius of Ephesus, Stephan of Isaurian Seleucia, Innocentius of Amurnia, John of Bizue these (two) towns are in Thrace - and Anthimus of Trebizond (15). The emperor sent them the document of the statement which the orthodox bishops had given him (16); he also sent it to the holder of the see of the capital. (His intention was) that they should read and examine it minutely and prepare
themselves for discussion. 3 After this the order (came) for the two parties to assemble
in the hall known as Beth Hormisdas, which is today joined to the Palace (17). There the discussion was to take place in the presence of the synkelloi (18) of the holder of the (patriarchal) throne of the capital, seeing that he himself did not come (19).
Strategius (20) the patrician was allocated to listen to the discussion and report on developments to the emperor; he took the place of the Magistros.
4 When they had assembled (21) and sat down facing each other,
Hypatius began churning over his usual old inanities, blaming
the blessed Dioscorus for accepting the wicked Eutyches at the
second synod of Ephesus (22). It is the custom of the upholders
of the heresy of Nestorius to collect together empty complaints
against the orthodox fathers: since they cannot make a defence
for their own flimsy teachings, they hope to cover up their own
wicked beliefs and not let them be examined, by means of calumnies against the saints.
5 (23) The orthodox bishops, however, were well aware of their
opponents' cunning, how, by inviting them to make a defence
for the blessed Dioscorus, they would go on to accuse them of
the heresy of Eutyches. Accordingly, the orthodox bishops began
by anathematizing Eutyches (24), and having thus thrown off
from themselves any suspicion of the heresy of Eutyches - (a
suspicion) that their opponents wanted to bring upon them -
having fended off from themselves this calumny, the orthodox
bishops began to fight on behalf of the blessed Dioscorus, showing
how Eutyches had submitted a libellus in which he acknowledged
the orthodox faith, anathematizing Valentinus who says that our
Lord brought his body down from heaven, acknowledging too
the teaching of the fathers and accepting the creed of Nicea,
and that it was (only) after this that Dioscorus had accepted
him.
6 The opposing bishops say: 'Dioscorus was negligent in not
requiring Eutyches to confess that the Word was of the same
nature as us in the flesh' (25).
7 The orthodox bishops say: "The blessed Dioscorus was satisfied by the Acta (pepragmena) at Constantinople, where Eutyches
agreed to confess that God the Word was of the same nature
as us in the flesh' (26).
8 The opposing bishops say: 'What was said (only) hesitatingly
is not a clear confession. For this reason it was all the more
necessary for Dioscorus to make exact enquiry of Eutyches concerning the term 'of the same nature' (i.e. homoousios). And then
they enlarged on the matter, saying: 'Dioscorus' neglect over
exactitude is a betrayal of the faith, and he who neglects even
one small item from matters that are obligatory is subject to
censures and serious punishments'.
9 The orthodox bishops said: 'Reserve those words and the
discussion of them for the proper time; but now tell us, do you
hold the blessed Dioscorus to be a heretic?'.
The opposing bishops say: 'We do not hold him to be a heretic, for his opinions were orthodox, but he was neglectful in
matters of urgent importance'. After this they added other lines
of argument, saying that the synod at Chalcedon had met very
usefully on the matter of Eutyches (22).
1o With this the first day's session was dissolved. Other things
were discussed there (too), about ordinations (cheirotoniai) (28): on
these, the orthodox bishops said that the ordinations which were
transmitted from the synod of Chalcedon were confirmed by
true faith and by communion with the orthodox.
II The next day (29) they gathered again, and first of all the
orthodox bishops asked that what was said might be taken down
in writing, just as they had asked the previous day, without
success. The opposing bishops did not accept this, not did the
locum tenens for the Magistros, saying: 'I did not receive any
such authorization from the serene emperor' (30).
12 The orthodox bishops asked for the statement they had
given to the emperor to be read (31). They straightway provided
a copy and it was read out, after which they asked the opponents
saying: 'Say if you have anything you find fault with in this
statement'.
13 The opposing bishops replied: 'We hold a moderate opinion
about it'. And they returned a question to the orthodox bishops:
'Tell us if what is in the statement is all you have to find fault
with the synod that gathered at Chalcedon?' (32).
14 The orthodox bishops said: 'That is not all; we have many
more things to censure in the synod, but above all else, the fact
that they accepted Ibas, and again that they accepted him on
the basis of his Letter to Mari the Persian (33) which they accepted
when it was read out before them, (despite) its being full of every
wickedness; and on its basis they held (Ibas) to be orthodox.
They also accepted the wicked Theodoret (34), without his having
changed from his evil belief; and they gave him back the priesthood too'.
15 The opposing bishops said: '[3 lines lost] Cyril received him
...because he had made a union with the Orientals' (35). They
further added: 'The synod accepted Theodoret with greater exасtitude than did the holy Cyril' (36).
16 The orthodox bishops said: 'First of all, along with the entire eastern synod (sc. Ephesus), the blessed Cyril also accepted
Theodoret, before he had yet been deprived of his 'priesthood:
this, on the grounds that he held the same opinions as the orientals, and gave utterance to them, and as someone who had removed himself from his utter wickedness'.
17 Then after this the orthodox bishops said: 'At that time (37)
the wicked heresy of Nestorius was gaining strength and was
destroying the souls of men, with the result that the bishops of
the entire eastern diocese (38) did not want to sign the deposition
of Nestorius, and so there was a danger that the greater portion
of the world would be filled with the harm brought about by
Nestorius' wickedness. For this reason the blessed Cyril, like a
wise doctor in an emergency, accepted all the bishops of the
diocese of the Orient - even if it was without going into details
(lit. exactly) - once they had acknowledged that Nestorius had
been deposed (lit. ejected) by them from the priesthood, and
they themselves had given an orthodox profession of faith: he
did not consider Theodoret as a case (where the malady) was
mingled in with and joined to the entire body. So afterwards,
when he learnt that he had remained in his teachings that were
hateful to [5 lines lost] Theodoret... and he reminded John (39)
that 'Theodoret needs reprimands (lit. blows) from you'. Then,
after a certain time, the synod at Chalcedon took place, and when
the orthodox faith had been established through the grace of
God, and while all peoples everywhere were rejecting the wicked
heresy of Nestorius with the result that Theodoret, too, of evil
name, was ejected from the priesthood (40) because of his failure
to repent of his wickedness, (it was at that point that) the synod
at Chalcedon received him without trial, (thus) putting itself
under just condemnation. How are those who received him not
guilty of his wickedness, since, when he had anathematized Nestorius alone, they did not (go on) to require him to anathematize
his wicked writings which he wrote against the holy Cyril and
against the true faith?'
18 The opposing bishops were put to shame by these (words)
and kept silence, whereupon the orthodox bishops reverted to
the discussion of the wicked Ibas, and they read from the Acta
of the synod of Chalcedon the declaration (dialalia) of Pascasinus,
Lucensius and Bonifatius (1), the representatives of Leo who was
bishop of the church of Rome. In this declaration they said
in brief that on the basis of the letter that had been read out
Ibas was orthodox.
19 The orthodox bishops then asked the Magistros to allow the
Letter to be read. He did so (42), and the Letter of the wicked
Ibas addressed to Mari the Persian was read out. [3½ lines lost]
because they did not endure...the wicked things in it. In reply,
the opposing bishops could find neither defence, nor (evidence of)
forgery; rather, they renounced the praxis (43), saying: 'This did
not take place at Chalcedon'. And they demanded that the
orthodox bishops demonstrate that it did.
20 At this the orthodox bishops laughed, and said: 'whence
else can you show the ? (44) that the synod at Chalcedon took place,
except from what was written there, (documents) that are to be
found all over the world?' A great argument was stirred up
over this, and the opposing bishops held out in their denial.
21 The orthodox bishops said to them: 'Tell (us) now whether
you accept the Letter of Ibas?' (45)
The opposing bishops were put out by this too, and said:
'We do not accept what was wrongly said in it' (46).
22 In retort the orthodox bishops said: 'Then, in the case of
Nestorius or any other heretic, you hold it is only necessary to
reject what is wrongly said, and no more. It was in vain, it
seems, that the all-wise fighters for the mysteries of the Church
anathematized the heretics, in that the latter said a few things
that were not wrong, but which are worthy of acceptance. As
to your saying that the praxis did not take place at Chalcedon
concerning [2 line lost] anathematize everyone who [accepts] the
Letter of Ibas, for [1½ line lost] the anathema will not transgress
[I word lost against the synod at Chalcedon, seeing that this
praxis did not take place there, as you assert' (4").
23 The opposing bishops said: 'We will not do this'. By their
refusal to anathematize (the Letter of Ibas), they testified that
this praxis did take place. But they were unable to offer any
defence for this manifest wickedness, with the result that the
shame of their denial was apparent to the auditor and to all those
who were present.
24 When (all) these things had been said on this topic, they
came to the examination of the faith. The opposing bishops
read the Letter of the oriental bishops that had been written
to the blessed Cyril concerning the agreement with him (48). Following this, the Letter of the allwise Cyril, which took the form
of a reply to the Orientals, was read out (49).
25 The orthodox bishops said: 'We acknowledge that we accept
both (letters), in accordance with the understanding of the wise
teacher'. They then requested, saying: 'We have in our possession letters of the blessed Cyril, one addressed to Eulogius (50),
and another to the blessed Acacius bishop of Melitene (51). Let
them be read out (too)'.
26 Before they were read the (opposing) bishops said: 'We do
not accept, for purposes of ecclesiastical law, those things which
were not confirmed by the synod' (52).
27 The orthodox bishops held up the discussion and demanded
that this be put in writing, and that the opposing (bishops)
should say openly that they do not [½ line lost] (53) which was
written [½ line lost] Cyril aft[er the sy]nod at Ephesus [I word
lost for these things were not confirmed by the synod, and, according to their word, they necessarily hold them not to be accepted.
28 Then the orthodox bishops introduced Gregory the Theologian who called (54) 'the law of the orthodox' all that had been written by Athanasius, the great fighter in support of religious
doctrine, despite the fact that these (works) had not been confirmed by the synod.
29 Since the father and teacher Cyril had likewise aided the
truth, his Letter to Eulogius was read (55). Once its contents
had been seen, the orthodox bishops said: 'We are of a like opinion,
and we acknowledge the single nature of God the Word incarnate (56), and we do not divide up the single Christ after the union
into a duality of natures, even though we recognize their difference
30 The orthodox bishops also wanted the Letter to Acacius of
Melitene to be read out (57), but the auditor checked them: 'Much
of the day has already passed, and', he said, 'it is altogether
equivalent in its sense to that addressed to Eulogius'.
31 The opposing bishops said: 'We too (will) introduce the holy
fathers and show that they spoke of two natures with reference
to Christ' (58).
32 The orthodox bishops pressed them, saying: 'Show us the
God-clothed fathers who (used) these words and said that it is
right to call Christ two united and inseparate natures after the
union; just as we have (ourselves) shown that they taught that
after the union [it is right to speak of only a single nature of Gód
the Word incarnate'] (59). The opposing bishops promised: 'We
will show this tomorrow'.
33 The orthodox bishops asked that the emperor should not
learn of the conversations from one of the sides (only), as had
happened the previous day, but that this should take place with
both sides present. They promised (that this should be so).
Thereupon the session was dissolved (60).
34 The opposing bishops, spurning the just request that the
orthodox bishops had made at the end of the evening (session),
went in to the emperor on their own and informed him of what
they chose (to tell him). Moreover the next day (61), without
having yet provided the testimonies of the holy fathers which
they had promised - indeed they could not have done so -
they came together to the emperor and sent for the orthodox
bishops to come too (62). They came, and the emperor asked
them: 'What are you doing?'
35 They replied: 'By means of the statement supplied by us
to your majesty, and by means of what has arisen in the two
days' discussion, we have dispelled the opinion which, it seems,
some people held of us. that we do not think in an orthodox
fashion'
36 The emperor said: 'I am not of the opinion, either, that you
do not think in an orthodox fashion, but you do not want to
communicate out of excessive (scruples over) detail, and because
of (certain) names which have been put on the diptychs'.
37 The orthodox bishops asked if they could give an account
of what had arisen in the course of the previous two days' discussions, [for] they wanted [32 lines lost] he (sc. the emperor)
said... you agreed with each other; I do not want to learn what
arose between you in the dialogue' (63). So he was unwilling to
listen to their account of the discussion.
38 He demanded of them, saying: 'Because you have not been
able to come to an agreement, but have left the division without
any solution and the schism without any healing, go off with
those appointed by me to the archbishops of Rome or of Alexandria and Antioch and Jerusalem, and ask them concerning the
faith' (64).
39 The orthodox bishops declined to undertake the journey to
the above-mentioned holders of sees, on the grounds of old age
and weakness of body. They added in conclusion: "There is no
propriety in our going to those who hold the opposite view to
our own and asking them about the faith'.
40 The emperor said: 'Then suggest some means so that the
union of all the patriarchs can be achieved (65); or, go (yourselves)
to them'.
41 The orthodox bishops say: 'The divine canons do not allow
us, insignificant bishops in small towns, to provide any common
(statement) on the faith (66). Moreover, in the statement that
we have provided and in the dialogue we have held at the emperor's orders, we do not speak for the (church) as a whole, but
we have (simply) made clear the liberty of our faith, as we have
said' (67).
42 The emperor made the same demands, requiring them either
to go to the holders of the other sees or to suggest some means
[of union].
of 43 The orthodox bishops made further excuses, on grounds
the canons, propriety, and feebleness of body.
44 After this the emperor asked them: 'Tell me if you are in
communion with the archbishop of Alexandria?' (68).
The orthodox bishops say: 'If that archbishop of Alexandria
remains in the orthodox faith, then we embrace communion with
him'
45 The opposing bishops who were there demanded that they
should say openly if they were in communion with the archbishop
of Alexandria in the same way as they themselves openly confessed that they were in close communion with the archbishop
of Rome.
46 The orthodox bishops said: 'Everyone who confesses the
orthodox faith and who, on the other hand, anathematizes alien
and foul doctrines; who says that God the Word was incarnate,
and that he suffered for us in his flesh - (flesh) that is by nature
subject to suffering and death; (that he suffered) of his own will,
(both) sufferings that are natural and not in dispute, and death;
(everyone who) distinguishes the time before the cross and that
after the resurrection - with such a man we are in communion'.
47 Now the bishops thought and were of the opinion that, if
the emperor asked them about the (archbishop) in Alexandria,
they should reply in a moderate way, judging and considering
that this was the most advantageous course for the subject under
consideration (69). [The rest is lost]
Translation - Add. 12155 (PO 13, pp. 192-6) = S
From what the orthodox bishops said in the presence of
the emperor Justinian when they were summoned by him to
make an apologia concerning the true faith and to suggest a way
by which the churches might be united. The bishops are as
follows: Sergius of Cyrrhus (70), Peter of Reshaina' (1), Thomas
of Germanicia (72), Thomas of Dara (73), John of Tella (74).
I. When the emperor blamed them for leaving their cities
without (due) cause (75), they told him: 'A new sentence has come on the church, and this was the cause of our departure; for libelli
were given to us all to put our signature to, (libelli) in which we
were required to anathematize ourselves and those who were
our fathers -and indeed more or less the entire world. For to
anathematize Peter, archbishop of Antioch and all who remain
in communion with him, and Acacius of Constantinople and Peter
of Alexandria (7"), as well as those who persevere (") in communion
with them, (this) is nothing other than to anathematize ourselves,
and, as it were, everything under the sky'.
- When they had openly (78) shown forth their true (faith) in
the presence of the bishops whom the emperor had brought to
discuss with them, and in the presence of the (state) officials who
were listening, and stated that 'the fathers taught us to confess
a single nature of the incarnate Word after the union' (9), then
they said to the opposing party: 'Show (us) the God-clothed
fathers who used the words 'after the union we should call the
one Christ two natures, united or inseparable', in the same way
that we have shown that they taught that it is right to acknowledge one nature of God the Word incarnate after the union' (80).
The opposing party said they would show (this), but they
failed to do so (81). - Then the emperor tells the orthodox that, because they had
not agreed to what the diphysites said, they should go again (or
now) to the patriarch of Rome and of Antioch and of Jerusalem (82),
and offer them arguments, or provide some means for the peace
of the churches (83).
The orthodox bishops say: 'The canon does not allow five
insignificant bishops, bishops moreover of small towns, to provide
any common (statement) on the faith by themselves' (84). - (85) When they asked (the emperor) if they might be dismissed to their homes (lit. places), the emperor said: 'Put down
in writing that you will not make any ordinations, and that you
will not baptize or give the sacrament to anyone apart from those
who are with you' (88).
They refused to put this in writing, saying: 'It would be
an insult to the emperor if we were to agree with him in writing
to the situation that he has ordered (i.e. the status quo)'.
The emperor then said: 'In that case, let each of you say
that he will not do any of these things; then you can go. Otherwise you will be dismissed to Zeugma' (87).
They replied: 'The divine laws do not not allow priests to use
oaths, nor can any man transgress an imperial order without
danger'.
The emperor said: 'Either bring Severus to suggest some
means for the peace of the churches, or suggest one yourselves'.
They said: 'We do not know where the holy Severus is' (88). - They then pressed them to suggest some means themselves
by which it might be both fitting and possible to achieve the
peace of the holy churches. Under this pressure the orthodox
bishops said: 'We do not think that those who (89) have specifically
withdrawn themselves from communion with the opposite party,
will be united, unless they (90) anathematize those who speak
of two natures after the inexplicable union, as well as the Tome
of Leo, and what took place at Chalcedon in opposition to the
orthodox faith'. They were silent, however, for the moment
about any anathema of particular names out of consideration
for the accomplishment of universal union. - The bishops also said this: 'First of all the libelli of the Romaioi must come to an end, to which all the bishops to-day holding sees have put their signature'.
Such was the advice of the orthodox bishops if ways were
to be found of achieving the peace of the churches. - The emperor objected to this, (and said): 'Would (the following conditions), perhaps (91), be acceptable to them: they
might anathematize Diodore, Theodore, Theodoret, Ibas, Nestorius and Eutyches, and accept the Twelve Chapters of the holy
Cyril, while anathematizing what had been written against them;
they might confess one nature of God the Word incarnate, but
they should refrain from anathematizing those who speak of
two natures after the inexpressible union, (anathematizing) instead
those who hold Nestorian views and divide up Christ into two
natures, while confessing, as a crafty device which they had discovered long ago, together with the other side 'the two united
and inseparable natures' (92); they should accept the synod at
Chalcedon as far as the expulsion of Eutyches was concerned,
but they need not accept the definition of the faith made there;
they should cease their anathema of the Tome of Leo; and the
libelli of the Romaioi should not be suspended'.
These things failed to persuade the orthodox (93). - The bishops whom the emperor had brought to speak with
the orthodox bishops are as follows: Hypatius of Ephesus, Stephan
of Isaurian Seleucia, Innocentius of Amorium, John of Byzie (94) - the towns of these (two) are in Thrace - and Anthimus of
Trebizond. These men found fault with Dioscorus because he
was not (sufficiently) attentive to details in (the matter of) the
reception of Eutyches, (failing) to examine him on the matter
of (his) faith carefully on every point, as is right that everyone
should be attentive to all the tricks of the heretics; but they had
no complaint against him (Dioscorus) in matters of faith (9).
For the full document translated by Sebastian Brock, the premier English language scholar on Syriac studies, see pages 87-121 of the attached document:
