text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/61

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 TOP SECRET – Sensitive II. A. 3.

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/61


text:
Page:Inquiry into the shipwreck of 'Geffrard' 1875-07-07.djvu/2

 Western Australia

To Wit

Proceedings of a Court of inquiry held at the Court House Busselton this 7th day of July 1875 under the procisions of the Local Ordinance 28 Victoria No 2 relating to a casualty that happened to the British Brig 'Geffrard' of Melbourne official number 23262 of 316$13/100$ tons burthen, commanded by the number of whose Certificate of Competency is 19353 on the evening of the 13th June last, and especially to inquire into the Formal charges made by J. S. Harris Esq Sub-Collector of Customs and  a Justice of the Peace against the said J. W. Munday the master of the said vessel. Thus.—

1st With neglecting to have a second anchor down, it being the season of the winter gales blowing on this coast.

2nd In not being on board his vessel during threatening weather, and a falling barometer

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Davidson, Rev. John


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Davidson, William Montgomery Davenport


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Davies, Hon. David Mortimer


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Davies, Hon. John


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/168

 142 which he has cultivated in himself it is his only pleasure—indeed it is his passion—to be daily and hourly exercising for the benefit of others. And now to sit still with his arms folded; or to go on studying, acquiring, and acquiring, when he can make no use of what he already possesses,—my dear creature, it is a painful situation; and, alone as he is, he feels it doubly and trebly."

"But I thought," said Charlotte, "that he had had offers from many different quarters. I myself wrote to numbers of my own friends, male and female, for him, and, as I have reason to believe, not without effect."

"It is true," replied Edward; "but these very offers, these various proposals, have only caused him fresh embarrassment. Not one of them is at all suitable to such a person as he is. He would have nothing to do: he would have to sacrifice himself, his time, his purposes, his whole method of life; and to that he cannot bring himself. The more I think of it all, the more I feel about it, and the more anxious I am to see him here with us."

"It is very beautiful and amiable on your part," answered Charlotte, "to enter with so much sympathy into your friend's position; only, you must allow me to ask you to think of yourself and of me, as well."

"I have done that," replied Edward. "For ourselves, we can have nothing to expect from his presence with us, except pleasure and advantage. I will say nothing of the expense. In any case, if he came to us, it would be but small; and you know he will be of no inconvenience to us at all. He can have his own rooms in the right wing of the castle, and everything else can be arranged as simply as possible. What shall we not be thus doing for him! and how agreeable and how profitable may not his society prove to us! I have long been wishing for a plan of the


text:
User talk:Karna Kr. Rabha

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource. We appreciate your contribution, but it unfortunately does not seem to be appropriate for Wikisource. Wikisource is a collection of previously published texts. If the page you contributed does not meet these requirements, it will be deleted shortly. Thank you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karna Kr. Rabha


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/169

Rh and the grounds. He will see to it, and get it made. You intend, yourself, to take the management of the estate, as soon as our present steward's term is expired; and that, you know, is a serious thing. His various information will be of immense benefit to us: I feel only too acutely how much I require a person of this kind. The country people have knowledge enough; but their way of imparting it is confused, and not always honest. The students from the towns and universities are sufficiently clever and orderly, but they are deficient in personal experience. From my friend, I can promise myself both knowledge and method; and hundreds of other circumstances I can easily conceive arising, affecting you as well as me, and from which I can foresee innumerable advantages. Thank you for so patiently listening to me. Now, do you say what you think, and say it out freely and fully: I will not interrupt you."

"Very well," replied Charlotte: "I will begin at once with a general observation. Men think most of the immediate—the present; and rightly, their calling being to do and to work. Women, on the other hand, more of how things hang together in life: and that rightly, too, because their destiny—the destiny of their families—is bound up in this interdependence; and it is exactly this which it is their mission to promote. So, now, let us cast a glance at our present and our past life; and you will acknowledge that the invitation of the captain does not fall in so entirely with our purposes, our plans, and our arrangements. I will go back to those happy days of our earliest intercourse. We loved each other, young as we then were, with all our hearts. We were parted: you from me—your father, from an insatiable desire of wealth, choosing to marry you to an elderly and rich lady; I from you, having to give my hand, without any especial motive, to an excellent man, whom I respected, if I did not


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/170

 144 love. We became again free—you first, your poor mother at the same time leaving you in possession of your large fortune; I later, just at the time when you returned from abroad. So we met once more. We spoke of the past; we could enjoy and love the recollection of it; we might have been contented, in each other's society, to leave things as they were. You were urgent for our marriage. I at first hesitated. We were about the same age; but I, as a woman, had grown older than you as a man. At last I could not refuse you what you seemed to think the one thing you cared for. All the discomfort you had ever experienced, at court, in the army, or in travelling, you were to recover from at my side. You would settle down, and enjoy life, but only with me for your companion. I placed my daughter at a school where she could be more completely educated than would be possible in the retirement of the country; and I placed my niece Ottilie there with her as well, who, perhaps, would have grown up better at home with me, under my own care. This was done with your consent, merely that we might have our own lives to ourselves,—merely that we might enjoy undisturbed our so-long-wished-for, so-long-delayed, happiness. We came here, and settled ourselves. I undertook the domestic part of the menage; you, the out-of-doors, and the general control. My own principle has been to meet your wishes in everything, to live only for you. At least, let us give ourselves a fair trial how far in this way we can be enough for one another."

"Since the interdependence of things, as you call it, is your especial element," replied Edward, "one should either never listen to any of your trains of reasoning, or make up one's mind to allow you to be in the right; and, indeed, you have been in the right up to the present day. The foundation which we have hitherto been laying for ourselves is of the true, sound sort;


text:
Page:The Works of J. W. von Goethe, Volume 6.djvu/171

 Rh only, are we to build nothing upon it? is nothing to be developed out of it? All the work we have done,—I in the garden, you in the park,—is it all only for a pair of hermits?"

"Well, well," replied Charlotte, "very well. What we have to look to is, that we introduce no alien element, nothing which shall cross or obstruct us. Remember, our plans, even those which only concern our amusements, depend mainly on our being together. You were to read to me, in consecutive order, the journal which you made when you were abroad. You were to take the opportunity of arranging it, putting all the loose matter connected with it in its place; and, with me to work with you and help you, out of these invaluable but chaotic leaves and sheets, to put together a complete thing, which should give pleasure to ourselves and to others. I promised to assist you in transcribing; and we thought it would be so pleasant, so delightful, so charming, to travel over in recollection the world which we were unable to see together. The beginning is already made. Then, in the evenings, you have taken up your flute again, accompanying me on the piano; while, of visits backwards and forwards among the neighbourhood, there is abundance. For my part, I have been promising myself out of all this the first really happy summer I have ever thought to spend in my life."

"Only, I cannot see," replied Edward, rubbing his forehead, "how, through every bit of this which you have been so sweetly and so sensibly laying before me, the captain's presence can be any interruption: I should rather have thought it would give it all fresh zest and life. He was my companion during a part of my travels. He made many observations from a different point of view from mine. We can put it all together, and so make a charmingly complete work of it."


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eutyches

Eutyches, an heresiarch of the fifth century, who has given his name to an opinion to which his teaching and influence contributed little or nothing. The essence of that view is the assertion that Christ has but one nature after the Incarnation, and it is spoken of indifferently as the Eutychian or the Monophysite heresy, though Eutyches was not its originator, and though he was repudiated and condemned by many of the Monophysites, who all looked upon St. Cyril of Alexandria as their great Doctor. Eutyches in 448 was seventy years of age, and had been for thirty years archimandrite of a monastery outside the walls of Constantinople, where he ruled over three hundred monks. He was not a learned man, but was much respected and had influence through the infamous minister of Theodosius II, the eunuch Chrysaphius, to whom he had stood godfather. He was a vehement opponent of Nestorianism, and of the Antiochian party led by Theodoret of Cyrus (Cyrrhus) and John of Antioch. These bishops had, for a time, championed the orthodoxy of Nestorius, but had eventually accepted the Council of Ephesus of 431, making peace with St. Cyril of Alexandria in 434. Mutual explanations had been exchanged between the great theologians Theodoret and Cyril, but their partisans had not been convinced. On the death of Cyril, in 444, his successor Dioscurus was not slow to renew hostilities, and the Cyrillians and anti-Nestorians everywhere took the offensive. It was but as a part of this great movement that Eutyches, at Constantinople, began to denounce a supposed revival of Nestorianism. He wrote to Pope Leo on the subject, and received a sympathetic reply. The Patriarch of Antioch, Domnus, was on his guard, and he addressed a synodal letter to the Emperor Theodosius II, accusing Eutyches of renewing the heresy of Apollinarius (this had been the charge of the Antiochian party against St. Cyril) and of wishing to anathematize the great Antiochian teachers of a past generation, Diodorus and Theodore—a point in which Eutyches was not altogether in the wrong (Facundus, viii, 5, and xiii, 5). This was probably in 448, as St. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, had heard of no such accusation when he held a synod, on November 8th, with regard to a point of discipline connected with the province of Sardis. Eutyches had been accusing various personages of covert Nestorianism, and at the end of the session of this synod one of those inculpated, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, brought the question forward, and proffered a counter charge of heresy against the archimandrite.

Eusebius had been, many years before, while yet a layman, one of the first to detect, and denounce, the errors in the sermons of Nestorius and he was naturally indignant at being called a Nestorian. Flavian expressed great surprise at this sudden and unexpected charge, and suggested a private conference with Eutyches. Eusebius refused, for he had had frequent interviews without result. At the second session the orthodox view was defined, at Eusebius's request, by the reading of the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, and its approbation by the council of Ephesus, and also of the letter of Cyril to John of Antioch, "Laetentur caeli", written after the agreement between the two patriarchs, in 434. These documents were acclaimed by all. Flavian summed up to the effect that Christ was "of two natures", ek duo phuseon, after the Incarnation; Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of Amasea even spoke explicitly of His being "in two natures", and all the bishops echoed, in their own words, the sentiments of the president. In the third session the messengers, who had been sent to summon Eutyches to attend, returned, bringing his absolute refusal. He had determined, he declared, that he would never set his foot outside his monastery, which he regarded as his tomb. He was ready to subscribe to the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus; though in doing so he ought not to be understood to subscribe to, or to condemn, any errors into which they might have fallen; he searched the Scriptures alone, as being more sure than the expositions of the Fathers, and he adored one nature of God, incarnate and made man after the Incarnation. He complained that he had been accused of saying that God the Word had brought His flesh down from heaven. This was untrue. He acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ as "of" two natures (ek duo phuseon) hypostatically united, as perfect God, and perfect Man born of the Virgin Mary, not having flesh consubstantial with ours. These statements of Eutyches were substantiated by three witnesses. The council therefore addressed a letter to him, summoning him to appear, for his excuse was insufficient in face of so serious a charge. Eusebius of Dorylaeum, whose ardor was by no means quenched, then pointed out that Eutyches had been sending round a writing to the different monasteries to stir them up, and that danger to the council might result. Two priests were therefore sent round to the different monasteries in the city, two to those across the Golden Horn, and two across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon, to make enquiries.

Meanwhile the envoys sent to Eutyches had returned. After some difficulties and the plea of illness, Eutyches had consented to receive them. He still refused to leave his monastery, and begged them not to trouble to call a third time (as the canons directed), but to treat him as contumacious at once, if they pleased. The council, however, sent him a third and final summons, to appear on the morning of the next day but one, 17th November or take the consequences. The next day a Priest-Archimandrite Abraham and three deacon monks appeared on behalf of Eutyches. Abraham declared that Eutyches had passed the night in groaning, and that he himself had consequently not slept at all either. St. Flavian replied that the Synod would wait for Eutyches's recovery. He was not asked to come to enemies, but to brothers and fathers. He had formerly entered the city when Nesturius attacked the truth. Let him do the same once more. Repentance will be no disgrace to him. As the assembly rose, Flavian added: "You know the accuser's zeal, and that fire itself seems cold to him, on account of his zeal for piety. And God knows, I have both advised and entreated him to desist. But when he set to work, what was I to do? I desire not your dispersion, God forbid, but rather to gather you in. It is for enemies to disperse, for fathers to gather into one."

On the following day Eutyches did not appear, but promised to come in five days, that is on the following Monday. It was proved that Eutyches had sent round a tome to other monasteries for signature. It wassaid to contain the Faith of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor was it shown to have contained anything further. On the Saturday, Eusebius elicited testimony to further heretical remarks of Eutyches, which the envoys had heard him make. In particular he had denied two natures in Christ after the Incarnation, and had said he was ready to be condemned; the monastery should be his tomb. On Monday 22nd November, Eutyches was sought vainly in the Church and the Archbishop's palace, but was eventually announced as arriving with a great multitude of soldiers, and monks, and attendants of the Prefect of the Praetorian guard, and this escort only permitted him to enter under the synod's promise that his person should be restored to them. With the cortege came a Silentiary named Magnus, bringing a letter from the Emperor, who desired that the Patrician Florentius should be admitted to the Council; the Silentiary was therefore sent to invite his presence. Eusebius showed more than ever his anxiety that Eutyches should be convicted on the grounds of his former sayings, lest he should now unsay them, and be simply acquitted; for in that case his accuser might be made liable to the penalties due to calumnious accusation: "I am a poor man," he said, "without means. He threatens me with exile; he is rich; he has already depicted the Oasis as my destination!" Flavian and the Patrician replied that any submission made by Eutyches now should not release him from answering the charges as to his past words. Flavian then said: "You have heard, priest Eutyches, what your accuser says. Say now whether you admit the union of two natures, ek duo phuseon henosin." Eutyches replied: "Yes, ek duo phuseon." Eusebius interrupted: "Do you acknowledge two natures, Lord Archimandrite, after the Incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh; yes or no?" This expressed clearly the whole question between Catholic truth and the heresy of Monophysitism. Eutyches would not give a direct answer. Perhaps he was puzzled and cautious. At all events he saw that a negative reply would mean immediate condemnation, while an affirmative one would contradict his own former utterances. "I did not come here to dispute," he said, "but to make clear my view to your Holiness. It is in this paper. Order it to be read." As he would not read it himself, Flavian ordered him to declare his belief. His vague reply evaded the point, merely asserting that he believed "in the Son's incarnate advent of the flesh of the holy Virgin, and that He was perfectly made Man for our salvation". When urged, Eutyches declared that he had never up till now said that Christ was consubstantial with us, but he acknowledged the holy Virgin to be consubstantial with us. Basil of Seleucia urged that her Son must therefore also be consubstantial with us, since Christ was incarnate from her. Eutyches answered: "Since you say so, I agree with all"; and he further explained that the body of Christ is the body of God, not of a man, though it is a human body. Provided he was not understood to deny that Christ is the Son of God, he would say "consubstantial with us", as the Archbishop wished it and permitted it. Flavian denied that the expression was novel.

Florentius showed that the Emperor had judged rightly that he was a good theologian, far he now pushed the Archimandrite on the essential point, the two natures. Eutyches answered explicitly: "I confess that our Lord was of [ek] two natures, before the union; but after the union, I acknowledge one nature." It is very odd that no comment was made on this utterance. The synod ordered Eutyches to anathematize all that was contrary to the letters of Cyril, which had been read. He refused. He was ready enough to accept the letters, according to the synod's wish, but he would not anathematize all who did not use these expressions; otherwise he would be anathematizing the holy Fathers. Nor would he admit that Cyril or Athanasius had taught two natures after the Incarnation (and this was indeed correct, sofar as mere words go). But Basil of Seleucia rightly urged: "If you do not say two natures after the union, you say there is mixture or confusion" (though, at the Robber Council, the unfortunate bishop was fain to deny his words). Florentius then declared, that he is not orthodox who does not confess ek duo phuseon and also duo phuseis. The synod agreed, and considered the forced submission which Eutyches offered to be insincere. Flavian then pronounced the sentence of degradation, excommunication, and deposition. This was signed by about 30 bishops, including Julian of Cos, the pope's charge d'affaires at the Court of Theodosius. The acts of this synod are preserved for us, because they were read in full at the Robber Council of Ephesus, in the following year 449, and again, in 451, at the Council of Chalcedon as a part of the Acts of the Robber Council. Flavian took care that the acts should also be signed by many archimandrites of the city. Eutyches, on his side, wrote for support to the chief bishops of the world, and placarded Constantinople with complaints. He sent an appeal to the pope (St. Leo, Ep. xxi) explaining that he had refused to affirm two natures and to anathematize all who did not do so; else he would have condemned the holy Fathers, Popes Julius and Felix, Saints Athanasius and Gregory (he is referring to the extracts from the Fathers which were read in the first session of the Council of Ephesus; later in 535 it was declared that these papal documents were Apollinarian forgeries, and such is still the opinion of critics. See Harnack, Bardenhewer, etc.). Eutyches continues: "I requested that this might be made known to your holiness, and that you might judge as you should think fit, declaring that in every way I should follow that which you approve." It was untrue that Eutyches at the council had appealed to the pope. He could only prove that in a low voice he had said he referred his case to the great patriarchs. When St. Leo had received the Acts of the Council, he concluded that Eutyches was a foolish old man who had erred through ignorance, and might be restored if he repented. Dioscurus of Alexandria, imitating some of his predecessors in assuming a primacy over Constantinople, simply annulled the sentence of Flavian, and absolved Eutyches.

The archimandrite had not been touched by the consideration Flavian had shown. His obstinacy continued. He obtained, through Chrysaphius, a new synod of 32 bishops, which met in April 449 (without the presence of Flavian, but including the Patrician Florentius and several of the bishops who had taken part in the condemnation), in order to examine his complaint that the Acts had been falsified. After a careful revision of them, some slight alterations were made to please Eutyches; but the result was of no practical importance. Dioscurus and Eutyches had obtained the convocation by the Emperor of an ecumenical council to meet at Ephesus on 1st August, 449. The proceedings of the party of Dioscurus before and at that council will be found under Dioscurus and Robber Council of Ephesus; it is only necessary to say here that in the first session Eutyches was exculpated, and absolved, while violence was done to Flavian and Eusebius, who were imprisoned. The former soon died of his sufferings. Both had appealed to Rome. The Pope annulled the council, but Theodosius II supported it. On that Emperor's sudden death the outlook changed. A new council met at Chalcedon in October, 451, at the wish of the Emperor Marcian and his consort St. Pulcheria, the course of which was directed by imperial commissioners, in accordance with the directions of St. Leo, whose legates presided. Dioscurus was deposed, and exiled to Paphlagonia. Eutyches was also exiled. A letter of St. Leo (Ep. 134), written 15th April, 454, complains that Eutyches is still spreading his poison in banishment, and begs Marcian to transfer him to some more distant and lonely spot. The old man does not seem to have long survived. His monastery, at Constantinople, was put under the supervision of Julian of Cos as visitor, that prelate being still the papal representative at Constantinople.

.

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eutyches


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eutychianism

Eutychianism and Monophysitism are usually identified as a single heresy. But as some Monophysites condemned Eutyches, the name Eutychian is given by some writers to only the more extreme of these sectaries, or even only to those in Armenia. It seems best to use the words indifferently, as no party of the sect looked to Eutyches as a founder or a leader, and Eutychian is but a nickname for all those who, like Eutyches, rejected the orthodox expression "two natures" of Christ. The tenet "one nature" was common to all Monophysites and Eutychians, and they affected to call Catholics Diphysites or Dyophysites. The error took its rise in a reaction against Nestorianism, which taught that in Christ there is a human hypostasis or person as well as a Divine. This was interpreted to imply a want of reality in the union of the Word with the assumed Humanity, and even to result in two Christs, two Sons, though this was far from the intention of Nestorius himself in giving his incorrect explanation of the union. He was ready to admit one prosopon, but not one hypostasis, a "prosopic" union, though not a "hypostatic" union, which is the Catholic expression. He so far exaggerated the distinction of the Humanity from the Divine Person Who assumed it, that he denied that the Blessed Virgin could be called Mother of God, Theotokos. His views were for a time interpreted in a benign sense by Theodoret, and also by John, Bishop of Antioch, but they all eventually concurred in his condemnation, when he showed his heretical spirit by refusing all submission and explanation. His great antagonist, St. Cyril of Alexandria, was at first vehemently attacked by Theodoret, John, and their party, as denying the completeness of the Sacred Humanity after the manner of the heretic Apollinarius.

The fiery Cyril curbed his natural impetuosity; mutual explanations followed; and in 434, three years after the Council of Ephesus which had condemned Nestorius, peace was made between Alexandria and Antioch. Cyril proclaimed it in a letter to John beginning Loetentur coeli, in which he clearly condemned beforehand the Monothelite, if not the Monophysite, views which were to be unfortunately based on certain ambiguities in his earlier expressions. If he did not arrive quite at the exactness of the language in which St. Leo was soon to formulate the doctrine of the Church, yet the following words, drawn up by the Antiochian party and fully accepted by Cyril in his letter, are clear enough: "before the worlds begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary according to the Manhood; consubstantial with the Father in the Godhead, consubstantial with us in the Manhood; for a union of two natures took place, wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to the understanding of this unconfused union, we confess the Blessed Virgin to be Theotokos, because the Word of God was incarnate and made man, and through her conception united to Himself the temple He received from her. And we are aware that the words of the Gospels, and of the Apostles, concerning the Lord are, by theologians, looked upon some as applying in common [to the two natures] as belonging to the one Person; others as attributed to one of the two natures; and that they tell us by tradition, that some are of divine import, to suit the Divinity of Christ, others of humble nature belonging to His humanity." In this "creed of the union" between John and Cyril, it is at least implied that the two natures remain after the union (against Monophysitism), and it is quite clearly enunciated that some expressions belong to the Person, others to each of the Natures, as, e.g., it was later defined that activities (energeiai) and will are of the Natures (against Monothelites), while Sonship (against the Adoptionists), is of the Person. There is no doubt that Cyril would have understood rightly and have accepted (even apart from papal authority) the famous words of St. Leo's tome: "Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est" (Ep. xxviii, 4). The famous formula of St. Cyril mia phusis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, "one nature incarnate of God the Word" (or "of the Word of God"), derived from a treatise which Cyril believed to be by St. Athanasius, the greatest of his predecessors, was intended by him in a right sense, and has been formally adopted by the Church. In the eighth canon of the Fifth General Council, those are anathematized who say "one Nature incarnate of God the Word", unless they "accept it as the Fathers taught, that by a hypostatic union of the Divine nature and the human, one Christ was effected". In the Lateran Council of 649, we find: "Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatam... anathema sit." Nevertheless this formula, frequently used by Cyril (in Epp. i, ii, Ad Successum; Contra Nest. ii; Ad Eulogium, etc.; see Petavius "De Incarn.", IV, 6), was the starting point of the Monophysites, some of whom understood it rightly, whereas others pushed it into a denial of the reality of the human nature, while all equally used it as a proof that the formula "two natures" must be rejected as heretical, and therefore also the letter of St. Leo and the decree of Chalcedon.

The word phusis was ambiguous. Just as the earlier writings of Theodoret against Cyril contained passages which naturally permitted a Nestorian interpretation,—they were in this sense condemned by the Fifth General Council—so the earlier writings of Cyril against Nestorius gave color to the charges of Apollinarianism brought against him by Theodoret, John, Ibas, and their party. The word phusis produced just the same difficulties that the word hupostasis had aroused in the preceding century. For hupostasis, as St. Jerome rightly declared, was the equivalent of ousia in the mouths of all philosophers, yet it was eventually used theologically, from Didymus onwards, as the equivalent of the Latin persona, that is, a subsistent essence. Similarly phusis was an especially Alexandrian word for ousia and hupostasis, and was naturally used of a subsistent ousia, not of abstract ousia, both by Cyril often (as in the formula in question), and by the more moderate Monophysites. The Cyrillian formula, in its genesis and in its rationale, has been explained by Newman in an essay of astounding learning and perfect clearness (Tracts Theol. and Eccl., iv, 1874). He points out that the word hupostasis could be used (by St. Athanasius, for example), without change of meaning, both of the one Godhead, and of the three Persons. In the former case it did not mean the Divine Essence in the abstract, but considered as subsistent, without defining whether that subsistence is threefold or single, just as we say "one God" in the concrete, without denying a triple Personality. Just the same twofold use without change of meaning might be made of the words ousia, eidos, and phusis. Again, phusis was not applied, as a rule, in the fourth century, to the Humanity of Christ, because that Humanity is not "natural" in the sense of "wholly like to our nature", since it is sinless, and free from all the imperfections which arise from original sin (not pura natura but Integra natura), it has no human personality of its own, and it is ineffably graced and glorified by its union with the Word. From this point of view it is clear that Christ is not so fully "consubstantial with us" as He is "consubstantial with the Father". Yet again, in these two phrases the word consubstantial appears in different senses; for the Father and the Son have one substance numero, whereas the Incarnate Son is of one substance with us specie (not numero, of course). It is therefore not to be wondered at, if the expression "consubstantial with us" was avoided in the fourth century. In like manner the word phusis has its full meaning when applied to the Divine Nature of Christ, but a restricted meaning (as has been just explained) when applied to His Human Nature.

In St. Cyril's use of the formula its signification is plain. "It means", says Newman (loc. cit., p. 316), "(a), that when the Divine Word became man, He remained one and the same in essence, attributes and personality; in all respects the same as before, and therefore mia phusis. It means (b), that the manhood, on the contrary, which He assumed, was not in all respects the same nature as that masses, usia, physis, etc., out of which it was taken; (I) from the very circumstance that it was only an addition or supplement to what He was already, not a being complete in itself; (2) because in the act of assuming it, He changed it in its qualities. This added nature, then, was best expressed, not by a second substantive, as if collateral in its position, but by an adjective or participle, as sesarkomene. The three words answered to St. John's he logos sarks egeneto, i.e. sesarkomenos en." Thus St. Cyril intended to safeguard the teaching of the Council of Antioch (against Paul of Samosata, 264-72) that the Word is unchanged by the Incarnation, "that He is hen kai to auto te ousia from first to last, on earth and in heaven" (p. 317). He intended by his one nature of God, "with the council of Antioch, a protest against that alterableness and imperfection, which the anti-Catholic schools affixed to their notion of the Word. The council says `one and the same in usia': it is not speaking of a human usia in Christ, but of the divine. The case is the same in Cyril's Formula; he speaks of a mia theia phusis in the Word. He has in like manner written a treatise entitled `quod unus sit Christus'; and, in one of his Paschal Epistles, he enlarges on the text `Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today, the same, and for ever.' His great theme in these words is not the coalescing of the two natures into one, but the error of making two sons, one before and one upon the Incarnation, one divine, one human, or again of degrading the divine usia by making it subject to the humanity" (pp. 321-2). It has been necessary thus to explain at length St. Cyril's meaning in order to be able to enumerate the more briefly and clearly, the various phases of the Eutychian doctrine.

1. The Cyrillian party before Chalcedon did not put forward any doctrine of their own; they only denounced as Nestorians any who taught duo phuseis, two natures, which they made equal to two hypostases, and two Sons. They usually admitted that Christ was ek duo phuseon "of two natures", but this meant that the Humanity before (that is, logically before) it was assumed was a complete phusis; it was no longer a phusis (subsistent) after its union to the Divine nature. It was natural that those of them who were consistent should reject the teaching of St. Leo, that there were two natures: "Tenet emm sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura", "Assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens", and if they chose to understand "nature" to mean a subsistent nature, they were even bound to reject such language as Nestorian. Their fault in itself was not necessarily that they were Monophysites at heart, but that they would not stop to listen to the six hundred bishops of Chalcedon, to the pope, and to the entire Western Church. Those who were ready to hear explanations and to realize that words may have more than one meaning (following the admirable example set by St. Cyril himself), were able to remain in the unity of the Church. The rest were rebels, and whether orthodox in belief or not, well deserved to find themselves in the same ranks as the real heretics.

2. Eutyches himself was not a Cyrillian. He was not a Eutychian in the ordinary sense of that word. His mind was not clear enough to be definitely Monophysite, and St. Leo was apparently right in thinking him ignorant. He was with the Cyrillians in denouncing as Nestorians all who spoke of two natures. But he had never adopted the "consubstantial with us" of the "creed of the union", nor St. Cyril's admissions, in accepting that creed, as to the two natures. He was willing to accept St. Cyril's letters and the decisions of Ephesus and Nicaea only in a general way, in so far as they contained no error. His disciple, the monk Constantine, at the revision, in April, 449, of the condemnation of Eutyches, explained that he did not accept the Fathers as a canon of faith. In fact Eutyches simply upheld the ultra-Protestant view that nothing can be imposed as of faith which is not verbally to be found in Scripture. This, together with an exaggerated horror of Nestorianism, appears to describe his whole theological position.

3. Dioscurus and the party which followed him seem to have been pure Cyrillians, who by an excessive dislike of Nestorianism, fell into excess in minimizing the completeness of the Humanity, and exaggerating the effects upon it of the union. We have not documents enough to tell us how far their error went. A fragment of Dioscurus is preserved in the "Antirrhetica" of Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm., IV, 380) which asks: "If the Blood of Christ is not by nature (kata phusin) God's and not a man's, how does it differ from the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer? For this is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of man according to nature is earthly and corruptible. But God forbid that we should say the Blood of Christ is consubstantial with one of those things which are according to nature (henos ton kata phusin homoousion)." If this is really, as it purports to be, from a letter written by Dioscurus from his exile at Gangra, we shall have to class him with the extreme Monophysite "Incorrupticolae", in that he rejects the "consubstantial with us" and makes the Blood of Christ incorruptible of its own nature. But the passage may conceivably be a Julianist forgery.

4. Timothy Aelurus, the first Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, was on the contrary nearly orthodox in his views, as has been clearly shown by the extracts published by Lebon from his works, extant in Syriac in a MS. in the British Museum (Addit. 12156). He denies that phusis, nature, can be taken in an abstract sense. Hence he makes extracts from St. Leo, and mocks the pope as a pure Nestorian. He does not even accept ek duo phuseon, and declares there can be no question of two natures, either before or after the Incarnation. "There is no nature which is not a hypostasis, nor hypostasis which is not a person." So far we have, not heresy, but only a term defined contrary to the Chalcedonian and Western usage. A second point is the way Aeurus understands phusisto mean that which is "by nature". Christ, he says, is by nature God, not man; He became man only by "oikonomia " (economy or Incarnation); consequently His Humanity is not His phusis. Taken thus, the formula mia phusis was intended by Allurus in an orthodox sense. Thirdly, the actions of Christ are attributed to His Divine Person, to the one Christ. Here Aelurus seems to be unorthodox. For the essence of Monothelism is the refusal to apportion the actions (energeiai) between the two natures, but to insist that they are all the actions of the one Personality. How far Aelurus was in reality a Monothelite cannot be judged until his works are before us in full. He is, at all events in the main, a schismatic, full of hatred and contempt for the Catholic Church outside Egypt, for the 600 bishops of Chalcedon, for the 1600 of the Encyclia, for Rome and the whole West. But he consistently anathematized Eutyches for his denial that Christ is consubstantial with us.

5. In the next generation Severus, Bishop of Antioch (511-39), was the great Monophysite leader. In his earlier days he rejected the Henoticon of Zeno, but when a patriarch he accepted it. His contemporaries accused him of contradicting himself in the attempt, it seems, to be comprehensive. He did not, however, conciliate the Incorrupticolse, but maintained the corruptibility of the Body of Christ. He seems to have admitted the expression ek duo phuseon. Chalcedon and Pope Leo he treated as Nestorian, as Aelurus did, on the ground that two natures mean two persons. He did not allow the Humanity to be a distinct monad; but this is no more than the view of many modern Catholic theologians that it has no esse of its own. (So St. Thomas, III, Q. xvii, a. 2; see Janssens, De Deohomine, pars prior, p. 607, Freiburg, 1901.) It need not be understood that by thus making a composite hypostasis Severus renounced the Cyrillian doctrine of the unchanged nature of the Word after the unconfused union. Where he is most certainly heretical is in his conception of one nature not Divine (so Cyril and Aelurus) but theandric, and thus a composition, though not a mixture—phusis theandrike. To this one nature are attributed all the activities of Christ, and they are called "theandric" (energeiai theandrikai), instead of being separated into Divine activities and human activities as by the Catholic doctrine. The undivided Word, he said, must have an undivided activity. Thus even if Severus could be defended from the charge of strict Monophysitism, in that he affirmed the full reality of the Human Nature of Christ, though he refused to it the name of nature, yet at least he appears as a dogmatic Monothelite. This is the more clear, in that on the crucial question of one or two wills, he pronounces for one theandric will. On the other hand utterances of Severus which make Christ's sufferings voluntarily permitted, rather than naturally necessitated by the treatment inflicted on His Body, might perhaps be defended by the consideration that from the union and consequent Beatific Vision in the Soul of Christ, would congruously ensue a beatification of the Soul and a spiritualizing of the Body, as was actually the case after the Resurrection; from this point of view it is true that the passibility of the Humanity is voluntary (that is, decreed by the Divine will) and not due to it in the state which is connatural to it after the union; although the Human Nature is of its own nature passible apart from the union (St. Thomas, III, Q. xiv, a. 1, ad 2). It is important to recollect that the same distinction has to be made in considering whether the Body of Christ is to be called corruptible or incorruptible, and consequently whether Catholic doctrine on this point is in favor of Severus or of his adversary Julian. The words of St. Thomas may be borne in mind: "Corruptio et mors non competit Christo ratione suppositi, secundum quod attenditur unitas, sed ratione naturee, secundum quam invenitur differentia mortis et vitae" (III, Q. 1, a. 5, ad 2). As the Monophysites discussed the question ration suppositi (since they took nature to mean hypostasis, and to imply a soppositum) they were bound to consider the Body of Christ incorruptible. We must therefore consider the Julianists more consistent than the Severians.

6. Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, was the leader of those who held the incorruptibility, as Severus was of those who held the corruptibility. The question arose in Alexandria, and created great excitement, when the two bishops had taken refuge in that city, soon after the accession of the orthodox Emperor Justin, in 518. The Julianists called the Severians phthartolatrai or Corrupticol, and the latter retorted by entitling the Julians Aphthartodoketai, as renewing the Docetic heresies of the second century. In 537, the two parties elected rival patriarchs of Alexandria, Theodosius and Gaianas, after whom the Corrupticolae were known as Theodosians, and the Incorrupticolae as Gaianites. Julian considered, with some show of reason, that the doctrine of Severus necessitated the admission of two natures, and he was unjustly accused of Docetism and Manichaeanism, for he taught the reality of the Humanity of Christ, and made it incorruptible not formaliter quae human, but as united to the Word. His followers, however, split upon this question. One party admitted a potential corruptibility. Another party taught an absolute incorruptibility kata panta tropon, as flowing from the union itself. A third sect declared that by the union the Humanity obtained the prerogative of being uncreate; they were called Actistetae, and replied by denominating their opponents "Ctistolaters", or worshippers of a creature. Heresies, after the analogy of low forms of physical life, tend to propagate by division. So Monophysitism showed its nature, once it was separated from the Catholic body. The Emperor Justinian, in 565, adopted the incorruptibilist view, and made it a law for all bishops. The troubles that arose in consequence, both in East and West, were calmed by his death in November of that year.

7. The famous Philoxenus or Xenaias (d. soon after 518), Bishop of Mabug (Mabbogh, Mambuce, or Hierapolis in Syria Euphratensis), is best known today by his Syriac version of the N. T., which was revised by Thomas of Harkel, and is known as the Harkleian or Philoxenian text. It is unfair of Hefele (Councils, tr. III, 459-60) to treat him as almost a Docetist. From what can be learned of his doctrines they were very like those of Severus and of 2Elurus. He was a Monophysite in words and a Monothelite in reality, for he taught that Christ had one will, an error which it was almost impossible for any Monophysite to avoid. But this mia phusis sunthetos was no doubt meant by him as equivalent to the hypostasis composita taught by St. Thomas. As Philoxenus taught that Christ's sufferings were by choice, he must be placed on the side of the Julianists. He was careful to deny all confusion in the union, and all transformation of the Word.

8. Peter Fullo, Patriarch of Antioch (471-88), is chiefly famed in the realm of dogma for his addition to the Trisagion or Tersanctus, "Agios o Theos, Agios Ischyros, Agios Athanatos", of the words "who wast crucified for us". This is plain Patripassianism, so far as words go. It was employed by Peter as a test, and he excommunicated all who refused it. There is no possibility of explaining away this assertion of the suffering of the Divine Nature by the communicatio idiomatum, for it is not merely the Divine Nature (in the sense of hypostasis) of the Son which is said to have been crucified, but the words are attached to a three-fold invocation of the Trinity. Peter may therefore be considered as a full-blooded Monophysite, who carried the heresy to its extreme, so that it involved error as to the Trinity (Sabellianism) as well as with regard to the Incarnation. He did not admit the addition of the words "Christ our King" which his orthodox rival Calandio added to his formula. Some Scythian monks of Constantinople, led by John Maxentius, before the reconciliation with the West in 549, upheld the formula "one of the Trinity was crucified" as a test to exclude the heresy of Peter Fullo on the one hand and Nestorianism on the other. They were orthodox adherents of the Council of Chalcedon. Pope Hormisdas thought very badly of the monks, and would do nothing in approval of their formula. But it was approved by John II, in 534, and imposed under anathema by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, which closed the so-called "Theopaschite" controversy.

9. We have further to catalogue a number of subdivisions of Monophysitism which pullulated in the sixth century. The Agnoetae were Corrupticolae., who denied completeness of knowledge to the Human Nature of Christ; they were sometimes called Themistians, from Themistus Calonymus, an Alexandrian deacon, their chief writer. They were excommunicated by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Timotheus (d. 527) and Theodosius. Their views resemble the "Kenotic" theories of our own day. The Tritheists, or Tritheites, or Condobaudites, were founded by a Constantinopolitan philospher, John Asconagus, or Ascunaghes, at the beginning of the sixth century, but their principal teacher was John Philoponus, an Alexandrian philosopher, who died probably towards the end of that century. These heretics taught that there were three natures in the Holy Trinity, the three Persons being individuals of a species. A zealot of the sect was a monk Athanasius, grandson of the Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian. He followed the view of Theodosius, that the bodies to be given in the resurrection are new creations. Stephen Gobaras was another writer of this sect. Their followers were called Athanasians or Philoponiaci. Athanasius was opposed by Conon, Bishop of Tarsus (c. 600), who eventually anathematized his teacher Philoponus. The Cononites are said to have urged that, though the matter of the body is corruptible, its form is not. The Tritheites were excommunicated by the Jacobite Patriarch of Alexandria, Damian (577), who found the unity of God in a huparksis distinct from the three Persons, which he called autotheos. His disciples were taunted with believing in four Gods, and were nicknamed Tetradites, or Tetratheites, and also Damianists and Angelites. Peter Callinicus, Patriarch of Antioch (578-91), opposed them, and both he and Damian attacked the Alexandrian philosopher Stephen Niobes, founder of the Niobites, who taught that there was no distinction whatever between the Divine Nature and the Human after the Incarnation, and characterized the distinctions made by those who admitted only one nature as half-hearted. Many of his followers joined the Catholics, when they found themselves excommunicated by the Monophysites.

HISTORY.—Of the origin of Eutychianism among the Cyrillian party a few words were said above. The controversy between Cyril and Theodoret was revived with violence in the attacks made in 444-8, after Cyril's death, by his party on Irenaeus of Tyre, Ibas of Edessa, and others (see Dioscurus). The trial of Eutyches, by St. Flavian at Constantinople, brought matters to a head (see Eutyches). Theodosius II convened an ecumenical council at Ephesus, in 449, over which Dioscurus, the real founder of Monophysitism as a sect, presided (see Robber Council of Ephesus). St. Leo had already condemned the teaching of one nature in his letter to Flavian called the tome, a masterpiece of exact terminology, unsurpassed for clearness of thought, which condemns Nestorius on the one hand, and Eutyches on the other (see Pope Leo I). After the council had acquitted Eutyches, St. Leo insisted on the signing of this letter by the Eastern bishops, especially by those who had taken part in the disgraceful scenes at Ephesus. In 451, six hundred bishops assembled at Chalcedon, under the presidency of the papal legates (see Council of Chalcedon). The pope's view was assured of success beforehand by the support of the new Emperor Marcian. Dioscurus of Alexandria was deposed. The tome was acclaimed by all, save by thirteen out of the seventeen Egyptian bishops present, for these declared their lives would not be safe, if they returned to Egypt after signing, unless a new patriarch had been appointed. The real difficulty lay in drawing up a definition of faith. There was now no Patriarch of Alexandria; those of Antioch and Constantinople had been nominees of Dioscurus, though they had now accepted the tome; Juvenal of Jerusalem had been one of the leaders of the Robber Council, but like the rest had submitted to St. Leo. It is consequently not surprising that the committee, appointed to draw up a definition of faith, produced a colorless document (no longer extant), using the words ek duo phuseon, which Dioscurus and Eutyches might have signed without difficulty. It was excitedly applauded in the fifth session of the council, but the papal legates, supported by the imperial commissioners, would not agree to it, and declared they would break up the council and return to Italy, if it were pressed.

The few bishops who stood by the legates were of the Antiochian party and suspected of Nestorianism by many. The emperor's personal intervention was invoked. It was demonstrated to the bishops that to refuse to assert "two natures" (not merely "of" two) was to agree with Dioscurus and not with the pope, and they yielded with a very bad grace. They had accepted the pope's letter with enthusiasm, and they had deposed Dioscurus, not indeed for heresy (as Anatolius of Constantinople had the courage, or the impudence, to point out), but for violation of the canons. To side with him meant punishment. The result was the drawing up by a new committee of the famous Chalcedonian definition of faith. It Condemns Monophysitism in the following words: "Following the holy Fathers, we acknowledge one and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ; and in accordance with this we all teach that He is perfect in Godhead, perfect also in Manhood, truly God and truly Man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as regards His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as regards his Manhood, in all things like unto us save for sin; begotten of His Father before the worlds as to His Godhead, and in the last days for us and for our salvation [born] of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to His Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known as in two natures [the Greek text now has "of two natures", but the history of the definition shows that the Latin "in" is correct] without confusion or change, indivisibly, inseparably [en duo phusesin asunksutos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos gnorizomenon]; the distinction of the two natures being in no wise removed by the union, but the properties of each nature being rather preserved and concurring in one Person and one Hypostasis, not as divided or separated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and Only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets taught aforetime about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as the symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us."

So Monophysitism was exorcised; but the unwillingness of the larger number of the six hundred Fathers to make so definite a declaration is important. "The historical account of the Council is this, that a doctrine which the Creed did not declare, which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council, not indeed as a Creed, yet, on the other hand, not for subscription merely, but for its acceptance as a definition of faith under the sanction of an anathema, forced on the Council by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power" (Newman, "Development", v, §3, 1st ed., p. 307). Theodosius issued edicts against the Eutychians, in March and July, 452, forbidding them to have priests, or assemblies, to make wills or inherit property, or to do military service. Priests who were obstinate in error were to be banished beyond the limits of the empire. Troubles began almost immediately the council was over. A monk named Theodosius, who had been punished at Alexandria for blaming Dioscurus, now on the contrary opposed the decision of the council, and going to Palestine persuaded the many thousands of monks there that the council had taught plain Nestorianism. They made a raid upon Jerusalem and drove out Juvenal, the bishop, who would not renounce the Chalcedonian definition, although he had been before one of the heads of the Robber Council. Houses were set on fire, and some of the orthodox were slain. Theodosius made himself bishop, and throughout Palestine the bishops were expelled and new ones set up. The Bishop of Scythopolis lost his life; violence and riots were the order of the day. Eudocia, widow of the Emperor Theodosius II, had retired to Palestine, and gave some support to the insurgent monks. Marcian and Pulcheria took mild measures to restore peace, and sent repeated letters in which the real character of the decrees of Chalcedon was carefully explained. St. Euthymius and his community were almost the only monks who upheld the council, but this influence, together with a long letter from St. Leo to the excited monks, had no doubt great weight in obtaining peace. In 453, large numbers acknowledged their error, when Theodosius was driven out and took refuge on Mount Sinai, after a tyranny of twenty months. Others held out on the ground that it was uncertain whether the pope had ratified the council. It was true that he had annulled its disciplinary canons. The emperor therefore wrote to St. Leo asking for an explicit confirmation, which the pope sent at once, at the same time thanking Marcian for his acquiescence in the condemnation of the twenty-eighth canon, as to the precedence of the See of Constantinople, and for repressing the religious riots in Palestine.

In Egypt the results of the council were far more serious, for nearly the whole patriarchate eventually sided with Dioscurus, and has remained in heresy to the present day. Out of seventeen bishops who represented, at Chalcedon, the hundred Egyptian bishops, only four had the courage to sign the decree. These four returned to Alexandria, and peaceably ordained the archdeacon, Proterius, a man of good character and venerable by his age, in the place of Dioscurus. But the deposed patriarch was popular, and the thirteen bishops, who had been allowed to defer signing the tome of St. Leo, misrepresented the teaching of the council as contrary to that of Cyril. A riot was the result. The soldiers who attempted to quell it were driven into the ancient temple of Serapis, which was now a church, and it was burnt over their heads. Marcian retaliated by depriving the city of the usual largess of corn, of public shows, and of privileges. Two thousand soldiers reinforced the garrison, and committed scandalous violence. The people were obliged to submit, but the patriarch was safe only under military protection. Schism began through the retirement from his communion of the priest Timothy, called Aelurus, "the cat", and Peter, called Mongus, "the hoarse", a deacon, and these were joined by four or five bishops. When the death of Dioscurus (September, 454) in exile at Gangra was known, two bishops consecrated Timothy Aelurus as his successor. Henceforward almost the whole of Egypt acknowledged the Monophysite patriarch. On the arrival of the news of the death of Marcian (February, 457), Proterius was murdered in a riot, and Catholic bishops were everywhere replaced by Monophysites. The new emperor, Leo, put down force by force, but Aelurus was protected by his minister Aspar. Leo wished for a council, but gave way before the objections made by the pope his namesake, and the difficulties of assembling so many bishops. He therefore sent queries throughout the Eastern Empire to be answered by the bishops, as to the veneration due to the Council of Chalcedon and as to the ordination and the conduct of Aelurus. As only Catholic bishops were consulted, the replies were unanimous. One or two of the provincial councils, in expressing their indignation against Timothy, add the proviso "if the reports are accurate", and the bishops of Pamphylia point out that the decree of Chalcedon is not a creed for the people, but a test for bishops. The letters, still preserved (in Latin only) under the name of Encyclia, or Codex Encyclius, bear the signatures of about 260 bishops, but Nicephorus Callistus says, that there were altogether more than a thousand, while Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria in the days of St. Gregory the Great, puts the number at 1600. He says that only one bishop, the aged Amphilochius of Side, dissented from the rest, but he soon changed his mind (quoted by Photius, Bibl., CCXXX, p. 283). This tremendous body of testimonies to the Council of Chalcedon is little remembered today, but in controversies with the Monophysites it was in those times of equal importance with the council itself, as its solemn ratification.

In the following year "Aelurus was exiled, but was recalled in 475 during the short reign of the Monophysite usurper Basiliscus. The Emperor Zeno spared Aelurus from further punishment on account of his great age. That emperor tried to reconcile the Monophysites by means of his Henoticon, a decree which dropped the Council of Chalcedon. It could, however, please neither side, and the middle party which adhered to it and formed the official Church of the East was excommunicated by the popes. At Alexandria, the Monophysites were united to the schismatic Church of Zeno by Peter Mongus who became patriarch. But the stricter Monophysites seceded from him and formed a sect known as Acephali (q.v.). At Antioch Peter Fullo also supported the Henoticon. A schism between East and West lasted through the reigns of Zeno and his more definitely Monophysite successor Anastasius, in spite of the efforts of the popes, especially the great Pope Saint Gelasius I (q.v.). In 518, the orthodox Justin came to the throne, and reunion was consummated in the following year by him, with the active cooperation of his more famous nephew Justinian, to the great joy of the whole East. Pope Hormisdas (q.v.) sent legates to reconcile the patriarchs and metropolitans, and every bishop was forced to sign, without alteration, a petition in which he accepted the faith which had always been preserved at Rome, and condemned not only the leaders of the Eutychian heresy, but also Zeno's time-serving bishops of Constantinople, Acacius (q.v.) and his successors. Few of the Eastern bishops seem to have been otherwise than orthodox and anxious for reunion, and they were not obliged to omit from the diptychs of their churches the names of their predecessors, who had unwillingly been cut off from actual communion with Rome, in the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius. The famous Monophysite writer Severus was now deposed from the See of Antioch. Justinian, during his long reign, took the Catholic side, but his empress, Theodora, was a Monophysite, and in his old age the emperor leaned in the same direction. We still possess the acts of a conference, between six Severian and seven orthodox bishops, held by his order in 533. The great controversy of his reign was the dispute about the "three chapters", extracts from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas, which Justinian wished to get condemned in order to conciliate the Severians and other moderate Monophysites. He succeeded in driving Pope Vigilius (q.v.) into the acceptance of the Second Council of Constantinople (q.v.), which he had summoned for the purpose of giving effect to his view. The West disapproved of this condemnation as derogatory to the Council of Chalcedon, and Africa and Illyricum refused for some time to receive the council.

The divisions among the heretics have been mentioned above. A great revival and unification was effected by the great man of the sect, the famous Jacob Baradai, Bishop of Edessa (c. 541-78). (See Jacob Baradaeus.) In his earlier years a recluse in his monastery, when a bishop he spent his life travelling in a beggar's garb, ordaining bishops and priests everywhere in Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, in order to repair the spiritual ruin caused among the Monophysites by Justinian's renewal of the original laws against their bishops and priests. John of Ephesus puts the number of clergy he ordained at 100,000, others at 80,000. His journeys were incredibly swift. He was believed to have the gift of miracles, and at least he performed the miracle of infusing a new life into the dry bones of his sect, though he was unable to unite them against the "Synodites" (as they called the orthodox), and he died worn out by the quarrels among the Monophysite patriarchs and theologians. He has deserved to give his name to the Monophysites of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia, with Asia Minor, Palestine, and Cyprus, who have remained since his time generally united under a Patriarch of Antioch (see Jacobites). A number of these united in 1646 with the Catholic Church, and they are governed by the Syrian Archbishop of Aleppo. The rest of the Monophysites are also frequently called Jacobites. For the Coptic Monophysites see Egypt. and for the Armenians see Armenia. The Armenian Monophysite Patriarch resides at Constantinople. The Abyssinian Church was drawn into the same heresy through its close connection with Alexandria. At least since the Mohammedan conquest of Egypt, in 641, the Abuna of the Abyssinians has always been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, so that the Abyssinian Church has always been, and is still, nominally Monophysite.

.


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eutychius I, Patriarch of Constantinople

Eutychius I,, b. about 512, in Phrygia; d. Easter Day, April 5, 582. He became a monk and then archimandrite at Amasea, in Pontus. In 552 his bishop sent him on business to Constantinople, where he seems to have made a great impression on Justinian I (527-565), so much so that when Mennas the Patriarch (536-552) died, the emperor procured Eutychius's election as successor, on the very same day (in August). The great quarrel of "the Three Chapters" was then going on. Justinian thought he could conciliate the Monophysites, in Egypt, and Syria, by publishing anathemas against three theologians,—long dead—who were suspect of the opposite heresy, Nestorianism. The three points (called Gk., kephalaia, Lat., capitula) were: (I) The condemnation of the person and works of Theodore of Mopsuestia (428); (2) the condemnation of the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 457) against the Council of Ephesus; (3) a letter of one Ibas, to a Persian named Maris, which attacked that Council. It should be noted that these documents certainly were Nestorian, and that their condemnation involved no real concession to Monophysitism. The question at issue was rather, whether it were worth while, on the chance of conciliating these Monophysites, to condemn people who had died so long ago. It is also true that, in the West, people suspected in these Three Chapters a veiled attack on Chalcedon. Justinian's "Edict of the Chapters" appeared in 544. It was accepted in the East and rejected in the West. Pope Vigilius (540-555) was the unhappy victim of the quarrel. In 548 he accepted the Edict by a Iudicatum which also carefully guarded Chalcedon. He had himself just come to Constantinople, in order to preside at a Council that should confirm the three anathemas. But he found that, by his Iudicatum, he had grievously offended his own Western bishops. Dacius of Milan, and Facundus of Hermiane led the opposition against him, and in 550 a Synod of Carthage excommunicated the Pope. Vigilius then began that career of indecision that has left him the reputation of being the weakest Pope that reigned. He was still at Constantinople when Eutychius became Patriarch. Eutychius sent him the usual announcement of his own appointment and the usual (and quite orthodox) profession of faith. At the same time, he urged him to summon the Council at once. Meanwhile Justinian had published a second, and still stronger, condemnation of the Three Chapters (December 23, 551). Vigilius gave, and then withdrew, his consent to the Council. Justinian insisted on the exclusion of the African bishops, who were all strongly opposed to his condemnations. In spite of the Pope's refusal, the council met on May 5, 553, at Constantinople. A hundred and sixty-five bishops attended. This is what was afterwards recognized as the Fifth General Council (Constantinople II). On May 14 the Pope sent them a modified Decree, called the Constitutum, in which he condemned sixty propositions taken from Theodore of Mopsuestia, but forbade the condemnation of the other Chapters. As he would not attend the council Eutychius presided. The Council wrote respectfully to the Pope, but, in spite of the Constitutum, completely confirmed Justinian's edicts, in its eighth session. It also acknowledged the formula Unus de Trinitate passus est as orthodox, and incidentally condemned Origen. (Can. 11, 12, 13, 14. For this Council see Liberati Breviarium, infra; Mansi, IX, 163; Hefele, Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., II, 898 seq.) Vigilius gave in on December 8, after months of ill-treatment, was allowed to go back to Rome, and died on the way, in Sicily, in 554. [There is an account of all this story in Fortescue's Orth. Eastern Church, 82-83.]

Eutychius had, so far, stood by the Emperor throughout. He composed the decree of the Council against The Chapters (Mansi, IX, 367-575). In 562, he consecrated the new church of Sancta Sophia. His next adventure was a quarrel with Justinian about the Aphthartodocetes. These were a sect of Monophysites, in Egypt, who said that Christ's body on earth was incorruptible (aphthora), and subject to no pain. The Emperor saw in the defense of these people a new means of conciliating the Monophysites, and, in 564, he published a decree defending their theory (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl., IV, 391). Eutychius resisted this decree, so on January 22, 565, he was arrested in his church, and banished to a monastery at Chalcedon. Eight days later a synod was summoned to judge him. A ridiculous list of charges was brought against him; he used ointment, he ate deliciously, etc. (Eustathius, Vita S. Eutych., 4, 5). He was condemned, deposed, and sent to Prince's Island in Propontis. Thence he went to his old home at Amasea, where he stayed twelve years. Joannes Scholasticus succeeded as Patriarch (John III, 566-577); and after his death, in 577, the Emperor Justin II (565-578) recalled Eutychius, who came back in October. At the end of his life Eutychius evolved a heretical opinion denying the resurrection of the body. St. Gregory the Great was then Apocrisiarius (legate) of the Roman See, at Constantinople. He argued about this question with the patriarch, quoting Luke, xxiv, 39, with great effect, so that Eutychius, on his deathbed, made a full and orthodox profession of faith as to this point. St. Gregory tells the whole story in his "Exp. in libr. Job" (Moralium lib. XIV, 56): Eutychius dying said: "I confess that we shall all rise again in this flesh". (See also Paul. Diac.: Vita Greg. Mag. I, 9.) His extant works are his letter to Pope Vigilius (Migne, P.L., LXIX, 63, P.G. LXXXVI, 2401), a fragment of a "Discourse on Easter" (Mai: Class. Auct. X, 488, and Script. Vet. November Coll. IX, 623); and other fragments in P.G., LXXXVI. His life was written by his disciple Eustathius, a priest of Constantinople. His feast is kept by the Byzantine Church on April 6, and he is mentioned in our "Corpus Iuris" (Grat., I pars., Dist. XVI, Cap. x).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eutychius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria

Eutychius, Melchite Patriarch of Alexandria, author of a history of the world, b. 876, at Fustāt (Cairo); d. May 11, 940. He was an Egyptian Arab, named Sa´īd ibn Batriq; his father's name was Batriq (Patricius). He first studied medicine and history, and practiced for a time as a physician. He then entered a monastery and eventually became Patriarch of Alexandria, taking the name Eutychius, in 933. Being the Melchite (Orthodox) patriarch, he spent most of his reign in strife with the great majority of Egyptian Christians who were (Monophysite) Copts, and with his Coptic rival. His works (all written in Arabic and preserved only in part) are treatises on medicine, theology, and history. He wrote a compendium called "The Book of Medicine", treatises on fasting, Easter, and the Jewish Passover, various feasts, etc.; also a "Discussion between a Christian and an Infidel", by which he means a Melchite and a Monophysite. But his most important work is "Nazm al-Gawāhir" (Chaplet of Pearls), a chronicle of the history of the world from Adam to 938. The work is dedicated to his brother, Isa ibn Batriq, and is meant to supply a short account of universal history. In Latin it is quoted as "Eutychii Historia universalis", or as the "Annales" of Eutychius. The author states that he has compiled his history only from the Bible and reliable authorities. It contains, however, a great number of strange and improbable additions to Biblical and profane history not found in any other source. There are also in the "Chaplet of Pearls" many valuable details about the Monophysite controversy and the history of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The book acquired a certain fame when, in the seventeenth century, John Selden published an excerpt of it (London, 1642, see below) in order to prove that originally at Alexandria there was no distinction between bishops and priests (a theory at one time adopted by St. Jerome, "In Ep. ad Titum", I, 5; Ep. cxlvi, "ad Evangelum"). Selden was answered by a Maronite, Abraham Ecchellensis (Rome, 1661), who disputed the accuracy of his translation of the passages in question and proposed another. In the thirteenth century another Arabic historian, Al-Makin (d. 1275), used Eutychius' work in compiling his own history of the world to 1260 (Krumbacher, Byzantinische Litteratur, Munich, 1897, p. 368).

ADRIAN FORTESCUE


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Evagrius Scholasticus

Evagrius, surnamed, Ecclesiastical historian and last of the continuators of Eusebius of Csarea, b. in 536 at Epiphania in Coele-Syria; d. after 594, date unknown. He followed the profession of advocate at Antioch (hence his surname) and became the friend of the Patriarch Gregory (569-594), whom he successfully defended in presence of the Emperor Maurice and of the Council at Constantinople (588): Having already been appointed quaestor by Tiberius II (578-582), he received from Maurice the title of honorary prefect (ex proefectis). Evagrius, a product of the masters of rhetoric, made a collection of the reports, letters, and decisions which he had written for the Patriarch Gregory. Another collection contained discourses of Evagrius, among them a panegyric of the Emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius. These have all been lost. None of his works survive except his "Ecclesiastical History" in six books. In this he proposes to write the sequel of the narrative begun by Eusebius of Csarea and continued by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. He begins with the Council of Ephesus (431) and ends with the twelfth year of the reign of the Emperor Maurice (593-594). This work is very important for the history of the religious controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and the last phases of Monophysitism. Evagrius furnishes details concerning events and persons, and does not neglect works of art (St. Sophia, H. E., IV, 31). To political history he gives an important place; in a word, he is an authority of the first order for this period. He is sincere, and is conscientious in securing information. But he shares the ideas of his environment and of his time. In his defense of Constantine he goes so far as to deny the murder of Crispus and Faustina. He relates wonders and legends, and it is to him we owe the account of the blood that was taken up with a sponge at certain times from the body of St. Euphemia of Chalcedon (II, 3). Among the sources of his information he mentions the chronicle of Eustathius of Antioch, and the works of Procopius, Menander Protector, John of Epiphania, and John Malalas (whom he calls John the Rhetorician). While he relies on these authors, he does so with discretion. In his ecclesiastical attitude he is strictly orthodox and abides strictly by the decrees of Chalcedon; nevertheless, he judges the heretics with moderation. His was an equable mind, and he is a reliable guide.

PAUL LEJAY


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Evagrius Ponticus

Evagrius, surnamed, b. about 345, in Ibora, a small town on the shores of the Black Sea; d. 399. He is numbered among the more important ascetical writers of the fourth century. Instructed by St. Gregory Nazianzen, he was ordained reader by St. Basil the Great and deacon by St. Gregory of Nyssa (380), whom he accompanied to the Second Council of Constantinople (381). According to Palladius, who differs in his account from Socrates and Sozomen, Evagrius remained for a time as archdeacon in Constantinople, while Nectarius was patriarch (381-397). Leaving the city on account of its spiritual dangers, he went first to Jerusalem and then into the Nitrian Desert, where he began an eremitical life under the guidance of the younger Macarius (383). He steadfastly refused a bishopric offered by Theophilus of Alexandria. He became very celebrated for his ascetical life and writings, though St. Jerome (e.g. Ep. 133 ad Ctesiphontem, n. 3) charges him with Origenistic errors and calls him the precursor of Pelagius. The Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Oecumenical Councils condemn Evagrius together with Origen. Rufinus and Gennadius translated the works of Evagrius into Latin; several of them have been lost or have not thus far been recovered (P.L., XL). The best collections of his works are edited by Bigot (Paris, 1680); Gallandi, "Biblioth. vet. patr.", VII, 551-581; Migne, "P.G.", XL; cf. also Elter, "Gnomica" (Leipzig, 1892); Zockler, "Evagrius Pontikus" (Munich, 1893). We may here name: "Monachus seu de vita activa"; "Rerum monachalium rationes earumque juxta quietem adpositio"; "De octo vitiosis cogitationibus".

A. J. MAAS


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Evangeliaria

Evangeliaria, liturgical books containing those portions of the Gospels which are read during Mass or in the public offices of the Church. The name does not date back earlier than the seventeenth century. The Greeks called such collections Euangelion, "Gospel", or eklogadion tou euangeliou, "Selections from the Gospel".

The collection of readings from the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles known as Apostolos, "Apostle", or praksapostolos. In churches of the Latin Rite, the lessons from the Old Testament, the Epistles from the New Testament, and portions of the Gospels are usually grouped in the same book, under the name Comes, Liber comitis, Liber comicus (from comes, companion), or Lectionarium. Separate Evangeliaria are seldom to be met with in Latin. Tables indicating passages to be read, as well as the Sundays and Holy Days on which they are to be read, are called by the Greeks "Evangelistarium", a name sometimes given to the Evangeliaria proper; they are also called "Synaxarium", and by the Latins are known as "Capitulare". Although the word Evangeliarium is of recent origin, it has been universally adopted. The word Lectioniarium is employed, however, to denote either the collection of passages from the Old and New Testaments, including the Gospels, or else these passages alone without the corresponding Gospels.

Origin and Use of Evangeliaria— Following the custom of the Synagogue, the Scriptures of the Old Testament were read at the primitive Christian assemblies. According as the Canon of the New Testament was decided on, certain extracts from it were included in these readings. Justin tells us that in his day, when the Christians met together, they read the Memoirs of the Apostles and the writings of the Prophets (Apol., I, lxvii). Tertullian, Cyprian, and other writers bear witness to the same custom; and in the West the order of lector existed as early as the third century. For want of precise testimony we do not know how the particular passages were decided on. Most likely the presiding bishop chose them at the assembly itself; and it is obvious that on the occurrence of certain festivals the Scripture relating to them would be read. Little by little a more or less definite list would naturally result from this method. St. John Chrysostom in a homily delivered at Antioch exhorts his hearers to read beforehand the Scripture passages to be read and commented on in the Office of the day (Homilia de Lazaro, iii, c. i). In like manner other Churches would form a table of readings. In the margin of the MS. text it was customary to note the Sunday or festival on which that particular passage would be read, and at the end of the manuscript, the list of such passages, the Synaxarium or Capitulare, would be added. Transition from this process to the making of an Evangeliarium, or collection of all such passages, was easy. Gregory is of opinion that we possess fragments of Evangeliaria in Greek dating from the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, and that we have very many from the ninth century onwards (according to Gregory they number 1072). In like manner, we find Lectionaries in the Latin Churches as early as the fifth century. The Comes of the Roman Church dates from before St. Gregory the Great (P.L., XXX, 487-532). From the tenth century onwards we find the Gospel lessons, together with the Epistles and prayers, united in a new liturgical book, called the Missal.

Evangeliaria and the Text of the New Testament.—Evangeliaria have very little importance for the critic of the Gospel text. At the time when the various Gospel passages began to be collected in book-form for use in liturgical reunions, the various families of the Gospel text and its translations were already in existence; and those Evangeliaria simply reproduce the particular text favored by the Church which compiled it. They have even exercised an unfortunate influence on the more recent MS. of the Gospels; certain additions of a liturgical nature (e.g. in illo tern pore; dixit Dominus) which were set at the beginning or end of a reading, have found their way into the text itself. But in the official text of the Vulgate, and in editions of the Greek text of today, owing to the labors of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, these liturgical glossaries are very rare. We notice one example in the Vulgate text: Luke, vii, 31 (ail autem Dominus).

The Evangeliaria and Liturgy.—It is especially from a liturgical point of view that the study of Evangeliaria is interesting. The general method of Greek Evangeliaria is uniform. The first part contains the Gospels of the Sundays beginning with Easter; the second part gives the Gospels for the festivals of the saints beginning with September 1. In the Churches of the West the distribution of the Gospel pericopes was more divergent because of the various rites. And the ceremonial followed in the reading of the Gospel presents many differences of usage between one church and another, which it would be too long to treat of here.

.

ORNAMENTATION OF EVANGELIARIA.—From the beginning the books used in the liturgy, and more particularly the Gospel manuscripts, were highly venerated, and therefore text and cover were often richly ornamented. From an artistic point of view the distinction between Evangeliaria strictly so called and Gospel manuscripts is of little importance and is generally disregarded. It consists merely in the fact that the illuminations of the Evangeliaria occur as a rule at those passages set apart for the greater festivals of the year. The coronation oathbook of Anglo-Saxon kings, which King Athelstan received, it would appear, from his brother-in-law, Otto I, and which he in turn presented to the cathedral church of Canterbury, is ornamented with figures of the Evangelists freely copied from those that adorn the Evangeliarium of Charlemagne preserved at Vienna. We are acquainted with Gospels in rolls only from seeing them in miniatures, especially as emblems of the Evangelists, until well into the Middle Ages.

The roll of the Book of Joshua (ninth—tenth century: Vatican Library) is a specimen of what Evangeliaria in this form with miniatures were like. The roll-form remained long in use for liturgical manuscripts at Milan and in Southern Italy.

Costly Evangeliaria are noted above all for their clear and careful writing. They have helped to perpetuate and propagate certain styles of caligraphy.

The Greek uncial is used in many manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries; and the Latin uncial is also employed, especially in Gaul, far into the Middle Ages for Gospel and liturgical works. The copying of the Gospels influenced largely the writings of Irish and Anglo-Saxon scribes, and effected the spread of these characters over the Continent and the development of the Caroline minuscule and the semi-uncial of the school of Tours. The copyists of the Gospels made great use of other helps to beautify their penmanship, such as the use of purple parchment, of liquid gold and silver, and various colored inks. The part played by Evangeliaria in the history of miniature painting until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is very great. Especially noteworthy are the miniature insets to the Canons of Eusebius, or tables of Gospel concordance. Illuminated initial letters differed according to the various schools of writing; the Irish scribes used artistic knots and loops, the Merovingian and Lombard writers preferred animal forms, especially fish.

Illuminated scenes, of interest to the iconographist, are often to be met in these copies of the Gospel text. Frequently it is the figure of the Evangelist that stands at the head of his Gospel; the donor, or rather a sketch showing the donation of the book, is often found in miniatures from the days of Charlemagne to the end of the Middle Ages. The prince is shown receiving from the hands of the abbot the Evangeliarium he will use whenever he assists at the holy offices in the abbey church (cf. the picture of Charles the Bald in the Vivien Bible, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris). But in the tenth and eleventh centuries the prince is shown offering the precious manuscript to Christ or to the patron saint of the church or abbey (cf. the Evangeliarium at Bamberg showing the Emperor Henry II offering the book to Christ).

Among the more famous Evangeliaria may be mentioned the following: the portion of an Evangeliarium from Sinope (sixth century: in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris); the Evangeliarium of Rossano (about 600) in Greek uncials; the Syrian codices of Rabula (586, at Florence) and Etschmiadzin (miniatures of the sixth century); the Evangeliarium of Gregory I (at Cambridge) in Latin uncials; the Book of Bells (seventh to ninth century, at Dublin); the Book of Lindisfarne (eighth century, in the British Museum, London) of Irish workmanship; the Irish-Continental Evangeliaria of St. Gall (about 800); the Carlovingian Evangeliarium of Godescalc (about 782, in the Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris); the Ada Codex (ninth century, at Trier); the Evangeliaria of Echternach (tenth century, at Gotha), and of the Abbess Uta (about 1002, at Munich). Valuable Evangeliaria were carefully treasured, and when used in the offices were placed on a strip of cloth or on a cushion. The back leaf of the binding was usually left plain, but the front cover was enriched with all the skill of the goldsmith. One of the most ancient bindings or covers we possess is that offered by Queen Theodelinda (600) to the cathedral of Monza. At times plaques of ivory, resembling diptychs, were set into these bindings. The earliest of them were of Oriental or Italian origin, and bear isolated figures of Christ or the Blessed Virgin, etc. A number of them, to be found in the countries along the Rhine and the Meuse and in Northern France (tenth and eleventh centuries), have the scene of the Crucifixion.

.


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Evangelical Alliance

Evangelical Alliance,, an association of Protestants belonging to various denominations, founded in 1846, whose object, as declared in a resolution passed at the first meeting, is "to enable Christians to realize in themselves and to exhibit to others that a living and everlasting union binds all true believers together in the fellowship of the Church" (Report of the Proceedings of the First General Conference). The points of belief, which the members accept as being the substance of the Gospel, are contained in a document adopted at the first conference and known as the Basis. They are nine in number: (I) The Divine inspiration, authority, and sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures; (2) the right and duty of private judgment in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; (3) the unity of the Godhead and the Trinity of Persons therein; (4) the utter depravity of human nature in consequence of the fall; (5) the Incarnation of the Son of God, His work of atonement for sinners, and his mediatorial intercession and reign; (6) the justification of the sinner by faith alone; (7) the work of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of the sinner; (8) the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the judgment of the world by Jesus Christ, with the eternal blessedness of the righteous and the eternal punishment of the wicked; (9) the Divine institution of the Christian ministry, and the obligation and perpetuity of the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper".—It being, however, distinctly declared that this brief summary is not to be regarded, in any formal or ecclesiastical sense, as a creed or confession, nor the adoption of it as involving an assumption of the right authoritatively to define the limits of Christian brotherhood, but simply as an indication of the class of persons whom it is desirable to embrace within the Alliance. In this Alliance, it is also distinctly stated that no compromise of the views of any member, or sanction of those of others, on the points wherein they differ, is either required or expected; but that all are held free as before to maintain and advocate their religious convictions, with due forbearance and brotherly love. It is not contemplated that the Alliance should assume or aim at the character of a new ecclesiastical organization, claiming and exercising the functions of a Christian Church. Its simple and comprehensive object, it is strongly felt, may be successfully promoted without interfering with, or disturbing the order of, any branch of the Christian Church to which its members may respectively belong."

The Alliance thus lays claim to no doctrinal or legislative authority. In a pamphlet issued by the society itself this feature is thus explained: "Then it is an Alliance—not a union of Church organizations, much less an attempt to secure an outward uniformity—but the members of the Alliance are allies: they belong to different ecclesiastical bodies—yet all of the One Church. They are of different nations as well as of many denominations—yet all holding the Head, Christ Jesus. Unum corpus sumus in Christo. We are one body in Christ—banded together for common purposes, and to manifest the real unity which underlies our great variety. We are all free to hold our own views in regard to subsidiary matters, but all adhere to the cardinal principles of the Alliance as set forth in its Basis."

The Alliance arose at a time when the idea of unity was much before men's minds. During the years that witnessed the beginning of the Oxford Movement in the Church of England, there progressed a movement in favor of union among men whose sympathies were diametrically opposed to those of the Tractarians, but who in their own way longed for a healing of the divisions and differences among Christians. In 1842 the Presbyterian Church of Scotland tried, though without success, to establish relations with other Protestant bodies. In England the progress of the Tractarian Movement led many distinguished Evangelical Non-conformists to desire "a great confederation of men of all Churches who were loyal in their attachment to Evangelical Protestantism in order to defend the faith of the Reformation" (Dale, History of Eng. Congregationalism, 637). At the annual assembly of the Congregational Union held in London, May, 1842, John Angell James (1785-1859), minister of Craven Chapel, Bayswater, London, proposed the scheme that ultimately developed into the Evangelical Alliance. He asked: "Is it not in the power of this Union to bring about by God's blessing, a Protestant Evangelical Union of the whole body of Christ's faithful followers who have at any rate adopted the voluntary principle? Let us only carry out the principle of a great Protestant Union and we may yet have representatives from all bodies of Protestant Christians to be found within the circle of our own United Empire" (Congregational Magazine, 1842, 435-6). The first definite step towards this was taken by Mr. Patton, an American minister, who proposed a general conference of delegates from various bodies, with the result that a preliminary meeting was held at Liverpool in October, 1845, at which the basis of such a conference was arranged. On August 19, 1846, at a meeting of eight hundred delegates, representing fifty denominations, held in the Freemasons' Hall, London, the Evangelical Alliance was founded. All who would accept the Basis were eligible as members, and the representatives of the various nations were recommended to form national organizations or branches, of which the British Organization, formed in 1846, was the first. These organizations were independent of one another and were at liberty to carry on their work in such a manner as should be most in accordance with the peculiar circumstances of each district. They have been formed in the United States, Germany, France, Switzerland, Holland, Sweden, Italy, Turkey, Australia, India, and several missionary countries. The French national branch abandoned the Basis in 1854 and substituted for it a wider form of a Unitarian character. The Alliance meets and acts as a whole only in the international and general conferences, which are held from time to time. The first of these was held in London, 1851, and has been succeeded by others as follows: Paris, 1855; Berlin, 1857; Geneva, 1861; Amsterdam, 1867; New York, 1873; Basle, 1879; Copenhagen, 1884; Florence, 1891; London, 1896 (Celebration of the Jubilee); London, 1907, on which occasion the Diamond Jubilee of the Alliance was celebrated.

These international conventions are regarded as of special value in the promotion of the aims of the Alliance. Another matter to which much importance is attached is the annual "Universal Week of Prayer", observed the first complete week in January of each year since 1846. At this time the Alliance invites all Christians to join in prayer, the program being prepared by representatives of all denominations and printed in many different languages. The relief of persecuted Christians is another department of work in which the Alliance claims to have accomplished much good. Finally, in 1905, the Alliance Bible School was founded with headquarters at Berlin, under the direction of Pastor Köhler and Herr Warns, "to place before the students the history and doctrine of the Bible in accordance with its own teaching". The reports of the conferences claim considerable success for these various works, a claim which cannot here be investigated. From its principles the Evangelical Alliance is necessarily opposed to the doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church; and Catholics, while sympathizing with the desire for union among Christians, realize that the unity by which we are made one in Christ is not to be won by such methods. The motto of the Alliance is Unum corpus sumus in Christo.

EDWIN BURTON