ON SS. FLAVIAN AND ELIAS, BISHOPS OF ANTIOCH AND JERUSALEM.
IN THE YEAR 518.
AN APOLOGETIC COMMENTARY.
Flavian, Bishop of Antioch (S.)
Elias, Bishop of Jerusalem (S.)
BY THE AUTHOR J. B. S.
CHAPTER I. The rather recent memory of both in the sacred Fasti, on account of their doubtful faith.
[1] Four Patriarchs are painted for us by Cyril the monk of Scythopolis, author of the life of St. Sabas, by Evagrius Scholasticus, by Theophanes, and from these by Nicephorus Callistus—against whom especially raged the fury of the Emperor Anastasius, and his not obscure, though sometimes silent, rage against the Council of Chalcedon: unknown to all the ancient Fasti, namely Euphemius and Macedonius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, of the latter of whom Henschenius treated in our Acts on the XXV of April, Flavian of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem, both joined on this day in the Roman Martyrology under one announcement, although we have known their names inscribed in no Fasti whatever, whether Greek or Latin: but their death, or birthday, ought to have been marked not on the IV of July, but rather on the XIX or XX: whence our Elders long ago marveled that this day was selected by Baronius, on which he records both together. This is the observation of Henschenius toward the end of the commentary on St. Macedonius: "The testimonies of the veneration of St. Flavian of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem among the Greeks are not so illustrious: perhaps because, since Macedonius constantly persisted in the orthodox faith, they seem to have wavered. Meanwhile we venerate them also, because if not of old in the Fasti of the Greeks, at least lately they were inscribed in the Roman Martyrology, in its most recent revision, by the judgment of Cardinal Baronius."
[2] Thus had to think, in recounting the sacred Fasti, the most skilled Henschenius, they were inserted into the Roman Martyrology by Baronius. thus in the Patriarchs of Jerusalem before the 3rd volume of May Papebroch, thus I am forced to think, inasmuch as in no Martyrologies or Menologies, whether ancient or new, printed or manuscript, Greek or Latin, however great diligence I applied, could I find their memory, and so those words in the notes of Baronius cannot be understood: "Why therefore on this day especially they are treated of, no certain reason is at hand for me; since there may be many, namely a translation, or the dedication of a basilica, as we see done concerning others." But indeed that none of these favors those two Saints, is most certain; nor does the commemoration of Flavian of Antioch, joined with Nectarius on the XXVII of September in our Clermont Synaxarion, seem to be referred to this second man of Antioch rather than to the first, contemporary of Nectarius himself, whatever Papebroch may have said a little otherwise in the aforesaid Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Nay rather, Flavian and Elias seemed so far removed from the glory of holiness, that Goar, the editor and illustrator of Theophanes, in his notes, page 583, from the almost contrary narrations of the Byzantine historians, especially Evagrius and Theophanes, hangs doubtful and uncertain whether to reckon Flavian among the heretics or the Catholics. His words are:
[3] Concerning the faith at least of one of them, "Of no small difference, between Theophanes and Evagrius, is the subject and matter the faith of Flavian, bishop of Antioch: the latter asserting that it remained entire, the former that it was utterly corrupted and extinguished. Evagrius, book 3, chapter 31, adduces a flock of monks, not to be despised, vindicating Flavian by their letters from heresy, the enmities of Xenaias, and, from feuds, calumnies, the mark of heresy fabricated by his adversaries; that force was brought to bear on him to make him depart from the faith, persecutions, threats, seditions, death itself threatened, and exile inflicted, he narrates in chapter 32. What man of such great constancy would not deserve to be reckoned into the album of the Saints by judges of holiness and innocence, such as Baronius, Petavius, and others? To the contrary Theophanes strives to hurry me, and represents Flavian as unwarlike, a slave of fear, a fowler for favor, rejected by the good, hateful even to the heretics themselves on account of his wavering and uncertain mind, and at last mulcted by his own devices, this year and the three which follow. To which is faith to be given, to Evagrius nearer to the times of Flavian, or to the later Theophanes? Theophanes leans on his authors: Evagrius adduces sworn witnesses, old men with whom he discussed concerning Flavian, beyond exception. Heretic or Orthodox, Saint or impious, was Flavian? Let others decide. Shall I proclaim him a Saint, whom holy Theophanes condemns as impious? Shall I assert him a heretic, whom the faithful historian Evagrius celebrates as an assertor of truth and faith? My mind shrinks from both."
[4] However the matter stands, Evagrius suggests to me that Flavian was in his own time accused of heresy; Goar doubts, then where in chapter 31 Xenaias impinges the Nestorian error upon him. For why else would he accuse him as guilty of the pravity of Nestorius admitted, whom he could condemn by the mere name of the orthodox faith? The sole integrity of faith was the crime in Flavian: not from the guilt of Nestorius was the crime to be poured back upon Flavian, whom the mere purity of faith made a defendant. Xenaias therefore cried out "Nestorian," because him whom he knew to be conscious and an adversary of his own Eutychian heresy, he could not prove orthodox: then also when in chapter 32 Evagrius adduces the elders whom he mentions in defense of Flavian, whom certainly he would not bring forth with such zeal, as if sworn witnesses, unless, provident for the safer conducting of his cause, he had felt that Flavian's name was being drawn into judgment. Yet Liberatus, in chapter 18 and 19 of the Breviary, seems to have freed him from all suspicion of heresy, and to have wished his orthodox faith attested before all. This is the pathetic doubt of Goar, by which he weighs and balances the authority of both historians; but where, in my judgment at least, he was to be preferred who, prior by two and more centuries, and so much nearer to the deeds and almost present, took part.
[5] But indeed neither is the authority of holy Theophanes to be neglected: this indeed I confess; having too much trusted the authority of Theophanes. especially in those things which are nearer to his age; but where the question is of saving the faith of so great a man as we acknowledge Flavian to have been, the more securely are favorable testimonies to be admitted, the more they rest on the safer documents of contemporary men. Hard indeed are the things which St. Theophanes writes from page 129, both of Flavian and also of Elias. Of many, let a few, but those decisive, suffice from page 131, where in express words he thus speaks: "But Elias, bishop of Jerusalem, testified that he proscribed the man of Chalcedon." But of Flavian a little below, he says that he, out of dejection of mind, struck with anathema not only Diodorus, Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret, but even the Council of Chalcedon itself, in the public assembly of the church. Other things need not be produced, that each Saint be accused of heresy, from which that they were free the next following chapter will teach. This one thing only I wished here observed against Goar's doubt, namely, that just as he himself in the same notes defends St. Elias from the imputed stain, so also St. Flavian could be freed from the same soot, if he had remembered that in one place no more than another, either Theophanes, or those whom he himself followed, were probably enough depraved by heretical corrupters.
[6] But Pagi Pagi comes to the aid of our Saints by another way of excusing them; reciting from Evagrius the various opinions and ways of acting of the Orthodox themselves at that time, the affairs of the Church in the East being most agitated, whence troubles and dissensions grew in a wonderful manner. "But none (he says at the year 491, number 5) has more clearly narrated than Evagrius the state of the churches under Anastasius, to whom most, not attending their mind, esteemed the most innocent Prelates guilty, and did not discuss with a solid criterion the things which were committed to writing by the ancients, conflicting among themselves, concerning the things which were then done." Evagrius therefore, book 3, chapter 30, where he has spoken of the naming of the Emperor Anastasius, writes: "Moreover the same Anastasius, as most studious of peace, wished nothing at all to be innovated, but especially in the state of the Church; and labored by all means, both that the most holy churches should remain without any disturbance, and that all who obeyed his rule should enjoy the deepest peace, all quarrel and contention being sent far away, both from the state of the Church and from public affairs. And the Council of Chalcedon indeed in those times was neither openly preached in the most holy churches, nor altogether rejected. For each of their Prelates acted as had seemed good to them. And some of them indeed most pertinaciously defended all that had been set forth in that Council: nor could they endure to remit even a single syllable in its decrees, nor to admit the change of even a single letter. But others neither received the Council of Chalcedon and its decrees, but even condemned it under anathema together with the epistle of Leo."
[7] From Evagrius he finds a way "Others clung tenaciously to the Henoticon of Zeno; and this although they disagreed among themselves about one or two natures: these indeed deceived by the composition of the imperial letters; those rather studying peace and concord: so that the churches of the whole world were divided into various factions, and not even the Prelates communicated with one another. Hence many dissensions arose in the parts of the East and West, and throughout Africa, since neither did the Eastern Bishops associate with the Western and Africans, nor did these in turn meet with the Western. Nay, the matter proceeded to a greater absurdity. For neither did the Eastern Prelates communicate among themselves; nor likewise the Western, nor did the Africans foster communion among themselves, much less with strangers and foreigners. When the Emperor Anastasius saw these things, he drove from the churches the Bishops who innovated anything, if he had by chance caught any, either preaching the Council of Chalcedon, contrary to the ingrained custom of the places, or condemning the same under anathema. And from the royal city he first ejected Euphemius, then Macedonius, whom Timothy succeeded. But Antioch expelled Flavian." Thus Evagrius, to whom Pagi conceived aptly enough some observations, making for the innocence of our saints, which it will be well here to subjoin. Thus it stands:
[8] of excusing these and other Eastern Prelates. "This manner of acting of Anastasius filled the churches with innumerable disturbances, which many holy Prelates thought could scarcely be removed, unless in those calamitous times they should use economy, and, the orthodox religion being safe, should dissemble other things not pertaining to its substance. But the more rigid and ardent Orthodox, whom Evagrius names in the first place, held these as heretics; and thence those who then or afterward wrote, hand down that these same did not receive the Council of Chalcedon, because forsooth they embraced the Henoticon of Zeno, in which nevertheless no heresy was contained, or held Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret, whom the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon favored, for favorers of heretics. And yet Euphemius, Macedonius, Flavian, and other most holy Prelates, consulting for the safety of the Church, as indeed they supposed, entered upon no other way, and thought that which the more rigid Orthodox held would be detrimental to the Church. That St. Germanus, afterward bishop of Constantinople, conducted himself in the same manner, when
the Emperor Philippicus tried to abrogate the sixth general Council, we shall see below." Wisely Baronius, at the year 400, number 62, speaking of the things which were written in the cause of the Catholics and the Origenists, on whose latter side stood John Chrysostom, most celebrated for holiness and doctrine: "Since it often happens," says Baronius, "that even the wisest are deceived, yet do not thereby fall from wisdom and their inborn probity, when indeed they are borne toward the things which they do by a right and sincere gaze of the mind, etc. Since therefore it is a matter of religion to doubt of the excellent mind of the most holy men Epiphanius, Jerome (to say nothing of Theophilus), and John Chrysostom, whatever was done by them you must take in the better part."
CHAPTER II. The Vindication of the Saints against Theophanes and others.
The things now said, most wisely established by Baronius and rightly applied by Pagi, I willingly embrace his system, as far as it can conduce to excusing our Saints. I admit likewise, against his own rule, Elias is defended by an emended text of Theodore. that in measuring the deeds of men, writers have often sinned, nay have interpreted in a bad sense things which had already been sincerely handed down by others. But the passage of Theodore Lector, book 2, page 561, from which most probably Theophanes received his material, by which he traduces St. Elias as a betrayer of the Council of Chalcedon, I should prefer with Goar to reduce to another truer sense. Let us hear him at the page already cited, 583: "In sustaining the party of Elias, and in protecting him in the right of his unblemished faith, Baronius sweats with all his strength, into either the calumny or the error of Evagrius, at the year 521, from number 8 to 18. Altogether in vain: for from the corrupted words of Theodore Lector all the calumny arises: from the entire text his highest praise is held, and his innocence is proved. The corruption of the Theodorian text is evident from this, that Theophanes, copying out Theodore, writes things contrary to Theodore. Vitiated therefore is either Theodore or Theophanes: but not the latter, whose writings, recording Elias, are convicted of no error. What therefore remains, but that we admit Theodore to be vitiated, and Baronius deluded by his feigned fault? But in this way, in the Christophorson edition of Eusebius, to which Theodore is joined, Theodore is emended on my page 187, volume 2." Ἠλίᾳ τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων προσέταξεν ὁ βασιλεὺς, σύνοδον ἀθροῖσαι τῶν ὑπ᾽ αὐτὸν, καὶ κατὰ τῆς συνόδου ψηφίσασθαι. Ἠλίας δὲ σύνοδον μὲν οὐ συνήθροισεν, αὐτὸς δὲ μόνος ἀναθεματίσας Νεστόριον, καὶ Εὐτυχῆ, καὶ Διόδωρον, καὶ Θεόδωρον, τὴν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον ἀπεδέξατο. "The Emperor commanded Elias, bishop of Jerusalem, to gather a Synod of the bishops whom he had under him, and to vote against the Chalcedonian Synod. But Elias did not indeed gather a Synod: but he alone, having anathematized Nestorius, Eutyches, Diodorus, and Theodore, received the Council of Chalcedon. Whatever else you read does violence to the history and to its words," says Goar.
[10] The apology of Flavian from Evagrius, Hence it is evident how entire was the faith of St. Elias, wrongly impugned in Theophanes, as from several passages of Cyril the monk it will be more copiously demonstrated below. And indeed that the orthodoxy of St. Flavian was no less unblemished, Pagi shows in number 11, asserting that those things which Theophanes wrote of him were received from the more rigid orthodox, who did not communicate with those who had admitted the Henoticon, and among whom not to adhere to all things contained in the Council of Chalcedon was the same as to abjure it. But Flavian of Antioch was more moderate, and thought it enough that the Synod should be condemned by silence, or, if it must be spoken of, that another economy should be used, and that assent should be given to the condemnation of Diodorus, Theodore, and certain others, and moreover of certain chapters not pertaining to the substance of the faith. One thing only was before his eyes, namely the safety of the Church and the integrity of the faith. But since this his moderation was approved neither by the more ardent Catholics nor by the heretics, he was accused by both; by the Catholics of Eutychianism, by the heretics of Nestorianism: and thence Evagrius, who could know far better than Theophanes what had been done in his cause, defends his innocence by what kind of arguments he can; on the contrary Theophanes, deceived by the heretics and the more rigid Catholics, writes that he reproved the Council of Chalcedon OUT OF DEJECTION OF MIND; which also befell Euphemius, Macedonius, bishops of Constantinople, and Elias, bishop of Jerusalem. For although on account of the defense of the Council of Chalcedon they sustained persecution and lost their dignity, as Baronius rightly shows in his places, yet because in those circumstances of affairs they judged that economy would be more useful to the Church than a more ardent zeal in defending all its rights, they could not avoid being defamed by others who were deceived. But if in reading the ancient authors who have spoken of Euphemius, Elias, and Macedonius, you have before your eyes what we related above from Evagrius, of no weight with you will be the things which have been said against these holy Prelates, because the cause and origin of the deception of those same writers will be certainly perceived by you. And this is nearly the apology of Pagi for our Saints.
[11] from Marcellinus Comes, Nor indeed does he stop there; for at the year 512, especially in number 6, he collects other things to prove the Catholic doctrine of SS. Flavian and Elias, which, taken from the very sources, we shall exhibit a little more fully and clearly. And first indeed for the entire faith of Flavian, Marcellinus Comes bears a most open testimony at the consulate of Paulus and Muscianus, that is, at the aforesaid year 512, whose words are these: "Moreover, Anastasius, his depravity being renewed, ordered an infamous and derisible Synod to be held at the city of Sidon, from whose name, in ridiculous matters names are set forth, nearly eighty perfidious Bishops being gathered, against the Orthodox Bishop. Flavian the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, and John Pontiff of the town of the Paltenses, because they had refuted this sacrilegious assembly, were sent into exile into the castle which is called Petra. There Flavian, Confessor of Christ, rested in the Lord." No less clear will be the testimonies of Cyril the monk for St. Elias of Jerusalem, to be adduced a little below; so that it may seem it can be safely affirmed that Theophanes erred in those things which he handed down against our Saints, too crudely, at the passage cited above and elsewhere. But that Liberatus in the Breviary, chapters 18 and 19, stands for the unimpaired orthodoxy of Flavian, Goar also observed above.
[12] To these now add the brief but nervous apology of Baronius, from Baronius, in the notes to the Martyrology, to be fitted to those things which we have set forth more explicitly, or shall presently explain. "The things likewise which in the following chapter 32 Evagrius writes," he says, "of the constancy of Flavian for the man of Chalcedon, convict of falsehood all the aforesaid things fabricated against him. And that likewise the lapse of Flavian may seem to be proved from the life of Sabas, that that passage was depraved and mutilated by some rascal, the Acts of the Second Nicene Synod manifestly declare. For in the first Action of that Synod, the same passage is found described in these words: 'And so they afflicted Flavian in various ways; compelling him meanwhile and dragging him hither by a wrenched neck, to pursue with anathema the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, which he refusing, he was deprived of his bishopric, and condemned also to exile.'" These things there: by which indeed the imposture of the Severians concerning Flavian's lapse is detected. Marcellinus Comes in the Chronicle testifies that the exile of Flavian happened for no other cause, than that he had manfully opposed himself to the storms of the Severians, who had assembled at Sidon. But in what esteem Flavian was held after his death by the orthodox, consult the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople, which was celebrated in the consulate of Justinus Augustus and Eucharius, where you will find the festive acclamations of the whole people concerning St. Flavian, by which you will learn it was often requested that his name, erased by the heretics, should be restored to the diptychs, and his venerable relics translated. To which also pertains the petition of the Tyrians for Flavian in Henschenius on St. Macedonius, at the aforesaid XXV of April, page 373, number 16.
[13] Baronius continues: "Not only Flavian, but also Elias, who defends Elias also. of whom we treat, is found bespattered with the same calumnies by the heretics, to which giving faith too inconsiderately, Theodore Lector, whom we exhibited above explained by Goar, in book 2 of the Collectanea writes these things: 'He alone anathematized Nestorius, Eutyches, Diodorus, and Theodore, and condemned the Council of Chalcedon.' But what is this patching together of things contradicting themselves? If he condemned Eutyches and Nestorius, then, in condemning them, he must have received the Council of Chalcedon. But his letters to the Emperor Anastasius, and his other deeds, related by Cyril the monk in the Acts of St. Sabas, the Synodical Acts, and the testimonies of others, not only render him purged from every stain of the filth of heresy, but so favor him, that you may know, in those most desperate times, amid so many shipwrecks of Bishops, that he alone with Flavian of Antioch and John bishop of Palti stood intrepid against the innumerable phalanxes of the heretics. But these things we have treated at greater length in the Ecclesiastical Annals." With the same zeal indeed and the same mind, that he might show them, as most notable defenders and confessors of the orthodox faith—however for the rest, in the most disturbed affairs of the Church, they may have used a little too much indulgence, economy, or dispensation—worthy of the honors and veneration of the heavenly ones, and deservedly inscribed by himself in the Martyrology. Now the deeds of each, so far indeed as it can be done, we shall run through separately.
CHAPTER III. The deeds of St. Flavian collected from various sources.
[14] From a monk, then a cleric, he is made Bishop of Antioch. Of our Saint's birth, homeland, and course of early age there is no one who expressly describes them: that he led a monastic life in a certain monastery, which was situated in the district which is called Tilmognus, in Coele-Syria, which is called Second Syria, Evagrius is witness, book 3, chapter 32. Thence he must have come to the clergy of Antioch, of which church he acted as the internuncio, or envoy or legate, of the Patriarchs—at least of Palladius his predecessor—at the court of Constantinople. For thus writes Theophanes, page 122: "Moreover, Palladius the Prelate of Antioch being dead, the Emperor designated Flavian, a presbyter, and the envoy of the same church, in the place of the deceased." Of this matter Evagrius had thus written, book 3, chapter 23: "Palladius, Prelate of the church of Antioch, being dead after these things, Flavian, when he had succeeded into his place, sent Solomon, a presbyter of Antioch, to Alexandria, to carry his Synodical letters, and in turn to demand the letters of John." This John was Mela, otherwise Hemula, whom, since Theophanes numbers him among the Eutychians or Dioscorians, it is no wonder that, to the words just recited, he presently subjoins: "They relate that this Flavian held a mind opposed to the Chalcedonian decrees." On which opinion the same writer thereafter insists, everywhere hostile to Flavian, although from Cyril, in the life of St. Sabas, in Surius, chapter 70, it is established that Flavian, having entered upon the true and right course, thought the same things as Macedonius and Elias.
[15] in the year 498 or 499. Tillemont asks in what year Palladius departed from the living, himself a true hater of the Council of Chalcedon, and in what year Flavian succeeded him; whose chronological series of life cannot be extended further. If Papebroch has distinguished rightly enough the often entangled canons of Theophanes, the year 499 must be noted,
to which also Tillemont interweaves the death of Palladius, although meanwhile the immediately preceding year 498 seems to please him better, whatever Victor of Tunnuna may have written for the year 497; which perhaps will elsewhere be more diligently examined by us, as also the departure of the same St. Flavian, or the time at which he was driven into exile. That an error crept into the edition of Nicephorus, when only seven years of the bishopric are attributed to our Saint, is beyond doubt: for whether you refer the beginnings of his prelacy to the year 498 or to 499, since most certainly not before the year 512 was he cast down from his see by the arts of Severus and Xenaias, he must have held it more than seven years, nay nearly fourteen, as Tillemont demonstrates at length, volume 16, page 812.
[16] Moreover, that the end of his life too may be set forth under one view; we have it handed down by John Moschus, among the Lives of the Fathers, page 870, His death is to be referred to the 19th or 20th of July 518. of St. Flavian as well as of St. Elias, said by the Abbot Polychronius, that both were relegated to exile by the Emperor Anastasius on account of the holy Council of Chalcedon; Elias indeed at Haila, but Flavian at Petra. But on a certain day both Patriarchs signified to each other, mutually saying: "Anastasius has died today; let us go therefore, that we too may be judged with him." And after two days both departed to the Lord. Understand, as Baronius rightly conjectures, after two days from the receiving of the mutual letters, for Cyril in Surius, chapter 84, expressly hands down that Elias departed from life on the tenth day after Anastasius: but since the latter died on the IX of July in the year 518, it follows that each Saint, after a five-year exile, flew away to the crown of their labors on the XIX or XX of July, in that year 518, as Cyril the monk, to be recited below, noted more expressly of St. Elias.
[17] To resume the Saint's deeds, one must remember from the already cited Cyril, chapter 70, Anastasius persecuting the Orthodox, that as soon as St. Flavian was united in communion and concord of faith with the holy Macedonius of Constantinople and Elias of Jerusalem, the anger of the Emperor Anastasius could no longer be contained—who was most strong only against piety, and could not bear their concord. Hence you may gather that from the very outset of his patriarchate both St. Flavian and the two others were harassed by the Emperor, who would probably not have desisted, had not the Persian war intervened, which is said to have lasted from the year 502 to 505. "Moreover Anastasius," says Theodore Lector, page 561, "as long as he was held occupied by warlike affairs, abstained from persecuting the Orthodox. But after he had breathed a little from his warlike occupations, he again rose up against the churches and against Macedonius." What Anastasius contrived against Macedonius, Henschenius diligently pursues at the day XXV of April cited above, from which it is easy to understand that he wished first to attack this man, so that, he being cast down, he might gradually involve SS. Flavian and Elias in the same penalty, whom he knew to be equally keen vindicators of the Council of Chalcedon, and joined in communion with no Bishop openly Eutychian.
[18] A little after, Anastasius found an instrument most worthy of his impiety, grievously harassed by the impious Xenaias, the sacrilegious Xenaias, a Persian by race, most foul with the errors of Eutyches, nay perhaps also of the Manicheans, a man scarcely a Christian, of whose crimes this is not the place to discourse. From such a satellite of hell our Saint suffered dire things, so much so that by his devices and machinations he was at last compelled to go into exile. The matter the monks of Palestine narrate at greater length, in their celebrated letter to Alcison, Bishop of Nicopolis, a professor of the Catholic faith, in which some things wrongly imputed to Flavian, certainly badly confused by the monks, Baronius observed, in the notes praised above, whose words I have judged should here be premised: "It now remains that we vindicate Flavian from the calumnies of the heretics. Evagrius recites, book 3, chapter 31, and from him Nicephorus book 19, chapter 18, certain letters of the monks of Palestine to Alcison concerning the lapse of Flavian, as if he had in part condemned the Council of Chalcedon. But again in the Acts of St. Sabas, which Lipomanus copied from Metaphrastes, volume 5, it is held that, compelled by the heretics, he condemned the Council of Chalcedon. As to what concerns the letters of the monks, recited by Evagrius, know that they were depraved by the heretics, which anyone, however blind, cannot dissemble. What is it that is there said, that Flavian ingenuously professed the Council of Chalcedon in those things which pertain to the condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches: but in those things which were of the faith, not likewise? These things indeed fight among themselves, so that they cannot at the same time be true: for to receive the condemnation of each heresiarch is nothing other than to consent to the norm of right faith, published by that same Council against the aforesaid. What besides is it, that the same Evagrius there at the end says, that Flavian was driven into exile by the heretics, unless he had shown himself their adversary?"
[19] he is badly painted by some Take now the aforesaid epistle, as it is related by Evagrius, cited book 3, chapter 31. "But Peter being dead, they were again split among themselves. And Alexandria indeed and Egypt and Libya remained within their own communion. The rest of the East likewise communicated apart from the others, because the Westerners altogether refused to communicate with them, unless, condemning Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus under anathema, they should add to these also Peter Mongus and Acacius. In this state of affairs therefore, when the churches of the whole world were, the Eutychians and Dioscorians were reduced to an utterly small number. And when they were about soon to fail, so that they no longer existed on earth, a certain Xenaias, truly of his own name, that is, alien from God, by I know not what counsel, nor for what cause, exercising the enmities he had taken up against Flavian; under the pretext of faith, however, as most narrate, began to be stirred against him, and to calumniate him as a Nestorian. But when he had condemned Nestorius and his opinion under anathema, Xenaias, leaving Nestorius, passed over to Dioscorus, and to Theodore and Theodoret and Ibas and Cyrus and Eleutherius and John, and others I know not whom, nor whence collected. Of whom some had really followed the dogma of Nestorius; but some, when they had come under suspicion of that matter, had afterward condemned the same dogma under anathema, and had closed their last day in the communion of the Church. All these," he says, "assertors of the Nestorian dogma, unless you anathematize, you are a Nestorian, though you anathematize Nestorius a thousand times together with his doctrine. Letters also being written to the favorers of Dioscorus and Eutyches, he stirred them up, urging them to be a help to him against Flavian, and to exact from him, not indeed that he should condemn the Synod itself under anathame, but only those persons whom I have named above."
[20] "When Flavian the Bishop had long and much resisted these things, as if he had consented to the heretics, and others again with Xenaias had risen up against him, namely a certain Eleusinus, Bishop of Second Cappadocia, Nicias of Laodicea which is in Syria, and others from other places; the causes of whose hatred against Flavian, what they were, is not ours, but others', to set forth: at length, thinking that they would be quiet by this deed, he yielded to their contention. And when he had anathematized the aforesaid persons in writing, he sent his booklet to the Emperor: for they had stirred up this one too against Flavian, as a defender of the Nestorian dogma. But not content with this either, Xenaias again exacted from Flavian, that he should subject to anathema both the Synod itself, and those who had preached two natures in Christ, the one of flesh, the other of deity. Who, when he refused to do this, again Xenaias accused him as a Nestorian. Many things then being agitated, when the Patriarch had published an exposition of faith, in which he professed that he received the Synod, indeed in that which pertains to the deposition of Nestorius and Eutyches: but as to the definition and doctrine of the faith, by no means: again they accused him, as secretly favoring the Nestorian dogma, unless he should subject to anathema the Synod itself also, and those who said there were two natures in Christ, the one of flesh, the other of deity. The Isaurians moreover, deceived by manifold fraud of words, they dragged into their opinion. And a written confession of faith being published, in which they condemned the Synod under anathema together with those who said there were two natures and properties in Christ, they break off indeed from the communion of Flavian and Macedonius: but with others, who had subscribed to their own writing, they enter into the fellowship of a covenant."
[21] "Amid these things they demand also from the Bishop of Jerusalem, equally as from Elias of Jerusalem, that he should write a formula of his faith. Which when he had published, he sent it through the followers of Dioscorus to the Emperor. And that indeed which they bring forth contains an anathematism of those who preached two natures in Christ. But the Bishop of Jerusalem himself, saying that it was falsely fabricated by them, brings forth another without such an anathematism. Nor is that a wonder: for they very often corrupted the books of the holy Fathers. Many books of Apollinaris also they falsely ascribed to Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus and Julius. By which books especially they lead the multitude into the fellowship of their error. But also from Macedonius they demanded a handwritten confession of his faith… Meanwhile Xenaias and Dioscorus, many Bishops being joined to them, were intolerable, while they stirred up tumults against those who refused to subject the Synod to anathema. Of whom those who to the very end had not yielded to them, by many machinations they caused to be cast into exile. In this way therefore they thrust into exile Macedonius and John Bishop of Palti, and Flavian." And these are the things which are commemorated in the aforesaid epistle; and which are to be read and taken under the aforepremised caution from Baronius, whatever some even today may judge, that Flavian is not to be favored in all things throughout.
[22] The rest pertaining to him Evagrius deduces in the following chapter 32, but Evagrius brings forth things more favorable; from which we too take these, apt enough that the suspect passage of the epistle of the monks may be refuted: "But in the ejection of Flavian they added other things too. For we fell in with certain decrepit old men, who held in memory all that had happened in the pontificate of Flavian. These affirmed that the monks of the region which is called Cynegica, and as many as had their seats in the first province of the Syrias, induced by Xenaias (now Xenaias was Bishop of Hierapolis, which is neighbor to Antioch, and was in the Greek word called Philoxenus), being collected into one, suddenly burst into the city, with the greatest tumult and contumacy compelling Flavian to condemn the Council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo under anathema. Which when Flavian bore very grievously, and the monks pressed with the greatest onset, the people of the city, rising against the monks, killed very many of them, so much so that a huge number of them got the river Orontes for a tomb, their corpses buried in the whirlpool. And another thing happened too, by no means lighter than that former one: for the monks of Coele-Syria, which is now called Second Syria, since they zealously favored Flavian, because he in a certain monastery
which was situated in the district which is called Tilmognus, had led a monastic life, suddenly flew to Antioch to defend Flavian, so that then too no small evils came to pass. Whether therefore on account of those former things, or on account of those which we have related in the latter place, or on account of both together, Flavian is expelled from his see, and relegated to Petra, which is a town situated in the borders of Palestine." Thus far Evagrius.
[23] And all these things, unless I am much mistaken, and others acquit Flavian, who died in exile. again openly vindicate the reputation of St. Flavian, somewhat torn by the Eutychians, nay even by the more rigid Catholics. Chief among these was, as we said, Theophanes, page 129, reproaching Flavian with those things of which we have abundantly spoken. Milder are the things which I find inserted into the Councils in Labbe, volume 4, where it is said that he received the Henoticon of Zeno, and, when he had approved the three holy ecumenical Synods in writing, passed over the Council of Chalcedon in silence, to gratify the Emperor. "But the Emperor Anastasius, through Eutropius the tribune, commanded Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem to convoke a Synod at Sidon, and to subject the sacred Council of Chalcedon to anathematisms. But Elias dismissed this with the matter unaccomplished; wherefore the Emperor was vehemently angry with the Patriarchs." Of these there is again mention, in volume 8 of the Councils, page 87, where the famous Synod, described above by us in the words of Marcellinus, is treated of, from the life of St. Sabas; which, since it pertains especially to St. Elias, hence we have received those things, both from it and from elsewhere, which pertain both to him separately, and to both, involved in the same cause; and both of whom Theophanes branded with the same mark of perfidy, in the place cited just above, in whom, being later by so many centuries than the deeds, Tillemont seems to trust too much—nevertheless acquitting the Saint of heresy, and piously thinking with us that the time of exile, and the hardships suffered in it beyond five years, granted Flavian a time of penance, so that what he had sinned, whether out of dejection of mind, or from fear of hostile enemies, or from other causes, now sufficiently enumerated, he might wash away before God. Of his death it has been said above.
[24] It is not probable that his body was translated into Italy. Hither, as into a little appendix, must be relegated the things which, concerning a certain holy Flavian among the Bishops of Chieti, volume 6, columns 929 and 930, Ughelli disputed or conjectured, as if there not some Bishop of Chieti, but rather some part of the body of our holy Patriarch of Antioch was venerated, brought thither from Julia Vetus, or the town of St. Flavian, whose other part is decently preserved at Julia Nova. On what solid foundation these things rest, I indeed cannot perceive; nor does I-know-not-what inscription, written under an image of St. Flavian, in Leonine verses altogether unpolished, concerning the true or feigned translation of the same sacred body, shed much light, formed in this manner:
The Empress Galla, Hither brought me, Flavian, Across the sea, the Patriarch, Enclosed within a chest: And of old I was, when, In the four-thousandth year; And behold, I am with you, And I hold the just fisc treasury, For you I beseech the Most High, Beware, lest I be deceived.
From these indeed would be had the year of translation, 1004: what the rest signify, let another divine; I certainly am not induced to believe that the body of St. Flavian of Antioch was then brought thither. I should more probably believe that the relics of some holy Flavian—for example, the companion of St. Modestinus, Apostle of the Avellinenses, of whom it is treated on the XIV of February—or of another of the same name are honored there, of which perhaps greater knowledge will some day occur. Let Bolland meanwhile be seen on the XVIII of February, where he treats of St. Flavian of Constantinople. Now St. Elias must be treated of severally.
CHAPTER IV. On the deeds of St. Elias, up to the persecutions of Anastasius.
Among the things hitherto said, not a few are common to St. Elias with St. Flavian, especially those which pertain to the persecution stirred up by Anastasius: Cyril the monk narrates, to the economic manner of acting of each, to the suspicion of prevarication cast upon each, to the exile of each, and, if we believe Moschus, to their departure from their toilsome labors in the same year, month, and day, namely the XIX or XX of July 518. Now, to arrange somewhat the life of St. Elias, no little conduce the various chapters which Cyril the monk inserted into the Acts of Saints Euthymius, Sabas, and John the Silentiary. In the last indeed there are few things, and those nearly which you have on the XIII of May, volume III, page 234, concerning the revelation of the secret which the Silentiary had until then kept silent, of the bishopric formerly received. But in the life of St. Euthymius, on the XX of January, page 315, numbers 94 and 95, some things are explained, from which the series of Elias' life must be begun. The praised Cyril suggests more in the life of St. Sabas, whose edition we here follow, procured by Cotelier, which stands among his Monuments of the Greek Church, volume 3, as being, in the judgment of the learned, a little more exact than the Surian or Metaphrastic. These things being premised, from chapter 16 we begin the life of St. Euthymius, where, the tyranny of Timothy Aelurus at Alexandria being narrated—concerning which it has been more fully treated in the Patriarchs of Alexandria—Cyril thus continues.
[26] "When therefore in Egypt all things were full of trouble and tumult, a fugitive from Egypt into Palestine, two certain anchorites, whose name was Martyrius and Elias, the one indeed a Cappadocian, the other an Arab, having set out from the mount of Nitria, come to that great Euthymius, and each of them dwelt with him a long time in a separate cell: whom this divine man embraced with the law of friendship, and assiduously invited to conversation; and made them likewise partakers of his retirements and descents to Cutila and Ruba. With whom, and together with Gerasimus and other anchorites in turn, those holy hands received every Lord's day the undefiled sacraments. But the great Euthymius foresaw, with the keen eye of the soul, the things which were to befall Martyrius and Elias, namely that each of them should be the future successor of the See of James, who was illustrious in the choir of the Disciples. But after these things Elias indeed, when he had descended to Jericho, builds himself a cell before the city, which, by the additions made by him, gradually enlarged, was transformed into those monasteries which are now beheld. And hence it must be judged that the monasteries which were situated around Jericho got their name, so as to be called the monasteries of Archbishop Elias, as they are called by Cyril himself, page 324 and page 338."
[27] Here in passing we adjoin the saying of Polychronius about St. Elias, in Moschus, at the place cited above from the Lives of the Fathers, namely; "just as St. Elias here, being a monk, drank no wine, that he there led a monastic life. so neither, when made Patriarch, did he drink, but kept the same rule." That St. Elias was taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Sabas testified to the Emperor Anastasius, says Henschenius. The words of St. Sabas, in Cotelier page 302, are: "For we know that this man breathes the divine dogmas of St. Cyril Archbishop of Alexandria"; which certainly do not sufficiently plainly indicate that St. Elias was instructed by Cyril, who, since he departed from life in the year 444, Elias was still a boy, having entered his fourteenth year. That he fled to St. Euthymius from Egypt about the year 457 is most probable; but since he died on the XIX or XX of July 518, in the 88th year of his age, it follows that he was then in about the twenty-seventh year of his age, and so must have been born in the year 430. Frequent in other places is the mention of St. Elias in the aforesaid life of Euthymius, especially chapter 18, from which it manifestly is established that he clung to him with Martyrius until death, and, as is held in chapter 19, number 110: "The grief of the deprivation of Euthymius was to many a cause of tears; but it touched Martyrius and Elias far more vehemently, and they wept greatly."
[28] The death of St. Euthymius falls in the year 473, as Henschenius proves, He was ordained Priest in 473, Patriarch in 493. but since his sacred body was translated not long after his death by the Patriarch Anastasius on the VII day of May, and he, "taking with him Martyrius and Elias… ordained them presbyters, and enrolled them in the Catalogue of the Clergy of the holy Resurrection"; all these things were performed in that very same year. The series of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem Henschenius thus briefly arranges in the same place, page 301, so that the aforesaid Anastasius died in the year of Christ 477, in which Martyrius, whom we have already more than once named, was given him as successor. This latter departed life on the XIII of April in the year 486. Salustius was substituted for Martyrius, who, the years of his patriarchate being completed, 7 and three months, died on the XXIII of July, leaving as successor St. Elias, to whom that St. Euthymius foretold that dignity, as we showed above from Cyril. That year was of Christ 493. So rightly Henschenius, in the year 3 of the Emperor Anastasius, as Cyril has it, page 295, although in the following number he here seems to note the year 494. This Elias dedicates the new church of the Virgin Mother of God, built by St. Sabas, on the I of July, in the IX indiction, in the year of Christ 501. But these and other things done by the holy Patriarch must be deduced a little more fully from Cyril himself, as he was edited by Cotelier.
[29] He builds a monastery, and favors St. Sabas. Thus he has it, number 31, page 262: "But after Archbishop Salustius, having held the see of Jerusalem for eight years and three months, had fallen asleep in Christ, in the month of July, on the twenty-third day, in the second indiction, Elias, of whom I made very much mention in the book on St. Euthymius, succeeded in the patriarchate, in the fifty-sixth year of the age of blessed Sabas. Which Patriarch Elias built a monastery near the episcopal residence, and there gathered together the worthy men of the holy Resurrection, dispersed through the places around the tower of David, distributing cells to each, furnished with all things necessary for the refreshment of the body." The aforesaid dedication likewise is described, page 264: "The great church being therefore built, and adorned with every ornament, the aforesaid Elias the Archbishop descended into the Laura, and both dedicated it, and in it fixed the sanctified altar, in the month of July, on the first day, in the ninth indiction, the great Sabas being in the sixty-third year of his age." There follow in Cyril the troubles stirred up in the very Laura of St. Sabas by forty unruly brethren, whom on account of their obstinacy he thought must be forsaken, and who in his absence had grown to sixty, spreading through the Laura that their Abbot, while he traversed the solitudes, had been seized and consumed by wild beasts.
[30] And when those rebels, page 269, had seized upon the rest, they set out to the holy city to Archbishop Elias, to whom they say: He tries to restrain the rebels in the Laura, "Our Abbot, when he had withdrawn into the solitude which is around the Dead Sea, became food for lions; but bid and be willing to give us a superior." But Elias, a true pontiff of God, as one who from the times of St. Euthymius knew the divine Sabas' conduct and life from his youth, answered them thus: "I certainly do not believe you: for I know that God is not unjust, that he should permit his despised servant to be seized by beasts;
but go, seek your Abbot; or remain quiet, until God shall manifest him." And so, the day of the Encaenia Dedication coming, according to the custom of the Hegumens, Sabas sets out to the holy city, with certain brethren of the monastery situated around Nicopolis (for, as has been said, he had there established a monastery, brethren being gathered in it, for indeed God altogether brought him aid), and enters to the Archbishop with some superiors of monasteries. Whom, when the Patriarch beheld the old man and rejoiced greatly, he took aside and exhorted him to return to his own Laura. But when he begged pardon, and by no means consented, the Archbishop, moved, said: "Believe [me], unless you obey my exhortation and counsel, you shall no longer see my face. For I do not endure that your labors be administered by others." After the Archbishop had said these things, our father Sabas promised he would obey his command; yet he is compelled to declare the conspiracy of those sixty confederates plotting sedition, and the mind of the crowd eager for it. Then the Patriarch, rising, writes to the monks of the Laura an epistle in these words, which may be read there, as also the plundering of the Laura by the rebels, and their withdrawal into the New Laura, where, when they were pressed by great straits, St. Sabas reports about their affairs to the Patriarch, whom he exhorts to set them in order. But the Patriarch, giving him with his own hand one pound of gold, granted also the authority over that place and over those dwelling in it.
[31] But there was not one disturbance of the New-Laurites, for when certain Origenists had insinuated themselves thither, whom he also permits to be ejected from the New Laura. under the lead of a certain Nonnus, a Palestinian, recourse had to be had again to St. Elias, by whose opinion and permission the Abbot ejected them from the New Laura. Those expelled went off to a level place, where they scattered evil tares. But after some time had passed, and the Archbishop had been attacked by treacheries, as will be said a little later, Nonnus and his companions, coming to the holy city, besought him who had succeeded in the patriarchate, that he would permit them to remain in the New Laura. See there, page 275, other tumults excited by restless and heretical men. Let it here suffice to have demonstrated the notable prudence of St. Elias and his zeal and vigilance in preserving the purity of the faith. But then, page 277, another specimen of our Saint's mature judgment is exhibited, when the Archbishop Elias pursued with love worthy men, friends and well-wishers of St. Sabas, Marcianus the presbyter, with his two sons Antonius and John, and ordained Marcianus indeed Bishop of Sebaste, Antonius for the church of the Ascalonites, and made John a deacon of the Resurrection—that very one whom he afterward had as successor, as Cyril teaches, page 310. Nor is to be passed over the most just sentence of Elias, page 282, when he utterly overturns the building of a certain James, erected against the mind of St. Sabas and the other monks.
[32] He is said to have built more than one church, To these Tillemont added the testimony of Eutychius of Alexandria, from volume 2 of his Annals, page 8, by which he proves that St. Elias built churches, among the rest the church of Helena, otherwise of the most blessed Virgin Mary, which he did not finish, but which St. Sabas asked the Emperor Justinian to have finished, page 343. The words of Cyril are: "And that there you may build and adorn the new church of the Mother of God, founded some time before by Archbishop Elias." Which the same Justinian ordered to be done, as you have page 346; but of that church, dedicated in the year 542, Procopius treats at length. But whether the fame of St. Elias extended even to the West, whether St. Avitus of Vienne received from him a particle of the true Cross of Christ; whether the persons and times agree rightly enough, the cited Tillemont asks, page 647. Let these things about St. Elias' early age, his monastic life in Egypt and in Palestine, about the monasteries near Jericho established by him, about his elevation to the patriarchal throne, and the earlier years of his rule, and the things gloriously done at that time for the glory of God, and for preserving the integrity both of the orthodox faith and of monastic discipline, be said enough; now we shall proceed to the treacheries laid for him by the heretics, to the persecutions which he suffered from Anastasius, and at last to his exile and to his happy death.
Annotation* συναρπάζοντες
CHAPTER V. On the persecutions stirred up by Anastasius, and on the exile and death.
The things which pertain to the head of long-lasting vexations we have already touched in St. Flavian; To Anastasius, the disturber of the Church, but here they must be repeated from Cyril, who pursues especially the deeds of St. Elias, and thereafter reduced into the right series of chronology. Thus he, in Cotelier, page 295, number 50: "In the seventy-third year of the age of the sanctified Sabas, Elias, Archbishop of Jerusalem, who wished to send certain of the Hegumens to Constantinople, asked our father Sabas to set out with them, and with all his strength to contend for keeping in tranquillity the mother of the Churches: because the Emperor Anastasius was vehemently indignant, and tried to overturn and confound the whole ecclesiastical constitution of Palestine. But what was the cause of the Emperor's madness and indignation against the Archbishop, I shall repeat in a few words more deeply and from the beginning. When the Patriarch Elias had obtained the pontificate of Jerusalem, in the third year of the reign of Anastasius, the Church of God was thrown into confusion, divided into three parts, the Roman Pontiffs indeed dissenting from the Byzantines, because there had been inserted in the sacred Diptychs the name of Acacius, formerly Bishop of Constantinople, who had not followed their accurate diligence and rigid discipline: but the Byzantines dissenting from the Alexandrians, who anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, and admitted the communion of Dioscorus, deposed by it. Elias therefore had only Euphemius, Prelate of Byzantium, with whom he communicated, since the Westerners, as has been said, had separated themselves, and the Antiochene Palladius, to gratify the Emperor, struck the Chalcedonian decrees with anathema, and embraced the communion of the Alexandrians."
[34] "Then therefore Euphemius, Bishop of Constantinople, St. Sabas is sent by Elias. who had synodically confirmed the things sanctioned at Chalcedon, the Emperor cast from his bishopric, entangling him in calumny. And when the Alexandrian and the Antiochene consented to the ejection of Euphemius, Elias, the second year of his bishopric not yet completed, refused to assent. Yet Macedonius, who had been ordained, when from his Synodicals he perceived him to be Orthodox, he admitted to communion. And this from the outset not a little disturbed the Emperor. There was therefore concord between Macedonius and Elias. But after the death of Palladius, Flavian obtained Antioch, and was united with Macedonius and Elias: whose agreement he did not bear, who, the Emperor, was bold against piety alone, but was roused to fury, to send them into exile. And first indeed he involves Macedonius in various calumnies, expels him from his bishopric, to which he advances Timothy; but from Flavian and Elias he demanded that they should give their support. Who indeed gave their assent to the Synodical letter of Timothy, but not to the acts of the deposition of Macedonius. Then, the Emperor being vehemently moved against both, a great tempest was threatening upon both churches. For that cause therefore Elias the Patriarch, as I said, sends to Constantinople our father Sabas and others with him, superiors of monasteries, and gives to the Emperor letters of this kind: 'I have sent chosen servants of God, good and faithful, and princes of the whole desert, and among them the Lord Sabas, the frequenter, governor, and patron of our solitude, and the luminary of all Palestine, to appease your empire.' The Archbishop Elias therefore wrote these things; but our father Sabas obeyed the Pontiff's decision, promptly giving his effort, if perhaps he could bring aid to the Catholic Orthodox faith, at that time vexed and imperiled. Him therefore being sent off and performing his journey, the Emperor Anastasius, using unbridled madness against the Patriarchs Flavian and Elias, ordered a Synod of the Eastern and Palestinian Bishops to be held at Sidon, and commanded that over the Synod should preside Soterichus of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, which Bishops especially anathematized the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, and also patronized Eutyches and Dioscorus and their depraved and alien doctrine."
[35] Hence you have perceived the perverse mind of Anastasius, and at the same time the causes of his angers and fury against Euphemius, while meanwhile the pseudo-synod of Sidon was dissolved; Macedonius, and against the two holy Patriarchs of whom we treat in this commentary, Flavian and Elias; the manifest treacheries and arts employed by the most impious Emperor are evident, that he might expel them all from their sees, which also concerning the two first named has here been explained fully enough. Now we must inquire in what year the pseudo-synod was held at Sidon, however ridiculous and compounded of the followers of Severus, yet fatal to each of our Saints. Marcellinus Comes expressly notes the year of Christ 512, in the consulate of Paulus and Muscianus. The same Cyril marks, when he indicates the year of the age of the sanctified Sabas as seventy-three, in which, while he was performing his journey, Anastasius ordered the Synod to be held. Nevertheless that seventy-third year of St. Sabas must have been drawing to a close, since in the month of July of the year 518 he reckoned his eightieth year. St. Sabas therefore most probably departed from Palestine about the beginning of January, having arrived at Constantinople not before Anastasius had received the news of the dissolution of that little council of Sidon, unless perhaps they arrived at the same time as Sabas. For when in number 51 Cyril has narrated the honorable manner in which St. Sabas was received by the Emperor Anastasius, on the very next page, 300, he thus continues.
[36] which the Emperor shows he bears most grievously, "After some days, the Emperor summoned him, namely St. Sabas, and thus addressed him: 'Your Archbishop has made himself a defender of the Council of Chalcedon, which confirmed the dogmas of Nestorius; and not this only, but has also drawn to himself the Prelate of Antioch, Flavian, weakened. Whence, since the Chalcedonian doctrine ought now to have been struck with Catholic and universal anathema by the Synod which is now gathered at Sidon, he alone hindered it, the matter being composed together with Flavian of Antioch; and, as he judged, mocked our empire, speaking to us in his letters word for word thus: We reject every heresy which introduces anything new against the right faith, nor do we admit even the things which were done at Chalcedon, on account of the scandals arising thence: and, as he supposed, he deceived us with this speech, who sanctioned that the Synod should be dismissed with the business unaccomplished.'" I suspect that Anastasius either lies here, or at least feigns something, whereby he may involve St. Elias in calumny. That the Synod of Sidon was dissolved I acknowledge, but I should not believe that the Patriarch of Jerusalem wrote the things which Anastasius here pretends, unless the matter concern the letters which, on the testimony of Evagrius above, number 21, the Bishop of Jerusalem constantly held to have been falsely fabricated by the followers of Dioscorus, bringing forth another formula without such an anathematism. See there the rest; let us now hear the remainder of the Emperor's speech.
[37] feigning himself appeased by St. Sabas. "'But it did not escape us, neither now, nor before, when he refused to assent to the decrees by which Euphemius and Macedonius the Nestorians were deposed; because he is a defender of the Council of Chalcedon, and of the whole Nestorian heresy. Wherefore we decree, as you see, that this Bishop be expelled, and an Orthodox man, worthy of that holy and Apostolic see, be promoted; lest those venerable places, which received God, be defiled with the dogmas of Nestorius.' And these things the Emperor said. But our holy father Sabas, in these words
answered: "Let your Serenity be fully persuaded that the Archbishop of our holy City of God, who was instructed in the doctrine of piety by the ancient luminaries and workers of miracles, the Fathers of our desert, equally rejects both the division of Nestorius and the confusion of Eutyches, and, entering upon the middle path of the orthodox faith, endures to decline neither to the right nor to the left, to speak with the Scripture. For we know that this man breathes the divine dogmas of St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and strikes with anathema those who oppose or have opposed them. We beseech therefore your Serenity, that the holy city of Jerusalem, in which the great sacrament of piety was manifested, be preserved undisturbed, the pontificate or assembly of pontiffs remaining unmoved among us." Then the Emperor, after considering the old man's holiness and simplicity and constitution, said: "In truth, Calogerus good old man, it is excellently said through the divine Scripture: He who walks simply, walks confidently. But pray for us, and cast away your care, because we sanction nothing against your Archbishop, on account of your holiness, and we dismiss you hence with all honor."
[38] Specious were these promises of Anastasius, but of a man so perfidious, And yet a little after Flavian and so often guilty of perjuries, that Theophanes writes of him, page 138, that he was accustomed to say repeatedly that there was held to be a law which bade an Emperor, when set in necessity, to forswear and lie. Splendid, I say, were the promises of the most deceitful Emperor: for when St. Sabas had set sail from Constantinople in the month of May of that same year 512, and had returned to the holy Patriarch, a new cause of offense was soon added to the former ones, through the conversion of Mania the Archimandrite, whom Sabas and Elias had drawn away from the notorious Severus, as Cyril narrates, page 306, number 55, which not a little stirred the Emperor Anastasius against the Patriarch Elias. Then indeed, resuming the order of the persecutions, Cyril, number 56: "And so," he says, "when the Patriarchs Flavian and Elias, as has been said, had come to Sidon, and had sent gentle and dispensatory letters to the Emperor, and had dissolved the Synod of Sidon, which had been gathered against the right faith, and had returned to their own Sees; Soterichus and Philoxenus, being indignant, roused the Emperor to unbridled anger, as if he had been deceived by the cunning, fraud, and dissimulation of the Patriarchs. Whence, having received the power which they wished, by bestowing much gold on the people of Antioch, afflicting Flavian in various ways, and in a manner suffocating him, and compelling him to strike the Council of Chalcedon with anathema, they expelled him from his bishopric and condemned him to exile." These things have been deduced at greater length above, done toward the end of the year 512, the sixth Indiction running.
[39] We proceed with Cyril. "Which being learned, the Emperor, affected with joy, and then Elias are expelled from their sees. sent Severus, prince of the Acephali, as Bishop of Antioch; which Severus, having seized the patriarchate, brought indeed many evils upon those who would not communicate with him; but having sent his Synodicals to Archbishop Elias, and not being admitted into communion, he rouses the Emperor to anger; and again he sends those same his Synodicals, in the month of May of the sixth Indiction, to Jerusalem with certain clerics and the Emperor's troops, St. Sabas and other Hegumens fighting in vain for Elias, over whom prevailed the power of the most base Severus, painted by Cyril in his genuine colors. When therefore the Emperor was compelling Archbishop Elias to admit to his communion this corrupter of souls and pernicious man, and he by no means willing to do this, the Emperor, blazing with anger, sent a certain Olympius of Caesarea, who held the dukedom of Palestine, at the same time sending that dispensatory epistle (that false one, I suppose, and corrupted by the Dioscorites) which had been written from Sidon, and which professed that the Council of Chalcedon was not to be received; that in every way he might cast Elias from his bishopric. Which Olympius came with the Emperor's soldiers, and using many ways, arts, and machinations, expelled Elias indeed from his bishopric, and relegated him to Aila." Which that they may be rightly combined, it must be established that about the month of July of the year 513, in the VI Indiction, Elias was expelled from his see into exile, John the son of Marcianus being intruded, of whom we have spoken above. Where Cyril's error seems to need correction, when he recalls the beginnings of the aforesaid John to the 3rd of September, at the beginning of the eleventh Indiction, for which I think the seventh should be read; unless he looks to the death of Elias.
[40] Moreover God himself wished to prove St. Elias' innocence by evident signs; Signs following Elias' exile; for as soon as he was sent into exile, thus writes Cyril, page 321, "heaven was closed, so that for five years it did not rain upon the earth, and besides the drought, there was also a huge multitude of locusts, then a bruchus wingless locust without number, and it licked up the whole surface of the earth. But in the second year of the locusts, another locust attacked, covered the air, and devoured all the trees of the field; and a mighty famine arose and frequent death; so much so that the people of Jerusalem said that on account of the sin which had been committed against Archbishop Elias these evils had come upon them." The five years of those calamities is found by right reckoning from the beginning of St. Elias' exile, which we have referred to the month of July of the year 513, from which to the month of July 518, five full years are found. Meanwhile St. Elias did harsh penance in Aila, expiating those stains which, perhaps using too much economy, he had contracted equally with St. Flavian: that he obtained a most happy end, and one not itself lacking in miracles, Cyril's article 60 shows, from page 324, with which we conclude our commentary; only this observation being premised, that as in many other things, so in marking the death of Anastasius, Theophanes erred, when he writes that that Emperor died on the IX of April, whereas Cyril so expressly noted the IX of July, as you will most clearly perceive from this our last number.
[41] and what happened at his death. "Our holy father Sabas, in the eightieth year of his age, about the summer solstice of the eleventh Indiction, by God's dispensation, set out to Archbishop Elias at Aila, leading with him Stephen, superior of the monastery of the great Euthymius, and Euthalius, superior of the monasteries of the Jericho monks of the same Patriarch Elias: whom, received with joy, the Patriarch Elias kept with him some days; through which days indeed, from the letting-down of the lamps Vespers until the ninth hour, he did not render himself visible to them; but about the ninth hour he came forth, and communicated and ate with them, and after the lamp-lighting withdrew. While therefore he was thus acting, it happened that on the ninth day of the month of July he did not, as usual, come forth. But while they were waiting, and neither communicating nor tasting anything, coming out about the sixth hour of the night, he said: 'Take food; for I have no leisure.' And when St. Sabas held him, and in a manner compelled him to say what he had; weeping, he answered: 'At this hour the Emperor Anastasius has departed from life; I must certainly depart after the tenth day, and dispute and be judged with him.' Then concerning his monasteries he commanded, that after the death of Euthalius, Nestabus and Zacharias, each in his own time, should take up the government, and established that no one should dare to separate his monasteries from one another. These things being appointed, surviving eight days after the vision, content with only communion and mixed liquid, he was ill for a little while. But when Sabas and those who were with him had not departed from him for three days, on the twentieth of the month of July, after communion and prayers, and Amen being said, in peace he fell asleep and rested in that very place, the eighty-eight years of his whole life being run through." These things concerning St. Elias, the truth of whose vision about the death of Anastasius Cyril demonstrates, page 326.