The Lives of the Saints, Volume II (of 16): February

S. POLYCHRONIUS, B. M(A.D. 251.)

[Roman, and almost all Martyrologies. The Acts of this martyr, somewhat fragmentary, are extant.]

The following fragment is all that remains of the Acts of S. Polychronius, slightly epitomized at the commencement:

"In those days the storm rose under Decius Cæsar, and many Christians were slain in the city of Rome. Galba being regent in Rome, Decius went against the Persians. Coming to the city Ponticum, he stayed there, but he was warring. Then Decius went up into the Median hill-country, and gained a victory, and took several cities of the Persians, as Babylon, Bactria, Hyrcania, Cordula, where he found many Christians, whom he slew with tortures. At that time he found in the city of Babylon, a bishop named Polychronius, with the priests Parmenias, Elymas, Chrysotelus, and the deacons Luke and Mucius; whom, when he had taken, he ordered to be led forth and to sacrifice to idols. Then Polychronius answered promptly, 'We offer ourselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and will not bow to devils, or idols made with hands.' Then Decius ordered him and his clergy to prison. And he built there a temple to Saturn, and made a gypsum image, and gilded it…48 And when it was ready, he ordered Polychronius, his priests, and deacons, to be led before him, and he questioned them, saying, 'Thou art the sacrilegious Polychronius, who will not keep the commandments of the gods of the Emperor.' But Polychronius answered not. Then Decius said to the clergy, 'Your chief is silent.' Parmenias answered, 'Our chief will not defile his mouth; he keeps the command of Our Lord, Cast not your pearls before swine. Dost thou deem it seemly that what has once been purified should be defiled with dung?' Decius said, 'Ha! we are dung, are we?' and he ordered their tongues to be cut out. Now when they had cut out the tongue of Parmenias,49 Parmenias exclaimed, 'O blessed father Polychronius, pray for me, for I see that the Holy Spirit rules thee, signs thy mouth, and distils honey thereunto.' Decius said, 'Polychronius, sacrifice to the gods;' but he answered not a word. Then Decius ordered his mouth to be beaten in with stones; and he, as they beat him, raised his eyes to heaven, and spread forth his hands, and so expired."

SS. THEODULUS AND JULIAN, MM(A.D. 308.)

[Roman Martyrology. The Greeks on Feb. 16th. See account of SS. Elias, Jeremias, Isaiah, and Companions, Feb. 16th. Authority the same.]

"Immediately after Seleucus, (see p. 316) came the aged Theodulus, a grave and pious man," says Eusebius, "who was of the governor's family, and who, on account of his age, had been treated with more regard by Firmilian than any of his domestics, as also, because he was now a father of the third generation, and had always evinced great fidelity and attachment to himself and family. He, however, pursuing the same cause as Seleucus, when arraigned before his master, was condemned to endure the same martyrdom as our Saviour on the cross. After all the rest came Julian. He had just come from abroad, and had not yet entered the city; but learning on the road the death of the martyrs, he hastened at once, just as he was, to the sight. Then, when he saw the earthly tabernacles of the holy men lying on the ground, filled with joy, he embraced every one, and kissed them all. Upon this, he was immediately seized by the ministers of death, and conducted to Firmilian, who consigned him to a slow and lingering fire. Then Julian, exulting with joy, gave thanks to God with a loud voice, who had honoured him with martyrdom. He was a native of Cappadocia; in his manner he was most religious, and eminent for the sincerity and soundness of his faith."

SS. LOMAN AND FORTCHERN, BB(7TH CENT.)

[Colgan is the only authority for their insertion; he says that in Ireland these saints are venerated on Feb. 17th, and Oct. 11th. These saints are mentioned in the Tripartite Life of S. Patrick, and in that by Jocelin.]

S. Loman is said to have been the son of Tigridia, sister of S. Patrick; his brothers Brochan and Mogenoch, were, like him, also bishops; and his cousins, Mel, Rioch and Mun, (Feb. 6th), sons of his aunt Darerca, were saints and prelates. S. Loman accompanied S. Patrick to Ireland, and when they landed at Temora, the great apostle left Loman in charge of the boat, ordering him to bring it up the river Boyne to Trim. And when one Fortchern, son of Fethlemid, chief of Trim, heard the sweet chanting of Loman on his boat, a great longing came over him to hear the doctrine which exhaled such sweetness. Therefore he came to him and received instruction out of the boat, and he sang with him the songs of Zion. Then came the mother of Fortchern, seeking her son, and she was a Scottish princess, and she saluted the priest of God reverently, and rejoiced that the Gospel of Christ was wafted to the shores of Ireland. And Fethlemid came also, and received instruction, and himself believed, and his whole house; and they were baptized; and he gave Antrim to the church as a possession. Then came Patrick and founded there a church, and placed Loman over it, as chief pastor. Jocelin, the writer of the life of S. Patrick, states that he used a life of the great apostle of the Irish, written by S. Loman, his nephew.

Now when Loman was dying, he called to him Fortchern, that he might consecrate him to be his successor in the See of Antrim, but he would not, "Lest," said he, "it should be thought that the government of this diocese was mine by hereditary right, for my father owned it till he gave it to God." Then Loman recognised this reason as fitting, and he was succeeded by one named Cathald.

Such is the legend, and a sad confusion of history and fable does it prove to be. These are Dr. Lanigan's judicious remarks: "The Tripartite Life makes S. Loman or Luman a nephew of S. Patrick, left in charge of the boat, and adds that, in consequence of the order of the saint, he sailed up against the current of the river as far as Trim. This was too good a story to be slightly passed over by Jocelin, who, to make it still more marvellous, subjoins that, the sails being hoisted, he went up, without the assistance of oars, notwithstanding furious blasts of wind in the direction opposite to its course. He might as well have said that it had been carried in the air; for the channel of the Boyne is so unfit for navigation, that it would be impossible for a boat to proceed as far as Trim, even were both the current and the winds favourable."50

There can be no doubt that Loman lived much later, and that he is no other than the bishop Loman of Trim, who lived in the 7th century, of whom nothing authentic is known. Dr. Lanigan carefully traces the fable of the donation of Antrim, and shows that it is partly blunder, partly wilful invention. Colgan patched up the Acts of S. Loman from the stories in the Tripartite Life of S. Patrick, and in Jocelin, who quotes from the Martyrologum Tamlachtense the following passage: – "Loman of Trim and his companions, who were (of the list two only are worth noting) Ossan and Fortchern." "If," says Dr. Lanigan, "by sociis suis we should understand disciples of Loman, Loman must be brought to much later times than those of S. Patrick, for Ossan was, in all appearance, the person of that name whose memory was revered at Rath-Ossan, near the west gate of Trim, and whose death is marked at a. d. 686. Some of them are placed by Colgan himself in still later times. It may be objected that Tirechan, who is supposed to have lived in the 7th century, speaks of Loman as being in S. Patrick's days. But if Tirechan lived so early, the account given of Loman is undoubtedly an interpolation thrust into his work. For no author of that country would have written certain nonsense therein contained, such as that prince Fethlemid, a son of king Leogaire, made a grant of all his territory, property, and family, to Saints Patrick and Loman, and thus to the Church of Trim. Such fables, relative to ecclesiastical endowments, did not appear in Ireland until a much later period."51

With regard to Fortchern the same difficulty exists. Notwithstanding that he is made the son of Fethlemid, prince of Trim, he is spoken of in the Tripartite Life as blacksmith to S. Patrick; and if he were a disciple of S. Loman, he must be moved from the 5th to the 7th century. Anyhow he is not to be confounded with Bishop Fortchern of Ross, as does the legend; if he was a bishop at all, it was of Trim.

S. FINTAN, AB. OF CLONENAGH(6TH CENT.)

[Roman Martyrology, and those of Bede, Usuardus, Ado, &c. Colgan says there were twenty-four saints of this name in Ireland, which has led to some confusion. Authority: – An ancient life published by Colgan, and also by Bollandus, but, like all the lives of Irish saints, late, and resting on tradition.]

S. Fintan, abbot of Cluain-Ednech, (Clon-Enach), was born in Leinster, in the sixth century. He was brought up in piety and letters by a holy man, who led a religious life in a place called Cluain-mhic-Trein,52 under whom he made such progress, as to give early evidence that God was with him. When he was grown to man's estate, he took leave of his spiritual father, and went for further improvement to S. Columba of Trydaglas, (December 13th), with whom he remained, till he was ordered to Cluain-Ednech, in East Meath, where he laid the foundations of a famous monastery, to which many resorted from all parts of Ireland, to place themselves under his direction, (about a. d. 548.) The rules he gave his monks were very strict; they abstained from all kind of meat, butter, and milk; living only upon vegetables; they laboured like hermits in the fields, and tilled their ground with their own hands. This rigour appeared excessive to the other holy solitaries in those parts, and assembling together, they resolved to send a deputation to remonstrate with the saint for imposing a rule which it was impossible for flesh and blood to endure. The night before they were to come to him, with S. Cannech at their head, Fintan was admonished from heaven of their coming; and for further instructions how he was to proceed, was ordered to go out in the morning, and follow the directions of one whom God would send to meet him. The first person he met was one born dumb. Fintan blessed him, and bade him declare to him the will of God. Then the dumb man spake, "All these good things that thou thyself hast begun for God carry out unto the end; but beware of scandalizing others; for some vessels are weaker than are others." The saint observed this lesson, and when the deputation reached him, he was in a compliant mood, and ready to remit the rigour of his rule with regard to those under his direction; but with respect to himself, he persevered in his penitential exercises. Amongst the disciples of S. Fintan was the famous S. Comgal, who afterwards founded the monastery of Bangor, where S. Columbanus, and many other saints, received their education. When this holy abbot had served God in great perfection, from his very childhood to a venerable old age; after a long exercise of humility, charity, patience, meekness to others, and severity towards himself, he called his children about him, and recommending to them his successor, gave them his benediction, and arming himself with the Holy Sacrament, fell asleep in the Lord.

S. FINAN, B. OF LINDISFARNE(A.D. 661.)

[Anglican Martyrology. Colgan in his Acts of the Irish Saints notes him on the same day. Same day in the Aberdeen Breviary, but Dempster says he was commemorated in Scotland on Feb. 16th. Among the Irish, Jan. 9th was regarded as a day on which S. Finan was honoured. Authority: – Bede, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. c. 17, 21, 25, &c.]

England was Christianized from two quarters; Kent and all the south received the Gospel from Rome through the mission of S. Augustine; but the whole of the north-east of the island, called Northumbria, including the modern Northumberland, Durham, and Yorkshire, was Christianized from Iona, the great monastery of S. Columba.

The first four successors of Augustine at Canterbury were all chosen from the Italian monks who had accompanied him to England; but they all belonged to that first mission; whereas the See of Lindisfarne, as it became vacant, was filled from Iona. The Scottish monks, thus placed during thirty years at the head of the Church in the North of England, showed themselves worthy of the saintly school whence they issued, and of the glorious mission to which they were consecrated.

The first monk sent from Iona to replace the noble Aidan, (Oct. 22nd), was S. Finan. His episcopate was prosperous; it lasted ten years, and was not interrupted by any melancholy event, such as those which had troubled the life of Aidan, by taking from him his two royal friends. S. Finan always lived on good terms with king Oswy, and before going to join his predecessor in heaven, he had the happiness of introducing to the Church the heads of the two great Saxon kingdoms. Sigebert, king of the East Saxons, and Peada, king of the Midland English, came to seek baptism at the gates of Lindisfarne. This made way to the conversion of their respective provinces, which this holy prelate furnished with proper missioners; and after some time, he ordained the Scot, Diuma, bishop of the Midland English, and S. Cedd (January 7th), bishop of the East Saxons. In the island sanctuary of Lindisfarne, S. Finan caused a cathedral to be built, not of stone, like that which Paulinus and Edwin had commenced at York, but according to the Keltic custom, and like the churches built by Columba and his Irish monks, it was made entirely of wood, and covered with bent, that long rough sea-grass, whose pivot-like roots bind together the sands on the seashore, and which is still found in great abundance on the island, as well as on the sandy beach which has to be crossed before the traveller can reach Lindisfarne.

Vast as was his diocese, which embraced the two great Northumbrian kingdoms, and great as must have been his influence over the other Saxon provinces, S. Finan seems to have preserved and exercised an authority not less complete over the country of his origin, the kingdom of the Dalriadian Scots. The Scotch annalists all speak of a certain king Fergus, who, by his violence and exactions, had raised the indignation of the Scottish clergy, and called down upon himself a sentence of excommunication from the bishops of Lindisfarne, Finan and his successors. Bede, who is prejudiced against this holy prelate, because of his adhesion to the Keltic ritual, and resistance of the introduction of the Roman usages in vogue in the South of England, nevertheless admits his great virtues, his contempt of the world, love of poverty and disinterestedness, and great diligence in preaching the Word of Life.53

February 18

S. Simeon, BM. of Jerusalem, a. d. 107.

SS. Leo and Paregorius, MM. at Patara (commemorated by Greeks only).

SS. Maximus, Claudius, Præpedigna, Alexander, and Cutias, MM. at Rome, a. d. 295.

SS. Constantia, Augusta, Attica, and Artemia, VV. at Rome, 4th cent.

S. Flavian, BM. of Constantinople, a. d. 449.

S. Helladius, B. of Toledo, a. d. 632.

S. Angilbert, Ab. of S. Riquier, in France, a. d. 814.

S. Theotontius, Prior of S. Cruz, at Coimbra, a. d. 1166.

S. SIMEON, B. OF JERUSALEM(A.D. 107.)

[Roman, and all ancient Martyrologies, but commemorated by the Greeks on April 27th. Authorities: – Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., lib. iii., c. 10, 32; Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius.]

AFTER the martyrdom of S. James, and the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, the surviving apostles and disciples of our Lord are reported to have assembled at Jerusalem to consult who should be appointed bishop in the room of S. James. They unanimously declared Simeon, the son of Cleopas, as deserving to succeed to that important office. He is said to have been cousin-german to our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleopas was the brother of Joseph. Hegesippus gives the following account of his martyrdom: – "There are those that take the lead of the whole Church as martyrs, even the kindred of our Lord. Profound peace had lasted for the Church till the days of Trajan, when Simeon, the relative of our Lord, being the son of Cleopas, was waylaid by the heretics, and was accused to the Consul Atticus. After he had been tormented many days, he died a martyr, with such firmness that all wondered, even the president himself, that a man of one hundred and twenty years of age should endure such tortures. At last he was ordered to be crucified."

In art, S. Simeon appears with a cross, and as a very aged man. Some of his relics are preserved in the church of S. James the Great, at Bologna; his head in the Jesuit church at Brussels; other portions of the body at Lisborne, near Lipstadt, in Westphalia.

SS. CLAUDIUS, MAXIMUS, AND COMP., MM(A.D. 295.)

[Almost all Martyrologies. Authority: – The very ancient, but fabulous Acts of S. Susanna, VM. See Aug. 11th.]

Claudius and Maximus were brothers of Pope S. Caius, and S. Gabinius, priest in Rome. Maximus was count of the privy purse to Diocletian, and Claudius also held a post of distinction about the person of the emperor. Their family was one of the most noble in Rome, and when Galerius Maximianus, the Cæsar, had lost his wife, Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, the emperor resolved on finding for his son-in-law another wife, of good repute and honourable birth. Hearing of the beauty and modesty of Susanna, daughter of Gabinius, he sent Claudius to the father, to ask the hand of Susanna for the young Cæsar. But Susanna had resolved to love and devote herself to none, save Jesus Christ. When she was brought into the room by her father to hear the flattering announcement, her uncle Claudius would have kissed her, but she gently withdrew her face, saying, "Pardon me, my uncle, but no man has ever kissed me." Then she declared that she was resolved to continue in celibacy, loving none save Jesus. Claudius was surprised and alarmed, for the request of an emperor is the same as a command. He had already received some Christian teaching from his brothers, the bishop and the priest, and now was fully convinced of the power of that religion which could make a young girl reject a princely lover and the prospect of a throne, with every prospect of death as an alternative. He consulted with his brother Maximus, and with his wife Præpedigna, and they, together with his sons, Alexander and Cutias, forseeing an explosion of imperial rage, which would sweep them all away, hastened to receive the sacrament of regeneration, and then Claudius and Maximus calmly informed the emperor that the maiden preferred a heavenly to an earthly crown. Diocletian was furious, and gave over Maximus, Claudius, and the whole family to be disposed of by one Julian, a heathen favourite, and apparently personally hostile to Maximus and Claudius. He hurried these brothers, with the wife and sons of Claudius, to Cumæ, where they were burnt alive, and their ashes cast into the river. Gabinius and his daughter Susanna were reserved in prison to suffer later.

SS. CONSTANTIA, AND HER COMPANIONS, VV(4TH CENT.)

[In some authors on Jan. 28th; in others, on Feb. 17th; in others, on Feb, 25th; also on Feb. 18th. Authority: – The Acts of S. Agnes, attributed to S. Ambrose, but of questionable authenticity; and the apocryphal Acts of SS. John and Paul.]

S. Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great, was afflicted with a distressing disease, apparently scrofula. The Roman general, Gallicanus, being much in favour with Contantine, and having lost his wife, was offered Constantia in marriage by the emperor. Gallicanus was called off to oppose an inroad of the barbarians on Thrace, and he vowed, if he obtained the victory, to accept the faith of Christ. He succeeded in repulsing the enemy, and returned to Rome to find that Constantia had been healed of her scrofula at the tomb of S. Agnes, and that she had persuaded his three daughters, Augusta, Attica, and Artemia, to live with her, as consecrated virgins, near the shrine of the virgin martyr, to whose intercession she attributed her cure. It is difficult to decide what shadow of historical foundation there is for this story.

S. FLAVIAN OF CONSTANTINOPLE, B. M(A.D. 449.)

[Roman Martyrology; but by the Greeks on Feb. 16th. Authorities: – Nicephorus Callistus, Evagrius, and the letters of S. Leo the Great to Flavian.54]

It is not easy to understand the position of any great man of the eventful 4th and 5th centuries, without a general knowledge of the struggles of the Church against one heresy after another for the maintenance of the true doctrine, as to the natures and person of Christ Jesus, and this it is almost impossible to compress into a single article on the life of one actor in that eventful period. S. Proclus, author of the famous "Tome," as it was called, or doctrinal statement on the Incarnation, was patriarch of Constantinople. S. Leo, pious, earnest, Roman-spirited, was bishop of Rome. Domnus was patriarch of Antioch. The great S. Cyril of Alexandria was dead, and had left a large bequest to his successor, conjuring him, "by the venerable and awful mysteries," to befriend his kindred. The archdeacon Dioscorus was elected in his place, and forthwith extorted from the family of Cyril considerable sums, and imprisoned and otherwise outraged the nephews of the deceased patriarch. The new patriarch had previously borne a fair character, but his exaltation revealed a spirit at once tyrannous and sensual. His life became openly scandalous. He deposed from their functions those whom Cyril had favoured; he burnt the house, felled the trees, and hacked up the land of one deacon against whom he bore a grudge.

S. Proclus of Constantinople died on October 24th, 447, and Flavian, the treasurer of the church, was elected to succeed him. He immediately became obnoxious to the eunuch Chrysaphius, by refusing him the fee which the creatures of the court attempted to impose on the patriarchs on their appointment. Theodosius, the younger, was then emperor; his sister, Pulcheria, was at the head of the orthodox party in the Church, and the royal chamberlain, Chrysaphius, godson of Eutyches, supported the heretical party out of motives of hostility to the rival power of Pulcheria, and affection for his godfather. Dioscorus of Alexandria took the same side as Chrysaphius, and these men used their influence to expel from their dioceses bishops who did not satisfy them. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, the famous ecclesiastical historian, was anathematized by the haughty patriarch, Dioscorus, in his cathedral at Alexandria; and Theodoret wrote to Flavian of Constantinople, complaining of the outrage. Domnus of Antioch took part with Theodoret, and sent envoys to Constantinople in his favour, whom Theodoret charged with letters, in which he protested his orthodoxy, declaring that he believed in one Christ, truly God, and truly man. "I give Him one worship," he wrote, "yet I know that the Godhead and the flesh are distinct, for the union is without confusion." But now began the great Eutychian struggle. Eutyches, abbot of the principal monastery of Constantinople, denied that Christ, at His incarnation, was "perfect God and perfect man – one, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person." On November 8th, 448, a council of bishops assembled in the synod-room of Flavian's palace, at Constantinople. One of these bishops was Eusebius of Dorylæum, who begged the council to summon Eutyches, asserting that he would convict him of heresy. Flavian observed that an accusation against one so respected was simply astonishing. Could not Eusebius visit Eutyches before invoking the judgment of the council? Eusebius, who was greatly excited, declared that Eutyches had once been his friend; he had repeatedly warned him to desist from heterodox language, he could not, after these vain remonstrances, "go and hear him once again blaspheme." It was, therefore, agreed that Eutyches should be summoned; the council adjourned to the 12th, and the patriarch Flavian, having made profession of his faith in Christ as perfect God and perfect man, of one substance with the Father as to his Godhead, and with Mary as to his manhood, called on the other bishops to declare the true faith on this great doctrine. When they had done so, the council was adjourned till Nov. 15th, when the messengers who had been sent to Eutyches reported that he would not leave the monastery; that he regarded Eusebius of Dorylæum as his personal enemy; and that, as to his faith, he denied that Christ's flesh was of one substance with ours, and that, after the incarnation, there was more than one nature in Him. He also sent a brother abbot to inform the council that he was ill. Flavian answered, kindly, "We have no idea of pressing hardly upon him. We are old friends of his; we will wait till he is better, and then let him come and confess that he has erred." He added, after the sitting was broken up, that "fire itself seemed cold to Eusebius," whose vehemence he had endeavoured to calm down. A third summons was followed, on Nov. 27th, by the personal attendance of Eutyches. His great influence and position was shown by the officers, soldiers, and monks who escorted him, and by an imperial order that the patrician Florentius should have a seat in the synod to see that justice was shown to the accused. The patriarch Flavian asked if Eutyches confessed an union out of two natures. He replied that he did. "My lord abbot," asked Eusebius, "do you confess two natures after the incarnation?" Eutyches attempted to fence with the question, but, when brought to the point, he denied the existence of two natures in the one Christ. Then, all the bishops rose, and Flavian, in the name of the synod, passed sentence of deposition and excommunication against Eutyches. After the council was broken up, Eutyches said, in a low voice, to Florentius, "I appeal to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem." He at once wrote to S. Leo of Rome. Flavian also wrote, and sent a record of what had passed. On Feb. 18th, before Flavian's letter, which was unaccountably delayed, had reached Rome, Leo wrote to Flavian, marvelling at his silence, and requesting him to explain the grounds on which Eutyches had been thus severely punished. Dioscorus of Alexandria was forward in espousing the quarrel of Eutyches. He at once admitted him into his communion, and worked, in conjunction with the chamberlain Chrysaphius, in support of his petition for a general council. Flavian now replied to Pope Leo's letter; he entreated Leo to give a written approval of the sentence against Eutyches, and thereby to preserve Christendom from any fresh disturbance. Before S. Leo could receive this letter, the Emperor Theodosius wrote on March 30th to Dioscorus, announcing his will that a general council should meet at Ephesus, on August 1st. S. Leo sent three legates to attend this council: Julius, bishop of Puteoli; Renatus, a priest; and Hilarus, a deacon. On the 13th of June, he wrote several letters, one of them was his famous "Tome," a doctrinal epistle addressed to S. Flavian, a clear, forcible, intelligible text-book on both aspects of the incarnation-mystery. On the 8th of August, 449, the council met in the church of S. Mary at Ephesus. About a hundred and thirty bishops were present. Dioscorus of Alexandria presided. Next to him sat the papal legate, Julius. It was evident from the first that this council was not free. The eunuch Chrysaphius was at hand to support his godfather Eutyches; veteran troops of Asia, a band of archers, were collected to obey the summons of Dioscorus. After the writ of convocation had been read in due form, Hilarus explained the reason of Leo's absence, and announced that Leo had sent a letter. "Let it be received." The letter was handed in, but, by a pre-concerted scheme, it was put aside unread, as Dioscorus dreaded its effects on the assembled fathers, in its place being read a letter of the emperor to Dioscorus. Eutyches was then introduced. The records of his trial were read, and Dioscorus still kept back the letter of Leo of Rome, promising to read it afterwards. During the reading of the trial a scene of tumult took place. One bishop exclaimed, when he heard that Christ was of two natures, "This language turns the Church upside down!" Another cried, "Let him who says that in Christ are two natures be cut in twain." "Will you endure," asked Dioscorus, "to hear of two natures after the incarnation?" His followers, among the bishops, responded, "Anathema." "I want your voices, and your hands too," said Dioscorus, "if anyone cannot shout, let him hold up his hand." In the uproar, one bishop after another yielded, and re-habilitated Eutyches. Hilarus again vainly attempted to procure a hearing of Leo's letter. Dioscorus, not content with having restored Eutyches, determined on having Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylæum deposed and excommunicated. The scene now became really terrific. The bishops who had acquitted Eutyches against their conscience, struggled hard to escape this new degradation. Several started up, and clasped the knees of the president, Dioscorus. Onesiphorus of Iconium cried, imploringly, "By the feet of your piety, I pray you forbear; Flavian has done nothing worthy of condemnation. If he deserves rebuke, rebuke him; but do not condemn a bishop for the sake of a priest." Dioscorus rose from his throne, and, standing upon the footstool, made a signal with his hand, and exclaimed, "Look you, he that will not sign the sentence has to deal with me. If my tongue were to be cut out for it, I would say, 'Depose Flavian.' Are you making a sedition? Where are the counts?" At the signal, which had been pre-concerted, a body of soldiers, with clubs and swords, rushed in; monks followed; the trembling bishops hid themselves behind the altar, or under the benches, and as they were not inspired with a zeal of martyrdom, they successively subscribed a blank paper, which was afterwards filled with the condemnation of the patriarch of Constantinople. Flavian was instantly delivered to the wild beasts of this spiritual amphitheatre, the monks and soldiers, and the bishops even, most hostile to him, fell on him. Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, buffeted and kicked, – like a wild ass, says Zonaras, – and trampled his brother of Constantinople. Some of the bishops were locked up in the vestry of the church, and not allowed to leave till they signed the sentence. Hilarus escaped without compromising his fidelity. Nothing is known of the conduct of Julius. Renatus was not there; he had died on his way. Flavian was ordered into exile, but was so bruised by the treatment he had received in the church at Ephesus, that he died three days after, August 11th, in a village of Lydia.