CHAPTER XXXIII
SEVERUS BISHOP OF ANTIOCH
FLAVIAN having been thus ejected, Severus ascends the episcopal throne of Antioch, in the five hundred and sixty-first year of the era of that city, in the month Dius, the sixth year of the Indiction; the year in which I am now writing being the six hundred and forty-first of that era. He was a native of Sozopolis, a city of Pisidia, and had applied himself to the profession of a pleader at Berytus; but immediately on his abandoning the practice of the law, having participated in holy baptism in the sacred precinct of the divine martyr Leontius, who is revered at Tripolis, a city of Phœnicia Maritima, he assumed the monastic life in a certain monastery situated between the city of Gaza and the town called Majumas; in which latter place Peter the Iberian, who had been bishop of the same Gaza, and had been banished with Timotheus Ælurus, passed through the same discipline, and left behind him a famous memory. Severus there engages in a discussion with Nephalius, who had formerly sided with him on the question of the single nature, but had subsequently been one of the synod at Chalcedon and among those who held the opinion of two natures in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ; and he is, in consequence, expelled from his own monastery by Nephalius and his party, together with many others who held similar doctrines. Thence he proceeds to the imperial city, to plead the cause of himself and those who had been expelled with him, and thus obtains the notice of the emperor Anastasius, as is narrated by the author of the life of Severus.
Accordingly, Severus, in issuing synodical letters, expressly anathematised the synod at Chalcedon; on which point the letters addressed to Alcison speak as follows. “The synodical letters of Timotheus of Constantinople were admitted here in Palestine, but the deposition of Macedonius and Flavian was not admitted, nor yet the synodical letters of Severus; but the bearers were put to flight, with the ignominy and insult which they deserved, by the people and monks of the city, who rose upon them. Such was the situation of matters in Palestine. But of the bishops subject to Antioch, some were carried away into compliance, among whom was Marinus, bishop of Berytus; others by force and compulsion concurred in the synodical letters of Severus, which included an anathema, both on the synod and all others who affirmed two natures or persons in the Lord, namely, the flesh and the Godhead; and others, after having concurred by compulsion, recalled their assent, and among them the bishops subject to Apamea; others, again, altogether refused concurrence, among whom were Julian, bishop of Bostra, Epiphanius of Tyre, and some others, as is said. But the Isaurian bishops, having returned to their sober senses, are now condemning themselves for the error into which they had been beguiled, and are anathematising Severus and his party. Others of the bishops and clergy subject to Severus have abandoned their churches, and among them Julian of Bostra, and Peter of Damascus, who are now living in these parts, as also Mamas. This latter is one of those two who seemed to be the chiefs of the followers of Dioscorus, by whose means also Severus obtained his dignity: but he now condemns the arrogance of that party.” And presently the letter proceeds. “The monasteries in these parts and Jerusalem itself are, with the aid of God, unanimous respecting the right faith, and very many cities besides, together with their bishops, for all of whom, and for ourselves, pray thou that we may not enter into temptation, our most holy lord and honoured father.”