s over all clerics, regular and
secular alike, and punishing with deposition any conspiracy against
episcopal authority; (6) establishing a gradation of ecclesiastical
tribunals, viz. bishop, provincial synod, exarch of the diocese,
patriarch of Constantinople (obviously the council could not here have
been legislating for the entire church); forbidding clerics to be
running to Constantinople with complaints, without the consent of their
respective bishops; (7) confirming the possession of rural parishes to
those who had actually administered them for thirty years, providing for
the adjudication of conflicting claims, and guaranteeing the integrity
of metropolitan provinces; (8) confirming the third canon of the second
ecumenical council, which accorded to Constantinople equal privileges
([Greek: isa presbeia]) with Rome, and the second rank among the
patriarchates, and, in addition, granting to Constantinople patriarchal
jurisdiction over Pontus, Asia and Thrace.

The Roman legates, who were absent (designedly?) when this famous
twenty-eighth canon was adopted, protested against it, but in vain, the
imperial commissioners deciding in favour of its regularity and
validity. Leo I., although he recognized the council as ecumenical and
confirmed its doctrinal decrees, rejected canon xxviii. on the ground
that it contravened the sixth canon of Nicaea and infringed the rights
of Alexandria and Antioch. In what proportion zeal for the ancient
canons and the rights of others, and jealous fear of encroachment upon
his own jurisdiction, were mixed in the motives of Leo, it would be
interesting to know. The canon was universally received in the East,
and was expressly confirmed by the Quinisext Council, 692 (see
CONSTANTINOPLE, COUNCILS OF).

The emperor Marcian approved the doctrinal decrees of the council and
enjoined silence in regard to theological questions. Eutyches and
Dioscurus and their followers were deposed and banished. But harmony was
not thus to be restored; hardly had the council dissolved when the
church was plunged into the Monophysite controversy.

See Mansi vi. pp. 529-1102, vii. pp. 1-868; Hardouin ii. pp. 1-772;
Hefele (2nd ed.) ii. pp. 394-578 (English translation, iii. pp.
268-464); also extended bibliographies in Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopadie_, 3rd ed., s.v. "Eutyches" (by Loofs) and s.v.
"Nestorianer" (by Kessler). (T. F. C.)

CHALCEDONY, or CALCEDONY (sometimes called by old wri