BOOK III.

FROM THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I TO THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT.A.D. 395-590.

 

CHAPTER IV.

EUTYCHIANISM.—THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

ADVANCE OF THE ROMAN SEE.

 

When Dalmatius went to the palace of Constantinople for the purpose of representing the case of Cyril and the Ephesian council, one of the most remarkable persons among the multitude which accompanied him was Eutyches, abbot of a large monastery near the city. Like Dalmatius, he had at that time remained nearly fifty years within the walls of his retreat, and had resolved never to leave them; but he considered the peril of the faith a sufficient ground for breaking through his determination. Eutyches was generally revered for sanctity, and was highly regarded by Cyril on account of his zeal against Nestorianism : but he appears to have been a person of narrow understanding and of obstinate temper. He was himself soon to give name to a heresy which produced a longer controversy, more complicated dissensions, and a more disastrous schism than the errors which he so warmly opposed.

Notwithstanding the formal reconciliation which had been established, a difference of opinion, and mutual suspicions, continued to exist between the Egyptian and the Syrian schools. The Syrians considered the Egyptians to be tainted with Apollinarianism, and were in their turn regarded by them as Nestorians. The monks in general were violent against Nestorianism, which they were fond of imputing to their ecclesiastical superiors, and to all others who neglected to court their favour. Imperfectly understanding the system to which they professed to adhere, they exaggerated the Alexandrian forms of expression, and, under pretence of reverence for divine mysteries, made use of words which seemed to annihilate the Saviour’s humanity. They spoke of it as absorbed in his Godhead, like a drop of honey in the ocean”; some of them were grossly Apollinarian in their language. Theodoret, perceiving that this tendency, even if it did not introduce positive heresy, must throw back Theology into the undefined state from which the writers and the councils of more than two centuries had been labouring to deliver it, wrote in 447 a dialogue in three books, entitled Eranistes (The Man of Scraps)—so called because he considered the opinions which he combated to be no new invention, but, like a beggar’s coat, a patchwork of fragments collected from various quarters. The doctrines which he maintained in this work as to the unchangeableness, distinctness, and impassibility of the Redeemer’s Godhead were made by his enemies the foundation for charging him with holding two Sons; and Theodoret, with Ibas of Edessa, and Irenaeus of Tyre, was marked out by the monastic party for special vengeance.

Dioscorus, who in 444 succeeded Cyril as bishop of Alexandria, is said to have borne a high character before his elevation, but afterwards showed himself violent, tyrannical, rapacious, and scandalously immoral. He had with him the favour of the court, and especially that of Chrysaphius, the eunuch who held sway over the feeble Theodosius; and he kept up an extensive correspondence with those monks in Syria and elsewhere who were ill affected towards their bishops. Dioscorus took offence at Theodoret for having signed a synodical letter of Proclus,—an act which, according to the Alexandrian bishop, implied an acknowledgment of the precedence of Constantinople, or even of its jurisdiction over the Syrian patriarchate; he charged him with Nestorian heresy, and, although Theodoret disavowed and condemned the errors imputed to him, he uttered an anathema against him. The secular power was set in motion against the bishop of Cyrus; in 447 or 448 an imperial edict was issued, which accused him of exciting disturbances by holding frequent meetings, and ordered him to confine himself to his diocese. About the same time Ibas was harassed with accusations by the monastic party, but succeeded in making his peace. The Orientals attempted to vindicate their orthodoxy by sending a deputation to court, of which the result is not recorded.

A rumour arose that Eutyches, in the eagerness of his opposition to Nestorianism, had vented unsound opinions on the doctrine of the Incarnation. Domnus, bishop of Antioch, made a representation on the subject to Flavian of Constantinople, charging Eutyches with Apollinarianism and with confounding the Saviour’s natures; but as the Syrian accusers lay under a suspicion of Nestorianism, the charge met with little or no attention. In 448, however, at a meeting of the local synod of Constantinople, which was attended by about thirty bishops, Eusebius of Dorylaeum (the same who had been the first to oppose Nestorius) denounced Eutyches as a heretic, stating that he had in vain endeavoured by private conference to convince him of his errors, and desiring that an inquiry should be made into the abbot’s opinions.

Flavian, the successor of Proclus, knowing the powerful interests by which Eutyches was likely to be supported,1 and dreading a general disturbance of the church, endeavoured to dissuade Eusebius from proceeding, but was obliged reluctantly to grant the investigation. At the first summons Eutyches refused to appear before the council, alleging his resolution not to quit his monastery; but he was told that this was no reasonable excuse, and was reminded of the part which he had taken in the Nestorian controversy. After repeated citations he made his appearance, attended by a large body of monks, and soldiers, whose protection he professed to think necessary for his safety, and accompanied by the patrician Florentius, who, by a remarkable innovation, was commissioned to assist at the trial on the ground that it was a question of faith, whereas in all previous controversies the imperial commissioners had been restricted to the regulation of external matters. On being questioned, Eutyches professed that he held the Nicene faith, and cited a prohibition which the council of Ephesus had uttered against the imposition of any other formulary. He said that there were two natures in Christ before his incarnation; he admitted, although with hesitation, the phrase that Christ is “consubstantial with us according to his flesh”, as well as with the Father according to his Godhead. But his answers were equivocal and unsatisfactory. He stated that he held only “one incarnate nature of God the Word”—a phrase for which he referred to the authority of Athanasius and of Cyril. He professed an unwillingness to define, a reverence for Scripture, and a wish not to go beyond it; and he refused to anathematize the errors of which he was suspected, although he professed himself willing to accept in part the language opposed to them. The synod found his statements insufficient, and pronounced him guilty of renewing the errors of Valentinus and Apollinarius; he was sentenced to deprivation of his abbacy and to deposition from the priesthood; and he and all who should adhere to him were declared excommunicate. It would seem that there was some confusion in the proceedings of this council. Eutyches afterwards complained of it as unfair, and asserted that he had appealed from it to the judgment of Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; but his appeal was not made in the form or at the time which were necessary to give it technical validity.

Eutyches busied himself in writing to bishops and others in all directions. By way of accounting for his refusal to acknowledge the two natures, he alleged that he was apprehensive of contravening the council of Ephesus by exceeding the definitions of the Nicene creed. He loudly complained of injustice, and urged that a general council should be summoned. His monks adhered to him in defiance of the sentence, and were put under a sort of interdict by Flavian for their contumacy; while Dioscorus, contrary to all canonical order, admitted Eutyches to communion, and acknowledged him both as a priest and as an abbot. But the condemnation which had been pronounced was received with general approval. Leo, bishop of Rome, a man of great ability and energy, who was bent on asserting all the real or imaginable privileges of his see, on receiving representations of the case from Theodosius and Eutyches, wrote to Flavian, professing surprise that he had not before reported it; but on receiving the patriarch explanation and the acts of the late synod, he expressed his satisfaction with the decision. Theodosius attempted to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Eutyches, but his endeavours were ineffectual. The patriarch, in answer to a question as to his own faith, admitted the expression, “one nature of the incarnate Word”, on the ground that the person of Christ is one, and he anathematized Nestorius; but he would not allow the sufficiency of the Nicene creed to shelter Eutyches in the opinions which had been condemned. The opponents of Eutyches deprecated the assembling of a general council, as being unnecessary in so clear a case, and as likely to throw the whole church into confusion. The dominant eunuch Chrysaphius, however, favoured the proposal, and citations were issued, by which the chief bishop of each eastern diocese was required to take with him ten metropolitans and ten other bishops. The council was packed with gross unfairness. An imperial letter, after mentioning in a tone of disapproval the proceedings of Flavian against Eutyches, declared that the assembly had been summoned in order to root out the remains of Nestorianism—as if the later heresy were not in question. The bishops who had taken part in the judgment on Eutyches, and the Orientals who had been suspected of Nestorianism, were not to be allowed any voice; while Barsumas, a Syrian abbot, was to have a seat and the privileges of a bishop, as representing the malcontent monastic party. Theodoret was expressly forbidden to attend the council, unless his presence should be unanimously desired by its members. Two lay officers, the counts Elpidius and Eulogius, were commissioned to keep order, and to imprison any persons who might be refractory.

The council met in the same church at Ephesus in Aug. 8, which the third general council had sat eighteen years before. A hundred and twenty-six bishops were present at the opening. Dioscorus had with him a large train of monks and parabolani, and Barsumas appeared at the head of a thousand rabid monks, prepared to coerce the assembly by their violence. Leo, after having in vain endeavoured that it might be held in Italy, had excused himself from appearing, on the ground that the Roman bishops were not accustomed to attend councils beyond the seas, and also on account of the political troubles of his country. He deputed three legates as his representatives, and sent by them a document which, under the name of his Tome, or Letter to Flavian, became very famous in the controversy. In this the entireness and yet the distinctness of the two natures united in the Saviour were defined with an ability, a command of Scripture proof, and a copiousness of illustration for which it has been thought necessary to account by fables as to the circumstances in which Leo composed the letter, and by ascribing the final revision of it to the apostle St. Peter.

Dioscorus assumed the presidency of the council, in virtue of an imperial rescript. Next to him was placed the Roman legate, Julius; after whom were the bishops of Jerusalem and of Antioch, the regular order of their precedence being reversed; while Flavian was degraded from the position assigned to his see by the second general council, to the fifth place in the assembly. The proceedings were violent and disorderly from the beginning. Dioscorus turned out all reporters but those of his own party band, although Leo’s letter was received by the council, he contrived to prevent the reading of it. Eutyches presented a petition, giving his account of the previous transactions, and praying, not for his own restoration—for that he supposed to be secured by the Alexandrian acknowledgment of him—but for the punishment of his enemies. Flavian requested that the accuser, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, should be heard, but was rebuked by the commissioner Elpidius for interfering, and was told that the opponents of Eutyches had already had their opportunity of speaking at Constantinople. The acts of the Constantinopolitan synod were read, and whenever any one of its members was reported to have spoken of two natures, there were loud outcries from the monks and the multitude— “Nestorian! Tear him asunder! Burn him alive! As he divides, so let him be divided!”. It was agreed that Eutyches should be acknowledged as orthodox, together with his monks, who in insolent language demanded that Flavian should be punished as he had punished them. The prohibition which the council of Ephesus had passed against adding to the Nicene faith was often appealed to; but with an evident perversion of its meaning, since it had not in reality been intended to exclude any explanation of articles in which the creed might be misrepresented. An anathema against Nestorius was proposed. Dioscorus desired that all who could not make their shouts heard should stretch out their hands in token of assent; and the anathema was pronounced amid cries of “Drive out, burn, tear, cut asunder, massacre—all who hold two natures”. Some of the bishops who had sat in the council of Constantinople quailed before the storm, and retracted the words which they had formerly used.

Dioscorus then demanded whether those who contravened the canons of the council of Ephesus and the Nicene creed did not deserve punishment, and, having received from the bishops an answer of assent, he produced a sentence against Flavian and Eusebius. Flavian protested against being judged by him, and gave into the hands of the Roman legates an appeal to Rome and the west. A number of bishops gathered round Dioscorus, and on their knees implored him to proceed no further; but disregarding their entreaties he exclaimed “Call in the counts!” and the proconsul of Asia entered, attended by soldiers and monks, with swords, clubs, and chains. The bishops in terror attempted to hide themselves in corners of the church or under benches; but they were dragged out, and with threats, abusive language, and blows were compelled to sign the condemnation of Flavian,—or rather a blank sheet, on which the sentence was afterwards to be copied. It is said that Dioscorus and Barsumas struck Flavian on the face, kicked him, and stamped on him; and, although the report of these savage acts may be an exaggeration, it seems to be certain that, in consequence of the treatment which he received in the council, the patriarch of Constantinople died within a few days, on his way to a place of banishment. Eusebius of Dorylaeum was deposed and imprisoned, but found means of escaping to Rome. Theodoret and Ibas, although confined to their own dioceses, were cited, and in their absence were condemned as heretics. Domnus, bishop of Antioch, who had weakly consented to the earlier acts of the council, was at last deposed on the charge of approving a Nestorian sermon, which was said (probably without truth) to have been preached in his presence by Theodoret. He retired into a monastery, and made no attempt to recover his see. One of the Roman legates had died on his way to the council. Of the survivors, it seems probable that the elder, Julius, bishop of Puteoli, was overpowered, and consented to the proceedings of Dioscorus, but the younger, Hilary, then a deacon, and afterwards Leo’s successor, met them with a spirited and resolute opposition, which so provoked the Eutychian party that he was obliged to abscond from Ephesus, and to travel by unfrequented ways to Rome.

Theodosius, by edicts which bore the name of the western emperor as well as his own, confirmed the decisions of the council, taxing the deposed bishops with Nestorianism, and ordering that their writings should be burnt, and that no one should give shelter to them or to their followers. In the face of these edicts, Leo with a Roman synod declared the proceedings at Ephesus invalid. The assembly, he said, was not a council, but a meeting of robbers—a name which was generally adopted and has continued to be used in designating it; and he applied, although in vain, to Theodosius for a fresh council, to be held in Italy. Early in the following year, a visit which Valentinian, with his wife and mother, paid to Rome—probably at the festival of St. Peter's Chair—afforded the pope another opportunity of urging his cause. As the imperial party entered the church of the apostle, Leo appeared at the head of a large company of bishops, and, prostrating himself on the floor, represented with tears the miserable distractions of the oriental church, where Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine were arrayed against Syria, Pontus, and Asia; he implored Valentinian and the princesses to intercede with the eastern emperor that the sentences against Flavian and others might be annulled, and that a new general council might be assembled in Italy. To this prayer they assented, and they fulfilled their promise by writing to Theodosius and Pulcheria. But Theodosius was persuaded to reply that he had not innovated on the faith; that the proceedings of the late synod had been fair; that it had produced excellent effects; and that the east was now united in the profession of the true doctrine.

The sudden death of Theodosius, which took place a few months later, was followed by important changes in ecclesiastical matters. Pulcheria had always been opposed to the Eutychian party, and had kept up a correspondence with Leo. The minister Chrysaphius was put to death. Marcian united with his empress in the wish to favour orthodoxy, and expressed his willingness to summon a general council. Leo desired that the assembly might be held in Italy, and that it might not discuss matters of faith—since these had been already sufficiently settled—but might limit itself to a consideration of the questions as to the bishops who had been condemned. In this the pope evidently aimed at the advancement of the Roman authority by obtaining an acknowledgment of his letter to Flavian as the standard of orthodoxy on the Incarnation. But Marcian also had an object in appointing a place of meeting within his own dominions; and to this determination he steadily adhered.

Anatolius, an Alexandrian, had been consecrated by Dioscorus for Constantinople, and requested the communion of Rome. As the see had become vacant by the death of Flavian, there was no irregularity in the appointment of his successor; Leo, therefore, expressed a willingness to acknowledge the new patriarch, if he would give a satisfactory statement of his faith, and would anathematize all who taught amiss on the subject of the Incarnation. The application of Anatolius was recommended by a letter from Marcian; and on signing the epistle to Flavian, he was admitted by Leo to communion.

The enemies of Theodoret had succeeded by means of bribery in procuring an imperial edict which ordered that his books should be burnt, and that no one should read them or give him shelter. He remained in retirement in a monastery at Apamea, from which he wrote to Leo, asking whether he ought to submit to the judgment of the Ephesian council, and begging for an acknowledgment of his orthodoxy, in proof of which he appealed to his numerous writings and to his labours for the faith. His case was examined by a council at Rome, and Leo granted him communion. In the beginning of 451, Marcian allowed the banished bishops to return from their exile; but he reserved the question of their restoration to their sees for the consideration of the general council, which was appointed to meet at Nicaea on the 1st of September.

Although Leo had been unable to contrive that the council should assemble in Italy, or to limit the subject of its discussions, he resolved to turn it to the best advantage. He had already sent a bishop and a presbyter into the east, on account of the negotiations with Anatolius and other bishops who desired his communion; and to these envoys he now added another of each order.

His instructions to the legates were in a very lofty style : they were to assume the presidency of the council; nothing was to be transacted except in their presence; they were not to admit Dioscorus to appear as a judge, but only as an accused person. These orders the legates endeavoured to carry out; but, although much was allowed to them, they were not permitted to exercise that uncontrolled supremacy which their master intended. The opening of the council was delayed for some weeks, and the place of meeting was altered to Chalcedon, in order that it might be held under the eye of the emperor, who had promised to be present if it were in his power, but was prevented by public business from leaving Constantinople. The number of bishops is traditionally stated at six hundred and thirty; the council itself reckons five hundred and twenty. All were from the east, with the exception of Leo’s envoys, and of two African bishops, who, however, do not appear to have been commissioned as representatives of their brethren. The Roman legates and Anatolius of Constantinople sat as presidents of the clergy; but the real direction of the council was in the hands of the emperor’s commissioners—nineteen civil officers, who had filled the highest dignities in the state.

The first session was held on the 8th of October, in the church of St. Euphemia, a martyr under Diocletian, which was built on a gentle eminence without the walls of Chalcedon. Evagrius describes with enthusiasm the beauties of the situation and prospect, and adds curious statements as to miracles customarily performed at the church by the blood and other relics of the patroness.

As soon as the members of the council had taken their places, the Roman legates rose, and, speaking in Latin, demanded that Dioscorus should not be allowed to sit as a judge; otherwise, they said, their instructions would oblige them to withdraw. The commissioners told them that, if they were to be judges, they must not make themselves parties; but, after some discussion, Dioscorus was desired to take a seat in the midst of the assembly, as a person under accusation. Eusebius of Dorylaeum then brought forward a petition charging Dioscorus with wrongs against himself, against the late bishop of Constantinople, and against the catholic faith—a document which had been presented to the emperor, and by him had been referred to the council. By desire of both Eusebius and Dioscorus, the acts of the Latrocinium (which included those of the Constantinopolitan synod against Eutyches) were produced, and the reading of them was begun. On the occurrence of Theodoret’s name in the acts, the commissioners ordered that he should be called in. Immediately a terrible uproar arose. The Egyptian party protested that to admit him, “the master of Nestorius” would be against the faith and the canons—that it would be a betrayal of Christ, and a driving out of St. Cyril. “Away with the Jew!”, they shouted, “Away with the blasphemer, the Nestorian!”, while their opponents, with equal zeal, exclaimed that Dioscorus should rather be ejected with his train of Manicheans and murderers; so that the commissioners felt it necessary to remind the bishops of the decency due to their own character. Theodoret was at length allowed to take his seat—not, however, as a judge but as a plaintiff; and the reading of the Ephesian acts was resumed. While it was proceeding, Juvenal of Jerusalem, with the bishops of Palestine, left the position which they had taken up near the Egyptians, and removed to the opposite side of the church. Other bishops, who at Ephesus had acted with Dioscorus, followed, and were hailed by the Orientals with shouts of “Welcome, orthodox!”. Even four of the Alexandrian primate’s suffragans were among the deserters, and at last he was left with only thirteen Egyptian bishops to support him. But Dioscorus continued to bear himself with unabated pride and with undaunted resolution. He demanded that his case should not be separated from that of the others who had shared in his proceedings; he often, with bitter sarcasm, denounced the tergiversation of his former allies; he criticized the evidence with watchful acuteness; he told the members of the council that, in condemning him, they would condemn Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzum, Cyril, and all the orthodox fathers. He said that he acknowledged Christ to be “of two natures”, but, on being pressed, he declined to use the form “in two natures”, thus refusing to own that the distinction of natures had subsisted after the incarnation. He protested that he cared for nothing but God and his own soul.

Throughout the day there were continual outbursts of tumult, as passages occurred in the acts which excited the feelings of the hostile parties. Mutual anathemas were shouted forth against the asserters and the deniers of the two natures; the description of the scene might recall to our minds the tempests of modern republican assemblies rather than the ideal which we might have naturally formed of the church’s greatest general council.

It was late before the reading of the first day’s proceedings at Ephesus was finished. The commissioners then said it was enough for one day to have cleared the memory of Flavian and Eusebius; that the emperor was resolved to adhere to the faith of Nicaea and Constantinople; that if he agreed in their view of the matter, the leaders in the proceedings at Ephesus ought to be deposed; but they left the decision to the consideration of the bishops.

Dioscorus was committed to a guard, probably from an apprehension that he might secretly leave Chalcedon. At the third session of the council he was cited, but refused to appear, on the plea that he was under restraint; and when informed that he was at liberty to attend the council, he renewed his refusal on other grounds—especially that the imperial commissioners were not then present in the assembly. Additional charges were preferred against him—chiefly affecting his administration of his office, and his private morals, which were so notoriously bad as even to afford themes for the ballad-singers of Alexandria; and, after he had been thrice summoned without appearing, the legates pronounced their sentence,—that, because of the misdemeanours proved against him (among which they included some which do not appear to have been mentioned in the previous proceedings)—for his behaviour at Ephesus, for having dared to excommunicate “the most holy and most blessed archbishop of the great Rome, Leo”, and for having disregarded the citations of the council, they, in the name of the Roman bishop and of St. Peter, with the council, declared him to be deprived of all sacerdotal office and dignity. Anatolius and other bishops gave their judgment in succession, and the condemnation was signed by about three hundred members of the council. Some of these specified particular charges as the grounds of their assent; many rested it on the contempt with which Dioscorus had treated the citation (and this was the main reason assigned in the notification of the sentence to himself); but the majority were content with professing to be guided by the opinion of the council, and very few made any reference to imputations on the faith of the accused. The condemnation was ratified by the emperor, and Dioscorus was banished to Gangra, in Paphlagonia, where he died in 454.

Leo had sent to the council a copy of his letter to Flavian, and it had also been recommended to the attention of the members by Marcian; but, while the pope wished it to be received without question, as a standard of doctrine on the Incarnation, the emperor regarded it as a document subject to examination and discussion, and was resolved that the faith should be settled by the authority of the council, not by the bishop of Rome. His commissioners, therefore, proposed at the second session that a definition as to the faith should be set forth. Cecropius of Sebastople and others demurred; the faith, they said, had already been secured by the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, and by the letter to Flavian. These documents, and Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, were then generally signed; but the imperial commissioners, resolved on carrying out their instructions, desired the bishops to adjourn for five days, and in the meantime to confer on the subject of a decree as to faith.

At the fourth session (the deposition of Dioscorus having taken place at the third) the commissioners again urged the proposal. The Roman legates repeated the objection which had been already made—that the letter to Flavian and the creeds were sufficient. The members of the council were then individually asked whether the letter were agreeable to the earlier documents, and replied that it was so. The thirteen Egyptian bishops who had adhered to Dioscorus entreated that they might not be required to subscribe the letter while the see of Alexandria was vacant; such, they said, was their subjection to their patriarch, that, if they should take it upon themselves to sign, their lives would not be safe on their return to Egypt. This prayer was seconded by the intercession of the commissioners, and, after a warm discussion, the Egyptians were allowed to remain at Constantinople until a new patriarch should be appointed to Alexandria. At this meeting the bishops unanimously requested that Juvenal of Jerusalem and the other metropolitans who had shared in the proceedings of the Latrocinium should be pardoned, on the ground that they had acted under constraint. The request was referred to the emperor, and, with his assent, the desired forgiveness was granted.

At the fifth session, a decree as to faith was produced, and was received with various expressions of feeling. But in the most critical point, instead of stating that Christ is “in two natures”, it used the expression “of two natures”. As Dioscorus had deposed Flavian for the doctrine conveyed in the former phrase, and had himself declared his willingness to agree to the other, the definition (which had probably been framed in accordance with the emperor's wish to conciliate the Egyptian and monastic party) was obviously insufficient. The legates said that, unless the words were brought into agreement with Leo’s letter, they would return to Rome, and refer the matter to a western council. On this there were loud outcries against Nestorianism. The great body of the bishops exclaimed that the decree was dictated by the Holy Spirit, and must not be altered. In answer to a remark by a commissioner, that Dioscorus had deposed Flavian for using the words “in two natures”, Anatolius observed that Dioscorus had not been deposed for heresy, but for his excommunication of Leo and for his disobedience to the council’s citations. The emperor was consulted as to the course which should be taken, and suggested that a committee of bishops should confer with Anatolius and the Roman legates. The general feeling of the assembly was still against any further discussion; there were exclamations that those who did not like the definition might “go off to Rome”; but on being reminded by the commissioners that Dioscorus had consented to the words “of two natures”, and asked whether they preferred Dioscorus or Leo, the bishops agreed to reconsider the matter. Thus the decree was at length brought into its present form. It confirms the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, and the decisions of the general council of Ephesus; it adopts Leo’s letter to Flavian as a bul­wark alike against Nestorianism and the opposite error; and while recognizing the sufficiency of the existing creeds, it defines, in opposition to the recent heresies, that Christ is “perfect alike in Godhead and in manhood; very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh; co-essential with the Father as to his God­head, and co-essential with us as to his manhood; like to us in all things except sin one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, change, division, or separation; the difference of the natures being in nowise taken away by reason of their union, but rather the properties of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one person and one hypostasis, not as it were divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word”.

At the next (which was the sixth) session, Marcian and the empress appeared, and were received by the bishops with loud acclamations, mixed with anathemas against Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus. The emperor made a speech, declaring his sanction of the decree of faith, and the document was generally subscribed.

Theodoret signed the decree as bishop of Cyrus, but had not yet been restored to his see. Although the Roman approval of his orthodoxy had been mentioned in the council, the fathers in the eighth session proceeded to an independent examination of his case. On appearing, he was received with violent outcries from many of the bishops, and was called on to anathematize Nestorius. He attempted to state his faith, declaring that the recovery of his bishopric was nothing to him in comparison of his reputation for orthodoxy. But the bishops would not listen to any explanation; and at length, after many vain attempts to overcome their clamour, he pronounced an anathema on Nestorius, with all who refuse the word Theotokos, or divide the two natures; whereupon he was acknowledged as orthodox and worthy of his see. Ibas was also, not without some difficulty, restored to the bishopric of Edessa. It might have been supposed that Theodoret intended his anathema against the errors which were popularly imputed to Nestorius, without implying that the imputation was just; but, if the notice of Nestorius in one of his latest works be genuine, it would appear that he had changed his opinion as to the heresiarch himself.

The number of the council’s sessions is variously reckoned, from twelve to fifteen or more. Among its acts were two important regulations on the subject of ecclesiastical precedence and jurisdiction.

(1.) Agreeably to the principle of correspondence between the ecclesiastical and the civil division, Palestine had been subject to the bishop of Caesarea, the civil capital, as metropolitan. The see of Jerusalem was but an ordinary bishopric; yet, on account of the sacred associations connected with the place, it had always enjoyed something of a peculiar reverence. This undefined honour had been formerly sanctioned by the seventh Nicene canon, on the ground of custom and ancient tradition; and the importance of the holy city had since been increased by the growing practice of pilgrimage, which drew to it a vast confluence of visitors from all countries to which the Gospel had penetrated. Encouraged by these circumstances, Juvenal conceived the ambitious idea of not only freeing himself from the superiority of Caesarea, but raising his see to the dignity of a patriarchate. His first attempt was made at the general council of Ephesus, where the bishop of Caesarea was absent, while John of Antioch, to whom both Caesarea and Jerusalem were perhaps subject, was obnoxious as being the chief of the rival assembly. Relying on these favourable circumstances, Juvenal went so far as to assert that Antioch ought to be directed and judged by Jerusalem; but his pretensions were checked by Cyril, and were not revived until after the Alexandrian bishop’s death. At the Latrocinium, where he was again favoured by the absence of the bishop of Caesarea, and by the position of the Syrian patriarch Domnus (of whom, as we have seen, he took precedence in the assembly), Juvenal renewed his claims; and he had subsequently obtained rescripts in his favour from the emperor. The question now came before the council for final decision. Maximus of Antioch, although dissatisfied with the change, was disposed to agree to a compromise; and the fathers of Chalcedon assigned to Juvenal the dignity of a patriarch, with jurisdiction over Palestine, while Arabia and the second Phoenicia, which had been included in Juvenal’s claim, were left to the patriarch of Antioch, and the bishop of Caesarea was allowed to retain the title of an honorary metropolitan.

(2.) The twenty-eighth canon related to the see of Constantinople. The eastern emperors had found it their interest to exalt the bishops of their capital, in opposition to the power of metropolitans on the one hand, and of the Roman bishop on the other; and the dignity and influence of the position had been continually increasing. An introduction by the bishop of Constantinople was necessary for such of his brethren as desired to be admitted into the imperial presence. He presided over the “home synod”, a permanent although fluctuating assembly, which was composed of such bishops as had been drawn by their affairs to the residence of the court, and to which the emperors were accustomed to refer appeals in ecclesiastical matters. Although the canon of the second general council, which placed Constantinople next to Rome, did not bestow any jurisdiction, the bishops attempted to exercise patriarchal authority over Thrace, Asia, and Pontus; they claimed the right, not only of ordaining, but even of nominating, the metropolitans and inferior bishops of these dioceses; they even extended their interference into the patriarchate of Antioch, and became the general referees and arbitrators of the eastern church.

The twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon was intended as a compromise of the differences which had arisen from these pretensions. It ordered that the metropolitans only of the three dioceses should be ordained by the patriarchs of Constantinople, and that their ordination should not take place without a certificate of regular and undisputed election by their own suffragans. The canon recognized the privileges bestowed by the second general council on ‘New Rome’; it referred these to the secular eminence of the city, declared that the privileges of the ancient capital itself rested on like grounds, and enacted that Constantinople ought “to be magnified in ecclesiastical matters even like the elder imperial Rome, as being next to it”. The canon was signed by about a hundred and eighty bishops—many of those who supposed themselves to be aggrieved by it standing aloof.

On the following day, which was the last of the council, the Roman legates protested against it, as having been passed in their absence, and through a surprise practised on those who had been present. The charge of surprise was denied by the parties concerned; and the legates were reminded that they had been summoned to the meeting on the preceding day. They threatened to report the matter to their master; to which the commissioners replied by calmly telling them that it had been decided by the synod.

The emperor followed up the council by laws against the Eutychians, forbidding them to hold meetings, to ordain clergy, and to build churches or monasteries, and inflicting various disabilities on them. Leo, on receiving a report of the proceedings, expressed high approval of the decree as to faith, but no less indignation against the twenty-eighth canon. With a bold disregard of history, he denied that the precedence of sees had depended on the importance of the cities in which they were. He asserted that the canon of the council of Constantinople had never been acted on or notified to the Roman see, although (besides other instances to the contrary) his own legates in the first session had supported the complaint of those who cried out against the degradation of Flavian from the second place at the Latrocinium. He pretended that the new canon contradicted the Nicene council by subjecting Alexandria and Antioch to Constantinople; and he declared it to be annulled by the authority of St. Peter. He loudly complained of the ambition of Anatolius, whom he charged with ingratitude for the favour shown by the Roman acknowledgment of him; he suspended intercourse with him, and threatened to excommunicate him. Finding, however, that, although it was the interest of both Marcian and the patriarch to be on friendly terms with Rome, his lofty pretensions had no effect on them, he affected, in 454, to regard some conciliatory words of Anatolius as a retractation of the conduct which had offended him; and the patriarch of Constantinople was readmitted to his correspondence. Although some of the more extravagant writers in the interest of Rome profess to suppose that Marcian abrogated the canon by an imperial law, there is no ground whatever for such a supposition, but it is certain that the canon, from the time of its enactment, was steadily enforced by the eastern court.

The canon in favour of Constantinople agreed with the tendency of the age to centre authority in the great sees by overpowering the independence of the lesser. In the same spirit which led the patriarchs of Constantinople to extend their jurisdiction over the neighbouring provinces, Alexander of Antioch had endeavoured, in the earlier part of the century, to assert a claim to the island of Cyprus, which had until then been “autocephalous” under its metropolitan, the bishop of Constantia or Salamis. He pretended that it had been originally subject to Antioch, but had withdrawn itself in the course of the preceding century, on account of the heresy and schism by which the mother church had been distracted, and which it had been reserved for Alexander himself finally to suppress. The claim, however, failed; the council of Ephesus—perhaps in some degree influenced by enmity against John, who had become the successor of Alexander—pronounced it inconsistent with the canons of Nicaea. But the dignity of the patriarchs generally had been on the increase. In some cases, they assisted bishops to obtain the title of metropolitans, on condition of subordination to themselves; sometimes they commissioned existing metropolitans to act as their vicars—an arrangement by which the metropolitan acquired an increase of power, but paid for it by the forfeiture of his independence.

The growth of the Roman influence during the earlier half of the fifth century was especially remarkable. As in the preceding century, controversies continued to arise in the east. From Chrysostom and Theophilus to Dioscorus and Anatolius, the bishops of the chief eastern sees were divided by enmities, and one of them after another was charged with heresy. In such circumstances they were driven to look towards Rome, not only as the principal church of the wrest, but as representative of all the western churches. Antioch and Alexandria were especially interested in courting its alliance, as a counterpoise to the new importance of Constantinople. The Roman bishops affected to regard such applications as appeals; while those who received favourable answers from Rome were eager to magnify them as authoritative judgments. The dignity of the Roman see rose in the eyes of men, through the exemption of its bishops from that personal share in the disputes, the intrigues, the scandals and calamities of the time which degraded the estimation of the eastern patriarchs; through the circumstance that, instead of themselves engaging in the altercations of councils, they were represented in those assemblies by envoys, who studiously held up the name of Rome as if it were entitled to overawe the whole hierarchy of the church. By the withdrawal of the western emperors to Milan and Ravenna, the bishops, to whom it would seem that the munificence of Constantine had made over the Lateran palace for their habitation, were left as the chief resident personages of Rome; and both the decay of the empire and the personal feebleness of its rulers contributed to the advancement of the ecclesiastical power. Thus favoured by circumstances, the bishops of Rome, with growing pretensions and through various fortunes, pushed onwards to that ascendency which their successors were destined in time to attain.

The Roman bishops had before denied that their precedence originated in the secular greatness of the city, and had professed to trace it to their alleged succession from St. Peter. This theory, in truth, resolves itself into the other, even according to the highest conception of the dignity conferred on St. Peter; since it is evident that the capital of the civilized world was the place in which the first of the apostles might naturally be supposed to fix his see. And, if there were any room for doubt, the question would be decided by the fact that the other churches which traced themselves to him were those of the two cities which came next in importance to Rome; and, further, that in ecclesiastical as well as in civil rank Alexandria took precedence of Antioch, although the foundation of the Egyptian see was referred to the agency of a disciple, whereas the Syrian see was believed to have been founded by the apostle himself. The derivation from St. Peter was, however, advanced as if it excluded the view which it thus really involves; and the claims founded on it became continually higher. For a time it was said that the prerogatives of Rome had been bestowed on it by the fathers, out of reverence for the chief of the apostles. But afterwards it was asserted that they were inherent in the Roman see—a doctrine which was hinted at by Celestine’s legates in the council of Ephesus, but was first broadly maintained by Leo.

Innocent went beyond his predecessors in his assumptions. He laboured earnestly to subject independent metropolitans. Carrying out an usurpation which appears to have been begun by Siricius, he assumed jurisdiction over the churches of eastern Illyricum, and constituted the bishop of Thessalonica his vicar for the administration of that vast province—extending from Cape Taenarus to the Danube. He laid down the principle that the whole western church was bound to conform to the usages of Rome—a principle which so lately as the time of St. Ambrose had been utterly disallowed,—and he declared that, after the judgment of local bishops had been pronounced, an appeal lay to the Roman see, not only in such cases as had been contemplated by the council of Sardica, but in all “greater causes”. The lofty language of this bishop in receiving a communication from the Africans in the matter of Pelagius, the pretensions of his successor Zosimus in the same case, and the defeat of the latter in respect both of fact and of right, have already been mentioned. Yet in that affair Zosimus, although with little credit to himself, made an important step towards increasing the authority of his see; for his circular letter—the expression, not of his first independent opinion, but of that which had been forced on him—was the earliest instance in which a document emanating from Rome was proposed for general adoption as a standard of orthodoxy.

The Africans, although desirous of Innocent’s cooperation in the Pelagian controversy, maintained their entire independence of him. In like manner, when an African presbyter named Apiarius appealed to Rome, during the episcopate of Zosimus, the African bishops denied that appeals from Carthage might be made to churches beyond the seas, since such appeals had been forbidden by the council of Nicaea and in the African code. Zosimus, however, claimed the right of entertaining appeals, by virtue (as he asserted) of a Nicene canon. Among the Africans the mention of this authority excited great surprise, as no such canon was known to them. They sent to the eastern patriarchs for authentic copies of the Nicene code, and, in notifying this step to Boniface, who in the meantime had succeeded Zosimus, they expressed a hope that they might no longer have cause to complain of the secular pride and arrogance of Rome. The canon proved to be one, not of the Nicene, but of the Sardican council, which was not regarded as of ecumenical authority, and moreover Zosimus had strained it far beyond its real meaning. Apiarius again appealed to Rome in the time of Celestine; when the About African bishops altogether refused to admit any interference of foreign churches with the affairs of their province, and declared the holding of an opposite opinion to be a ground for excommunication.

Among the attempts of Celestine to extend the power of his see, his assumption of the right to depose a bishop of Constantinople was the most startling, as being that which went farthest beyond all precedent of former times. But the course of affairs prevented any result from this assumption, as the execution of Celestine’s mandate was superseded by the summoning of a general council, and at that assembly Nestorius was deposed, not by the authority of the Roman letter, but after an examination of his case by the bishops who were present, in the exercise of their independent judgment. The advance of the Roman pretensions, however, was significantly shown at Ephesus; for whereas Innocent and Zosimus had been content to rest the claim of Rome to supreme judicature on the authority of “fathers” and councils, Celestine’s representatives asserted it as a prerogative which St. Peter exercised through his successors.

The chief promoter of the Roman power in this period was Leo, who, in later times, has been styled the Great. Leo employed, in pursuit of his object, extraordinary genius, political skill, and theological learning. He raised the claims of the Roman bishop, as the representative of St. Peter, to a height before unknown. With that utter defiance of historical fact which afterwards became characteristic of his successors and their advocates, he declared the pretensions and the practices of his church to be matter of unbroken apostolical tradition—ascribing that venerable character to regulations introduced within the preceding half-century by Siricius, and even by still more recent bishops. Under such pretences he endeavoured to enforce the usages of Rome as a rule for the universal church; even telling Dioscorus, before their disagreement, that Alexandria ought to follow the Roman model, and giving as his reason, that it would be impious to suppose the disciple St. Mark to have varied from the rules laid down by his master St. Peter.

In the earlier years of his episcopate Leo exerted himself against various kinds of heretics,—as the Pelagians, the Manicheans (of whom many had been driven to Rome by the troubles of Africa, and who appear to have been convicted of gross depravity, as well as of errors in opinion), and the Priscillianists, who were still a considerable party in Spain. As to these last, it is to be noted that he expressly approved the execution of their founder, which, sixty years earlier, had excited the general disgust and indignation of the orthodox.

The calamities of the age removed from the path of Roman ambition the hindrance which had been opposed by the independent church of Africa,—a church distinguished far beyond Rome itself by the services which its members had rendered to theology and learning. The Africans, oppressed by the Arian invaders of their country, were glad to seek support from a connexion with Rome; and the interference which had been boldly rejected in the days of Zosimus, was admitted without objection at the hands of the later bishops. Leo extended his sway over Spain and Sicily, and in Gaul he interfered in a re­markable manner, with gross injustice to one of the most eminent men of the age.

Hilary, a monk of Lerins, had at the age of twenty-eight been obliged reluctantly to accept the metropolitan see of Arles, as successor to his former abbot, Honoratus, by whom he had been designated for the office. He became famous for his learning; for his zeal in executing discipline without respect of persons; for his charity towards the poor and captives; and for his unwearied labours and exertions in all the episcopal duties. Such was his eloquence, that his Lenten discourses, of four hours in length, were listened to with unflagging attention, although bodily weakness obliged the hearers to introduce the novelty of sitting while he preached, instead of standing, as had been usual during the delivery of sermons.

The sees of Arles and Vienne had formerly contended for precedence, and Zosimus had in 417 given a decision in favour of Arles, on the ground that it had been founded by Trophimus the Ephesian, who (he said) had been sent into Gaul by St. Peter. Hilary, at a synod held in 444, deposed a bishop named Celidonius, who thereupon complained to Leo that the bishop of Arles had exceeded his jurisdiction. Such an application could not but be welcome to Leo, since it furnished him with an opportunity for extending his power under the pretext of defending the Gaulish bishops from oppression. Hilary did not acknowledge any right in the Roman bishop to receive such appeals; he made his way to the capital on foot, in the middle of winter, for the purpose of asserting his independence; and, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of his communications with Leo, he left Rome secretly and returned to his diocese. But Leo, with his usual boldness, declared that the apostolic see had always been accustomed to receive appeals from Gaul. He restored Celidonius; he pronounced a sentence depriving Hilary of the power to hold synods—a power which he represented as depending on a commission from Rome; and he procured from Valentinian a very remarkable law which is supposed to have been dictated by Leo himself. In this the emperor, after magnifying the privileges of the Roman see, censures Hilary for his insubordination; he declares the bishop of Rome to be rightful ruler of the whole church; he orders that no bishop, in Gaul or elsewhere, shall make any innovation on ancient custom; that the appointments of the Roman bishop shall be obeyed as laws by all others; and that any bishop who shall neglect a citation to the tribunal of the bishop of Rome shall be forcibly compelled to appear by the civil governor of his province. This unexampled law, however, was not universally obeyed, and Hilary appears to have retained his dignity until his death, four years later; after which Leo (who then styled him “of holy memory”), at the request of the Gaulish bishops, settled the rivalry of Arles and Vienne by a division of jurisdiction.

The power of assembling general councils was not yet claimed by the bishops of Rome, but was supposed to belong to the emperors. The council of Chalcedon, as we have seen, was summoned against the will of Leo, and in many respects it thwarted his wishes and disallowed his pretensions; yet in the event it contributed greatly towards the realization of his schemes. It was at Chalcedon that the legates of Rome for the first time obtained the presidency of a general council,—a position which could hardly have been refused to them when the dissensions of the eastern patriarchs had compelled the emperor to rely so largely on the orthodoxy and the judgment of the Roman bishop. The patriarch of Constantinople, indeed, was joined with them in the presidency, while neither he nor they had any privileges beyond other members of the council, and all were alike subject to the control of the imperial commissioners. But the part which the legates took in the assembly was afterwards greatly magnified by Leo, who usually spoke of them as having judicially decided matters respecting which they had only been allowed to give their opinion, and of which the decision had been pronounced by the voice of the council at large and the adoption of the letter to Flavian, as a standard of doctrine on the Incarnation (although it was not received in submission to Leo, but was subjected to the examination of the council p), must have contributed not a little to exalt the authority of the Roman see in the estimation of Christians generally.

In his later dealings with the eastern church, Leo ventured on some remarkable innovations. It had been the practice of the great patriarchs to maintain representatives at Constantinople, for the purpose of watching over their interests in such matters as might be referred to the emperor. But whereas these representatives had always been chosen from the lower degrees of the hierarchy, Leo commissioned a bishop to act as his ordi­nary envoy. Although this bishop, Julian of Cos, belonged to another jurisdiction, Leo took it upon himself to authorize his absence from his diocese; and the object of the legation was evidently not so much to guard the interests of Rome as to overlook and coerce the patriarch of Constantinople. Leo went so far as to interfere with the internal concerns of that church by remonstrating with Anatolius against certain ordinations and appointments, and by exciting the clergy of the eastern capital to control their bishop in the administration of his office. It was natural that Anatolius should resent such interference; and a violent collision appeared to be inevitable, when the death of the patriarch, in 458, prevented the further progress of the quarrel.

We need not question that Leo conscientiously believed himself to be acting for the benefit, not of his own see only, but of the whole church. But neither respect for his great merits nor charity in the construction of his motives must be allowed to blind us to his ambition and love of domination. In him we for the first time meet with something approaching to the papacy of later times; the conception is, in the main, already formed, although as yet but imperfectly realized.

A circumstance of different tendency must be mentioned before leaving this subject. After the death of Zosimus, in December 418, the possession of the see of Rome was for a time fiercely contested between Boniface and Eulalius, each of whom was consecrated by his partisans. Boniface was at length established by the emperor Honorius, who, apparently at the bishop’s request, enacted that, when two persons should be chosen for the see of Rome, a new election should take place. And this was the origin of the important influence which temporal princes afterwards exercised in the election of the Roman bishops.