^ PBINCETON, N. J. '^' 
 
 1 
 
 Shelf. 
 
 BV 710 .R5 1899 
 Rivington, Luke, 1838-1899. 
 The Roman primacy, A.D. 430 
 451 
 
 1 
 
 . 1 
 
THE EOMAN PEIMACY 
 
 A.D. 430-451 
 
Nihil obstat. 
 
 Sydney F. Smith, S.J. 
 
 Imprimatur. 
 
 Herbertus Cardinalis Vaughan 
 
 Archiepiscopus WestmonaslerieHsis 
 
 7 Martii 1S99 
 
THE 
 
 BOMAN PBIMACY 
 
 A.D. 430-451 
 
 BY THE 
 
 / 
 EEV. LUKE KIVINGTON, M.A., D.D. 
 
 Formerly Demy of Magdalen College, Oxford 
 
 LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
 
 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON 
 
 NEW YORK AND BOMBAY 
 
 1899 
 
 All rights reserved 
 
PREFACE 
 
 In preparing a fresh edition of my book on The 
 Primitive Church and the See of Peter, which I hope 
 to publish in the course of this year, I became convinced 
 that the best answer to many difficulties raised against 
 the historical proofs of Papal Supremacy and Papal 
 Infallibility would be found in a more detailed account 
 of some one crucial passage in the history of the Church 
 within the first few centuries. Exposition is always, 
 when possible, the best form of controversy ; I have 
 therefore selected for the purpose twentj^-one years in 
 the first half of the fifth century (a.d. 430-451) and 
 have entered into considerable detail in the exposition 
 of this important episode in the life of the Church. All 
 that appeared on this period in The Primitive Church 
 d'c. has been rewritten, with the exception of two chap- 
 ters, which have been merely retouched and illustrated 
 by their historical context. The greater number of the 
 chapters are entirely new. 
 
 My reason for selecting this short period is that 
 within those twenty-one years three Councils of peculiar 
 interest were assembled in the East, two of which count 
 among the first four (Ecumenical Councils, and the 
 third, which met between these two, was meant to be 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 GEcumenical. The importance of the two first mentioned 
 is quite unique, as will be seen from the following con- 
 siderations. 
 
 In the Council of Ephesus (a.d. 431) we have 
 actually the first (Ecumenical assembly of which the 
 ' Acts ' — i.e. the transactions of the various sessions — have 
 come down to posterity. This alone would make it a 
 matter of importance to study the history of that Council 
 with peculiar care. 
 
 But, further, this Council at Ephesus was concerned 
 with the mystery of the Incarnation in a way peculiar 
 to itself and to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. On 
 these two occasions the Church settled for all time two 
 of the most fundamental points in regard to that 
 mystery of our holy religion, dealing with the ' union ' 
 involved in the assumption of our nature by the Eternal 
 Word. 
 
 Thus in these two Councils we have our first clear 
 sight of the Church in her combined public action on a 
 large scale, and that action was concerned with the funda- 
 mental mystery of our holy faith. History here, at any 
 rate, must have a peculiar interest for us Christians. 
 Principles which are found embedded in the Church at 
 this era must have had their origin in times long 
 anterior ; their appearance in full flower and fruit points 
 to a distant past to which their roots must be traced. 
 
 Another reason for selecting this episode in the 
 history of the Church is to be found in the circumstances 
 of our English religious life at this present hour. 
 Everything that is going on round about us at this 
 moment in the intellectual and religious world seems 
 to point to the necessity of answering one crucial 
 
PEEFACE Vll 
 
 question : If there is a body of truth revealed by Christ 
 for the permanent welfare of our race, where is its 
 guardian ? And to answer this question, it will natur- 
 ally be asked, Where loas its guardian in the past? 
 The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon give a clear 
 emphatic answer to that question. The guardianship of 
 the faith was entrusted to the Episcopate of the 
 Catholic Church, of which the head was the successor of 
 Peter m the See of Kome — and this by divine 
 institution. The relationship of that See to the uni- 
 versal Church cannot be seen anywhere more clearly 
 than in the records of the Council of Ephesus in 431 
 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Here, when the 
 hour of supreme trial had come, the Primacy of the 
 Bishop of Eome comes before us as a well established 
 provision, of divine institution, for the welfare of the 
 Churches. 
 
 It is here, therefore, that the meaning of that 
 Primacy — the principles on which it was obeyed, if it 
 was obeyed — ought to be studied with especial care. If 
 we found ourselves in a system which plainly contradicts 
 those principles, we should have ground for doubting 
 our inheritance in the privileges of the One Body of 
 Christ, and in the sheltering favour of the One Lord. 
 This, as has been recently stated by Professor Sanday, 
 was admitted by those who took part in the religious 
 changes of the sixteenth century. * It was agreed,' says 
 that distinguished writer, ' that the practice of the 
 Church of the first four Councils — when it could be 
 ascertained — was binding.' ^ ' When it could be 
 ascertained ' — but it is impossible in the nature of 
 
 ' The Conception of the Priesthood, p. 123. 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 things to see it in all its effective power, where the 
 records are wanting, as is the case with the Councils of 
 Nicaea and Constantinople. It should, therefore, be 
 studied first in its developed form, when the Church 
 acted as a whole and the records are sufficiently ample to 
 enable us to see the relative action of head and members 
 in the ecclesiastical body. And that is the same as 
 saying, begin with the Council of Ephesus. 
 
 The principle here advocated has been laid down 
 with great clearness in a remarkable article in the 
 English Historical Beview for January 1899. The 
 writer (the Eev. A. C. Headlam) makes this important 
 statement. Speaking of the best method of avoiding the 
 uncertainty caused by the absence of conclusive evidence 
 and of limiting the personal bias in our pursuit of his- 
 torical truth, he says ; ' One method may be suggested 
 as a wise one to pursue, that of advancing from the 
 known to the unknown. The great advance in the study 
 of Eoman constitutional history has been made by 
 working back from the known and developed constitutions 
 of the later republican and imperial time to the earlier 
 periods. In a similar way the only true method for the 
 study of Church history is to start from the developed 
 constitution and work back to the earlier period.' 
 
 This is a principle which will, it is hoped, commend 
 itself to many for whom this book is written, on this 
 additional ground. Many now believe in common with 
 ourselves that in dealing with the history of the Church 
 we are dealing with that of a supernatural entity placed 
 here by our Divine Kedeemer, the laws of whose growth 
 are illustrated by that of the human body, but which is 
 in every stage of its history equally a divine institution. 
 
PKEFACE ix 
 
 The Church could never as a whole act in such an 
 episode of her life on a false principle. If the Primacy 
 of the Bishop of Eome was recognised as of divine 
 institution then, it must have been always such. The 
 Church could not go wrong on such a vital matter in 
 the very act of settling the full meaning of the funda- 
 mental mystery of the Christian religion — the Holy 
 Incarnation. However at times other powers may have 
 initiated or carried on her work, that institution must 
 have been always there, as the background, just as 
 while prophets and teachers came to the front in early 
 days, the Apostles were there, the final authority, though 
 not everywhere and always conspicuous. So the Primacy 
 was there, and its substantial repudiation would have been 
 an offence against first principles. Neither democratic 
 Christianity nor episcopal aristocracy could have de- 
 veloped into the ecclesiastical monarchy of the years 
 between a.d. 430 and 451. 
 
 It will be seen, then, from a close study of this period 
 that the doctrine of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff 
 was sufficiently developed in the mind of the Christian 
 world before the Council of Ephesus in 431 to enable us 
 to say that the guardianship of the faith lay by divine 
 appointment, not merely with an Episcopate, but with 
 an Episcopate one of whose number was the inheritor of 
 peculiar privileges in regard to jurisdiction and the 
 security of his official teaching, as the successor of the 
 Prince and head of the Apostolic College. 
 
 What were these privileges ? Not what Mr. Glad- 
 stone is pleased to describe them as being, when he tells 
 us that the Vatican Council ' lays it down that the Pope 
 is never to be resisted in any matter, by any persons, 
 
X PEEFACE 
 
 or under any circumstance.' ^ It is difficult to see how 
 the Vatican Council could have taken greater precautions 
 to guard against such an idea of absolutism as attaching 
 to its teaching. Neither, again, are the Petrine privileges 
 as declared in the Vatican decrees, what Dr. Bright, 
 Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford, seems to 
 imagine them to be. Speaking of the Vatican definition, 
 he says that ' it makes the Pope practically a universal 
 bishop, holding direct power in and over every single 
 diocese, so that the several diocesans are, in effect, no 
 more than his commissioners and vicars.' ^ This is denied 
 in terms m the Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican 
 Council which says (cap. iii.) : 
 
 ' So far is this power of the Supreme Pontiff from 
 being opposed to that ordinary and immediate power of 
 episcopal jurisdiction with which the Bishops, who being 
 placed by the Holy Ghost have succeeded to the place 
 of the Apostles, as true pastors feed and govern each 
 their several flocks assigned to them — that the same 
 [power of Episcopal] jurisdiction is asserted, confirmed 
 and vindicated by the supreme and universal Pastor.' 
 
 Such is the authoritative teaching of the Vatican 
 Council, which is in direct contradiction to Dr Bright's 
 account of it. And it is equally certain that Dr. Bright's 
 account does not tally with the facts ; it is not true in 
 regard to the actual practice of the Church. The actual 
 relation between the Pope and Apostolic Vicars who 
 rule over certain areas before the formation of regular 
 diocesan jurisdiction differs enormously from the rela- 
 tion between the Pope and Diocesan Bishops. 
 
 ' Soliloquy and Postscript {Later Oleayiincjs, p. 424). 
 2 Waymarks in Church History, p. 207. 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 The fact is that a great deal of recent controversy 
 falls short of its purpose by reason of the assumption 
 which perpetually underlies it, to the effect that the rule 
 of the Pope is, at least in theory, that of an absolute 
 monarch in the full sense of the term ' absolute.' ' 
 Bellarmine upbraided Calvin for proceeding upon this 
 assumption. He tells him that the Pope himself knows 
 what he is writing, viz. that the Koman Pontiff cannot 
 change the doctrine of Christ nor institute a new 
 worship so as to make it pass for divine ; and that God 
 alone reigns and legislates without a superior. He alone 
 destroys and saves on His own authority. * We attribute 
 none of these things to the Pope.' - 
 
 And so Pius VII. protested that a Pope recognises 
 certain limits which he cannot transgress without 
 betraying his conscience and without abusing the 
 supreme authority entrusted to him by Jesus Christ for 
 edification and not for destruction ; and he says that 
 even in matters of discipline the Popes have always 
 observed certain limits and recognised the obligation 
 not to admit innovations in certain matters at all, and 
 in other matters only when most weighty and imperative 
 reasons required it.^ 
 
 So that what we have to look for in the history of 
 the early Councils is the proof, not of an absolutism 
 which pays no respect to contract, usage, rights, and the 
 
 ' There is, of course, a sense in which the Papacy may be called an 
 absolute monarchy : viz. as meaning that the form of government in the 
 Church is that of a single ruler. This, however, is not what is meant by 
 those who speak of the ' absolutism ' of the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
 2 De Bom. Pont. iii. 19, 21. 
 
 ' Cf. Hettinger, Die kirchliche Vollgeivalt des ajpostolischen Stuhles, 
 1.57. 
 
Xll PREFACE 
 
 welfare of the community — the Church repudiates such 
 a position for her visible head — but of a full supreme 
 authority, ordinary {i.e. attached to the office) and 
 immediate {i.e. not necessarily through intermediate 
 authorities), over every member of the universal Church, 
 which is; however, controlled by that respect for laws 
 once established by previous authority, which springs 
 from a sense of duty to God and care for the welfare of 
 the Church. 
 
 But while the Sovereign Pontiffs repudiate any such 
 ' autocracy ' as Mr. Gladstone attributes to them, or any 
 claim to be ' universal Bishop ' in the sense which Dr. 
 Bright attaches to those words, ^ it is certainly held that 
 the Pope is in a very true sense above ecclesiastical, as 
 distinguished from divine laws. Canons have no coactive 
 force as against the Popes. While the Sovereign 
 Pontiff is morally bound to rule the Church in accord- 
 ance with the decrees and laws which have been 
 recognised as part of Church discipline in past centuries, 
 these laws impose no command which he has to obey, 
 by divine or human law ; as he is the highest authority 
 in the Church, he can accept no rule from any superior 
 except God Himself.- ' The Pope,' says a great Canonist, 
 ' is the highest authority in the Church, and as such he 
 has no judge over him externally ; for the use he makes 
 of his power he is responsible to God only and his 
 conscience, just as temporal monarchs are for theirs.' '^ 
 
 Dr. Bright, in his Boman See in the Early Church, 
 
 ' Waymarks, p. 207 ; Roman See in the Early Church, p. 2. 
 2 Cf. Hettinger, loc. cit. § 25, and Palmieri, De Rom. Pont. Pars ii. 
 cap. 1. 
 
 ^ Walter, Kirchenrecht, § 126, 
 
PREFACE xiii 
 
 p. 208, comments on a statement by the present writer 
 that a king is bound to respect the laws, * not because 
 they are superior to him, but because he is bound by the 
 natural and divine law to set the example,' and that in 
 the same way the Pope is bound to respect the canons, 
 and he asks the question, * Has submission to ecclesias- 
 tical absolutism made Mr. Eivington forget the traditions, 
 the basal ideas, of kingship as understood by English- 
 men ? He may consult a Roman Catholic historian : it 
 was part of Richard II. 's despotic policy, to " place him- 
 self above the control of the law " (Lingard, H. Engl. 
 iv. 255).' 
 
 I might content myself with replying to this by saying 
 that I have never submitted, nor been asked to submit, 
 to any ' ecclesiastical absolutism ' ; but it seems only 
 right to protest against the misuse of Dr. Lingard's 
 name in this passage and also against the assumption 
 that the British constitution supplies us with a perfect 
 ideal of kingship. Dr. Lingard (as the next lines would 
 have shown the reader, if only Dr. Bright had quoted 
 them) is speaking of King Richard's attempt to overthrow 
 the constitution by doing away with the action of Parlia- 
 ment after having extorted a subsidy for life. The 
 only parallel (and it is still an imperfect parallel) to this 
 would be the case of a Pope proceeding to govern the 
 whole Church without an Episcopate. But this, accord- 
 ing to the Vatican decree, it is not in his power to do. 
 And as for the parallel drawn by Dr. Bright between the 
 British constitution and the government of the Church, 
 it must be borne in mind that that constitution is, 
 indeed, admirably adapted to the genius of the British 
 people, but is not on that account a model form of king- 
 
XIV PREFACE 
 
 ship nor necessarily adapted for the purposes for which 
 the Church exists. Moreover, Dr. Bright's own estimate 
 of the position of the king in the British constitution is 
 not that of most Englishmen. The king is certainly 
 with us, in a sense, above the law ; he cannot be in- 
 dicted for its violation ; though he may be induced to 
 resign for the violation of the natural and divine law 
 which bids him care for the welfare of his people and 
 govern them according to the principles of the constitu- 
 tion which he is set to administer. There is a truth in 
 the legal maxim that ' the king can do no wrong.' 
 
 But as regards the particular matter at issue, viz. the 
 relation of the Pope to the ecclesiastical, as distinguished 
 from the natural and divine, law, I would ask whether 
 the Oxford Professor of Ecclesiastical History has 
 forgotten the immemorial traditions, the basal ideas, of 
 canon law in the Church of England ? These cannot be 
 better represented than by the great Canonist, universally 
 accepted as such by the Church of England, William 
 Lyndwood, Official Principal of the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury's Court, prolocutor of the clergy in the Con- 
 vocation of Canterbury, who wrote his famous book on 
 the provincial constitutions of the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury in the early part of the fifteenth century. Lynd- 
 wood was not an absolutist of the type described by 
 Mr. Gladstone or Dr. Bright ; he held that there were 
 cases in which the Pope might be rightly resisted. He 
 mentions just such a case as that about which Bishop 
 Grosseteste wrote his famous letter to Innocent the 
 notary.^ Nevertheless Lyndwood lays down as the 
 
 ' Not, as Anglican writers suppose, to the Pope, Vvhose name 
 happened to be Innocent : whence the confusion. 
 
PREFACE XV 
 
 unquestioned teaching of the Church Catholic, including 
 the Church of England, that the Pope ' is above the law,' 
 and again, ' is not subject to the laws.' ^ 
 
 This, however, does not in the least mean as Dr. 
 Bright understands it to mean, that ' the pope is more 
 than the King, he is the autocrat, of the Church ' ; - 
 neither does the comparison of the position of the Pope 
 with that of the Roman Emperor necessarily imply that 
 his methods must be ' despotic' ^ The constitution of the 
 Eoman Empire did not of itself involve despotism, 
 though, being of the earth, it readily lent itself to abuse 
 in that direction ; neither does the position conceded to 
 the Pope in the Vatican decrees involve despotic action. 
 The relation of the Emperor to the laws happens to 
 have been exactly described by the Imperial Count 
 Elpidius at Ephesus in 449, in words which were read 
 at the Council of Chalcedon : ' the Emperor being himself 
 the first to fulfil the order of the laws, of which he is 
 the inventor and the guardian.' ^ He was not ' above the 
 law ' in the sense of being under no obligation to observe 
 it, but only in the sense of being responsible to God 
 alone for his observance of it, when it touched his own 
 life. 
 
 What, therefore, we might expect to find in history 
 is a certain peculiarly authoritative guardianship of the 
 canons exercised by the Supreme Pontiff, consistent, 
 however, with an appeal to them as the ground of his 
 action, when he felt it impossible under the circum- 
 stances to allow their observance to be relaxed. The 
 
 ' Cf. Professor Maitland's Canon Law in the Chtirch of England, 
 pp. 16, 17 (1898). 
 
 - Roman See, p. 209. ^ jj^^ 4 Mansi, vi. 645. 
 
xvi PREFACE 
 
 following pages will show how far this attitude on the 
 part of the Pope is found in the Council of Chalcedon 
 and recognised as part of his office by the Christian 
 world. 
 
 And, as regards the whole argument, I have one 
 further remark to make, viz. that it is cumulative. It 
 seems to me that writers like Dr. Bright are perpetually 
 perpetrating the logical ' fallacy of division.' Let any 
 one for instance take the letters (given below : see Index) 
 of Flavian, Anatolius, Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorylseum 
 (all Easterns), and St. Peter Chrysologus of Eavenna, 
 written independently of one another, and all within so 
 short a period, and ask himself whether their cumu- 
 lative force is not such as to justify the statement that 
 the Vatican decrees were admitted in substance in a.d. 
 451. Would not the fathers of the Church at Chalce- 
 don have said the same as the Anglo-Saxon Church said 
 to the British bishops through the instrumentality of 
 St. Aldhelm, viz. 'In vain he emptily boasts of the 
 Catholic faith who follows not the teaching and rule of 
 Peter ' ? Would they not have said the same as the 
 Archbishop of Canterbury and his suffragans said in 
 1318 to the Bishop of Eome, ' We, though unworthy, 
 being included in your pastoral charge, and ourselves 
 derived, as rivers from the fountainhead, from the exalted 
 throne of the Holy Apostolic See ' ? ^ Would not the 
 Chalcedonian fathers have said exactly what the Arch- 
 bishop of Canterbury and his suffragans said a hundred 
 years later, in 1412, when having condemned Sir John 
 Oldcastle for denying the Supremacy of the See of Peter, 
 
 • Registers of John de Sandale and Bigaud de Asserio, preface by 
 the editor, Joseph Baigent, 1897. 
 
PREFACE xvii 
 
 the Sacrament of Penance, and Transubstantiation, they 
 sent their condemnation to the Sovereign Pontiff, with 
 these words : ' This is that most blessed See, which 
 is proved never to have erred, by the grace of 
 Almighty God, from the path of Apostolical tradition, 
 nor has it ever been depraved and succumbed to heretical 
 novelties. But sh^t is to whom, as being mistress and 
 teacher of other Churches, the surpassing authority of the 
 fathers ordained that the greater causes of the Church, 
 especially those touching articles of the faith, should be 
 referred for their final settlement and declaration ' ? * 
 In other words, would not the fathers of Chalcedon have 
 endorsed the principle embodied in the canon law of 
 England in these words, * He is called a heretic who out 
 of contempt of the Koman Church neglects to keep what 
 the Roman Church ordains ' ? ^ 
 
 And all this is exactly what is taught by the 
 Constitiitio Dogmatica in the Vatican decrees. 
 
 I have, in conclusion, to thank the Prior of the 
 Archives at Monte Cassino for kindly sending me a 
 copy of his Dissertation on ' St. Leo and the East,' ^ 
 containing a copy of the important letters from Flavian 
 and Eusebius to St. Leo, which he discovered in the 
 Archives at Novara. These letters have not as yet 
 appeared in any English work on the Council of 
 Chalcedon. The light they throw on the subject of 
 appeals to Rome is considerable.^ There is one point in 
 the translation of Flavian's letter which is rendered 
 differently by the venerable doyen of Catholic apologists 
 
 ' Wilkins, Concilia, iii. 350. ^ Maitland, op. cit. p. 17, note *. 
 ' S. Leone Magno e V Oriente. * See infra, p. 167. 
 
 a 
 
XVlll PEEFACE 
 
 in Germany, Father Wilmers, S. J. He understands 
 Flavian to ask St. Leo to * give the type ' for the new 
 (Ecumenical Synod hy republishing his Tome.^ His 
 translation depends on a reading in the Codex which 
 has been emended by Mommsen and Amelli. Father 
 Wilmers is, however, correct so far as the manuscript 
 is concerned ; and while I have preferred the emenda- 
 tion, it seems worth while to mention the opinion of so 
 eminent a writer. 
 
 Note. 
 
 It will be noticed that the name of Dr. Bright occurs very fre- 
 quently in the following pages, though chiefly in the notes. That 
 writer has thrown down a gauntlet which it has seemed impossible 
 not to take up. In the case of a ' recent proseWte,' he considers 
 that the ' Eoman spirit,' when it ' dominates ' him, ' absorbs all 
 other considerations into the supreme necessity of making out a 
 case for Rome.' - Also his accusations against St. Leo, and against 
 the Papal legates, in spite of the bias which they too manifestly 
 betraj', seem to require an answer, owing to Dr. Bright's position 
 as Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford. But I 
 have also felt that in giving an answer to Dr. Bright's numerous 
 criticisms in that work, I am dealing with the line of argument 
 generally adopted by Anglican writers. There can be no danger of 
 misrepresenting their case when given in the words of Dr. Bright, 
 who is its selected champion, and, I am bound to say, its ablest 
 representative. Accordingly, while refraining from any such gross 
 imputations as Dr. Bright has indulged in, I have carefully 
 examined his statements, in the notes, almost one by one. 
 
 I am, however, in hopes that such readers as are not conversant 
 with the Greek language will not be deterred by the frequent 
 occurrence of Greek characters in the notes. Such wiU find, I 
 venture to think, enough of interesting matter in the text t© repay 
 their perusal of the following pages. They can leave the notes 
 alone. 
 
 ' Hist, de la Religion, Anth. Tr. 1898, § 136. 
 
 2 Roman See in the Early Church, p. 211. 
 
PREFACE XIX 
 
 I have also thought it well to include an answer to Professor 
 Harnack's treatment of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in 
 his Dogmengeschichte. The detailed accounts of the Latrociniuvi 
 and of Dioscorus's trial at Chalcedon (pp. 150-250) were written 
 especially with the view of meeting what seems to me a very un- 
 just and unhistorical estimate of these Councils. 
 
 LUKE RIVINGTON. 
 
 62 Manchester Street, London, W- 
 Eastei\ 1899. 
 
AUTHORITIES 
 
 For the sake of those who desire to go further into the history of the 
 important period dealt with in the following pages, I subjoin the names 
 of a few of the authorities whom I have found most useful. 
 
 1, Marius Mercator, Scripta ad Nestorianam hceresim pertinentia. 
 
 Among these, especially Nestorii blasphemiorum capitula, and 
 Synodus Ephesitm adversus Nestorium. According to Gamier, 
 these two works were translated into Latin by Marius Mercator 
 in the very year of the Council (431). 
 
 Also, Father Garnier's (S.J.) two Dissertations, De hceresi et 
 libris Nestorii, and De Synodis Jiabitis in causd Nestoriand, are 
 invaluable. 
 
 All these are to be found in Migne's Patrologice Cursus 
 Computus, vol. 48. 
 
 2, S. CcELESTiNi I. Pap^ EpistolcR et Decreta : ibid. vol. 49, or in 
 
 Coustant's edition in the Bibl. Vett. Patruin. 
 
 3, Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio (Florence, 1761), vols, iv.-vii. 
 
 It is necessary for the student not merely to read, but to study 
 these four volumes. There are Greek words which will only be 
 understood by means of such close study. In regard to the 
 Council of Ephesus, two documents must be particularly noticed, 
 which are not to be found in all the Collections of the Councils, 
 viz. the Roman Council under Celestine in a.d. 430 (iv, 547), and 
 the Commonitorium of Celestine to his legates (iv. 556). Harnack's 
 account {Hist, of Dogma, iv. 183, Tr.) of Celestine's action is 
 absolutely disposed of by the former ; and a great deal of Dr. 
 Bright's contention is pulverised by the latter (cf. infra, p. 66). 
 
 4, Christianus Lupus, Synodorum Generalium ac Provincialium Decreta 
 
 et Canones (Brussels, 1673), vol. i. It would be difficult to over- 
 estimate the value of Lupus's work. His references are, un- 
 fortunately, to editions now out of date, but on verifying the 
 quotations in Mansi and elsewhere, I have found them almost 
 uniformly accurate. He is particularly valuable in giving the 
 
AUTHORITIES XXI 
 
 salient points, and the scenery, so to speak, of the drama (for such 
 it was) of the three Councils described in this volume. 
 
 5. Natalis Alexander, Histcrria Ecclesiastica, vol. ix. Natalis never 
 
 shirks a difficulty, though in his original work he does not always 
 solve them satisfactorily. But his is a work which the student 
 will do well to have always at his side. Only he must be read in 
 the great edition by Roncaglia, with the ' Animadversions ' of 
 Mansi, published at Bingen {i.e. Bingii ad Khenum), 1786. These 
 ' Animadversions,' and the accompanying notes, by Mansi, are in- 
 comparably the best pieces of writing on many of the difficulties 
 raised by non-Catholics on the history of the Councils of Ephesus 
 and Chalcedon. Hurter in his Nomendator Literarms, iii. 101, 
 calls Mansi ' the most celebrated of all at that whole epoch, and 
 one who deserved superlatively well of the Church and literature.' 
 
 6. Alphonsus Muzzakelli (S.J.), De Aiictoritate Roinani Pontificis 
 
 (Ghent). There is no date to this valuable work. But Padre 
 Muzzarelli accompanied Pius VII. to Paris in 1809, and died there 
 in 1813. Being in the midst of Galileans, he wrote two or three 
 works on Papal Infallibility, of which the one from which I have 
 quoted in this book was the fullest. His references are very 
 scanty, but I verified the quotations and found them universally 
 correct. The great value of his work consists in its clear and 
 complete refutation of Bossuet. 
 
 7. Petrds de Marca, Archbishop of Paris, De concordia Sacerdotii et 
 
 Imperii (Roboreti, 1742). A great work, most useful for its facts, 
 but perversely illogical on the subject of Gallican liberties. 
 
 8. Ballerini Fratres, S. Leonis Magni Opera, 3 vols. (Venice, 1753)- 
 
 A magnum opus indeed, quite indispensable for the history of the 
 Council of Chalcedon. Their ' Observations ' on Quesnel's Disser- 
 tations are masterpieces of erudition and logic. 
 
 9. TiLLEMONT, M&moires pour servir pour VHistoire. A monument of 
 
 diligence, and of immense value even to those who differ from his 
 deductions. Tillemont's work is marred by lack of judgment, 
 owing to his determined Jansenism. Duchesne, speaking of the 
 value of this work, says that it is easy ' ^carter ses preoccupations 
 doctrinales.' When this is done, it is impossible to speak too 
 highly of his work ; but unfortunately it is exactly where his 
 prepossessions have most swayed his judgment that he has been 
 followed by our Anglican friends. For a good estimate of Tille- 
 mont see Hurter's Nomendator Literarius, ii. 465. He quotes 
 Schiiz, who calls Tillemont ' theologaster semi-Catholicus vel 
 Jansenianus.' 
 
xxii AUTHORITIES 
 
 10. Heegenbother, Photius, and Kirchengeschichte, Erster Zeitraum, 
 
 zweite Periode. Hergenrother's work is sound and thorough. 
 His History of the Church may be read in a French translation 
 of exceptional merit, with additional notes by Belet. The portion 
 which embraces the period covered by this book will be found in 
 vol. ii. 312-692. 
 
 11. Bernakdus Jungmann, Dissertationes Selectee in Histoi-iam Ecclesi- 
 
 asticam, tom. i. and ii. (Eatisbon, NewYork and Cincinnati, 1880). 
 A work of pre-eminent value owing to the admirable selection of 
 ' points ' and to the soundness of the author's judgment. On the 
 period covered by this book, Jungmann's work is of special value 
 as containing the best refutation of Mgr. Maret's ' Du Concile 
 General.' 
 
 12. Paul Bottalla (S.J.), The Pope and the Church, Pt. II. (Burns and 
 
 Gates, 1870). An admirable summary of the arguments usually 
 adduced in favour of the Catholic doctrine concerning ' the Pope 
 and the Council.' 
 
 Other writers, to whom the present writer is indebted — besides the 
 older sources, such as Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret— are Zaccharia, 
 Palma, and Palmieri. And a careful perusal of Evagrius Scholasticus is 
 to be recommended for the sake of gaining a command of Byzantine 
 Greek such as was spoken at the Councils dealt with below. 
 
 The reader is referred to p. 150 infra for special authorities on the 
 Latrocinium or Robber-Synod. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGB 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, a.d. 431 1 
 
 THE LATEOCINIUM, OK ROBBER- SYNOD, a.d. 449 . . 119 
 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, a.d. 451 . . 197 
 
Part I. 
 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, a.d. 431 
 
 Chapter I. Eoiie Defines, and Delegates Cyril, p. 3 
 
 II. Nestorius works for a General Council, p. 24 
 
 III. The Presidency and Functions of the Council, p. 34 
 
 IV. The Degradation of Nestorius, p. 46 
 V. John of Antioch, p. 59 
 
 "VI. The See of Peter ' Confirming the Brethren,' I., p. 65 
 VII. „ „ „ IL,p. 75 
 
 VIII. The Emperor and the Monk, p. 90 
 
 IX. John of Antioch Condemned, p. 95 
 
 X. Two Decrees of the Council : 
 
 1. The Use of the Nicene Creed, p. 104 
 
 2. The Independence of Cyprus, p. 110 
 
 NOTES 
 
 On the meaning o tvjtos, p. 21 
 
 On Theodosius s prohibition of Kaivoronia., p. 32 
 
 On the Council's use of KareneLx^evTes, p. 57 
 
 On Dr. Bright's interpretation of Celestine's Letter, p. 72 
 
 Dr. Bright versus Mansi, p. 87 
 
 B 
 
PABT I 
 
 CHAPTEK I 
 
 ROME DEFINES, AND DELEGATES CYBIL 
 
 A PECULIAR importance attaches to the Council of Ephe- 
 sus from an historical point of view, from the fact that 
 it is the first of the (Ecumenical Councils of which we 
 have anything like ample records.^ 
 
 The Council was concerned with the question of the 
 union between the two natures in the One Divine Person 
 of our Eedeemer. Was it a substantial or an accidental 
 union ? Was He who was crucified on Calvary the Lord 
 of Glory : and is His blood, what St. Paul calls it (Acts 
 XX. 28), the Blood of God ? Is the Flesh which gives 
 life to those who partake of It, the very Flesh of God 
 Himself by a Hypostatic Union ? Or is the relation- 
 ship between the Sacred Humanity and the Person of 
 the Eternal Son merely that of a close union between a 
 
 ' The records of the Council are in places mutilated, and the whole 
 account of the proceedings in regard to the Pelagians is missing. 
 St. Gregory the Great, who (when at Constantinople) investigated the 
 matter, attributed this to the Eastern love of forgery and tampering 
 with documents {Epp. lib. iv. 5, ad Narsen). The account of the gixth 
 session should be read in the old Latin edition published in Mansi's 
 fifth volume. And the account of the Koman Synod in 430 must be 
 supplemented by Baluze's Fragment in Mansi, iv. 548. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 created personality and the Uncreated Word? The 
 whole question of the world's salvation hung upon the 
 answer.' 
 
 Both St. Celestine the Pope, and St. Cyril, the 
 champion of the orthodox faith, emphasise this fact.^ 
 St. Celestine, in his letter to Nestorius, says that * we 
 complain that those words have been removed [by 
 Nestorius] which promise us the hope of all life and 
 salvation.' St. Cyril again and again strikes the same 
 note. Dr. Salmon would have done well to have 
 remembered this in his criticisms on this great 
 champion of the faith.^ 
 
 Up to the time of the Council of Ephesus expressions 
 had been used concerning the union of the two natures 
 in Christ which were meant in an orthodox sense, but 
 which were liable to misinterpretation. St. Ignatius had 
 spoken of Christ as ' bearing flesh ; ' Tertullian had 
 described Him as ' clothed with flesh ; ' and the early 
 Fathers had sometimes used the word ' mixture ' (fcpdacs) 
 of the union of the two natures. 
 
 But a term had been in use which, if rightly under- 
 stood, safeguarded the truth as to the union (svoxtls) of 
 the two natures. I mean, of course, the term Ssotoko^, 
 or Mother of God, as applied to our Blessed Lady. This 
 term had not been as thoroughly sifted, and authorita- 
 
 * St. Cyril called the union eVoxrts (pvaiK^, a substantial union ; by 
 which he did not mean, as he clearly explained, a union ending in one 
 nature {els jxiav cpvaiv), but a union that constituted one Being, in opposi- 
 tion to the only union admitted by Nestorians— viz. a purely moral and 
 external one. Cyril distinguished between the two natures in the One 
 Person, but he did not separate them so as to teach that they had any 
 existence after the Incarnation separate from the Personality of the 
 Word. 
 
 2 Mansi, iv. 1049. ^ Infallibility of the Church, p. 312 (2nd ed.). 
 
ROME DEFINES 5 
 
 tively explained by the Church, as, owing to the heresy 
 of Nestorius it was destined to be ; but, as the Patriarch 
 of Antioch bade Nestorius reflect, it had been in frequent 
 use.^ 
 
 Nestorius had entered upon his career as archbishop 
 with the boast that if the emperor would give him the 
 earth cleared of heretics, he would give him heaven 
 in exchange, and that if His Imperial Majesty would 
 assist him in putting heretics to rout, he would assist him 
 to do the same with his Persian foes. He was inex- 
 cusably cruel to his heterodox subjects, but he soon him- 
 self plunged into a heresy which cut at the root of the 
 Christian faith — attributing to our Divine Lord a human 
 personality, and thereby denying the substantial union 
 between the two natures. His writings found their way 
 into Egypt, which was in the patriarchate of Alexandria. 
 
 The see of Alexandria held a peculiar position in 
 the East at this time. It was the see of Athanasius, 
 and identified with the championship of orthodoxy on 
 the subject of the Incarnation. The Bishop of Alex- 
 andria was the gi-eatest person in Egypt ; - he had at 
 least a hundred bishops who gave him an enthusiastic 
 allegiance ; he had at his disposal an enormous body of 
 monks, ' now in the springtide of popularity and power,' 
 to whom the name of Athanasius was as magic. Alex- 
 andria itself was almost synonymous with intellectual 
 primacy ; it had been the home of Clement and Origen, 
 
 ' It is much to be regretted that in the English translation of 
 Bishop Hefele's Concilien-GesMchte, published by Messrs. Clark, of 
 Edinburgh, the word ©ioroKos is invariably translated ' God-bearer,' 
 which is an equivocal term, as it might equally be the translation of 
 ®eo(p6pos, the very term which Nestorius, through his heresy, would have 
 liked to substitute for (deoT6Kos. 
 
 - Cf. Duchesne, Eglises s^par^es, pp. 190, 191. 
 
6 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 and was now the source of the correct calculations for 
 the Paschal feast. It had its representative at the 
 Court of Constantinople, and its numerous subjects in 
 that city engaged in the sale of the corn that was 
 regularly shipped thither from the granaries of Egypt. 
 The see of Alexandria had, too, a past of rivalry and 
 contention with the bishops of the Byzantine capital. 
 The Bishop of Alexandria (Cyril) was at this time a 
 man of commanding disposition, great intellectual 
 power, and immense zeal. Whatever may have been 
 his faults in the past (about which there has been much 
 discussion), he was destined to take his place in the 
 Calendar of the Church, and to leave behind him an 
 heirloom of theological exposition on the subject of the 
 Incarnation which she has cherished for more than 
 fourteen centuries. 
 
 It is certain that Nestorius's writings had created 
 an interest, not to say excitement, in Egypt itself, in the 
 great monasteries that clustered there. St. Cyril was, 
 in consequence, bound to take notice of the danger ; and 
 a correspondence ensued between him and Nestorius. 
 At length he remanded the whole matter to the care of 
 the Bishop of Eome : a step from which he had held off 
 as long as he could, but at last (he says) he felt it to be 
 his plain duty to forward to Celestine the whole corre- 
 spondence. 
 
 St. Celestine, to judge from his letters, was a man 
 full of zeal for the faith, and of great piety and tender- 
 ness of heart ; Dr. Wordsworth, of Lincoln, appeals to 
 him as the best judge of Cyril's character and conduct, 
 although he underrates his share in the affair of 
 Nestorius. He says : * Perhaps there could not have 
 been a more impartial judge of the parties in the 
 
ROME DEFINES 7 
 
 struggle than the Bishop of Eome. Celestine was a 
 calm spectator of the controversy, and m a review of it 
 it may be well to enumerate his letters as indicative of 
 his bearing with regard to it, and also as a summary 
 of its history.' ^ 
 
 We shall presently see that St. Celestine was not 
 exactly a mere * spectator of the controversy,' and that 
 his letters do not bear out Dr. Wordsworth's general 
 review of the Council. But that writer shows a true 
 instinct in taking the Pope's estimate of St. Cyril, in 
 preference to that of the latter's enemies, whom Dr. 
 Salmon and Dr. Bright follow.^ ' The Bishop of Eome,' 
 says Dr. Wordsworth, ' did not suppose Cyril to have been 
 actuated by any unworthy motives in this controversy.' 
 In this matter Dr. Pusey is at one with Dr. Words- 
 worth.^ 
 
 Celestine, on being appealed to by Cyril, summoned a 
 Synod of those bishops who happened to be in Eome at 
 the time, and carefully investigated the matter at several 
 sessions.'* The result was that Celestine renewed the 
 anathemas of his predecessor Damasus against those 
 who assert that there are two Sons of God, * One Who 
 was begotten of the Father before the ages, and another 
 who was born of the Virgin . . . and who do not con- 
 fess that the same Son of God both before and after 
 the Incarnation is Christ our Lord, the Son of God 
 Who was born of the Virgin.' He condemned Nestorius 
 for avoiding the word ' oneness ' {hwais) and using the 
 
 ' Wordsworth's Church History, iv. 232-3. 
 
 ^ Infallibility of the Church, p. 312, and Waymarks of Church Hist. 
 by W. Bright, pp. 150-158. 
 
 3 Pref. to St. Cyril's Minor Works, Lib. of the Fathers. 
 * Cf. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch, Mansi, iv. 1052. 
 
8 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 word ' conjunction ' {(rvvd(f)sta) — the latter indicating 
 only an external union {qua nempe connectitur qui 
 exterius adhceret) —in other words, he defined that the 
 union was Hypostatic, of substance with substance in a 
 single Personality, not of person with Person. 
 
 Further, the Pope quoted the Hymn of St. Ambrose, 
 and commenting on the line Talis decet partus Deum 
 {' Such a birth befits God '), he set his seal on the word 
 SsoroKos (Mother of God), quoting the Greek word 
 itself.^ 
 
 Having thus defined the matter of faith, Celestine 
 wrote to Cyril and gave his decision on Nestorius. He 
 must withdraw his objection to the word SsoroKoSf or be 
 deposed and excommunicated ; and Cyril was to act for 
 the Bishop of Kome in regard to the sentence on 
 Nestorius, if he proved refractory, and also to provide 
 for the government of the Church in Constantinople.^ 
 
 So far St. Cyril's action towards Nestorius had been 
 an office of charity, not an act of jurisdiction. He had 
 not thought that he would do well even to excom- 
 municate him from his own Church without consulting 
 Celestine, although he says he might legitimately have 
 done that much. When he wrote to the Egyptian 
 monks he was writing to people within his own juris- 
 diction, but he had now laid the matter before one who 
 could deal with cases that concerned the whole Church, 
 and with the question of deposition as well as excom- 
 munication.^ The correspondence that passed between 
 
 * Mansi, iv. 548-552. This invaluable fragment of Celestine's speech 
 at the Synod was first published by Baluze, and is apt to be overlooked 
 through its being separated in Mansi from the collection of documents 
 bearing directly on the Council of Ephesus. 
 
 ' Ibid. 1018. ^ Cf. Antifebronius vindicatus, pt. i. 606. 
 
KOME DEFINES 9 
 
 Alexandria and Eome on this occasion is, however, so 
 important that, at the cost of repetition, I will give a 
 summary of the two letters.^ 
 
 St. Cyril begins with giving his reason for breaking 
 the silence which he had kept as long as he dared. 
 The ancient customs of the Churches (he says) persuade 
 us to communicate such matters to your Holiness ; I, 
 therefore, wTite of necessity.- Nestorius (he says) from 
 the commencement of his episcopate has been dissemi- 
 nating among his own people, and the strangers who 
 flock to Constantinople from all quarters, absurd ideas, 
 contrary to the faith. He (Cyril) has therefore sent 
 Nestorius's homilies to Celestine. It was in his mind to 
 tell Nestorius at once that he could no longer hold com- 
 muni6n with him ; but he thought it better to hold out 
 to him a helping hand first and exhort him by letters. 
 Nestorius, however, only tried in every way to circum- 
 vent him. At last a bishop, named Dorotheus, ex- 
 claimed in Nestorius's presence, 'If anyone shall call 
 Mary the mother of God, let him be anathema.' A 
 crisis was reached by this expression ; a great disturb- 
 ance arose among the people of Constantinople. With 
 few exceptions they refrained from communion — nearly 
 all the monasteries and great part of the senate — for 
 fear of receiving harm to their faith. He had found, 
 moreover, that Nestorius's writings had been introduced 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1011, seq. 
 
 - St. Cyril speaks of the Pope as bis ' fellow minister,' from which 
 expression Dr. Bright {Roman See, p. 145) argues that ' he regards the 
 Bishop of Eome as privivs inter pares ' in the Anglican sense. But 
 what follows decides the sense in which St. Cyril understood him to be 
 primus — viz. in jurisdiction. According to Catholic teaching, the Pope 
 is on a par with all bishops as regards power of order, but their 
 superior in jurisdiction. 
 
10 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 into Egypt, and in consequence had written an encyclical 
 to the Egyptian monasteries to confirm them in the 
 faith. Copies of this finding their way to Constanti- 
 nople, Nestorius had resented his action. He accused 
 Cyril of having read the Fathers wrongly. Cyril says 
 he wrote direct to Nestorius, with a compendious exposi- 
 tion of the faith, exhorting him to conform to this. All 
 the bishops, adds Cyril, are with me, especially those 
 of Macedonia. Nestorius, however, considered that he 
 alone understood the Scriptures. While all orthodox 
 bishops and saints confess Christ to be God, and the 
 Virgin to be the mother of God (Ssotokos,) he alone who 
 denies this is supposed, forsooth, to be in the right. 
 The people of Constantinople now began, says St. Cyril, 
 to look for aid outside their province. St. Cyril felt 
 that a * dispensation was entrusted to him,' and that he 
 should have to answer on the day of judgment for silence 
 in this matter. He does not, however, feel that he 
 can confidently withdraw himself from communion with 
 Nestorius before communicating these things to His 
 Holiness. 
 
 ' Deign, therefore, to decree what seems right (Tvwaxrat 
 TO hoKovv), whether we ought to communicate at all with 
 him, or to tell him plainly that no one communicates 
 with a person who holds and teaches what he does. 
 Further, the purpose of your Holiness ought to be made 
 known by letter to the most religious and God-loving 
 bishops of Macedonia, and to all the bishops of the 
 East, for we shall then give them, according to their 
 desire, the opportunity of standing together in unity of 
 soul and mind, and lead them to contend earnestly 
 (sTraycoviaaa-dai) for the orthodox Faith which is being 
 attacked. As regards Nestorius, our fathers who have 
 
ROME DEFINES 11 
 
 said that the Holy Virgin is the mother of God are, 
 together with us who are here to-day, included in his 
 anathema ; for although he did not like to do this with 
 his own lips, still, by sitting and listening to another 
 (viz. Dorotheus), he has helped him to do it, for im- 
 mediately on coming from the throne he communi- 
 cated him at the holy mysteries.' He (St. Cyril) has 
 therefore sent his Holiness the materials for forming a 
 judgment.^ 
 
 St. Celestine in a beautiful letter, in answer, expresses 
 his joy at Cyril's purity of faith. He endorses his 
 teaching, and embraces him in the Lord, as present in 
 his letters. For (says the Pope) we are of one mind 
 concerning Christ our Lord ! He compares Cyril to a 
 good shepherd, and Nestorius not even to a hireling, but 
 to a wolf, who is destroying his own sheep. Our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, whose own ' generation ' is questioned, 
 shows us that we should toil for one sheep ; how much 
 more for one shepherd ! We ought, therefore, * to shut 
 
 ' Dr. Bright {R. See, p. 145) objects to the interpretation here given 
 of the words rvTrwcrai rh Sokovu, (1) because the Latin (which he sets 
 aside in Celestine's letter, but prefers in Cyril's !) has quid hie sentias 
 prcBscribere— -words which he avoids translating, but which are, to say 
 the least, compatible with the idea of authoritative decision ; and (2) be- 
 cause ' Cyril tells Celestine that he ought to make known his mind 
 {(TKdirov) to the Macedonian bishops.' Dr. Bright adds : • We shall 
 presently see that the Oriental bishops did not regard, &c.' 
 
 As to (1), the Greek word rvrrua-ai will be commented on directly (p. 21). 
 Meanwhile as to (2), it may be remarked (o) that the question is, not as 
 to what the Oriental bishops thought, but what Cyril here meant. And 
 (/8) the word o-zcdiros, so far from being suggestive of unauthoritative 
 direction, is actually used a few pages further on of the Emperor's 
 commands, which Count Candidian complained had not been obeyed 
 (Mansi, iv. 1233), and it occurs several times in reference to the 
 Emperor later on (cf. 1261, 1264). It will be seen presently that Cyril 
 did consider that Celestine had decided the question. 
 
12 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 him out from the sheep, unless there is hope of his con- 
 version. This we earnestly desire. But if he persists^ 
 an open sentence must be passed on him, for a wound, 
 when it affects the whole body, must be at once cut 
 away. For what has he to do with those who are of one 
 mind among themselves — he who considers that he 
 alone knows what is best, and dissents from our faith ? 
 Let, then, all those whom he has removed remain in 
 communion [with the Church], and give him to under- 
 stand that he cannot be in communion with us if he 
 persists in this path of perversity in opposition to the 
 Apostolic teaching. Wherefore assuming to you the 
 authority of our See, and acting in our stead andplace 
 with delegated authority {s^ovala), you shall execute a 
 sentence of this kind (sK^t/Sdo-sis air 6 cf^aatv), not without 
 strict severity, viz. that unless within ten days after 
 this admonition of ours he anathematises, in written 
 confession, his evil teaching, and promises for the future 
 to confess the faith concerning the birth of Christ our 
 God which both the Church of Eome and that of your 
 Holiness, and the whole Christian religion preaches, 
 forthwith your Holiness will provide for that Church. 
 And let him know that he is to be altogether removed 
 from our body. . . . We have written the same to our 
 brothers and fellow-bishops John, Rufus, Juvenal, and 
 Flavian, whereby our judgment concerning him, yea 
 rather, the judgment of Christ our Lord, may be mani- 
 fest.' 
 
 These two letters contain the following important 
 points. 
 
 (i) It was, according to St. Cyril, an ' ancient 
 custom of the Churches,' not simply of Alexandria, for 
 troubles concerning the faith (Mansi, iv. 1011), and such 
 
ROME DEFINES 13 
 
 important matters as the deposition of an heretical 
 archbishop, to be referred to Rome. 
 
 (ii) St. Cyril asks St. Celestine to prescribe what he 
 judges best in the matter ; to give the decision on this 
 important case, and to notify his decision to all the 
 bishops of the East. Dr. Bright merely calls this writing 
 in ' very deferential terms ' ^ to the Bishop of Rome. 
 Would it not surprise some of his readers to know how 
 deferential the terms of St. Cyril's letter were ? He 
 uses a word which occurs again and again in the Acts of 
 the Councils in reference to the relation of the Pope to 
 the condemnation of Nestorius, asking him Tvirooaat to 
 hoKovv — words which are a sort of refrain for a year to 
 come ; they form the keynote to the proceedings at 
 Ephesus. Bossuet remarks upon this expression, that 
 
 * it signifies, in Greek, to declare juridically ; rviros is a 
 rule, a sentence, and rvTraxrab rb Sokovv is to declare 
 one's opinion judicially. The Pope alone could do it. 
 Neither Cyril, nor any other patriarch, had the power to 
 depose Nestorius, who was not their subject : the Pope 
 alone did it, and no one was found to exclaim against it, 
 because his authority extended over all.' ^ 
 
 (iii) St. Celestine, on being appealed to by St. Cyril 
 to formulate the decision as to Nestorius's excommuni- 
 cation and deposition, at once assumes his infallibility 
 in such a grave matter. The Vatican decree does not go 
 beyond his words, when he says of his own sentence on 
 Nestorius^ that it is not so much his, but rather it is 
 
 * the divine judgment of Christ our Lord ; ' and again to 
 the Patriarch of Antioch he says, ' and let your Holiness 
 
 ' Dictionary of Christian Biography, art. ' Cyril,' p. 766. 
 ^ Remarques sur Vhistoire des Conciles, &c. {(Euvres, t. 30, p. 526. 
 Versailles, 1817.) 
 
14 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 know this sentence is passed by us, yea, rather by Christ 
 [our] God.' Just as afterwards the Synod, writing to the 
 clergy of Constantinople, calls the executed sentence, 
 being that of Pope and Council together, * the just 
 sentence of the Holy Trinity and their [i.e. the bishops* 
 and legates'] divinely inspired judgment.' 
 
 (iv) And again, Celestine is here pronouncing judg- 
 ment as to what is preached by the whole Christian 
 religion,' and decides to cut off Nestorius from the 
 common unity. 
 
 Dr. Wordsworth speaks of this all-important letter 
 as being simply a statement of * the orthodox doctrine of 
 the Western Fathers ' upon the controversy ! ^ Celestine, 
 however, states that he is giving the doctrine of the 
 Church of Rome and Alexandria and * the whole Christian 
 religion,' or, as he expresses it in his letter to Nestorius 
 (going over the same ground), 'the universal Church.' 
 Dr. Bright has described it thus : 
 
 * Celestine gave Cyril a commission of stringent 
 character (Mansi, iv. 1017). He was "to join the 
 authority of the Roman See to his own,' and on the part 
 of Celestine, as well as for himself, to warn Nestorius 
 that unless a written retractation were executed within 
 ten days, giving assurance of his acceptance of the faith 
 as to " Christ our God," which was held by the Churches 
 of Bome and Alexandria, he would be excluded from 
 the communion of those Churches, and provision would 
 be made by them for the Church of Constantinople, i.e, 
 by the appointment of an orthodox bishop.' ^ 
 
 Now, St. Celestine does not say 'join the authority 
 
 ' Church History, iv. 210. 
 
 - Dictionary of Christian Biography, art. ' Cyril.' p. 766. The 
 italics are mine. 
 
ROME DEFINES 15 
 
 of the Roman See to Ms ownj which Canon Bright gives 
 as a quotation. There is nothing in the Latin or Greek 
 exactly corresponding to * his own : ' words which would 
 suggest something more than the Papal decision as the 
 source of authority.^ Neither does Celestine bid St. 
 Cyril warn Nestorius * on the part of Celestine as well as 
 for himself' He simply constitutes St. Cyril his * pleni- 
 potentiary,' as Dr. Dollinger accurately expressed it.^ 
 Neither, again, does Celestine speak of the faith held by 
 the Churches of Rome and Alexandria simply, but he 
 adds that it is that of the entire Christian world or 
 religion. And further, he tells Nestorius in the same 
 batch of letters which Cyril was to read and forward, 
 that he will exclude him, not from the communion of 
 * those Churches ' only, but from the communion also of 
 the entire Christian Church. The latter point is of 
 
 * In his Boman See, p. 146, Dr. Bright urges that to ' assume the 
 authority ' would apply to one ' who had no ofi&cial authority,' and that 
 therefore it could not be said of St. Cyril. He therefore objects to the 
 translation • assuming the authority of our See ' and translates ' the 
 authority of our See having been combined with yours.' But (1) this is 
 a mistranslation of the Greek, which has a-oi — i.e. ' you,' not ' yours ' ; 
 and (2) the Latin, which, according to Canon Bright's own principle 
 {Roman See, p. 165), is of prime importance in a Papal letter, runs thus : 
 nostrcB sedis auctoritate adscitd (Mansi, iv. 1019) ; (3) Cyril had no 
 official authority over Nestorius : he could not, as Bossuet remarks, ex- 
 communicate him from communion with the whole Church, as Celestine 
 at any rate professed to do. Besides, the words ' acting with k^ova-la ' 
 are decisive that the authority was considered to be delegated, even if 
 they had not been accompanied by the words ' using our place,' which 
 Dr. Bright admits to mean delegation. And, lastly, the Greek word 
 crvmcpdeia-Tis cannot be considered to exclude the combination of two un- 
 equal authorities, for it was in constant use at that time to express the 
 combination of the Logos with the sacred Humanity in our Lord : cf. 
 Harnack, Hist, of Dogma (Tr.), iv. 171, note, and supra, p. 8. 
 
 = 'Bevollmachtiger,' Lehrbitch (1843), p. 121; ' matidataire,' 
 Duchesne, Eglises siparies, p, 35. 
 
16 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 importance, but it is strangely misrepresented in the 
 Dictionary of Christian Biography (Art. Cyril, by W. 
 Bright).^ In this very letter Celestine speaks of Nestorius 
 being separated from * our body,' by which, from the 
 contextual use of * our,' he could not mean simply his 
 own, nor only his own and Cyril's, but the whole body 
 of the Church. Anyhow, in his letter to Nestorius, 
 which St. Cyril was to read and forward, and which 
 covers the same ground, and was read at the Council of 
 Ephesus, the Pope says expressly that by this sentence, 
 unless he retracts, he is cut off from the communion of 
 
 * the whole Catholic Church ' (' ab universalis te Ecclesiae 
 Catholicse communione dejectum').^ This is a vital 
 point, and it is surely not fair to tell the reader that 
 Celestine bade Cyril warn Nestorius that he was to be 
 cut off from the communion of ' those Churches ' (viz. 
 Eome and Alexandria) when, as a matter of fact, he was 
 telling him that he was to be cut off from the commu- 
 nion of the whole Catholic Church. They are words, 
 too, which recur, for in writing to the clergy and 
 people of Constantinople as Celestine did, he repeats 
 the sentence in full which Cyril is to pass on Nestorius. 
 And while he speaks again of the faith held, not only 
 by the Churches of Eome and Alexandria, but by * the 
 whole Catholic Church,' he says that Nestorius is to be 
 
 * excommunicated from the entire Catholic Church.' 
 The same occurs once more in the Pope's letter to John 
 of Antioch. The Pope there again speaks as clothed 
 with supreme authority, calling his sentence * the sen- 
 tence passed by Christ our God,' and it cuts Nes- 
 
 * The same misleading expression (Eome and Alexandria) occurs in 
 a later work by the same writer, Waymarks, &c. p. 221. The omission 
 is supplied in The Roman See, p. 147. 
 
 - Man si, iv. 1035. 
 
ROME DEFINES 17 
 
 torius off from ' the roll of bishops ' (* episcoporum 
 ccetu').! 
 
 St. Celestine thus comes before us at the Council of 
 Ephesus as the foundation of the Church in a crisis of 
 her life when the reality of our Eedemption was at stake ; 
 for this, as we have said, was the real point at issue, as 
 was distinctly stated by himself and St. Cyril. He 
 stands out at once as the ' coniirmer of the brethren,' 
 (Luke xxii. 32). He feeds, or governs, the sheep of 
 Christ, supplying them with authoritative direction, 
 with the TVTTos, or decree, which was to govern their 
 action. He exercises his Apostolate over the whole 
 Christian Church, directing the Christian flock in Con- 
 stantinople itself,^ as well as the Bishops of Antioch and 
 Jerusalem, while he delegates the Bishop of Alexandria, 
 the second throne in Christendom, to execute his 
 sentence. 
 
 This sentence, therefore, having been entrusted to 
 Cyril, together with the general management of ' the 
 affair concerning Nestorius,' including the arrange- 
 ments for providing a new bishop for Constantinople, 
 Cyril wrote at once to John, Bishop of Antioch, and 
 after telling him what had happened, said that it was 
 for him to consider what it was best for him to do. 
 St. Cyril was doubtless well aware that he was treading 
 on delicate ground, for Nestorius had been recommended 
 for the see of Constantinople by John himself ; and the 
 event proved how little John was to be depended upon. 
 Jn describing what had taken place, Cyril says : ' The 
 holy Synod of the Eomans has issued a plain decree 
 {(jiavspa rsrvncoKs), and moreover has sent it in writing 
 to your Keverence, which [decree] it is necessary for 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1050. 2 j^^^ 1036. 
 
 C 
 
18 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 those to obey who cling to communion with the whole 
 West.' After saying that the Synod had written to 
 others — the Synodical letters are headed * Celestine to 
 our beloved brother ' — Cyril proceeds : * We shall follow 
 the decisions given by him, fearing to lose the com- 
 munion of so many, who are not angry with us on any 
 other account, and the judgment and impulse given ^ is 
 not about matters of little moment, but on behalf of the 
 faith itself, and of the Churches which are everywhere 
 disturbed, and of the edification of the people.' ^ 
 
 The position adopted by Cyril in endeavouring to 
 secure that John of Antioch should do his duty was, 
 therefore, as follows : This is a matter in which we 
 ought to accept the decision of the Eoman Synod. The 
 West will themselves obey ; they will also make it a 
 condition of communion with others that they, too, 
 should obey the Eoman Synod in this matter. Thus, 
 if we disobey, we shall differ from the whole West as to 
 the necessity of obedience, and that, too, in a matter 
 which concerns the faith. ' We shall [therefore] follow 
 the decisions given by him,' i.e. by Celestine. If we 
 were to put this into the technical terms of Catholic 
 theology, it would be the same as saying that the 
 decision of Celestine was an ex-cathedra judgment ; 
 that it would be so regarded by the West, and that the 
 course to be pursued in the East was therefore clear — 
 
 ' Gk. Kiv7j(Tis, which implies that Celestine set the matter in motion, 
 gave its direction and impulse — a direction which the Synod twice say 
 could not be resisted : first in the sentence passed at their first Session, 
 and secondly in their account of their doings to the Papal legates. In 
 this latter case they use the expression avayKaiws KivriQivTis (Mansi, iv. 
 1296). The same word {Kivi]cravros) is used of the Emperor's summons 
 of the Bishops to the Synod, iv. 1276. 
 
 2 Mansi, iv. 1052. 
 
ROME DEFINES 19 
 
 they must obey. That Celestine intended his judgment 
 as what we should now call an ex-cathedra dogmatic 
 decision is certain, for he insisted on Nestorius using 
 the term ^sotokos (Mother of God) in the sense which 
 he, in his court of judgment at Rome,' decided to be the 
 sense of the word in the mind of the whole Church. 
 From that hour this word %sot6kos (Mother of God) 
 was destined necessarily to take its place in the 
 terminology of the Church just as much as the term 
 ofjLoovaLos (Consubstantial) in the preceding century. 
 It was not inserted in the Creed, because the very 
 judgment of the Pope was that it was contained in the 
 actual terms of that Creed. It safeguarded, as it was 
 a development of, that Creed.^ 
 
 1 Mansi, iv. 548-552. 
 
 - Dr. Bright translates the quotation given above from Cyril's letter 
 as though he said that it was necessary to • follow ' the ' Romans,' 
 changing the order of the words in his translation. But the Greek is not 
 cLKoXovBdv (follow), but 7re£0eo-0ot (obey), and the relative pronoun more 
 naturally refers to the decisions {(papepa TeTvirwKe) than to the Eomans. 
 It would mean the Romans in Synod even if Dr. Bright were correct in 
 his rendering of the relative oh. He also suggests that lower down we 
 should read irop' ainau (by them) instead of trap' abrov (by him), i.e. 
 Celestine. This is arbitrary ; and, moreover, it would not help his case, 
 as he appears to think it would. For why should the West (as Cyril's 
 argument requires) obey the decisions of a Roman Synod as a matter of 
 course, unless it was the court of a superior judge? It must be 
 remembered that that Synod was not composed of bishops delegated by 
 the West. It consisted merely of the bishops, as St. Cyril says, ' found 
 in Rome ' at the moment ; and that decision is again and again called the 
 decision of Celestine, by Celestine himself, by Cyril, by John of Antioch, 
 and by the Synod of Ephesus. Cyril on this particular occasion naturally 
 spoke of it as the decision of the Roman Synod : i.e. he spoke of the 
 Court, the instrument, rather than of the judge, to emphasise the fact 
 that it was a solemn dogmatic settlement of the matter, to which all 
 must adhere who were to continue in communion with the West. He 
 calls it in point of fact, in this very passage, both the judgment of the 
 
 c 2 
 
20 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 John of Antioch wrote to Nestorius on receiving the 
 Papal decision, and urged him to submit on the ground 
 that, although the time given by Celestine (he thus 
 treats it as the judgment of Celestine) was indeed short, 
 still it was a matter in which obedience need not be a 
 matter of days even, but of a single hour ; and that 
 the term ' Mother of God,' although capable of abuse, 
 was one which the Fathers had used,^ and to which, 
 therefore, Nestorius could easily give his consent, 
 attaching to it his own doubtless orthodox meaning. 
 He urges him, in conclusion, to give up his own 
 opinion in favour of the general good. 
 
 Cyril wrote also to Juvenal of Jerusalem saying that 
 Nestorius had been ' condemned ' by Celestine as * a 
 heretic ' and that Celestine had * written clear things ' 
 (the expression used by him of the Synod in his letter 
 to John), which he has now sent on to Juvenal to excite 
 his zeal to ' save our imperilled flocks ' ; and he exhorts 
 him to assist in writing both to Nestorius and to the 
 people in accordance with the decree {opvaOivra rvirov), 
 i.e. the Papal decision, and suggests that pressure 
 should be brought to bear upon the Emperors.^ 
 
 Meanwhile Cyril had summoned a synod at Alexan- 
 dria and in conjunction with the bishops he drew up 
 twelve Anathematisms, which he forwarded three months 
 later to Nestorius together with the Papal sentence. 
 
 Bossuet describes the situation thus (the italics 
 are his) : ' C'est Celestin qui prononce, c'est Cyrille qui 
 execute, et il execute avec puissance^ parce qu'il agit par 
 
 Synod and the judgment of Celestine, if we accept the only reading 
 supplied us in the Greek (ttop' avTov Kpiixa(n, iv. 1052). 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1068. See Harnack, History of Dogma (Tr.), iv. 168. 
 
 ■•' Mansi, iv. 1060. 
 
ROME DEFINES 21 
 
 autorite du siege de Kome. Ce qu'il ecrit a Nestorius 
 n'est pas moins fort, puisqu'il donne son approbation a 
 la foi de saint Cyrille, et, en consequence, il ordonne a 
 Nestorius de se former a ** ce qu'il lui verra enseigner " 
 sous peine de deposition.' ^ 
 
 Note on the Meaning of tvtto?. 
 
 Dr. Bright insists upon translating tvttos by * direction * 
 {Boman See, p. 163, and pp. 145, 148) by way of correcting 
 the translation given by Bossuet, which I have adopted in 
 the text, viz. * judicial decree ' or sentence, conveying the 
 idea of authority. And on p. 163 he omits in the text the 
 word ijnjcfiov in translating the speech of Bishop Firmus, who 
 is giving the Council's view of what Celestine had done. This 
 omission, which originally occurred in his article in the 
 Church Quarterly Bevieiu for Jan. 1895, p. 289, was 
 pointed out by me in the Dtiblin Beview, April 1895 — an 
 article which Dr. Bright read, as he refers to it. Yet 
 Dr. Bright repeats the misquotation in the text of his 
 Boman See dc, p. 163, only adding in small print in a 
 note that 'the word iprjcfiov, "sentence," precedes.' The 
 reader would hardly gather from this how or what exactly it 
 * precedes.' And yet a great deal hangs on this. For the 
 contention maintained is that Celestine delivered an authori- 
 tative regulation, a decree, a sentence, whereas Dr. Bright 
 persists in translating it merely as ' direction,' which is a 
 more colourless, less 'judicial' word, and is compatible 
 with the idea of no particular authority — something, in fact, 
 
 ' Bemarques sur Vhistoire des Conciles, p. 524, t. 30, Versailles, 
 1817. For proof of Bossuet's statement as to the Papal ' approbation ' 
 of Cyril's teaching cf. Mansi, iv. 1033, where Celestine says of it : 
 ia-xfiKafiev Koi exofiev hi^oKijxaaixivriv = '■ we held and hold it as approved,' 
 i.e. as sound in doctrine. This was read out in the Council of 
 Ephesus. ^ 
 
22 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 that might or might not be followed according as convenience 
 should dictate. Firmus's words are that Celestine i}n}<f>ov 
 €.Tr€-^(. Kot TVTTov, ' gavc a scntencc and decree.' This fixes the 
 meaning of rvVos. It is simply a ' decree,' and as will be 
 seen hereafter is equivalent to an opo?, in spite of what 
 Dr. Bright has said on p. 167. (Cf . infra, p. 107.) The words 
 TVTTos and tvttovv constantly occur in the 'Acts' of the 
 Councils for an authoritative decision or decree. As mere 
 examples of literally multitudinous instances : Cyril uses the 
 substantive of the Imperial decree fixing the date of the 
 Council (Mansi, iv. 1229) ; Anatolius uses it of the sentence 
 passed on Dioscorus by the Council of Chalcedon {Leonis 
 E;p. 101, § 2) ; the Emperor Marcian uses the verb of the 
 things finally decided by the Synod of Chalcedon {Leon. 
 Ep. 105) ; the substantive is used of ' the decision of all the 
 Churches ' (Mansi, iv. 1297) ; it is used again and again of 
 decrees of the Nicene Council : once even of the Third Person 
 in the Holy Trinity having made those decrees, crvVwcre ra 
 T€TV7ro>fji€va (ibid. vii. 627) ; it is frequently used of the 
 Imperial decrees, Oecovs tvttod? (ibid. vi. 1032). In one 
 instance where, according to Dr. Bright, it does not mean 
 authoritative regulation, he is mistaken in supposing that 
 the idea of ' model ' is conveyed by it {Canons of the First 
 Four General Councils, 2nd ed. p. 200). The reference is to 
 the public ' typi ' or * tabulae ' of the Eoman Empire, settling 
 the division of provinces, territories, camps, and called 
 ' Notitia.' The ecclesiastical divisions were to follow these, 
 according to the 17th Canon of Chalcedon, not because 
 these were ' models * for the ecclesiastical scheme of distri- 
 bution, but because they were the Imperial regulations or 
 ordinances or decrees on the civil distribution of provinces, 
 &c. That is to say, they were tvttol without reference to 
 ecclesiastical conformity, but because they were authoritative 
 regulations for the Imperial civil administration. In short, 
 rviro<; is properly in Byzantine (and especially Conciliar) 
 Greek an authoritative regulation, a decree or ordinance. 
 
KOME DEFINES 23 
 
 In the last three editions of Liddell and Scott's Greek 
 Lexicon (6th, 7th, and 8th), the meaning of tvttos in Byzan- 
 tine Greek has been added as simply ' decree, or ordinance.' 
 The important point in the description of this word in 
 reference to Celestine's action is that it impHes, not any 
 kind of direction, but authoritative direction, i.e. a decree or 
 sentence. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 NESTORIUS WORKS FOR A GENERAL COUNCIL 
 
 But meanwhile Nestorius had tried to turn the subject. 
 First, he had artfully appealed to the Pope to know what 
 ought to be done about certain supposed disseminators 
 of Apollinarian teaching, with which in Constanti- 
 nople itself he ceaselessly charged Cyril ; and, next, he 
 devised another plan for staying the execution of any 
 sentence against himself. Before a sentence could be 
 served on him in Constantinople — before, that is, it 
 could acquire any canonical force such as the Emperor 
 could recognise — he induced His Imperial Majesty to 
 summon a Council to allay the general disturbance of the 
 Church in the East. 
 
 To understand the situation, it will be necessary to 
 glance at the state of things in Constantinople. As 
 Cyril, in his correspondence with Nestorius previous to 
 delating him to the Pope, had charged Nestorius with 
 broaching novelties {Kaivoro/jLia), so Nestorius retorted 
 that Cyril was himself the doctrinal innovator in the 
 direction of Apollinarianism. But there were others in 
 the Imperial city just then who were labouring under a 
 sentence passed at Rome for having introduced novel 
 doctrine. The ecclesiastical atmosphere was in fact 
 charged with disturbing influences in the persons of 
 Pelagian adventurers who had found their way to the 
 
ITS ORIGIN 25 
 
 capital from Antioch, the great centre of strictly Oriental 
 ecclesiasticism. 
 
 That city — which first heard the name of Christian 
 applied to the followers of Jesus Christ ; honoured by 
 the Church as one of the three sees of Peter ; the third 
 throne in Christendom — had long proved a nursery of 
 heretical teaching and religious dissension. Nestorius 
 himself came from Antioch. While there he had come 
 across Theodore of Mopsuestia, the pupil of Diodorus, 
 Bishop of Tarsus, who was the fountain, so far as we can 
 trace things upwards, of all the mischief which occa- 
 sioned the Council of Ephesus. In opposing Apollin- 
 arianism Diodorus had lost the balance of faith, and 
 taught that the union of Godhead and Manhood in the 
 Redeemer was not of substance with substance, but of 
 two persons : a union of name, authority, and honour. 
 Theodore imbibed his error, and so great and lasting was 
 the magic of Theodore's influence that his name had to 
 be condemned in the Sixth Council. Nestorius had come 
 under Theodore's teaching. John of Antioch, in urging 
 Nestorius to obey the Papal decision, alluded to Theo- 
 dore's withdrawal of certain erroneous expressions as an 
 encouragement. Being both of Antioch, they under- 
 stood the force of such an appeal. 
 
 But there was another of Theodore's pupils, the 
 Bishop Julian, a fellow-countryman of Nestorius, who 
 entered into the lists with St. Augustine in favour of 
 Pelagianism, and, with the usual modesty of heretics, 
 compared himself to David, and Augustine to Goliath. 
 This Julian had been deposed by the Holy See for his 
 Pelagian teaching, and previous to the emergence of 
 Nestorianism had found his way to Constantinople with 
 some others in the hope of moving the Emperor to call a 
 
26 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Council to reverse the sentence of the Pope. Two suc- 
 cessive Bishops of Constantinople had refused to present 
 him at Court. But it seems, from a letter of Celestine's, 
 that Nestorius was on too friendly terms with Julian to 
 please the Pope, and that but for his fear of Celestine he 
 would have consented to present Julian to the Emperor. 
 When the see of Constantinople was vacant, Celestine 
 had been anxious about its future occupant for this very 
 reason, lest he should be one that would use his privilege 
 of introduction in favour of such ecclesiastical * lepers ' 
 as Julian, and lead his Imperial Majesty to call a Council 
 for no adequate reason, and so simply disturb the peace 
 of the Church. St. Augustine and the African Church 
 had expressed themselves satisfied with the ruling of the 
 Holy See in regard to Pelagianism. The expression 
 * Boma locuta est; causa finita est,' though not the 
 actual words of St. Augustine, are the exact equivalent 
 of what he did say. ' The rescripts have come,' i.e. from 
 Eome (which are St. Augustine's words), is the same as 
 * Rome has spoken ' ; and the ' case is finished ' are his 
 actual words. He was satisfied with the decision of local 
 Councils sanctioned by Borne. But the Pelagians wished 
 to appeal to a General Council. St. Augustine had 
 reproved them for their disobedience. Capreolus, Bishop 
 of Carthage, writing in the name of the African Church 
 to the Synod when it was summoned, goes out of his way 
 to press this point, that the bishops of Africa had 
 accepted the decision of the Holy See, and that the Synod 
 of Ephesus had no right to re-open matters already 
 settled by such authority. He speaks of novel doctrines 
 which ' the authority of the Apostolic See and the judg- 
 ment of the bishops agreeing together has defeated,' and 
 submits that to treat these as open questions would be 
 
ITS ORIGIN 27 
 
 to discover a lack of faith.* As a matter of fact, the 
 Synod of Ephesus did allude to their case, not to re-open 
 it, but to signify in express terms their adhesion en bloc 
 to the decisions of the Holy See. 
 
 Julian, however, hoped much from a Council, and, 
 seeing his opportunity in the appointment of Nestorius 
 to the see of Constantinople, appears to have drawn him 
 into a favourable inclination to himself. Nestorius had 
 gone so far as to sound Celestine as to what could be 
 done in regard to such as Julian.^ There was, indeed, a 
 natural affinity between their heresies. * Where Pelagius 
 ends, Nestorius begins,' said St. Prosper ; and ' Nestorius 
 erred concerning the head, Pelagius concerning the 
 body,' said a Council of Western bishops. 
 
 Nestorius, then, probably assisted by Julian, turned 
 to the Emperor and tried for a General Council. The 
 Emperor, not unnaturally, welcomed the idea of putting 
 an end to what he regarded as an unprofitable strife. 
 
 The long-seated antipathy between Constantinople 
 and Alexandria would also not be without its effect on 
 the situation ; but, in addition, Cyril had quite recently 
 incurred the displeasure of the Emperor by writing 
 privately to the Empresses two magnificent letters on the 
 subject of the Incarnation. Theodosius was just then 
 becoming jealous of the growing influence of his sister, 
 the Empress Pulcheria, which, happily, was always on 
 the orthodox side, while the Emperor himself had come 
 under the subtle influence of Nestorius. It was natural 
 that the best mode of counteracting the supremacy 
 exercised by Cyril over the Catholics of the East, and of 
 Constantinople in particular, and of settling any further 
 troubles from the Pelagians, should seem to his Imperial 
 
 » Mansi, iv. 1209. ^ 77,^,^ io21. 
 
28 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Majesty to lie in a General Council. Anyhow the state 
 of confusion was such as to make him feel impatient, and 
 if Nestorius was right, he would have full opportunity 
 for displaying those powers of address which seem to 
 have fascinated Theodosius. Nestorius himself hoped to 
 be President and by bringing Cyril under an accusation 
 of siding with Apollinarian errors, to avert any sentence 
 that might come through him from Eome. The execution 
 of the impending Papal sentence would at least be stayed 
 owing to a technical difficulty ; for the Alexandrian 
 Archbishop, if himself in the dock under trial, could not 
 be the executor of a Papal condemnation against the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople. The Council was, as 
 Dr. Pusey expresses it, ' a device of Nestorius.' 
 
 But the idea of a Council was also welcomed by the 
 orthodox monks whom Nestorius had so severely perse- 
 cuted, and who saw their only method of escape from his 
 fangs in the publication of their wrongs at a Council. 
 They accordingly wrote to the Emperor pleading for a 
 Council. Nothing could be more welcome also to the 
 Pope himself, his desire being that Nestorius should 
 have some opportunity of retractation, such as a Council 
 would afford. He expressed himself strongly to this 
 effect in his letter to Cyril, after the Council had been 
 summoned, as also to the Synod itself ; and his own 
 words — those of a man whose sincerity and goodness 
 were never questioned by his contemporaries, not even 
 by Nestorius himself (who only thought himself more 
 * learned ' than the Pope, and, indeed, than anyone else) 
 — are better evidence than the imagination of certain 
 controversialists who cannot conceive of a Pope ever 
 wishing to act otherwise than with a high hand. 
 
 The Emperor, then, sent out bis summons ; and in 
 
ITS ORIGIN 29 
 
 his letter he forbade any * innovations ' in the interim^^ 
 i.e. any doctrinal novelties such as Nestorius charged 
 against Cyril, and Cyril against Nestorius, and the 
 Catholics in general against Julian and his Pelagian or 
 semi-Pelagian followers. He was, however, careful not 
 to show his leanings in his public authoritative letters, 
 though in Cyril's case he added to the letter of summons 
 a private one complaining of his stirring up strife be- 
 tween himself and the Empresses by his private letters 
 to the latter. 
 
 But matters presently took an unexpected turn in 
 Constantinople. The summons for the Council was 
 issued by the Emperor on November 19. By the end of 
 October Cyril had held his Synod at Alexandria, and in 
 the beginning of November (probably November 3) he 
 wrote his letter to Nestorius to be delivered to him by 
 four bishops — one more than the usual number for 
 serving a notice on an archbishop, owing probably 
 to the sentence being that of the Bishop of Kome. 
 Before these bishops arrived in Constantinople the 
 Imperial summons had been issued and was on its way 
 to distant parts. But nevertheless, on November 30, they 
 served the notice of deposition and excommunication 
 on the Archbishop of the Imperial city, together with 
 the Papal letter announcing the terms on which he 
 could be released, and together also with the twelve 
 Anathematisms added by Cyril and his Alexandrian 
 Synod. Thus, in less than a fortnight after the 
 Imperial summons, the whole face of things was changed 
 by the appearance of Cyril's legates in Constantinople, 
 bearing with them the Papal sentence of deposition. 
 Before this had been served, the idea of a Council had 
 
 * See note at the end of the Chapter. 
 
30 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 been devised to settle matters between Cyril and 
 Nestorius, and with the hope on Nestorius's part that he 
 would preside. Now all was changed. Nestorius was 
 condemned by the highest authority known to the 
 Church, acting, indeed, before the idea of a Council had 
 been broached, but creating, in spite of that, a new 
 situation. 
 
 We have no means of discovering the feelings with 
 which this action on the part of Rome and Alexandria 
 was received by the Emperor. The sentence was 
 delivered to Nestorius on Sunday as he was about to 
 solemnise the liturgy. He refused to receive the docu- 
 ment at first ; but the bearers, taking hold of his garment 
 from behind, succeeded in lodging the notice with him. 
 He gave no answer, but each side prepared for the 
 Council, Nestorius still hoping, it would seem, to be 
 able to bring on a theological discussion, through the 
 influence of the Emperor, whose instructions were 
 entrusted to Count Candidian, and who, according to 
 Count Irenaeus, had settled that Cyril should not sit as 
 judge at all.' 
 
 But on arriving at Ephesus some time before 
 Pentecost, in the hope doubtless of affecting the pre- 
 liminary arrangements for the Council, Nestorius was 
 rudely undeceived by the attitude which Memnon, the 
 bishop of the diocese, at once assumed towards himself 
 and his sympathisers. The doors of St. Mary's Church 
 were closed against them. They complained to the 
 Emperor that they could not celebrate the liturgy of 
 Pentecost in any of the churches throughout the city. 
 Bishop after bishop, too, on arriving at Ephesus, must 
 have strengthened Nestorius's conviction that the Papal 
 
 ' ouSe Kpiv€iu COS els wv rdv Kpipofiivwv ijSvyaro, Mansi, iv. 1393. 
 
ITS ORIGIN 31 
 
 sentence was practically accepted, and that the bishops 
 had come, as Count Candidian, the Imperial Commis- 
 sioner, afterwards complained, not to investigate an open 
 question, but to execute a sentence already passed^ 
 Accordingly, as we shall see, Nestorius absented him- 
 self from the Synod. 
 
 The day of Pentecost had come and the Bishop of 
 Antioch had not arrived. At length bishops came with 
 a message from him that the Synod was not to wait.^ 
 Some bishops in Ephesus had already fallen ill, many 
 felt the results of heat and bad accommodation, and at last 
 some of them died. As they said the Eequiem Mass of 
 one bishop after another, the survivors must have felt 
 keenly the cruelty of the Patriarch of Antioch's procras- 
 tination. They knew it to be of set purpose. The 
 Synod in its report to the Emperor assured His Majesty 
 of their conviction that John had delayed from a desire 
 not to be present at Nestorius's condemnation. For no 
 orthodox bishop doubted that the sentence passed by the 
 Pope would be executed. John, they said, allowed 
 friendship [for Nestorius] to gain the day over zeal for 
 the truth. Accordingly the bishops agreed to enter upon 
 the work of the Council, convinced that John of Antioch 
 did not mean, or wish, to be present, for (as Cyril after- 
 wards told the clergy and people of Constantinople) ' he 
 knew that Nestorius [his friend] would be condemned.' ^ 
 He knew that that was not really an open question. 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1264. As Dean Milman says, ' The Bishop of 
 - Constantinople was abready a condemned heretic ; the business of the 
 Council was only the confirmation of their [Celestine's and Cyril's] 
 anathema.' Hist, of Latin Christianity, i. 206. And Dr. Pusey says, 
 ' The mind of the Church had been expressed in the previous year.' 
 Pref . to Minor Works of Cyril, Lib. of the Fathers. 
 
 2 Mansi, iv. 1229, 1332. ^ j^cl. 1232. 
 
32 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 On ThEODOSIUS's PeOHIBITION of KaivoroiiCa. 
 
 Dr. Bright says that Theodosius ' had ruled that " no 
 new steps should in the interim be taken by any indi- 
 viduals " ' {B. See, p. 153). He refers his readers to Mansi, 
 iv. 1113, and adopts Tillemont's inference that Theodosius 
 had, in effect, ' arrested the decrees of Eome.' Yes, ' in 
 effect ' ; but it must be remembered that this would consti- 
 tute no formal opposition to the Papal authority, since the 
 decrees were not yet published. Yet this appears to be the 
 point of Dr. Bright's remark. But, in fact. Dr. Bright, in 
 his translation of Katvoro/xta? as ' new steps,' has given a 
 complexion to the Emperor's words, which is not warranted 
 by the Greek. The Bishops are told to attend />ir;8£yw,ia? ttjoo 
 Trj<5 dytcurctTTys crvvohov k(u tov fxiXXovTO^ Trap' avryj? KOtvrj i/'^^w 
 i<f>' airacri StSoa-dai tvttov KatvoTO/Jias iSto, Trapa tlvCjv ytvo/xei/iys : 
 i.e. lit. * no novelty being broached by any in their individual 
 capacity, &c.' It was not a question of ' new steps ' (as Dr. 
 Bright translates), but of what Theodosius, prompted by 
 Nestorius, chose to call ' novelties,' i.e. doctrinal innovations, 
 such as Cyril was considered to be instilling on his own 
 account into the minds of the Empresses, and of which the 
 Emperor spoke sharply in his letter to Cyril accompanying the 
 summons. Katvoropta has a definite signification in the Acts 
 of the Councils. It is the word which Cyril used more than 
 once of Nestorius's teaching (Mansi, iv. 1093, 1307). Nes- 
 torius's doctrine had been called KaivorrjTa, a ' novelty,' by 
 Celestine (iv. 1036). The bishops at the Eoman Synod said 
 that Nestorius atpecTLv KaLvoTOfjrja-ai, ' invented a heresy,' 
 (iv. 1052). Nestorius retorted the accusation. He and his 
 sympathisers used the word in regard to the avoidance of 
 doctrinal innovation, or fresh Creeds, by all Councils since 
 the Nicene (iv. 1233). It is the exact opposite of 'rightly 
 handling the word of truth,' opOoTOfxovvres, 2 Tim. ii. 15 ; 
 of. Mansi, iv. 1257. It was, in fact, a word that was being 
 
ITS ORIGIN 33 
 
 bandied about on either side, and consequently it naturally 
 came into the Emperor's letter about their assembling to 
 confirm the ancient faith. Dr. Bright, mistaking the mean- 
 ing of the word in Byzantine, and especially ecclesiastical 
 Greek, strikes a wrong note as to the situation. The raison 
 d'etre of a General Council, according to him, was to bring 
 on to the stage a fuller authority than that of Alexandria 
 and Borne. So he renders Ihia irapa tlvwv 'by any individuals.' 
 But in reality the Emperor's words were meant to * arrest ' 
 any private action of the parties to the quarrel in the 
 East, viz. Cyril and Nestorius, Eome not having yet come on 
 to the scene. It was to stop each of them, but especially Cyril, 
 from pushing what each ascribed to the other, viz. their 
 doctrinal innovations. Even if Theodosius had known of 
 the Papal sentence, he could not have referred to that ; for 
 its subsequent prom.ulgation in Constantinople would, in that 
 case, have been a high misdemeanour, whereas it was 
 accepted as regular, and actually spoken of as such by the 
 Synod in its letter to the Emperor himself. Dr. Bright has 
 made a similar mistake in the translation of KaivoTOfjidv in a 
 passage in the account of the Latrocinium (cf. infra, p. 231). 
 
CHAPTEE III 
 
 THE PRESIDENCY AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL 
 
 The Synod began its sessions on the sixteenth day 
 after Pentecost. The orthodox bishops agreed to range 
 themselves under Cyril. Can we doubt why ? They 
 themselves in their second letter to the Emperor de- 
 fine their situation thus. They tell His Majesty that 
 the Eoman Synod had condemned the teaching of 
 Nestorius and had said that all such should be excluded 
 from the Church, and that ' even before this holy Synod 
 was convened, Celestine commissioned Cyril to occupy 
 his place'— a fact which they seem to emphasise, as 
 suggesting the natural function of Cyril in the Council 
 itself. The Emperor was against Cyril personally ; he 
 had complained of his interference ; he had not intended 
 him to be President ; he ended with imprisoning him. 
 But the Synod suggested the reason why this action was 
 formally valid, viz. that he had been commissioned to re- 
 present Celestine ' even before the Synod ' — and therefore, 
 (so they seem to suggest), since the commission had not 
 been revoked, he naturally represented him at the Synod. 
 Celestine had also, they add, repeated his decision in a 
 fresh letter ; and we know that the view taken by the 
 Synod, in its third session, of its own action was that it 
 had passed a sentence not originally its own, but which 
 it had accepted and made its own. ' You shall execute 
 
ITS FUNCTION 35 
 
 this sentence,' was the Pope's injunction to Cyril ; ' We 
 executed the sentence,' was the plea of the Synod to the 
 Papal legates, when the latter said that they had come 
 to see that the sentence of Celestine was fully carried 
 out.' 
 
 St. Cyril, then, assumed the Presidency, as having 
 been already commissioned by Celestine to manage ' the 
 affairs of Nestorius,' which were so far from being con- 
 cluded that they were now to be conducted with the 
 solemnities of a Conciliar decision. The tradition of the 
 Church is quite clear to the effect that Celestine was 
 the real President. Twenty years later the Council of 
 Ephesus was spoken of in the CEcumenical Council of 
 Chalcedon (including some who, as Juvenal of Jeru- 
 salem, were present at Ephesus) as having been con- 
 ducted under the pilotship, or presidency, of Celestine 
 and Cyril — as a Council 'of which the most blessed 
 Celestine, the president of the Apostolic chair, and the 
 most blessed Cyril of great Alexandria, were the leaders,' 
 or (as the Latin translation is) ' presidents.' '^ And in its 
 definition the same Council speaks of the Council of 
 Ephesus again as having been presided over by ' Celestine 
 and Cyril.' ^ And the Emperors, in their letter after the 
 Council of Chalcedon, confirming the sentence against 
 Eutyches and the monks who sympathised with him, 
 speak of the Ephesine Synod as the occasion ' when the 
 error of Nestorius was excluded, under the presidency of 
 Celestine, of the city of Eome, and Cyril, of the city of 
 -Alexandria.' ^ The Empress Pulcheria uses the same 
 expression. And the letters from various bishops to the 
 
 ' TOUTTji/ iKfii$d(rei5 r-qv aTr6<pa<Tiu, Mansi, iv. 1020 ; rhu tvtvou 
 i^e^i^daafiev iv. 1289. 
 
 - Ka0r7777Ta2— Lat. ' praesides ' (Mansi, vii. 29). ^Ibid.109. * Ibid. 501. 
 
 D 2 
 
36 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Emperor Leo, written after the Council of Chalcedon in 
 reference to the troubles at Alexandria under Bishop 
 Timothy, show by the way in which they attribute the 
 presidency of the Council to Celestine as well as to Cyril 
 that the tradition of the Church was clear on thispoint.^ 
 For instance, certain European bishops depose that the 
 Council of Ephesus was gathered together * under Celes- 
 tine, of blessed memory, the keeper of the keys of the 
 Kingdom of Heaven, and under Cyril, Pontiff of Alex- 
 andria, of holy memory.' And the bishops of Upper 
 Armenia call the Council that * of which the presidents 
 were Celestine and Cyril, . . . who chiefly shone forth 
 against the wicked blasphemy of Nestorius.' And the 
 tradition was equally strong among the Greeks : wit- 
 ness, besides the instances already quoted, their Meno- 
 logium for June 9, where Cyril is described as ' a most 
 learned man, champion of the Catholic faith, whom the 
 supreme Pontiff Celestine judged a fit person to whom 
 he entrusted his own place in the Council of Ephesus.' 
 
 That Celestine considered Cyril, and that Cyril con- 
 sidered himself, to be acting still in virtue of the original 
 commission entrusted to him by Celestine may be 
 gathered from the questions which he asked Celestine 
 before the Council, such as whether Nestorius should be 
 received at the Synod as a bishop, together with 
 Celestine's reply, in which he says ' Yes,' and commits 
 the whole matter to Cyril and the Synod. ' It belongs 
 to your Holiness, with the venerable counsel of the 
 brethren, to put down the disturbances that have arisen 
 in the Church, and that we should learn that the matter 
 has been finished by [effecting] the desired correction.' ^ 
 * It belongs to your Holiness, with the venerable counsel 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 539-623. ^ m^^ ly. 1292. 
 
ITS FUNCTION 37 
 
 of the brethren,' is a sufficiently plain indication that 
 Cyril was held by the Pope to be acting under the 
 original commission entrusted to him, only that he 
 would now act with the help of the Council. This letter 
 is dated May 7, and was written the day before the 
 letter to the Synod which was committed to the care of 
 the legates. The messenger who brought Cyril's letter 
 would naturally carry back the answer with all possible 
 despatch, and there was ample time to reach Ephesus 
 before the Council met. 
 
 Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that Cyril should 
 have ' occupied ' and ' managed ' the place of Celestine 
 in the Council, as the Acts repeatedly state he did, 
 unless he had some intimation from Kome that he was 
 meant to do so, or unless in the judgment of the Synod 
 he could fairly rest on the original Papal commission. 
 Dr. Bright's suggestion that ' Cyril was not likely to be 
 punctilious in such a matter, and might well assume that 
 Celestine would not disallow him on that head ' ^ ignores 
 the situation. If Cyril was not likely to be punctilious, 
 others were ; we know enough of Juvenal of Jerusalem 
 to feel the w^eakness of such a suggestion ; and the 
 Imperial displeasure, certain to be manifested, was not 
 likely to be treated as of no account. There must have 
 been some safer ground on which to rest than Cyril's 
 mere assumption. 
 
 The letter of May 7, if it reached Cyril in time, 
 satisfactorily explains everything. It shows for certain 
 that Celestine considered Cyril to be already in charge 
 of the whole matter, which would now be concluded in 
 conjunction with the Council. And it is impossible to 
 show that this letter had not reached Cyril before the 
 
 ' Roman See, p. 155. 
 
38 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Synod began. It cannot be assumed without some proof, 
 that ' no desire of Celestine's was made known to them 
 until the arrival of the legates.'^ Cyril's messenger 
 setting off at once would travel much quicker than Papal 
 legates, whose movements were proverbially solemn and 
 measured, and he might well have escaped the storm 
 that overtook the latter and detained them so long. 
 
 So that if we take the narrative so far simply as it 
 stands, it results that (1) the Pope had given a decision, 
 (2) the Synod was about to affirm that sentence as a 
 matter of course^ and (3) that Cyril acted not merely as 
 Bishop of Alexandria but also as Papal legate. The 
 rule, according to which the Pope now acted, is thus 
 described in a letter by two Alexandrian clerics cited by 
 certain Episcopal legates sent from Pope Anastasius 
 towards the end of this century to the Emperor Ana- 
 stasius. They say that ' whenever in doubtful matters 
 any Councils of bishops are held, his Holiness who pre- 
 sides over the Church of Eome used to select the most 
 reverend Archbishop of Alexandria to undertake the 
 charge of his own place.' 
 
 Cyril, then, acted for Celestine, as having been 
 originally commissioned by him in the previous August 
 to manage the affair of Nestorius, and as having now 
 the office devolved upon him of managing it with the 
 help of a Council : this being clear to the Synod either 
 as a matter of course, or as being acquainted with 
 Celestine's letter saying ' It belongs to your Holiness, 
 with the venerable counsel of the brethren.' 
 
 What was the work actually before the bishops? 
 The question has been asked, ' Did they regard them- 
 selves as simply Celestine's agents for the carrying out 
 
 ' Roman See, p. 158. 
 
ITS FUNCTION 39 
 
 of his previous sentence against Nestorius ? This must 
 have been their view if, however erroneously, they had 
 regarded the commission of August as " devolving " upon 
 them.' 1 
 
 To answer this question, we must ask what the 
 writer means by ' simply . . . agents.' But as it is 
 difificult to be sure of the precise meaning which we are 
 intended to attach to these words, and as the mattej: is 
 one of supreme importance, it will be best to say what 
 the office of bishops in an (Ecumenical Council involves 
 on the Catholic theory as expounded by the Vatican 
 Council, and lately agam by Leo XIII. in his encyclical 
 De Unit ate. 
 
 According to Catholic teaching, the bishops in 
 Council have, after a definitive sentence by the Eoman 
 Pontiff, an office of examination, and a capacity to pass 
 judgment. Their examination, however, is not of that 
 kind which springs from any doubt as to the justice or 
 truth of the Pontifical judgment. It presupposes the 
 binding nature of that. But since every examination is 
 grounded on some doubt, or supposes something that 
 needs clearing up, what is the doubt from which such 
 examination on the part of the bishops proceeds ? The 
 answer is that while the sentence is held to be true, the 
 motives that guide it may be profitably investigated, not 
 to know whether they are just, but simply what they 
 are.'-^ As an instance of the first kind of examination 
 which proceeds from doubt as to the truth of an assertion, 
 we might take the case of one who is in doubt as to the 
 immortality of the soul. He begins to search for motives 
 of credibility to satisfy himself as to whether it is a 
 
 ' Roman See, p. 155. 
 
 - Cf. Palmieri, S.J., De Romano Pontifice, 1891, p. 084 seq. 
 
40 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 truth. But a man may begin with a firm belief that 
 the soul is immortal, and yet examine keenly into the 
 motives which would reasonably lead to such a belief, 
 especially if he had to teach. It w^ould be a case either 
 oi fides qucerens intellectum, of faith seeking to discover 
 its confirmation in the department of the natural reason, 
 or of searching for material for teaching. 
 
 Now in the case of bishops in a Synod, there is a 
 very obvious motive for this latter kind of investigation. 
 As bishops they have to teach, and ought to be able to 
 produce the proofs from Scripture and tradition and 
 from the analogy of the faith, in the case of a dogma 
 which they would pronounce to be true, on sufficient 
 authority, even if ignorant of these elucidating con- 
 siderations. An instance of this kind of investigation 
 is to be seen in the treatment of the dogma of Tran- 
 substantiation at Trent. It had always been part of 
 the deposit. When Berenger first started an opposing 
 theory, our own Lanfranc showed him that he was strik- 
 ing against the belief of all ages. It was, he proved, 
 of divine faith. The particular term was made part 
 of the Catholic faith at the Fourth Lateran Council.^ 
 And yet, three centuries afterwards, the Council of 
 Trent entered upon an investigation of its harmony 
 with Scripture and tradition. Every one of the Triden- 
 tine fathers held the judgment of 1215 to be irreversible : 
 that is to say, every one of them believed Transub- 
 stantiation to be a matter of faith before it was subjected 
 to this fresh investigation. But in view of surrounding 
 and increasing Protestantism, it was considered necessary 
 
 ' Not all that is of divine faith is included in ' the Catholic faith ' : 
 that is to say, not all that is believed on sufficiently cogent reasons 
 is made an article of external communion with the Church, 
 
ITS FUNCTION 41 
 
 to examine it in relation to other truths. As St. Leo 
 says of the examination of his own dogmatic exposition 
 of the faith at the Council of Chalcedon, ' the truth 
 shines brighter, and is held with firmer hold, when what 
 faith had first taught examination has afterwards con- 
 firmed.' (£'p. ad Theodor.) 
 
 The bishops, then, are assembled in Council, not that 
 they ma}^ learn the faith, but that they may act as 
 judges and propose their judgment with authority. 
 They are authoritative teachers, not of themselves in- 
 fallible, nor supreme in authority ; but their judgment, 
 nevertheless, has weight and authority, for they are set 
 over their flocks by the Holy Ghost. And they come to 
 a Council, not to see whether the judgment of the Koman 
 Pontiff (if it has preceded theirs) is true, but, whilst 
 using that as their form {TV7ro9), to make an honest use 
 of their judgment, and add it to that of the Pontiff. 
 The very idea of the Church is, that she contains a 
 successive and permanent series of witnesses owing to 
 the grace of their consecration, though infallible only 
 when in conjunction with the See of Peter. Their judg- 
 ment in unison wdth his becomes a conciliar judgment, 
 which has its own special office in rendering conspicuous 
 the unity of the Church, and impressing the faithful 
 with the divine character of the teaching of the Supreme 
 Pontiff. Their judgment in the Synod is not that 
 merely of theologians. These have no authority over 
 the faithful through any grace of consecration ; bishops 
 have. If any number of theologians were added on to 
 the Supreme Pontiff, the authority would simply be that 
 of one man. Not so with the bishops ; they are not 
 the mere tools of the Supreme Pontiff'. They are sheep, 
 but also shepherds ; taught, but also teachers ; and the 
 
42 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 authority of their judgment added to that of the Roman 
 Pontiff is the authority of a conciliar judgment. This 
 derives its infallibility from the See of Peter ; but al- 
 though the decision of the Holy See in a matter of faith 
 delivered as obligatory on all would of itself possess the 
 seal of infallibility, it would not have the striking 
 character of a conciliar judgment. The Episcopate is 
 a reality in the Kingdom of God ; and its judgments, 
 however dependent for their infallibility on that of the 
 Supreme Pontiff, have, nevertheless, a vitality of their 
 own. Consequently, on the one hand, a General Council 
 is never simply necessary, but it is, on the other hand, 
 in certain cases eminently useful. After the Pontifical 
 sentence, the Catholic Episcopate will, as a matter of 
 moral necessity, conform to it; but while thus not 
 morally free, it is still a gain that the consent of so 
 many should become evident and conspicuous in fact, 
 so that sound doctrine may be the more easily defended, 
 and the subtlety of heretics kept in subjection.^ 
 
 It will be seen from this short exposition of the rela- 
 tion between Pope and Council in Catholic theology, that 
 the devolution of the Papal sentence against Nestorius 
 on the Council would not suppose the bishops of the 
 Council to be simply the agents and instruments and 
 ministers of Celestine in such a way as that they had 
 nothing to do but register his decision. ^ They had to 
 bring their office as judges into play. That decision was 
 the type {rv-rros) which they were morally bound to 
 follow. The Pope's injunction to Cyril was, ' assuming 
 the authority of our See and acting with delegated power 
 
 * Cf. Palmieri, loc. cit., and Jungmann's Dissertatio de Concilio 
 Ephesino. 
 
 "^ This is the carieature of Catholic doctrine, presented by Dr. 
 Bright, Roman See, p. 155. 
 
ITS FUNCTION 43 
 
 [this is the exact meaning of the Greek word] in our stead 
 and place, you will execute a sentence of this sort, &c.' 
 And the bishops, as we shall presently see, distinctly say 
 that they have conformed to this type, or decision. The 
 essence of the decision was that Nestorius should be 
 condemned, unless he repented ; a detail of that sentence 
 was, that it should take effect ten days after the notice 
 had been served ; but the circumstance of a Council 
 having been summoned to meet, rendered a close ad- 
 herence to this detail unadvisable. The Council did, as 
 we have said, expressly state that it had adhered to 
 Celestine's decision ; but being bishops, with a capacity 
 and duty of judgment, they unfolded the motives which 
 might be supposed to have guided the Pope and showed 
 the grounds on which under the altered circumstances of 
 the case that sentence necessarily stood firm. Their 
 obedience would thus be seen to be materially just, as 
 well as formally good. 
 
 Bearing in mind, then, what it is that we have to 
 show when we say that the doctrine of Papal Supremacy 
 is (as the Vatican Council teaches) that of the Primitive 
 Church, let us now see how the bishops acted at the 
 Council of Ephesus. 
 
 The first session was held on June 22. The bishops 
 met under difficult circumstances and with this perplexity 
 as compared with subsequent Councils —they had no 
 precedents for an (Ecumenical Council. The Acts of the 
 Nicene Fathers, if they had ever been committed to 
 writing, which is improbable, had perished. The 
 Council of Constantinople was not (Ecumenical in its 
 sessions, and had not yet taken its place among the 
 General Councils. Neither had they the advantage of 
 the presence of legates from Eome. 
 
44 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 One thing, however, was quite plain in the eyes of 
 the Synod. Before Juvenal of Jerusalem had proposed 
 that the Emperor's letter should be read, Peter, the 
 Alexandrian notary, had opened the proceedings by 
 stating the subject before the Synod. Nestorius, he 
 said, had created a disturbance in the Church by certain 
 doctrinal expositions ; Cyril had endeavoured to persuade 
 him to come to a better mind ; at length the matter had 
 been brought before Celestine, Bishop of Kome, by whom 
 * u)hat was suitable, ov meet, had been written, comprising 
 a clear decision, or sentence.' * This view of Celestine's 
 letter was about to be treated as beyond dispute. All 
 that they did would assume this. For in their third 
 citation of Nestorius, the bishops as a body sent word 
 to him that if he should not come to the Synod and 
 reply to the things objected to him, ' the most holy Synod 
 will be compelled (avdyK^v s^si) to decide concerning 
 him the things decreed in the canons of the holy Fathers.'^ 
 It is obvious that, though they do not say so in words, 
 their meaning was that he would be condemned if he 
 did not defend himself by disavowing what he had 
 written, and what he had recently said in Ephesus itself. 
 In fact (to reverse the assertion of Dr Bright) they ' ac- 
 cepted Cyril's and Celestine's estimate of the language 
 used by Nestorius.' ^ When Juvenal of Jerusalem pro- 
 
 ' Ttt e(/C(5Ta . . . TVTTOV (pavephp irepUxovra, Mansi, iv. 1129. 
 
 2 Mansi, iv. 1136. 
 
 •' Roman See, p. 157. Dr. Bright adds that they did not ' treat it as 
 already proved heretical.' Of course not, if by ' proved ' is meant 
 ' proved by a logical process on their own part in Council.' But they 
 did treat it as heretical. Dr. Bright has an extraordinary note on the 
 letter of the Synod referred to above. He says {Roman See, p. 155) 
 that 'this' (it is 'these things' in the Greek), 'in the sentence first 
 naming Celestine, expressly refers to the function of all bishops in the 
 
ITS FUNCTION 45 
 
 posed, in the first session, that the Nicene Creed should 
 be recited, so that, after the matters under consideration 
 concerning the faith had been compared with that Creed, 
 those that agreed should be confirmed and those that 
 disagreed should be cast out, he prefaced his proposal 
 with saying that Nestorius had ' refused to face the 
 Synod out of a bad conscience ' : i.e. because he knew 
 that he would be condemned. Obviously the bishops 
 had settled in their own mind (and indeed they showed 
 no hesitation about saying plainly) who was in the right 
 and who was in the wrong, and there was no idea of 
 questioning the Pope's dictuyn that what he had de- 
 finitely settled was the teaching, not only of Kome and Alex- 
 andria, but of the whole Church (cf. supra, p. 16). To 
 use the words of Dr. Pusey quoted above, ' the mind 
 of the Church had been expressed in the previous year.' 
 
 exclusion of false doctrine.' There is not a word about ' the function 
 of all bishops.' The Synod merely adduces the fact that the Western 
 bishops, with Celestine present, had declared that all such (as Nestorius) 
 should be excluded from the roll of bishops. In the same note. Dr. 
 Bright says that Celestine, in his letter of May 7, ' neither says nor 
 implies ' ' that he meant Cyril to be President.' It will be seen directly 
 that nothing can well be clearer than that he did. In the text, how- 
 ever, to which this note is appended, Dr. Bright indulges in an ignoratio. 
 elenchi, when he says that Celestine had not ' instructed his actual 
 legates to treat Cyril as their chief, but only to take counsel with him.' 
 The question is not as to whether Cyril was to be their chief but his 
 relation to the Council. The legates were sent to assist him. The in- 
 struction to ' take counsel ' occurs only in the latter part of the letter, 
 and refers only to the possibility of the Council having been concluded 
 and things having gone wrong. In the previous part of the letter, the 
 legates are told to do whatever they shall see to be Cyril's judgment 
 {Quicquid in ejus videritis arbitrio facietis) , not ' 07ily to take counsel,' 
 as Dr. Bright puts it. Cyril ' managed the place of Celestine,' we are 
 told, even when the legates were present — which could only have been 
 possible by reason of himself being a Papal legate. Cf. Mansi. iv. 1301 ; 
 o56. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE DEGRADATION OF NESTORIUS 
 
 No sooner had the Synod opened than a question 
 arose as to the mode of procedure. Peter, the proto- 
 notary of Alexandria, assumed that they would commence 
 proceedings by reading what had passed between Cyril 
 and Nestorius, and Pope Celestine. This would have 
 been the strict canonical order. But Juvenal of Jeru- 
 salem, who afterwards in the Eutychian disputes gave 
 so much trouble, proposed that the Emperor's letter of 
 summons should be read, and that it should be the 
 ' torch ' to guide their steps. He has probably been 
 reported badly : for it seems from what follows as 
 though he alluded to another letter from the Emperor, 
 which Count Candidian, the Imperial Commissioner, had 
 brought with him, giving commands as to the order 
 of their proceedings. This was an irregular, though 
 not an unknown, course to pursue. The Church has 
 sometimes tolerated, but only tolerated, this measure of 
 deference to the Emperor. 
 
 Candidian, however, endeavoured to keep the letter 
 to himself until John of Antioch should appear, hoping 
 probably by this means to defer the sessions of the 
 Council indej5nitely.^ But Cyril obliged him to read it, 
 and Candidian soon left the Council, and afterwards 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1261. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 47 
 
 comijlained that there was not gomg to be any real 
 discussion of the matter at issue.^ He saw, of 
 course, that the bishops had ah-eady made up their 
 minds. 
 
 The question next arose whether Nestorius should be 
 summoned. Cyril seems to have thought that he had 
 sufficiently shown his contumacy by his doings at 
 Ephesus before the Council met, and by his non-appear- 
 ance in the Church now. But he was persuaded to act 
 in the most thoroughly canonical way, and to summon 
 him in the usual solemn form.^ Three bishops, with a 
 lector and notary, waited on him, but in vain. Thrice 
 he was summoned, but at length the messengers re- 
 turned to tell that they had been treated with contumely 
 by the soldiery that guarded Nestorius's dwelling. The 
 Synod was stupefied. Nothing remained but to proceed 
 at once to examine the facts of the case concerning 
 Nestorius's heretical teaching. They proceeded accord- 
 ingly to set the case before them. They were not em- 
 barking on a theological investigation of the doctrine ; ^ 
 that would have occupied them much more than the 
 remainder of the day. What they did consisted of the 
 most summary process consistent with the solemnity of 
 the occasion. They w^ere acting as judges, albeit in 
 obedience to a higher court, and their procedure, however 
 summary, was bound to be marked by judicial order. 
 
 Accordingly, at Juvenal's instance, the Nicene Creed 
 was read. For it was against that Creed that Nestorius 
 was accused of having offended. Next came the writings 
 
 * Mansi, iv. 1263. 
 
 2 Garnier {Diss. ii. de Synodis : Pref. to Marius Mercator) thinks 
 that the first formal notification of the day of meeting, having been 
 made to him on a Sunday, would have been invalid. 
 
 ^ ' There was no discussion,' Harnack, Hist, of Dogma (Tr.), iv. 187. 
 
48 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 of Nestor ius and Cyril in the earlier part of their quarrel, 
 for this was necessary in order to understand clearly the 
 subject-matter of the Papal judgment. Then Cyril's 
 second letter was read, and he put it to the Council 
 whether this was not in conformity with the Nicene 
 faith. They admitted it as a part of the rule of faith. 
 Their separate short speeches are given in the Acts, and 
 must have occupied considerable time.* 
 
 Then Nestorius's second letter was read, aiid on being 
 appealed to by Cyril, the bishops, many of them, one 
 by one, gave their opinion, and at length they all 
 together shouted their condemnation of the letter as 
 impious, heretical, worthy of all anathema. Acacius, 
 Bishop of Mitylene, drew out the points in which it was 
 heretical, and the bishops again shouted their ana- 
 themas.'^ 
 
 After a silence, Juvenal of Jerusalem proposed that 
 now the letter of Celestine ' concerning the faith ' ^ 
 should be read. All that had been read before prepared 
 the way for this : without the letters of Cyril and 
 Nestorius the Papal sentence could not be well under- 
 stood. 
 
 Lastly, Cyril's letter, written in execution of the 
 Pope's commission, which had not been submitted to 
 the Pope, was read as ' consonant with ' Celestine's 
 letter, and approved. 
 
 It was then clearly established that both Celestine's 
 
 * They occupy thirty columns in Mansi (c/. iv. 1138-1168), i.e. 
 fifteen columns of Greek. 
 
 2 Dr. Bright calls this a * laborious examination ' (Roman See, 
 p. 169) ; most people would consider it a very summary process, so far 
 as investigation and real examination were concerned. The Boman 
 Synod gave several sessions to the matter. 
 
 3 Mansi, iv. 1177. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 49 
 
 letter and also this last, containing the same doctrine 
 and the Papal sentence, had been served on Nestorius, 
 and that he had continued im^Denitent, not only beyond 
 the ten days originally assigned by Celestine, but 
 even up to the day of the Council. Unless this was 
 established, their action would not have been regular nor 
 in accordance with the mind of Celestine, as expressed 
 in his letter to Cyril.' 
 
 Next, a number of passages from the Fathers, which 
 had been previously selected — probably by Cyril — were 
 read out, to show that they were acting in unison with 
 the whole past of the Church ; and then some passages 
 from the writings of Nestorius. 
 
 Before, however, proceeding to the sentence, a letter 
 of Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, brought by Besulas, 
 a deacon, was also read, in which the Bishop trusted 
 that all novelties would be kept out of the Church, and 
 begged that ' the authority of the Apostolic See and the 
 unanimous decision of the hierarchy ' should be con- 
 sidered as final in regard to the Pelagians. More, it is 
 thought, must have taken place on this subject, for St. 
 Gregory the Great, when living in Constantinople, had 
 personally inspected the matter, and tells Narses that 
 the Acts of the Council of Ephesus had been mutilated by 
 some Easterns in respect of Pelagian affairs {Ejj20. iv. 5). 
 
 Then followed the sentence : the terms of which are 
 plain and simple in regard to the relation of the Council 
 to the Pope. They correspond exactly with what we 
 might have expected from the outset. The Synod had 
 been told (what, of course, it knew already) that Celestine 
 had written ' what was suitable, containing a plain sen- 
 tence {tvttov)' ^ The letter containing that sentence 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1292. - Ibid. 1129. 
 
50 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 had been read out to the Synod, after the correspondence 
 between Cyril and Nestorius, which explained the con- 
 tents of the Papal ultimatum. That sentence was not 
 to take effect before an interval of ten days from its 
 reception by Nestorius had elapsed. The ten days, as 
 has been already explained, were naturally (and in 
 accordance with Celestine's mind) prolonged into a con- 
 siderable interval in consequence of the Council be- 
 coming the occasion on which the Papal decision would 
 be executed. It had been established by competent 
 witnesses that Nestorius had not repented of his heresy. 
 The Synod had sent to him to say that if he did not 
 appear * it would be compelled to pass sentence upon him 
 in accordance with the canons of the holy Fathers.' ^ 
 
 The Synod accordingly pronounced sentence against 
 him, degrading him from the Episcopal office. And 
 this they did (so the bishops are careful to say), ' being 
 compelled both by the canons and by the letter of our 
 most Holy Father and fellow-bishop Celestine, the bishop 
 of the Church of the Eomans.' We are told that during 
 the solemn pronunciation of the sentence many of the 
 bishops' eyes filled with tears, as might well be supposed 
 in the case of a vast gathering of emotional Easterns 
 engaged in placing one of their own number out of the 
 roll of the Episcopate ^ — many of them, as St. Vincent of 
 Lerins remarks, men of great holiness and, we may 
 assume, not without their feelings of tender piety. 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1136 : avdyKrjv e|et rh SoKovpra toTs rwv aylwv irarepuv 
 Kavo(nv eTrl (Toi dpiaai. 
 
 2 Dr. Bright pleads that we cannot suppose that they literally shed 
 many tears, as they say they did, and that since this part of the state- 
 ment is not literally true, we need not take the rest of it as literally 
 true— e.^. when they say they were ' compelled ' ! He forgets that the 
 Synod repeated the latter expression. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 51 
 
 * Compelled both by the canons and by the letter of 
 our most Holy Father and fellow-minister Celestine ' ! 
 Such was their position. 
 
 First, the canons. The reference is to their having 
 acted in the absence of Nestorius. In several places they 
 speak of their having satisfied the requirements of the 
 canons through their threefold summons of the heretic. 
 They had given him the opportunity of answering the 
 charge brought against him, four bishops having 
 repaired to his house to acquaint him with the position of 
 things ; and John of Antioch had expressly commissioned 
 two bishops to tell the Synod not to wait for him. * Do 
 your work,' were his words, * if I delay.' There had 
 therefore been no violation of canon law. By the 
 canons they were free to act, and indeed compelled, 
 although the guilty party was not present. 
 
 But this was not all. The source from which their 
 entire action and their final judgment sprang was the 
 letter of the Pope.^ They were compelled to act by 
 reason of the letter of him who was at once their ' Holy 
 Father ' and their ' fellow-minister : ' in other words, 
 their equal in sacerdotal dignity,'^ but their superior in 
 authority. He had been asked by St. Cyril rvircoo-ac to 
 SoKovv, to formulate the dogmatic decree. He had 
 given the rviros in the letters written to Cyril, Nestorius, 
 the clergy of Constantinople, and John of Antioch, but 
 especially in the letter to Nestorius, which was read in 
 
 * The preposition by which they express their obedience to the 
 canons is a-rrS ; that by which they express their obedience to the letter 
 of the Holy Father is e/c. That the word ' compelled ' applies to 
 the letter, as well as to the canons, is clear from the conjunctions 
 used, viz. re . . . Kai. 
 
 ■^ avWeirovpyov. 
 
 E 2 
 
62 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Synod. The Council could do nothing else than yield 
 obedience to this letter. This the bishops declare they 
 have done. Their action in condemning the Archbishop 
 of Constantinople in his absence from the Synod was 
 covered by the canons ; their action in condemning him 
 at all was, they averred, a simple necessity after the 
 letter of the Pope. Although exercising a real judgment 
 on the subject, as the record shows they did, they were 
 yet under a moral impossibility of differing from the 
 Papal sentence ; they were, they say, ' compelled [airo] 
 by the canons and by [i/c] the letter of the Holy 
 Father ' ; and in delivering this sentence, which they 
 thus declare to be in its origin and power that of the 
 Pope, they profess to be acting with the authority of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. It is, they say. His sentence. 
 What Celestine said of the sentence as it passed from 
 his lips, that it was ' the judgment of Christ, who is 
 God,' the Ephesine Council also said of its execution 
 and promulgation by themselves. Pope and Council 
 together claim the prerogative of infallibility : the Pope, 
 in defining the relationship of Nestorius's teaching to the 
 Christian faith ; the Council, in judging after the Pope, 
 * compelled ' by his Holiness's decision. 
 
 Bossuet says that the Council was not necessary, but 
 it was expedient, on account of the trouble that Nestorius 
 was able to create through his influence at Court. The 
 Council on this account was careful to note that its 
 decision was due to the nature of the Papal decision : that 
 it was, though the act of free men, not, in every sense, 
 a free action ; it was a matter of duty to join themselves 
 as members to their head,' to use the expression of the 
 Papal legate in the third session ; it was their own 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1200. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 63 
 
 assertion of their membership in the teaching body. 
 The obligation which was thus laid upon them by the 
 canons could only refer to Nestorius's disobedience to the 
 Synod, which compelled it to enter upon the question 
 without his own defence. No canon had dealt with his 
 dogmatic error ; but the canons provided for the judicial 
 treatment of a heretic. But the letter of Celestine, 
 which laid them under this obligation to obedience, had 
 respect not only to the deposition of Nestorius, but to 
 his heresy,* for it provided that his deposition should 
 follow on his refusal to retract his error in regard to the 
 matter of faith within ten days. And although the 
 Pontiff (as we know from his letter to Cyril) had left the 
 execution of his sentence, including its delay (if deemed 
 advisable), to the Synod, he had (as we know from the 
 same letter) not left it open to them to acquit Nestorius 
 in the event of his obstinate adherence to his error .^ 
 This obstinacy had now been established by competent 
 witnesses, and the Council, having complied with the 
 provisions of the canons in summoning him three times, 
 was ' compelled,' in obedience to the Papal sentence, to 
 depose and excommunicate the archbishop. But how, 
 as Ballerini asks, could the Ephesine Fathers be * com- 
 pelled ' by the letter of Celestine, unless they were ' com- 
 
 ' Cf. Ballerini, De Vi et Batione JPrimalus Rom. Pontif. c. xiii. § 11. 
 
 - Mansi, iv. 1292. If the Fathers had not yet seen this letter, it 
 would only result that they had successfully anticipated Celestine's wish 
 and placed on his injunction to execute his sentence the only rational 
 interpretation — viz. that by consenting to send legates to the Council 
 as they knew he had, he had left his sentence to be executed by the 
 bishops. It is, however, most probable that they had seen Celestine's 
 letter. Father Bottalla, S. J., considers this certain {Infallibility, 
 p. 204 [Eng. ed.] ). 
 
54 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 pelled ' to preserve a unity of faith with the Eoman 
 Pontiff? 
 
 Now, how do those writers who maintain the indepen- 
 dence of national Churches deal with this momentous 
 utterance of the Council ? 
 
 It is not put in evidence at all by Canon Bright in 
 his article in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Bio- 
 graphy on St. Cyril, nor in that by Mr. Ffoulkes on the 
 Council of Ephesus ; neither does it appear in Canon 
 Bright's 'History of the Church,' where the sentence 
 on Nestorius is thus described : ' And the prelates pro- 
 ceeded to depose and excommunicate Nestorius in the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has " blas- 
 phemed'" (p. 333). 
 
 There is no allusion to the letter of Celestine here. 
 
 It does not appear in Canon Eobertson's ' History of 
 the Church ' — a work which has figured for so many 
 years on the list of books recommended to candidates 
 for ordination in the Established Church. Dean Milman^ 
 quotes a part of the sentence, but omits the crucial 
 words ' by the letter of our Most Holy Father and 
 fellow-minister Celestine.' He even gives the Greek in 
 a foot-note, with the same omission, marking that there 
 is an omission. Dr. Wordsworth seems to go a step 
 beyond these writers. He omits the crucial word ' com- 
 pelled.' His version of the Synod's sentence is : ^ 
 * They then declared that in accordance with the canons 
 of the Church, and with the letter of their Most Holy 
 Father and brother-minister, Celestine, bishop of the 
 Eoman Church,' etc. 
 
 ' In accordance with ' is certainly not an accurate 
 
 ' Hist, of Lat. Christianity, i. 211 (4th and revised edition). 
 2 Church History, iv, 216. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 56 
 
 translation of ' necessarily impelled by,' nor is it even 
 a fair paraphrase of the same. A very strong and 
 exhaustive term is here used in the Greek.^ And not 
 content with a word which contains the idea of tremen- 
 dous force, they add to it the adverb ' necessarily.' ^ And 
 it must be remembered that the Greek is the original 
 here ; that it was drawn up by Easterns, and that it 
 was the Greek which the Eastern Fathers actually 
 signed. Bossuet thus sums up the situation : ' Autre 
 chose est de prononcer une sentence conforme a la lettre 
 du Pape, autre chose d'etre contraint par la lettre meme 
 aussi que par les Canons a la prononcer. L 'expression 
 du Concile reconnait dans la lettre du Pape la force d'une 
 sentence juridique, qu'on ne pouvait pas ne point con- 
 firmer, parce qu'elle etait juste dans son fond, et valable 
 dans sa forme comme etant emanee d'une puissance 
 legitime.' ^ 
 
 The sentence thus expressed and signed, the Fathers 
 issued forth from their (Ecumenical Synod. The citizens 
 of Ephesus were in an ecstasy of joy. They had waited 
 for the sentence in eager expectation, not as doubting 
 the truth, but as looking forward to its confirmation. 
 And upon the Council's leaving St. Mary's at the close 
 of the day, they burst into the wildest applause, and 
 attended the orthodox bishops home with every token 
 of honour, Cyril coming in, as well he might, for the 
 lion's share of their attention. Torchlight processions 
 and incense accompanied the members of the Synod to 
 
 ' KaTeireix&euTes, which is a strong form of iTreixO^i/res. 
 
 2 avayKaiws. Cf. St. IrensBUs on the necessity of agreeing with Kome, 
 and compare 1 Cor. ix. 16. 
 
 ' Remarques sur Vhistoire des Conciles ... de M. Duinn, ed. 
 VersaiUes, 1817, t. 30, p. 524. 
 
56 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 their residences, and the very ladies of Ephesus turned 
 out to manifest their joy at the vindication of the glory 
 of their sex, the ' great Mother of God, Mary most 
 holy.' 
 
 Candidian, the Imperial Commissioner, on the con- 
 trary, soon had the notices from the city walls torn 
 down. The deposition of Nestorius was then proclaimed 
 by public criers in the streets. Candidian put a stop to 
 this also in the Emperor's name. The Synod had de- 
 feated his hopes, and, as the event proved, he was bent 
 on causing trouble. Dr. Littledale thinks that he makes 
 a point against the ' Petrine claims ' of Eome when he 
 adduces the fact that ' no practical impression was made 
 on Nestorius or the bishops of his party ' ^ by the Papal 
 sentence ; and Dr. Salmon holds ^ that the mere fact 
 that the decision of a Council was not received at once 
 on all sides is fatal to the infallibility of (Ecumenical 
 Councils — an argument which would summarily dispose 
 of our Lord's Divinity. One of the most recent theories 
 about our Lord's miracles is that since everybody did 
 not at once yield assent to His claims, no miracles 
 could have been worked ; and Dr. Salmon's is only 
 the same argument applied to the Church. Certainly 
 Nestorianism did not cease to be ; indeed, it seemed for 
 a moment as though after the Council's judgment it 
 might gain the upper hand. But what of that '? Men 
 who could repudiate the truth concerning the Incarna- 
 tion could and did rebel against the Holy See and 
 
 • Petrine Claims, p. 98. This is not quite true : seven bishops 
 came round to the orthodox side, and Cyril preached a magnificent 
 sermon on the occasion, speaking of our Lady as her to whom we owe 
 our baptism and everything Christian, as, in fact, to use a modern term, 
 the Gate of Heaven. 
 
 - Infallibility of the Church, p. 426, c. 
 
NESTORIUS DEPOSED 57 
 
 against any number of Councils. Nestorius, then, and 
 his followers, instead of submitting to Pope or Councils, 
 had their weapons ready ; and John of Antioch was to 
 be led into serious sin before the ultimate triumph of 
 the great Patriarch of Alexandria. 
 
 On the Council's Use of KaTeTretx^eVrc?. 
 
 It has been objected by Dr. Bright {Boman See, 
 p. 159) : (1) that the synodical sentence did not presurae 
 * the compulsory nature ' of Celestine's decision, but only 
 said that they were ' irresistibly urged ' or ' impelled ' ; 
 (2) that in the missives to Nestorius himself, and to his 
 clergy, the Council mentions the canons and not Celes- 
 tine ; and (3) that the canons and Celestine's letter cannot 
 be treated as co-ordinate, because the Council had not 
 rendered literal obedience to that letter. 
 
 As to (1) : the word used by the bishops for the impulse 
 received from Eome, KareTreixOivTeq, is a strong form of 
 i7r€Lx0^vT€<;, ' impelled,' since such is the force of the prefix 
 (see Liddell and Scott on Kara in composition). So that 
 Sophocles translates cTrec^ts * haste, hurry,' and KaT67ret|tg 
 ' violent exertion ' (Lexicon, s.v.) ; and Liddell and Scott (to 
 whom Dr. Bright refers as his authority) translate to. l-n-eLyovTa 
 ' necessary matters,' but to, Kamretyovra ' urgent necessity.' 
 The word had already been used by the Emperor in his 
 summons to the bishops to attend the Council, which was 
 compulsory : avvohov tovto) -^/j-wv to) OccnrLcriuaTt KaTeTreiyecrOaL 
 (Mansi, iv. 1113). The Latin version of the sentence, as 
 printed by Mansi, has coacti. And the old edition of the 
 Acts (first printed by Baluze), which was used by Gregory 
 the Great (who, when at Constantinople, specially in- 
 vestigated the Acts of the Council of Ephesus) has neces- 
 sario coacti (Mansi, v. 558). Mansi himself in his Anim- 
 adversiones in Natalis Alex. H. E. ix. 475, translates it 
 
58 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 coacti, and remarks on the superiority thus assigned to 
 the Pope. Pope Nicolas I. gives it as necessario coacti 
 (Ep. 9, ad Michaelem). Valesius translates the words when 
 quoted by Evagrius, * necessitate compulsi ' {H. E. I. iv.). 
 In the first edition of this book, I translated ' necessarily 
 compelled ' ; in this I have translated ' compelled,' as 
 sufficient for clearness, and as being beyond dispute. No 
 English word suits the Greek verb so well as ' compelled ' ; 
 but with dvayKaicos added to it, it can mean nothing 
 else. In their letter to the Emperor, the Synod say they 
 * praised ' the letter of Celestine. This does not prevent us 
 from supposing that they did something more than exalt it 
 in word. The chief praise of it that appears in the Acts 
 consisted of their obedience to it {cf. Mansi, Nat. Alex. H. E. 
 ix. 474). They honoured it as men honour a cheque : 
 eK/^tySa^etv — the word used in the Synod — contains the idea 
 of a debt paid (Sophocles, Lexicon, s.v.). 
 
 As to (2) : Nestorius already had the Papal sentence ; 
 there was no need to state what was obvious, viz. that they 
 were following that. The important thing to state was that 
 they had acted canonically in condemning him in his absence. 
 This is what they did state. 
 
 As to (3) : the canons and Celestine's letter were either 
 co-ordinate or one was inferior to the other. If the latter, 
 either {a) the canons were superior — but then the order of 
 the words would be misleading : it would be an anti-climax to 
 speak of the canons and the letter, instead of the letter and 
 the canons — or (h) the letter was a superior authority ; but 
 no one places the Papal letter here above the canons. It 
 remains, then, that they are co-ordinated. Whether the 
 Council had rendered 'literal' or substantial obedience 
 does not affect the question ; in their own eyes, they rendered 
 obedience. They said, in the second Session, through 
 Firmus, that they had ' executed the sentence and decree ' 
 of Celestine. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 JOHN OF ANTIOCH 
 
 An extraordinary scene now took place in Ephesus. 
 A few days after the deposition of Nestorius by the 
 orthodox Synod, John of Antioch entered the city. He 
 had sent a letter to Cyril when within six days of 
 Ephesus, expressing a hope that he would be there in 
 time.' The Synod waited no less than sixteen days, 
 with John of Antioch near and able certainly to reach 
 Ephesus,- when two of John's suffragans arrived with a 
 message, saying, * If I delay, do your work.' ^ During 
 this unreasonable halt, messengers going to and fro 
 became firmly convinced that John was anxious not to 
 be present at the deposition of Nestorius.'* This, as the 
 Synod told the Emperor, was the real cause of his 
 abstention. Cyril, therefore, and the bishops knew very 
 well that they might delay until they were well-nigh 
 decimated if they waited on for him. Some of their 
 numbers had already died.' All this, John of Antioch 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1121. He must have neared Ephesus just about Pente- 
 cost : c/. Hefele on the First Session, § 134. 
 
 2 Ibid. 1331. 3 jjyi^^ 1229. 
 
 * Ibid. 1333. All the accounts need to be very carefully compared; 
 the result will confirm Hefele's commentary on this whole incident. 
 
 * In his Waymarks in Church History, Dr. Bright delivers himself 
 of a violent attack upon Cyril. But Cyril's words are seriously mis- 
 quoted (p. 148) ; his speech at the opening of the first session is mis- 
 
60 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 must have known well ; but he was in no disposition to 
 help Cyril to depose his friend Nestor ius. ' Plato ' was 
 dearer than ' truth.' 
 
 Meanwhile he had become the centre of a number of 
 malcontents, whose dubious record in the past necess- 
 arily made them a source of mischief to the orthodox 
 party. Some were excommunicated ; some had no dio- 
 ceses ; others had been deposed by their metropolitans ; 
 some were Pelagians, and some had been ejected from 
 Italy.* With these added to his own suffragans, he now 
 entered Ephesus and was met by a deputation from the 
 Synod. He refused to hear what they had to say, and 
 kept them waiting while, after entering his house, he 
 held a Synod composed of the unpromising elements 
 that had gathered round him, assisted by Count Can- 
 didian. This Imperial Commissioner, together with 
 Count Irenaeus, who had the care of the Imperial pro- 
 visions for the comfort of the visitors, had set to work to 
 vex the orthodox bishops in the city by every kind of 
 petty persecution, interfering with their accommodation, 
 and making it difficult for them to get the necessaries of 
 life in a strange place. The members of the deputation 
 from the Synod, including bishops, were eventually 
 subjected to physical maltreatment, and presented them- 
 selves at a later session with the scars of their wounds 
 still visible. 
 
 represented (p 157) ; and the bishops are merely said to have been 
 ' seriously suffering from the heat.' But some had actually died 
 through want of accommodation and the heat. The blot in Dr. Bright's 
 account consists in his not paying attention to the reports given by the 
 orthodox Synod to the Emperor and to Celestine. And his dates are 
 wrong ; c/. Hefele, § 134. 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1333. The ordinary reading is ' Thessaly ' : I have 
 adopted Garnier's suggestion. 
 
ANTIOCH'S PROTEST 61 
 
 It is difficult to understand how anyone who has 
 weighed the evidence with care as set forth in the records 
 of the Council of Ephesus, can suppose that John was in 
 earnest about the maintenance of the faith, or that he 
 really wished to be at the Synod. He could have been 
 there easily. Had he wished to uphold the orthodox 
 faith, he would have presented himself at a fresh session 
 of the Council, and would never have connected himself 
 with such characters as went to make up his own 
 entourage. As it was, he held what he called a ' Sacred 
 Synod ' of his own, with these adventurers and heretics, 
 and excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. 
 
 It is much to be noticed, however, that John and his 
 Synod did not defend Nestorius's teaching about which 
 Celestine had written to John in condemnation. Their 
 ground of complaint was that, contrary to the canons, 
 Nestorius had not been heard ; ^ and that Cyril's 
 ' chapters ' (his twelve Anathematisms) had not been 
 examined, owing to the disturbances fostered by Cyril 
 and by Memnon in Ephesus itself ; and that they had 
 not waited for himself and others."^ 
 
 It is to be noted also that he says nothing about the 
 absence of the Westerns. The fact is that the Council of 
 Ephesus was not strictly oecumenical in its first session ; 
 for, although Cyril acted as legate of Celestine, his action 
 would naturally have to be confirmed by the Pope in 
 person, or by legates sent for the purpose. It became 
 truly and strictly oecumenical in the second and third 
 sessions,^ as indeed it seems to plead in its second letter 
 to the Emperor, written immediately after the third 
 session.' It there speaks of the agreement of the Papal 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1264. ■-' Ibid. 1267. '' Cf. Chr. Lupus, Schol. 
 
 in Can. Ep]ies. c. vi. (T. i. p. 427, a.d. 1G73). ' Mausi, iv. 1301. 
 
62 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 legates with the synodical execution of the sentence 
 against Nestorius, as carrying with it the agreement of 
 Celestine and the whole West. 
 
 So that, although there is no knowing what John of 
 Antioch may have been disposed to do, as a matter of 
 fact his quarrel was not with the sentence of Celestine, 
 but with the mode of its execution by the Synod under 
 Cyril ; neither was his contention that Nestorius was 
 free from heresy, but rather that Cyril's twelve chapters 
 or Anathematisms, which he had called upon Nestorius 
 to accept before the Synod, contained matter allied to 
 Arianism, Eunomianism, and Apollinarianism.^ But he 
 mainly emphasised the uncanonical character of the 
 deposition, owing to the absence of Nestorius and him- 
 self. There is one keynote which runs through the 
 utterances of this schismatical Synod : it is ' ecclesiastical 
 lawlessness.' They professed to be the champions of ec- 
 clesiastical order. The word for ' order ' ^ occurs in every 
 kind of combination. It is necessary to bear this in 
 mind to explain the important utterance of the orthodox 
 Synod in their third session, when they speak of the 
 Legates having spoken ' suitably ' (p. 85).^ 
 
 The schismatic Synod, having excommunicated Cyril 
 and Memnon, had their sentence posted on the walls of 
 the theatre, which produced a tumult among the in- 
 habitants. They next induced Candidian to try and 
 prevent these two bishops from offering the Holy Sacri- 
 fice on the following Sunday ; but in vain — Cyril and 
 
 » Mansi, iv. 1277. 
 
 2 aKoXovOia : this word occurs again and again in the utterances of 
 Candidian, of John of Antioch, and his Synod. Their boast was that 
 they had acted aKoKovdoos, in canonical order. Cf. Mansi, iv. 1264, 1261, 
 
 and passivi in the account oi this Conciliahuluvi. 
 
 '•* OLKOKOvduS. 
 
ANTIOCirS PEOTEST 63 
 
 Memnon refused to submit to such interference, and 
 they had the people of Ephesus with them. These strict 
 adherents to their bishop also precluded all possibility 
 of John and his companions installing another bishop 
 in place of Memnon ; and further they prevented the 
 schismatics from using the Church of St. John for a 
 service of thanksgiving which they proposed to hold for 
 having been enabled to excommunicate ' the Egyptian,' 
 as they called Cyril, and his tool, ' the Bishop of Asia 
 Minor,' as they called Memnon. 
 
 This being the state of things in the city, we can 
 easily imagine the joy of the people when it became 
 known that the legates from Rome had at last reached 
 Ephesus. Their advent formed the one possible counter- 
 poise to the action of John and of the Imperial Com- 
 missioner. 
 
 But yet another trouble rendered the presence of the 
 Papal legates a source of thankfulness. Between the 
 first Session of the Council and their arrival from Rome 
 the Synod had sent its letter to the Emperor, who, under 
 evil influence, had quashed the whole proceedings of the 
 orthodox Synod, on the ground that it had met without 
 John of Antioch and had not properly discussed the 
 matter of faith. ^ Candidian's report had, in fact, suc- 
 cessfully counteracted the report of the Synod.^ Cyril 
 at once did his best to answer what he found to be 
 Candidian's falsification of the whole matter. He told 
 the Emperor plainly why John of Antioch had absented 
 himself, and what kind of people the bishops were who 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1378. 
 
 ' Cf. Hefele, Conc.-Gesch. § 135, for proof that the report of the 
 Council had reached the Emperor. Cyril replied to the Emperor's 
 letter on July 1. The second session of the Council with the Papal 
 legates took place on July 10. 
 
64 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 had gathered round the ' Oriental ' prelate. He claimed 
 that he and those with him had in reality the presence 
 of the Bishop of Rome and of Africa, in fact ' the assent 
 of the whole West to their canonical deposition of 
 Nestorius.' ^ This, of course, was through the fact that 
 Celestine had given the decision which the Council had 
 followed, as we shall presently hear the Council saying 
 totidem verbis. The Africans were represented by the 
 letter of Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, giving in their 
 adhesion beforehand to the destruction of all ' novelties,' 
 as Nestorius's teaching was called. 
 
 Palladius, whom the Emperor had sent with an in- 
 junction that the bishops should meet together with 
 John of Antioch and discuss the matter of faith, and not 
 leave Ephesus until they had so done, had taken back 
 Cyril's protest. But before anything further could be 
 heard from the Court, the ship that bore the legates 
 from Rome sailed into the port, and soon the gates of 
 the city where St. Paul had preached and St. John had 
 lived with the ' Mother of God ' were flung open to 
 receive the representatives of the Prince and head of 
 the Apostles, bearing with them authority to proclaim 
 the divine Maternity of the Virgin of Nazareth— in other 
 words, the literal Godhead of the world's Saviour born of 
 her in time. 
 
 With these two Bishops and the accompanying Priest 
 another power, greater than that of earthly kings, had 
 entered upon the scene. 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1426. 
 
CHAPTEE VI 
 
 THE SEE OF PETER * CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN.' NO. I 
 
 2po . . . TTOiTja-ps irdvTa koto rov tvttov rhv BeixdevTa aoi iu t<^ opci. 
 ' See that thou make all things according to the pattern shown thee on 
 the mount.' Heb. viii. 5. 
 
 So far, Cyril had been obliged to act under difficulties 
 without the aid of Papal legates. Celestine, however, had 
 in reality sent his legates, but they had been detained 
 on the high seas through stormy weather. They arrived, 
 as we have seen, in July, and on the 10th a solemn re- 
 ception was held in the Bishop's palace, which counts as 
 the second session of the Council. 
 
 To understand the meaning of the legates' action in 
 the next two sessions, we must be careful to bear in 
 mind the instructions they had received. They were to 
 place themselves at once in Cyril's hands — ad . . . 
 Cyrillum consilium vestnim omne convertite et quidquid 
 iu ejus videritis arhitrio facie tis. They were to take 
 care that the authority of the Apostolic See was main- 
 tained. They were to be present at the session of tho 
 Council, and if by chance discussion arose, they were to 
 judge concerning the bishops' opinions, or judgments 
 \sententiis) but not to enter into the arena themselves 
 — vos de eorum sententiis judicare deheatis, non subire 
 certamen. If they should find the Council broken up, 
 they must inquire how matters had been concluded. If 
 
 F 
 
66 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 they had been accomplished in favour of the Catholic 
 faith and the legates should find that Cyril had decided 
 upon going to Constantinople, they must go there also 
 and present the Papal letters (epistolas) to the Emperor 
 (Principi) . If things should have g^ne badly and matters 
 should be in course of discussion, they must decide what 
 to do, judging by the circumstances, with the advice of 
 Cyril — cum consilio supradicti nostri fratris agere debe- 
 atis} 
 
 The points in this instruction (or Commonitorium) 
 which especially concern us here are, that the legates 
 were to act as judges of the bishops' opinions — vos de 
 eorum sententiis judicare debeatis — and that if the 
 business of the Synod had been transacted, they were to 
 require to be informed as to how that business had been 
 concluded — qualiter fuerint res finitce. 
 
 And if we turn for a moment to the letter of Celestine 
 which they bore with them and read to the Synod, we 
 find that he there describes the office committed to his 
 legates, in these words : ' We have sent, out of our care, 
 our holy brothers and fellow-priests, of one mind with 
 us and tried men, Arcadius and Projectus, bishops, and 
 Philip, presbyter, to be present at the transactions [of 
 the Synod] and to execute what has been already decreed 
 by us, to which we do not doubt you will give your 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 556. This letter has unfortunately been misinterpreted 
 in Eoman See, p. 154. Dr. Bright there says that Celestine did not 
 instruct the legates to treat Cyril as their chief, ' but only to take 
 counsel with him.' Cyril was to be the Chief of the Council (even in the 
 presence of the legates together with them), which is the only point 
 at issue, and the legates were not ' only to take counsel with him.' 
 This was enjoined in case things went wrong. It is difficult to give one 
 English word for ' sententiae ' ; its meaning varies from ' decision ' to 
 ' opinion.' 
 
THE PAPAL LEGATES 67 
 
 assent, when that which is done is seen to have been 
 decreed for the safety of the Church.' ^ 
 
 It is clear, therefore, what the legates were sent to 
 do, viz. to watch the case, so to speak, on behalf of 
 Celestine, and to see that his decree concerning Nestorius 
 was properly executed by the Council, Cyril remaining 
 at the head of the Council, side by side, as it were, with 
 themselves.^ 
 
 At the session, therefore, in the Bishop's palace, 
 Cyril still presided, ' holding the place of the Bishop of 
 Rome,' as the Acts distinctly state.^ The Western 
 bishops, Arcadius and Projectus,'' and Philip, a Eoman 
 presbyter, were the legates of the Apostolic See, or 
 throne. The West was thus sufficiently represented by 
 these legates from Rome — a significant fact as to the 
 relationship between Rome and the whole West. 
 
 Philip now led the way and laid down the order of 
 their proceedings. Celestine (he said) had long ago 
 passed a definite sentence ^ in his letter to Cyril con- 
 cerning the matter in hand, and he has now sent a letter 
 to your Holiness for the confirmation of the Catholic 
 faith. ' Order that this be read in a fitting manner to 
 the Synod, and entered in the ecclesiastical records.' 
 
 Arcadius and Projectus followed in the same strain. 
 
 Cyril at once directed that the Papal letter be read 
 * with befitting respect.' It was read, according to 
 
 » Mansi, iv. :|287. 
 
 2 So Hefele, Conc.-Gesch. § 5 (6). ^ Mansi, iv. 1279. 
 
 * These two bishops represented the West, not as having been 
 selected by the Western episcopate, but as having been appointed by 
 the Pope in Synod. They are called, when their oflSice is given in full, 
 ' legates of the Apostolic See,' or of ' the Church of the Komans.' 
 Both Projectus and Arcadius are thus designated, Mansi, iv. 1297, 1299. 
 
 f2 
 
68 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 custom in the case of a solemn communication from 
 Eome, in the original Latin, by Siricius, a notary of the 
 Church of Eome.^ The Bishop of Jerusalem at once 
 proposed that it should now be translated into Greek. 
 Philip, the legate, informed the assembly that he had 
 made provision for this, and that the honour due to a 
 letter from the Pope — i.e. that of reading the ipsissima 
 verba in Latin — having been paid to it, he could furnish 
 them with an authorised translation into Greek, which 
 he had brought with him. The other legates echoed 
 Philip's words. 
 
 The burden of the Pope's letter was that, as bishops, 
 they, including himself, had entered into the work and 
 office of the Apostolate, and that their common function 
 was to preserve the faith. ' The custody of what has 
 been delivered is no less an honour than the office of 
 delivering it ' [in the first instance]. The Council was 
 as it were the successor of the Council at Jerusalem in 
 the Acts of the Apostles : He who was with the Apostles 
 then will assuredly be with their successors now. They 
 have a common command, a common work, an office in 
 common with the Apostles who sowed the seed which 
 they, as bishops, have now to nurse into fruit. St. Paul's 
 charge to Timothy applies to them his successors — ' the 
 same place, the same cause, demands the same office and 
 ministry ' (Lat. officium, Gk. hiaKovlav). ' Let there be 
 prayer made in common to the Lord.' Let them pray 
 that they may be strong to proclaim the faith. Celestine 
 ends with telling the Synod that he has sent his legates 
 to be present at the acts of the Synod and to execute the 
 decision previously given by himself, being assured that 
 
 ' The members of the schismatical Synod all stood up when the 
 Emperor's letter was read, 
 
THE PAPAL LEGATES 69 
 
 the bishops will acquiesce in this when they see that it 
 was a decision in the interest of the Church {qucB a 
 nobis a7itea statuta sunt exequa^itur [i.e. the legates 
 through the Council]. Quibus [i.e. the * ayitea statuta '] 
 prcBstandum a vestra sanctitate non dubitamus assensum 
 &c. (Mansi, iv. 1287). 
 
 The bishops exclaimed at once : ' This is a just judg- 
 ment. The Synod gives thanks to the new Paul, Celestine, 
 the new Paul, Cyril ' — in allusion to the exhortation of 
 St. Paul to Timothy when Bishop at Ephesus, which 
 Celestine had mentioned in his letter. They continued : 
 ' [We give thanks] to Celestine the guardian of the faith, ^ 
 to Celestine of one mind with the Synod, to Celestine 
 the whole Synod gives thanks. One Celestine, one Cyril, 
 one faith of the Synod, one faith of the whole world.' 
 
 Projectus, the legate, then took up the practical point 
 of the Papal letter, and requested that the Synod would 
 see that what Celestine had long ago decided, and now 
 recalled to their remembrance, should be accomplished 
 with perfect exactness.^ 
 
 Whereupon Firmus, a successor of St. Basil in the 
 see of Csesarea, rose and described the nature of the 
 Council's action. He said that the Apostolic See of 
 Celestine ' had previously given a sentence and decree by 
 
 * These words are omitted in Dr. Bright's list of their exclamations, 
 Hist, of the Church, p. 336. His defence {Rovian See, p. 162) is, that 
 such words are not to be taken literally, because at the Council of 
 Chalcedon the Emperor was called ' a teacher of the faith.' The 
 Emperor, when a Christian, and when he provided for the safe conduct 
 of the bishops and for the execution of their canons, loas as he is 
 called, a guardian and a teacher of the faith. The Pope was so called 
 because of his corresponding relation to the faith in spirituals. 
 
 2 'iva ravra, & Kal iraKai wpiffc [i.e. Celestine] /col vvv viTOixvT)aai 
 Karrj^iuxrep, els irepas KeAeutrrjTe irXripiffraTOv &ye(rdai, Kara rbv Kavova ttjs 
 Koivrjs iriffrews (Mansi, iv. 1287). 
 
70 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 letters sent to Cyril, Juvenal, and Eufus, and to the 
 Churches of Constantinople and Antioch, which (decree) 
 the Synod had followed.' For the time, he added, fixed 
 by Celestine for Nestorius's amendment had passed, and 
 the day fixed by the Emperor for their assembly had 
 also passed, and Nestorius had not put in an appearance. 
 Consequently 'we executed the sentence [of the Pope] 
 {rbv TVTTov i^£^t/3d(TafjLsv)f having pronounced a canonical 
 and Apostolical judgment.' ^ 
 
 In short, the Synod by the mouth of Bishop Firmus, 
 affirmed that (1) the Pope had issued a decree condemn- 
 ing Nestorius ; (2) the Synod had executed that decree ; 
 (3) its judgment in execution of the Papal decree was (a) 
 canonical : we know why, i.e. because they had properly 
 cited Nestorius and he had not appeared ; therefore they 
 were justified in condemning him in his absence ; and 
 (/8) it was Apostolical. Why ' Apostolical ' ? Firmus 
 had spoken in the same breath of Celestine's ' Apostolic 
 See ' and Celestine (in the letter just read in which he 
 insists upon the legates executing his sentence on Nes- 
 torius, which Firmus says the Synod has executed) had 
 urged the bishops to imitate the Apostle St. Paul by 
 boldly proclaiming the faith in common or concert with 
 himself. The meaning, therefore, of Firmus's description 
 of the Sy nodical judgment as ' Apostolical ' is obvious. 
 
 The legate Arcadius thereupon asked that the decree 
 of the Synod (re Tcrvirwrai) should be submitted to their 
 
 ' When, therefore, Dr. Bright says that in the conciliar sentence 
 {supra, p. 58) ' the canons and Celestine's letter to Nestorius cannot 
 here be treated as co-ordinate ; for the Council had not rendered literal 
 obedience to that letter,' he obscures the issue, since the question is not 
 whether literal obedience, but whether substantial and formal obedience 
 had been rendered to the Papal letter. The Synod considered that 
 such obedience had been rendered. 
 
THE PAPAL LEGATES 71 
 
 inspection. He also spoke of the stress of weather 
 which had detained him and his fellow legates at sea. 
 Philip followed congratulating the Synod on having 
 joined themselves ' as holy members to their holy head 
 by their exclamations ' when the letter of Celestine was 
 read. ' For your blessedness is not ignorant that the 
 head of the whole faith and of the Apostles is the 
 blessed Apostle Peter.' In other words, the teaching of 
 the Catholic and Koman Church at this hour was 
 declared by him to be the teaching of all there present. 
 He then expatiated on the stormy weather which had 
 detained them, and requested them to order that what had 
 been done before their arrival should be shown to them, 
 ' so that in accordance with the mind of our blessed Father 
 and of this present assembly, we may confirm them.' ^ 
 
 Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra, after this important 
 speech from Philip, rose and said that Almighty God had 
 shown that the sentence of the Synod was a just one, 
 by the auspicious arrival ^ of the Pope's letter and by 
 the presence of the legates. He added ' for you have 
 
 ' Philip adds bfxoiws t^ avruu Karadean, which the Latin translates 
 conformiter eoruni depositioni. It is difficult, however, to suppose that 
 Philip would speak of the members of the Synod, in their presence, in 
 the third person. And if they (the members of the Synod) were intended, 
 ' deposition ' would more naturally be in the plural. Further, Philip's 
 speech and that of Arcadius is headed ' interpretatio depositionis.' 80 
 that the true reading is probably havruv — ' our own.' Whichever 
 reading, however, we adopt, the point is that Philip was sent to confirm 
 the judgment of the Synod if it was in accordance with the Pope's, and 
 that the Synod had now declared that it was. 
 
 ^ Gk. iirKpoiT-fiaei. It is a strong word, generally used of the arrival 
 of a messenger from God, especially of the Holy Spirit. Cf. Dindorf, 
 Steph. Thesaur. iii. 1881. Dr. Bright has made a jumble of Theodotus's 
 speech : he has wrongly connected the limbs of the sentence {Roman 
 See, p. 163). He has left out ' the presence of the legates,' which 
 was part of the proof of the Divine approval mentioned by Theodotus, 
 
72 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 shown both the zeal and the eagerness concerning the 
 holy faith possessed by the most holy and sacred Bishop 
 Celestine ' : that is to say, Almighty God has set his 
 seal upon our action by permitting the letter of Celestine 
 to reach us, and Celestine has shown his zeal in his letter 
 (which by anticipation affirms the justice of our sentence) 
 and in sending yourselves with it. Theodotus then said in 
 the name of the Synod that the Acts should be submitted 
 to the legates for their inspection, and that they would in 
 turn see in them the zeal of the Bishops and their ' agree- 
 ment in the faith which Celestine proclaims with weighty 
 voice.' ^ 
 
 The legates accordingly retired for the evening to 
 inspect the transactions of the Synod at its first session. 
 
 Note. 
 
 It would be wearisome to the reader to be dragged 
 through all the various criticisms which Dr. Bright has 
 passed on the history of the Council of Ephesus as given in 
 the first edition of this book. I have given several and 
 shown what they are worth. I will here select one for 
 greater detail, as a specimen. In reference to Pope St. 
 Celestine's letter to the Synod, Canon Bright asks * Is not 
 Fleury warranted in saying that Celestine here "places 
 
 and which, conbidering what had just been said, shows that Theodotus 
 looked upon their presence in the same hght as Philip did. Theodotus 
 does not say (as Dr. Bright) ' it shows,' but 'you showed.' 
 
 ' T^j/ 0vix<pu}viav T^s TT.crT€(D$ ^v KeAecTTtvoy /xeyaKT) Kr)pxi(r<X€i rp 
 <p<Dv^. It is impossible to translate the subtle suggestiveness of the 
 Greek here, in the use of the words av/xcpwviav and (poovrj. The Synod's 
 utterance was one with the weighty utterance of the Pope, is the full 
 meaning. 
 
THE PAPAL LEGATES 73 
 
 himself in the rank of bishops " ? ' Of course he does ; 
 he was Bishop of Eome. But Fleury is really quoted to 
 support Dr. Bright' s theory that the Popes are on a level 
 with other bishops in point of jurisdiction. Now Fleury 
 mistranslates the words in commune in Celestine's letter as 
 though they were the same as the French egalemejit. Dr. 
 Bright for some years did the same. (Cf. The Bomaii 
 Claims, dx., p. 11, 1877.) 
 
 The origin of this seems to be as follows. Mr. Allies, 
 before he was a Catholic, in his work entitled The Church 
 of England cleared from Schism was misled by Fleury in this 
 passage ; and Dr. Pusey in his Eirenicon was misled by Mr. 
 Allies and by Fleury, to both of whom he refers. He makes 
 it a difficulty which he calls insuperable, that Celestine should 
 be considered infallible and yet that he should have said to 
 the bishops that the teaching office had descended upon them — 
 himself and them — equally (he itahcises this word ' equally '). 
 Dr. Bright also refers to Fleury in his Boman Claims, d'C, 
 p. 11, and mistranslates Celestine's ' in common ' as though 
 it were 'equally.' It is obvious, however, that the two 
 are not the same. A general and a captain may have a 
 common wx)rk, yet they are not equal. Their mission may 
 be due to one and the selfsame order from headquarters (an 
 order common to all) to take a fort, or clear a hill. So again 
 * The Book of Common Prayer ' does not mean that the 
 clergyman and the people are on an equality in the conduct 
 of the service. Dr. Bright, in reference to this objection, 
 says, * Where does he ' {i.e. Celestine in this letter to the 
 Synod) * say that it ' (the teaching office) ' has come to him 
 in a unique sense as the teacher of the Church universal ? ' 
 But Dr. Bright must know very well that that was not the 
 question. The question I raised was this. Does the expression 
 'in common,' which Dr. Bright had translated 'equally,* 
 contradict the claim to a superior position in the common 
 work ? Dr. Bright used this word * equally ' to establish 
 this contradiction. It would surely have been well not to 
 
74 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 have introduced Fleury again, considering the way in which 
 Doctor Pusey, and Dr. Bright himself, have been misled by 
 him. Dr. Bright adds (Bonian See, p. 162), * It is true 
 that he [Celestine] refers, at the end, to what he had 
 "previously ordained "as to be " carried out" by his three 
 legates.' As so often in Dr. Bright's book, the words ' it is 
 true ' introduce something the mention of which saves 
 him from the imputation of not quoting what makes for the 
 other side ; but it is something which positively contradicts 
 his conclusion. So here Celestine, having spoken of himself 
 and the bishops as having a common command from Christ, 
 and duties in common, such as proclaiming what they know 
 about the faith, at once places himself at their head in this, 
 their common work, ordering that his previous decree, 
 condemning Nestorius, should be carried out. Dr. Bright 
 is only throwing dust in people's eyes when he says that 
 Celestine 'never claims any sole authority' (p. 161). No 
 Pope ever did, from St. Peter to Leo XIII. They claimed 
 it as head of the body, not as sole in the sense of separate, and 
 excluding the bishops. It is no part of the Papal theory 
 that the Pope should thus be sole in authority, and Dr. 
 Bright ought not to suggest that the writer, whom he 
 criticises, ever made it part of the Papal claim. On the 
 other hand, in calling himself a sharer in a common work, 
 Celestine does not place himself on an equality with all 
 other bishops absolutely and in every respect. A common 
 work admits of diversity of share. When Dr. Bright says 
 also of Celestine (loc. cit.) that ' he never even alludes to his 
 own see as that of Peter,' he must mean ' in that letter.' 
 But why should he in that letter ? No one supposes that 
 Philip did not reflect the teaching of Celestine ; in fact 
 Dr. Bright sarcastically describes Phihp as speaking more 
 Bomano. Now Philip grounded the Papal action on the fact 
 of the Pope being the successor of Peter. 
 
CHAPTEE VII 
 
 THE SEE OF PETER ' CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN ' — NO. II 
 
 On the following day the Council reassembled, the 
 legates having overnight examined the transactions 
 submitted to them. There can be no question as to 
 what the Synod considered itself to have done. It had 
 on the previous day publicly and formally announced 
 that it had executed the Papal sentence in condemning 
 Nestorius. Bishop Firmus had said so in the name of 
 the Synod. But the question still remained, had they 
 done so in canonical fashion ? Had they heard, or been 
 willing to hear, Nestorius in his own cause, if he desired 
 it? Had they satisfied themselves that he had not 
 repented in the interval between the sentence of the 
 Pope and the meeting of the Council, as Celestine told 
 Cyril it was incumbent on them to do ? ^ The business 
 before them was the formal ratification {/Ss^aicoats) of 
 the Acts : so it was described by Celestine himself."^ 
 The legates knew, too, that John of Antioch had accused 
 the Synod of not actmg in canonical order (uKoXovdcos). 
 Was this true ? This was the question to be settled 
 canonically (afcoXovOcos). 
 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem accordingly rose and asked 
 
 • Mansi, iv. 1292. 
 
 2 *Eequirendum est qualiter fuerint res finitae.' Celestine's Coin- 
 monitorium to the legates {ibid. 556). 
 
76 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 the legates if they had read the transactions of the Synod 
 and learnt their purport ; to which Philip replied that 
 they had perused the Acts and that all things had been 
 done canonically and in accordance with the discipline 
 of the Church. He asked, however, that these Acts 
 might be publicly read through in their presence, so 
 that in accordance with the order of Pope Celestine 
 {aKo\ov6r)aavT£9 tu> tvitw) they might confirm the 
 decisions of the Synod.^ Arcadius seconded Philip's 
 request, using the same expression as to the authority 
 on which he acted. The Bishop of Ephesus agreed, and 
 the transactions were now publicly read through w^ord 
 for word. But the Synod added a summary of the 
 reasons for their method of action.^ They said that, 
 since Nestorius would not obey their citation, they were 
 compelled to proceed {ava'yKaiws i^copr/a-a/jisv) to the 
 examination of the things impiously said by him, and 
 that they had detected him both from his letters and 
 his commentaries, and also — and this was a condition 
 on which Celestine had made the execution of his 
 sentence depend, when writing to Cyril, a letter which 
 Cyril had by this time at any rate in his hands ^ — they 
 had convicted him from the things said by him in the 
 city of Ephesus quite lately, which had been properly 
 substantiated by witnesses,^ Having done this, they 
 had proceeded to pass the sad sentence of condemnation 
 
 ' Celestine's order (Mansi, iv. 556) was that at the Council they were 
 to act as judges, in regard to the bishops' decisions, or opinions {de 
 eorum sententiis judicare debeatis) ; it is obvious, therefore, that in 
 seeing how things had been transacted they were also to act as 
 judges. 
 
 2 Mansi, iv. 1293. ^ Mansi, iv. 1292. 
 
 * Of these John of Antioch could have no proper knowledge ; for he 
 had examined no witnesses. 
 
CONFIEMING THE BRETHREN 77 
 
 upon him, ' being compelled thereto {avayKams klvt)- 
 Osvrss) both by the canons and by the letter of Celestine.' 
 This sentence they declared to be the sentence of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ by means of this present Synod. 
 
 The stages, then, through which matters had passed 
 were : (i) the reference of the whole matter by Cyril to 
 the Apostolic See ; (ii) the condemnation of Nestorius by 
 the Pope in the Eoman Synod — an ex-cathedra dog- 
 matic definition ^ to the effect that the union between the 
 human and divine Natures in our Lord is hypostatic — a 
 union of nature with nature in one Person, not of two 
 persons, and that this hypostatic union is symbolised 
 by the term ' Mother of God,' which therefore must be 
 accepted by every member of the Catholic Church. On 
 this ground Nestorius was to be excommunicated, unless 
 he repented. This was the opos^ or dogmatic decree, of 
 the Holy See.^ Then (iii) a place of repentance was 
 given to Nestorius, and the execution of the sentence 
 passed into the hands of the Council, which was to make 
 sure as to his persistence in his error, in which case, as 
 the Pope said, he would reap the fruit of his own acts, 
 the Papal ' decrees remaining in force,' i.e. by reason of 
 his own obstinacy.^ At length (iv) the Council assem- 
 bled, cited Nestorius, proceeded, on his refusal, to read 
 the documents, such as his letters, with a view to giving 
 a conciliar adhesion to the Papal sentence ; and (v) , having 
 done this in the course of an afternoon and part of an 
 
 ^ Cf. Bottalla, S. J. {The Infallibility of the Pope, [Burns and Gates] ) 
 who calls it ' an infallible dogmatic definition,' p. 208. 
 
 2 eo-Ti Sf opos is the heading of the Pope's sentence, Mansi, iv. 1047. 
 For some remarks on Dr. Bright's representation of this iratter, see 
 infra, p. 110. 
 
 "" Mansi, iv. 1292. 
 
78 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 evening, the Synod passed its sentence in avowed 
 obedience to the canons and the Papal letter. Shortly 
 afterwards (vi) the Papal legates appear on the scene 
 with instructions to place themselves in the hands of 
 Cyril, to maintain the authority of the Holy See, and to 
 act as judges of the bishops' judgments.^ They proceed 
 to inquire, in accordance with express orders, as to the 
 precise way in which the business of the Synod had 
 been conducted. The Synod distinctly and emphatically 
 claims to have ' executed the sentence ' of Pope Celestine.^ 
 But the legates require that the report of the Acts 
 should be submitted to their inspection, that in accord- 
 ance with the order given by the Holy Father they may 
 confirm them. The Synod willingly acquiesces. And 
 the legates proceed to approve of all that had been done, 
 and to give their assent in writing. The whole scene is 
 one of emphatic deference to the representatives of the 
 Apostolic See. And (vii) this deference was paid to it, 
 not as the see of the older Imperial capital, nor of the 
 Apostolic See of the West, but as simply ' the Apostolic 
 See.' This was the term perpetually applied to it — not, 
 as has been suggested^ (with scant deference to the 
 historical situation), because they 'would not care to 
 magnify Antioch by emphasising its Apostolic character, 
 and Jerusalem was still subordinate to Caesarea,' for this 
 would not account for Alexandria's titla to ' Apostolic ' 
 being also subordinated, nor could it in any way account 
 for the application of the word ' Apostolic ' in a unique 
 sense (' the Apostolic See ') by Eastern bishops to the 
 See of Eome, even under the circumstances of Antioch's 
 opposition to the Synod. No ; Philip gave the reason 
 of its Apostolicity, not as his own opinion, but as their 
 
 » Mansi, iv. 556. ^ Ihicl. 1287. ^ Blight's Romayi See, p. 160. 
 
CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN 79 
 
 belief (supra, p. 71). In the way of deference the Papal 
 letter was read in the original language as well as in a 
 translation ; the Acts of the Synod were submitted to 
 the Papal legates ; they were solemnly read out from end 
 to end in their presence after they had themselves read 
 them through , and the moving cause of the decision 
 arrived at was then declared by the Synod to be ' the 
 canons and the Papal letter ' {dvayKaLco9 klvt^Osvtss, 
 Lat. coacti). 
 
 Let us pause for a moment to consider the situation 
 outside of Ephesus. The Emperor was against Cyril 
 and in favour of Nestorius ; the Bishop thus deposed 
 was the Bishop of the Imperial city. The great 
 central see of the East, that of Antioch, had professed 
 to excommunicate Cyril and Memnon, the Bishop of 
 Ephesus, for the irregular way in which they had acted. 
 What was Eome, that, in the face of all this, its Bishop 
 should occupy the transcendent position that it did in 
 the person of the Papal Legates ? 
 
 Eome had not been for the past century and more 
 the habitual residence of her Emperor. At this moment 
 Theodosius in the East, by whose order the Council had 
 been summoned to Ephesus, was the overlord of Eome, 
 and the child whom eight years before he had placed on 
 the throne in the West was with his mother at Eavenna, 
 for safety's sake. Byzantium was as politically powerful 
 as Eome was politically weak.^ There was nothing in the 
 city of Eome but the prestige of the past ; while Con- 
 stantinople was ablaze with the glamour of an Imperial 
 Court. The bishops of the East were mostly Court- 
 bishops, perpetually truckling to the Imperial favour. 
 Fifty years ago they had endeavoured to give the Byzan- 
 
 ' Gregorovius, Hist, of Ro7ne, pp. 168, 179 (Tr.) Dill, Roman Society, 
 p. 128 (1898). 
 
80 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 tine capital a lift above Alexandria and Antioch. That 
 Council had not indeed taken its place among those 
 called CEcumenical ; the bishops at Ephesus considered 
 themselves to be sitting only in the second Ecumenical 
 Synod. Still, the Imperial city had advanced step by 
 step. What was it that under such adverse circum- 
 stances secured the deference now paid by Eastern 
 bishops to the Bishop of desolate Eome, sinking as she 
 was civilly to comparative insignificance in the life of 
 the Empire ? Philip, the Papal legate, had already ex- 
 plained the secret ; he had struck a note which awakened 
 no single dissonant utterance in that second session of 
 the Synod. He spoke, not of ' older Rome,' but of ' the 
 Apostolic See.' He had congratulated them on their 
 having 'joined themselves as holy members to their holy 
 head ' by their exclamations uttered immediately upon 
 the Papal letter being solemnly read ; and he had ex- 
 plained this expression of his by appealing to their 
 universal acceptance ^ of the truth that Peter was ' the 
 head of the whole faith, and of the Apostles ' ; hence 
 Celestine, the present Bishop of Eome, was their ' holy 
 head ' — an exposition which was followed by a sym- 
 pathetic speech from Theodotus of Ancyra. 
 
 But now in this third session, after the form of pro- 
 cedure had been dictated by the legates, and a consider- 
 able time had been spent in publicly reading, for form's 
 sake, the whole Acts of the first session ; now that the 
 Synod had avowed its indebtedness to the Papal judg- 
 ment, ' compelled by the canons and by the letter ' con- 
 taining that sentence, the legate Philip rose and 
 delivered a speech in which he at least professed to 
 voice again the belief of every member of that Synod as 
 
 • Mansi, iv. 1289. ^ oh yap ayvoel v/jluv v tiJKapi6j'ns. 
 
CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN 81 
 
 to the reason why they had thus deferred to the judg- 
 ment of the Holy See. The reason was to be found in 
 the teaching of Holy Scripture and the constant tradi- 
 tion of Holy Church as to the See of Peter. He said : 
 
 * It is doubtful to none, yea and has been known to 
 all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the prince 
 and head of the Apostles, and the pillar of the faith and 
 the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys 
 of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 
 and Kedeemer of the human race, and that the power of 
 loosing and binding was given to him : who up to this 
 time, and always, lives and exercises judgment in his 
 successors. Therefore our holy and most blessed father 
 Bishop Celestine, being his successor and holding his 
 place, has sent us to this holy Synod to supply his 
 presence.' He then speaks of the Emperor having sum- 
 moned the Synod for the preservation of the faith, and 
 continues : * Therefore Nestorius, the author of this 
 perverse novelty [Gk. lit. new perversity] and the head 
 of the evils, having been summoned, as we have learned 
 from the Acts of the Synod, and having been warned, 
 according to the decrees {tvttovs) of the fathers, and the 
 disciplinary provisions \lit. discipline, or science] of the 
 canons, contemptuously refused to come to judgment, when 
 he ought of his own accord to have offered himself, that 
 he might have been healed by the spiritual remedy [thus 
 provided] ; but having a seared conscience, although he 
 was legitimately and, as I have said, in accordance with 
 the canons, admonished, he refused to come to this holy 
 Synod, and allowed, not only the interval allowed by the 
 Apostolic see, but a much longer time to pass by. There- 
 fore,' — notice how exactly the legate has repeated the 
 reasons given by the Synod itself for their condemnation 
 
 G 
 
82 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 of Nestorius, viz. the requirements of the canons and of 
 the letter of Pope Celestine — ' that which has been pro- 
 nounced ^ against him who with hostile spirit and impious 
 mouth has uttered blasphemy against our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, stands firm, according to the decree {tvttov) of all 
 the Churches, since in this Council of the hierarchy are 
 gathered together the priests both from the Eastern and 
 the Western Churches, either in person or by legates. 
 Therefore following the decrees {tvitols) of the Fathers, 
 this present holy Synod has passed a definite sentence 
 {copLCTs . . . 'i7i]oasvs'yicaaa airocpaaiv) against the rash 
 blasphemer. Wherefore let Nestorius know that he is 
 excluded from the communion of the Catholic Church.' 
 He thus ratified the sentence of the Synod in the name 
 of the successor of the Apostle Peter. 
 
 The two other legates made similar formal utterances 
 as to the validity of the Synodical condemnation of 
 Nestorius. Arcadius is called ' the legate of the Apostolic 
 See,' and Projectus * the legate of the Church of the 
 Komans.' As such they were, as has been already 
 remarked, taken to represent the West sufficiently — 
 although they were not deputies selected by the West, 
 but representatives deputed by the Holy See. 
 
 Suc];i, then — to return to the speech of the legate 
 Philip — was the plain teaching concerning Papal Su- 
 premacy, as grounded on the words of our Lord to 
 Peter, who is called ' the foundation of the Catholic 
 Church.' And this belief was given as that of every 
 bishop there, and indeed of the whole Catholic Church 
 — ' it is doubtful to none ' — and as that of all past ages 
 — * it has been known to all ages.' This statement of 
 Papal Supremacy did not occur as an obiter dictum ; 
 
CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN 83 
 
 it was made the pivot upon which the whole action of 
 the legates hinged. It was a case in which, if ever there 
 was one, silence on the part of the bishops would in- 
 volve acquiescence. At a time when the city of Eome 
 was politically in the dust, when no one would have 
 called her, from a natural point of view, the Eternal 
 City— for no one, except those who believed in her as the 
 See of Peter, could have dreamt of the vitality she was 
 to exhibit, owing simply to the prerogatives of the 
 Prince of the Apostles, whose seat and centre was in 
 that city — at that era of apparent decadence, the legate 
 of the Bishop of Eome stood in the midst of this great 
 Eastern assembly and spoke of the position of ' the 
 Apostolic See ' in the Kingdom of God, as inheriting the 
 prerogatives of ' the foundation of the Catholic Church,' 
 the Prince and head of the Apostles. 
 
 There was no protest made. None said that this 
 was not his faith, not even the ambitious Juvenal of 
 Jerusalem, equal, at any time, to the task, if he had 
 really held a different faith. Had the teaching of Philip 
 on the Papal Supremacy been open to question, had any- 
 one, contrary to what Philip said, doubted it, we could 
 hardly have failed to catch some murmur of dissent. 
 
 But Philip's simple statement of the belief of all the 
 bishops there present was met with something even 
 more significant than silence. He had made his deposi- 
 tion, as the saying was, and it had hinged on the Divine 
 institution of the supreme position of Peter's See in the 
 Catholic Church. What of such a deposition ? 
 
 Cyril spoke for the Synod. He said : ' The deposi- 
 tions made by the most holy and God-fearing bishops 
 Arcadius and Projectus, and moreover hij the presbyter 
 Philip^ have been made plain to the Synod ; for they 
 
84 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 have deposed, filling the place of the Apostolic See and 
 of the bishops of the whole Western Synod. So that 
 they have executed the things already decided by the 
 most holy and God-beloved Bishop Celestine and they 
 have given their assent '—obviously that of a superior — 
 ' to the decree pronounced against the heretic Nestorius 
 by the holy Synod assembled here in Ephesus. 
 Wherefore let the transactions of yesterday and to-day be 
 joined on to the previous '' Acts " ; so let the records be 
 brought, that they may manifest in the usual way by 
 their own signature their canonical agreement with all 
 of us.' 
 
 Now no honest man could have used the expression 
 which Cyril here used of the Holy See, if he did not 
 believe the doctrine just delivered by Philip concerning 
 that see and asserted to be the accepted teaching of all 
 who sat there. Cyril spoke of the legates as filling the 
 place of ' the Apostolic See,' as well as, of course, of the 
 bishops of the West. Philip had explained in what 
 sense the See of Kome was ' the Apostolic See ' ; and 
 Cyril immediately used the expression without any 
 counter-explanation. We know, too, what Cyril thought 
 of it. It seems almost incredible that anyone should 
 endeavour to establish a difference of opinion between 
 Philip and Cyril by drawing attention to the fact that 
 Cyril ' takes care to describe the legates as representing, 
 not only '' the Apostolical See " but " all the holy Synod 
 of the West." ' ' Why, Philip had done the same. Nor is 
 it less surprising that the same writer should consider 
 that he makes a point in saying that Cyril also dis- 
 tinguishes ' their {i.e. the legates') action, as Celestine's 
 real " agents," from the sentence already pronounced by 
 
 ' Bright's Roman See, p. 164. 
 
CONFIKMING THE BRETHREN 85 
 
 the Synod to which he requests their *' assent " in 
 writing.' No one, surely, ever dreamt of supposing that 
 the Synod was the 'agent' of Celestine in the sense 
 that the legates were. The action of the legates was 
 that of men, strictly representing the Holy See, sent to 
 pass judgment on the action of the Synod. The action 
 of the Synod was that of bishops, who had their own 
 duty of judgment, though that right would be used 
 amiss if it ended in differing from the Papal sentence. 
 
 One of the legates who represented the Synod of the 
 West, but who is immediately spoken of as ' the legate 
 of the Church of the Eomans,' replied that, ' in view of 
 what had been done in this holy Synod, they cannot but 
 confirm their teaching with their own signatures.' And 
 the Synod at once said — and the words are conclusive as 
 to their view of all that had happened — * Since the most 
 pious and God-fearing bishops and legates, Arcadius and 
 Projectus, and Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apo- 
 stolic See, have spoken suitably,^ it follows that they 
 
 • Gk. aKo\ovdws. Dr. Bright thinks that this means ' in accordance 
 with the Synod.' If so, it must be remembered that the Synod professed 
 to have executed the sentence of Celestine (cf . Firmus's speech, supra, 
 p. 69) ; and that the legates were consequently in accord with it. But, 
 as a matter of fact, the word aKoAovdws is generally used in the Acts of 
 the Council of Ephesus and Chalcedou as a synonym for ' canonically or 
 in ecclesiastical order.' The schismatic Synod under John of Antioch 
 had laid the greatest stress on the breach of canonical order of which 
 the Synod under Cyril was supposed to have been guilty, using this 
 same word again and again in its substantive form [aKoXovdia). 
 Nestorius had done the same (Mansi, iv. 1233). So that here the Synod 
 says that the legates had spoken in agreement with the canons, 
 especially Philip. The Synod used the same word in the fifth Act 
 (Mansi, iv. 1321) : 'AkoXovOws v vir6fivri<ns -yiyivriTai, where the Latin is 
 ' Qualem oportebaV uKoKovdcas koI kolvovikoos is a regular expression for 
 a thing done in canonical order, in Byzantine Greek. The burden of 
 Cyril's accusation against John of Antioch and his schismatic 
 
86 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 should make good their promise and by their signature 
 confirm what has been done.' In other words, the whole 
 Synod accepted the situation as described by the legate 
 Philip. Thus the assent required by the law of the 
 Church was secured. The Greek historian had said that 
 it was not lawful to make regulations or canons contrary 
 to the judgment of the Bishop of Eome ; ^ nor would 
 the proceedings, therefore, of an QEcumenical Synod 
 be valid without the assent of the Apostolic See. 
 That assent had now been given, so far as it could be 
 given by legates, and it had been given in agreement 
 with the canons, as they themselves had stated. 
 
 Each of the legates signed, Philip first, as ' presbyter 
 and legate of the Apostolic See ' : Arcadius and Projectus 
 as ' Bishop and legate of the Apostolic See.' Neither of 
 them signed as representing, in a direct way, the Synod 
 of the West ; but as Philip said —and Cyril echoed his 
 statement — the West was present in them, that is to say, 
 by implication. They acted in obedience to the Papal 
 injunction ; by that authority, which they placed in the 
 front in their depositions, they were justified in agreeing 
 with the Synod, in following suit in their signatures, in 
 confirming what the Synod had done. 
 
 action was ixP^^ '''^^^ K<xv6<nv i^aKoXovOrjcrai, and that he insulted ira<rav 
 aKoXovQlav ^KKK-qaiaaTiK-hv, all ecclesiastical order (M. iv. 1308) ; whereas 
 John of Antioch claims that his Synod will see that things are decided 
 aKoXovdcos (iv. 1264). aKSxovdos came to mean 'canonical,' because the 
 canons were arranged in a consecutive series. Cf. Lupus, Syiwd. Decret. 
 1. 903. 
 
 ' Socrates (a lawyer of Constantinople in the middle of the 5th cen- 
 tury), H. E. ii. 8. 
 
CONFIRMING THE BRETHREN 87 
 
 Note on Dr. Bright v. Mansi. 
 
 Dr. Bright, in the CJmrch Quarterly Review (Jan. 1895, 
 p. 290), and in his book on The Boman See, dx, p. 165, has 
 committed himself on this incident, first to a patent mis- 
 translation and then to an equivocal withdrawal or a 
 reassertion of his mistake. I do not know which is intended. 
 In the Church Quarterly Beview he translated the Synod's 
 words calling upon the legates to confirm its Acts, thus : 
 ' Since they have spoken aKoXovOois, it follows that they 
 should make good their own promise and affirm lohat has 
 been done by their signatures.' Now the legate Arcadius had 
 said in the preceding sentence that ' in view of what had been 
 done ' — considering, that is, that all had been done in 
 canonical order — they felt obliged to ' confirm their teaching 
 with their signatures.' There can be no question what 
 Arcadius meant by ' confirming.' Dr. Bright, however, 
 anxious to get out of the awkward w^itness which would be 
 rendered to Papal Supremacy if the Synod consented to have its 
 transactions reviewed and confirmed by Papal legates, actually 
 translated [Church Quarterly Bevieio) ijepaioio-ai * affirm,' and 
 made the Synod ask the legates to ' afiirm what has been done ' 
 by it. What could be meant by affirming what had been 
 done, when all that had been done had been written down and 
 read out, unless in the sense of * confirming ' ? But, if in 
 that sense, why not use the w^ord ' confirm ' ? This was 
 pointed out by me in an article in the Dublin Bevieio to 
 which Dr. Bright alludes elsewhere, showing that he had 
 read it, and in his book on the Boman See (p. 165), he 
 alters his translation thus far, ' it follows that they should 
 make good their own promise, and affirm [or " confirm "] 
 what has been done.' It is surprising that one w^ho deals with 
 such accusations about scholarship and logic as Dr. Bright 
 does, should have had recourse to such a singular procedure 
 as this. When he says on the next page that * the sense of 
 /3€/3atdco is somewhat elastic; its sense in any particular 
 
88 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 passage must be settled by the context ; and we learn by 
 Cyril's phrase " canonical assent " in what sense the legates 
 were expected to '* confirm " the Council's proceedings,' Dr. 
 Bright needs to be reminded that a single expression does 
 not make a context, and this one word * canonical ' itself 
 receives ample explanation from the whole context. And 
 certainly of all men, Cyril is the last whose use of * canonical ' 
 could be supposed to exclude what the whole context 
 establishes, viz. the right to judge of the action of bishops, 
 which resides in the Apostolic See. The legates had 
 refused to give their assent to the Acts of the Synod until 
 they were certified that all had been done in strict accord- 
 ance with the canons. Their assent would not be itself 
 canonical, unless this condition were fulfilled. 
 
 But since the name of Mansi occurs so often in these 
 pages, it may be well to give the estimate which that most 
 learned and illustrious writer formed of the first three 
 sessions of the Council. It occurs in his * Animadversions ' on 
 NataUs Alexander's History (iJ. E. ix. 473 [1787]). Mansi 
 quotes a remark of Baluze, who, as he says, though a disciple 
 of De Marca, yet admitted that the discovery of Celestine's 
 Conmionitorium to the legates (cf. supra, p. 65) was fatal 
 to his master's theory, so far as that theory was founded on 
 the Acts of the Council of Ephesus. Baluze says that if 
 Baronius had seen this Commonitorium he would have been 
 able to say still more confidently that the legates were sent, 
 not that the case of Nestorius should be subjected to a fresh 
 examination, but to see that the sentence already passed was 
 executed. Mansi quotes the words from the sentence of the 
 Council * compelled by the canons and letter of Celestine ' as 
 showing the obedience paid by the bishops to Celestine ; 
 and he deduces the same from the words of the Synod to the 
 Emperor, viz. * praising Celestine &c.' He quotes the words 
 of Firmus as proving the same. He then deals with the fact 
 that the Council examined the teaching of Nestorius, and 
 remarks that 'not merely the definitions of the Pontiffs, 
 
CONFIRMING THE BRETHEEN 89 
 
 but those also of OEcumenical Councils were discussed in 
 particular Synods, not from any doubt as to their truth, but 
 because they believed that they could pass a fresh judgment 
 on them. The Pontiffs themselves, v^ho believed that it was 
 not lawful to refuse assent to their own definitions, willed 
 that Councils should be called to prove what they had 
 defined.' He then lays stress on the words of the sentence 
 at Ephesus, * compelled by the canons and by the letter of 
 Celestine,' adding : * No one but a superior can compel.' He 
 thinks that Bossuet has given away his case by appealing to 
 the Council of Ephesus. We might say the same with ten- 
 fold force of Dr. Bright and our other Anglican friends. As 
 for the Council's issuing a sentence in its own name, Mansi 
 says that a lower court can always do this when ordered by 
 a higher court. He then quotes Pope Nicolas I., who ad- 
 duces the same words from the sentence passed by the 
 Council : * necessarily compelled ' {necessario coacti is the 
 Pope's translation). He then shows that the explanation 
 of a * canonical ' sentence, adopted by Dr. Bright, will not 
 hold. And Bossuet's notion (also adopted by that writer), 
 viz. that the legates only manifested their assent to the 
 Synod's transactions, is, says Mansi, quite untenable when 
 we consider * that the legates said that the Acts were then to 
 be confirmed by them after they had been submitted to 
 their investigation for the especial purpose that they might 
 see if they agreed with the judgment passed by Celestine.' 
 Mansi then shows that Philip, in saying that Peter, the 
 pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, 
 lives still in his successors and exercises judgment, pre- 
 dicates ' the infallibility of the Pontiffs when they define 
 ex cathedra ; for if they can err in defining, who would dare 
 to say that Peter the pillar of the faith and foundation of 
 the Church lives in them and exercises judgment?* 
 Mansi then shows that the legates came to see that Pope 
 Celestine's judgment was executed, and that Cyril said that 
 the legates had done that for which they were sent. 
 
CHAPTEE VIII 
 
 THE EMPEROR AND THE MONK 
 
 We must now return to Constantinople and its young 
 Emperor. After the Council's first session at Ephesus, 
 the bishops sent the Emperor a report of the proceedings, 
 in which they explained why they met together without the 
 Bishop of Antioch, and then, taking up the two points of 
 their sentence in which they had alleged the canons and 
 the letter of Pope Celestine as the moving cause of their 
 decision, they showed how both in proceeding to their 
 work without Nestorius and in the conduct of their task 
 they had acted in accordance with the canons, and how 
 they had ' praised ' — that is (as their sentence explained), 
 deferred to and acted in unison with — ' Celestine the 
 most holy and God-beloved Bishop of Piome, who con- 
 demned the heretical dogmatic teaching of Nestorius before 
 we did, for the safety of the Churches, and of the holy 
 and saving faith delivered to us by the holy Apostles and 
 Evangelists and by the holy Fathers ; which he [Nestorius] 
 endeavoured to overthrow by his depraved teaching, 
 which he disseminated far and wide after his condemna- 
 tion.' ^ They therefore begged the Emperor to take 
 
 • Mansi, iv. 1240. The Greek text here presents a difficulty in the 
 last sentence. It runs, iroXh rh ttAtjOos o KaTayvo^a-deh e'le'xee. Judging 
 from the Latin edition in use before the sixth century (Mansi, v. 562), 
 the meaning is that a great quantity of heretical talk was poured forth 
 
EMPEROR AND MONK 91 
 
 measures for removing this teaching from their midst, 
 and to have Nestorius's writings committed to the flames. 
 It is to be noticed that the bishops in this letter 
 speak of the part played by Pope Celestine as being that 
 of safeguarding the ' Churches ' and the Apostolic faith, 
 and of Nestorius's condemnation as having dated from 
 the decision of Celestine. As a matter of fact, they had 
 especially established the fact of his continued false 
 teaching, as indeed they were in natural justice bound 
 to do. But the gist of this paragraph in their syn- 
 odical letter is this : Celestine condemned Nestorius ; we 
 followed suit, Nestorius having persisted in his depraved 
 doctrine, even after his condemnation by Celestine, 
 
 But after the third session, when the Papal legates 
 had confirmed the synodical condemnation of Nestorius, 
 the bishops wrote a second report, in which they began 
 with speaking of his condemnation by the Eoman Synod, 
 which they considered necessarily carried with it the 
 entire West. They thus, as a matter of fact, brought 
 out the special feature of a conciliar judgment as given 
 above in our resume of Catholic teaching on the subject 
 of (Ecumenical Councils (p. 41). Where a Papal de- 
 cision has gone before, a conciliar judgment exhibits in 
 the most striking way possible the unanimity of the 
 entire Church in that decision. This was the burden of 
 the bishops' letter to the Emperor now. They mention 
 the letter of Celestine to themselves as having super- 
 vened on the decision given by the Eoman Synod 
 
 by Nestorius. But the important point is that, whatever this means 
 exactly, the statement is clear that in the eyes of the orthodox bishops 
 Nestorius had aggravated his crime by teaching as he did after his con- 
 demnation by Pope Celestine. 
 
92 THE COUNCIL OF EPIIESUS 
 
 presided over by him, and the presence of the legates 
 from Kome and their confirmation of the Acts of their 
 first session, as involving the acquiescence of the entire 
 West in what they had done. They also emphasise 
 the fact that Cyril had been originally entrusted by 
 Celestine with the conduct of the matter, an impor- 
 tant point, as it suggested that in the government of 
 the Council he was not taking upon himself to act 
 simply as the bishop of the rival see of Alexandria. 
 They end with a petition which assumes that they now 
 at length have a right to consider their action as final, 
 and ask to be released from further attendance at 
 Ephesus, and to be allowed to arrange for the consecra- 
 tion of another bishop for Constantinople. The letter 
 was signed by Cyril and the rest of the bishops, but 
 apparently not by the legates, perhaps because it con- 
 cerned their own assent to the transactions of the 
 Council, of which Cyril was president — they themselves 
 having been sent to ' judge of the bishops' sentences or 
 opinions ' as Celestine had said in his Commonitorium. 
 
 But every effort had been made at Constantinople in 
 the end of June to prevent the Emperor from receiving 
 a true report of the doings of the orthodox Synod.^ 
 Candidian had succeeded in poisoning his Majesty's 
 mind against Cyril, and leading him to believe that 
 Nestor ius had been uncanonically condemned. No one 
 disputed the justice of the original sentence of the Pope 
 on Nestorius ; it was against the conciliar execution of 
 that sentence that all their efforts were directed. Still 
 the Emperor was destined to receive some further informa- 
 tion as to the transactions of the orthodox Council. A 
 "simple mendicant succeeded in reaching the great monas- 
 
 • Mansi, iv. 1428. 
 
EMPEROR AND MONK 93 
 
 terj^ in Constantinople, and having hidden a copy of a letter 
 from Cyril in a reed — probably his pilgrim's staff — he 
 was able to throw fresh light on the distressing state of 
 things in Ephesus. And now a scene occurred which 
 left an indelible impression on the people of Constanti- 
 nople and assisted the Emperor in forming a true 
 judgment of the case. 
 
 There lived in Constantinople an aged man, an 
 Archimandrite, and a patriarch among monks (who 
 swarmed in the Imperial city), to whom, as the Synod 
 said in its letter of thanks,^ God had from the first 
 revealed the real temper and tone of Nestorius's epi- 
 scopate. He used to say to his monks : ' Beware, brethen ; 
 an evil beast has settled in this city : and he has to 
 injure many by his teaching.' For forty-eight years 
 this venerable ascetic had never left his monastery ; but 
 within and without its precincts his name was one with 
 which to conjure, by reason of the sanctity with which 
 he was universally credited. The Emperor had ere now 
 visited him in person, to induce him to join in litanies 
 and processions when Constantinople was trembling 
 with the shocks of earthquake ; but Dalmatius (for that 
 was his name) turned a deaf ear to the advances of his 
 highest earthly superior ; nothing could prevail on him 
 to leave his monastic home. But now a voice from 
 heaven seemed to say to him that he must break through 
 his cherished seclusion and go in person to visit the 
 Emperor. 
 
 The scene in Constantinople as the recluse quitted 
 his cell to make his way to the presence-chamber of 
 the young Emperor Theodosius is described in a letter 
 written to the Synod of Ephesus by the bishops in 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1260. 
 
94 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Constantinople^ who clustered there and became the 
 resident Council round the Archbishop. A great crowd 
 of the orthodox accompanied the holy monk through 
 the streets, and as he passed into the palace with some 
 attendant Archimandrites the crowd remained outside 
 chanting their psalms antiphonally. And when the 
 Saint emerged from the palace, a long procession accom- 
 panied him through a principal thoroughfare to the other 
 end of the city, still singing their psalms, until he entered 
 the basilica of St. Mocius, where he was to communicate 
 the Imperial answer. It had been favourable, Cyril's 
 proposal that a deputation from the Council should wait 
 on his Imperial Majesty and explain their transactions 
 had been accepted. The crowd of orthodox shouted 
 * Anathema to Nestorius ! ' 
 
 » Mansi, iv. 1428. 
 
CHAPTEK IX 
 
 JOHN OF ANTIOCH CONDEMNED. 
 
 In the next (fourth) session pi the Synod at Ephesus 
 Cyril still presiding {' managing the place of Celestine,' 
 say the Acts) with the assistance of the other legates, 
 brought forward his own case and that of Memnon, the 
 bishop of the diocese. John of Antioch, had, as we have 
 seen allowed himself to be so far led away by the bad com- 
 pany in which he found himself, that he had synodically 
 condemned, excommunicated and deposed both Cyril and 
 Memnon. Cyril could have afforded to treat such mad- 
 ness with contempt, if he had not had to deal with an 
 Emperor who was opposed to him, and with all the 
 enemies of the faith. He might have fallen back simply 
 and solely on his union with the successor of St. Peter 
 and the whole West ; but the matter was one which had 
 arisen since his actual communication with Celestine. 
 Accounts were already being sent to the Emperor by 
 Candidian ; and Nestorius and the Bishop of Antioch both 
 leant on the Imperial arm. At any moment he might 
 find himself in prison, as indeed eventually happened. 
 Every moment, therefore, was of importance. 
 
 Accordingly the Synod was again convened and Cyril 
 asked the bishops for their vote on John of Antioch 's 
 conduct towards himself and Memnon. After explaining 
 how the proceedings of the Council had been conducted 
 
96 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 in an orderly and judicial manner, and how John of 
 Antioch had delayed when he might have come, and had 
 been joined by certain disorderly persons, some without 
 sees, some under accusations, he pointed out that the so- 
 called deposition which John and some thirty bishops 
 had pretended to pass on himself and Memnon was 
 absurd, considering the number and character of the 
 real Synod. ' And indeed,' he added, ' he has no power 
 from ecclesiastical laws or from an Imperial decree, 
 either to judge any one of us or to attempt anything of 
 the kind, especially agaiiist a greater throne' And 
 anyhow he ought to have called upon us, together with 
 the whole Synod, to answer his charges.^ Cyril seems 
 here to speak of Alexandria alone as a ' greater throne,' 
 although at this time Ephesus may perhaps have con- 
 sidered itself also to be in the same category, being more 
 than a metropolitical see.^ But Alexandria was a ' See of 
 Peter.' 
 
 Accordingly, on Cyril's proposal, three bishops were 
 now sent to the Bishop of Antioch to summon him to 
 appear before the Synod. But they found ihim sur- 
 rounded with soldiers, and were insulted with the 
 blasphemous talk of his retinue. On the return of the 
 episcopal messengers, Cyril proposed that the Synod 
 should at once proceed to declare the sentence of the 
 Antiochene party null and void. But Juvenal of Jeru- 
 salem interposed suggesting that John should be cited 
 again. In the course of his speech Juvenal roundly 
 condemned the Patriarch of Antioch for not hastening 
 
 » Mansi, iv. 1308. 
 
 2 Cf. Duchesne, Origines du culte chrdtien, p. 25 (2nd ed.), for the 
 position of Ephesus at this period. Bossuet considers that the expres- 
 sion refers to Alexandria alone. 
 
JOHN OF ANTIOCH 97 
 
 to appear before the Synod, considering its character, 
 * and to obey and respect the Apostolic throne of Eome 
 sitting with us.' He also in some way brought in the 
 Apostolic throne of Jerusalem. But he spoke of the see 
 of Eome as that ' before which especially it has been the 
 custom for the see of Antioch to be directed and judged, 
 according to Apostolical order and tradition.' ^ In fact, 
 he took up the line of thought suggested by Cyril, when 
 he spoke of Alexandria as a ' greater see,' and while 
 echoing Cyril's contention that a ' greater throne especi- 
 ally ' could not be judged by Antioch, he probably added 
 some glorification of his own see, which was, in fact, the 
 characteristic of his rule at Jerusalem. All this was in 
 accordance with the principle that the sees that were 
 under no metropolitan, but were afterwards called 
 Patriarchal sees, could only be judged by ' the Apostolic 
 See,' or by a General Council, which, of course, in order 
 to be general, must include, or be confirmed by, that see. 
 For Eome was in conciliar language ' the Apostolic See,' 
 not merely the Apostolic See of Bovie, or of the West ; 
 it loas this latter, but it was also the former — ' the 
 Apostolic See ' simply— a designation never bestowed on 
 any other. The Councils speak of the Apostolic See of 
 
 * Mansi, iv. 1312. The grammatical order of this long sentence Is 
 -confused in the original Greek. Juvenal seems to speak of the Apo- 
 stoUcal see of [Jerusalem as ' sitting with us,^ and as though that were 
 also to be obeyed by Antioch. But it cannot be supposed that he spoke 
 quite such nonsense as that. He had a quarrel with Antioch, and in 
 this very Synod tried to wrest from its jurisdiction some of its fairest 
 provinces; but he was baulked by Cyril (cf. Leon. Ep. 119). But he 
 never claimed any jurisdiction over Antioch itself. In speaking of the 
 traditional subjection of Antioch to Eome, he is doubtless alluding to 
 the case of Paulinus of Antioch, in the last century, and Paul of Samo- 
 sata at a more distant period. 
 
 H 
 
98 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Alexandria, and the Apostolic See of Jerusalem and the 
 Apostolic See of Eome ; but when ' the Apostolic See ' 
 simply is spoken of, all the world knew that Eome was 
 meant. 
 
 Bossuet puts the whole matter with his accustomed 
 terseness and lucidity. He says : 
 
 * Lorsque Jean d'Antioche, avec son concile, osa 
 deposer Cyrille et avec lui Memnon, eveque d'Ephese, on 
 lui reprocha non seulement d'avoir prononce contre un 
 eveque " d'un des plus grands sieges," ce qui regardait 
 Cyrille, patriarche d'Alexandrie, mais encore d'avoir 
 depose deux eveques sur lesquels il n'avait aucun pouvoir, 
 ce qui convenait egalement a Cyrille et a Memnon. 
 C'etaient la, dit le concile d'Ephese, deux attentats qui 
 renversaient tout I'ordre de I'Eglise. Mais quand le 
 Pape prononce, surtout en matiere d'heresie, contre 
 quelque eveque que ce soit et quelque siege qu'il remplisse, 
 loin d'y trouver a redire, chacun se soumet : ce qui 
 prouve qu'il est reconnu pour le superieur universel.'^ 
 
 John was twice more cited, but with similar and 
 even worse results, the bishops being personally treated 
 with ignominy, and John saying that ' since the causes 
 of the Court are transferred to the Church, he was 
 transferring the cause of the Church to the Court.' The 
 Synod thereupon proceeded on the following day to 
 pronounce all that John of Antioch had done null and 
 void,2 and passed sentence of excommunication upon 
 him and his associates, depriving them of episcopal 
 faculties, until they should acknowledge their fault, 
 
 1 Remarques sur Vhistoire des conciles, (Euvres, xxx. 526 (Ver- 
 sailles, 1817). 
 
 2 They called the petition of Cyril and Memnon aKoXoveos = in order. 
 Cf. supra, pp. 62, 85. 
 
JOHN OF ANTIOCH 99 
 
 adding that ' unless they do that quickly, they will 
 undergo the complete sentence of the canons.' ^ 
 
 They then wrote their third letter to the Emperor. 
 In this they described the real character of John of 
 Antioch's crew, and the uncanonical nature of his 
 procedure against Cyril, their * head.' The burden of 
 their complaint against John was that his action was 
 out of order ^ — ecclesiastical or canonical. 
 
 But a more important letter, so far as our subject is 
 concerned, was now written to Pope Celestine. It was 
 their first report to him. And it opens in a way in which 
 a Synod of Eastern bishops would never address any but 
 the occupant of ' the Apostolic throne.' They say : ' Your 
 Holiness 's zeal concerning religion and care concerning 
 the orthodox faith, a care so dear and well-pleasing to 
 God, the Saviour of us all, have come to be worthy of all 
 admiration. For it is your wont, who are so great, 
 to be distinguished in all things and to make the 
 stability of the Churches the object of your zeal. 
 But since it was necessary that all things that have 
 followed should be brought to the knowledge of your 
 Holiness, we write perforce. ' ^ They enter into some 
 detail as to John of Antioch's delay, proving that it was 
 quite possible for him to have been with them, if he 
 had wished it.^ And after describing the action of the 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1323. 
 
 '^ l|(M irdarfs aKoKovQias iKK\-n<Tia<T'TiKr\s, iv. 1328. Cf . supra, pp. 62, 85. 
 
 3 Mansi, iv. 1329. 
 
 ^ Dr. Bright's elaborate condemnation of Cyril on this point in his 
 Waymarks, &c., pp. 150-158, amounts to a condemnation of the very 
 position of the Synod as a canonical gathering. Garnier notices that 
 if, as John of Antioch insisted, they were violating the canons in not 
 waiting for him, then they were not merely not an (Ecumenical Council, 
 
100 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 Synod in regard to Nestorius, they reach a climax when 
 they say that Celestine's letter was read, ' by which ^ he 
 was with good reason condemned as having written 
 blasphemy and inserted miholy sayings in his own 
 interpretations, more especially as he was so far from 
 repenting ' (the allusion is obviously to Celestine's letter 
 to Cyril about a time for repentance being given through 
 the Council being summoned) ' that he dared to say in 
 discussion with certain holy and learned bishops at 
 Ephesus, " I do not confess a God two or three months 
 old ; " and other things he said more disastrous still.' 
 
 They then proceed to give a detailed account of John 
 of Antioch's doings on his arrival in Ephesus, and report 
 that they have excommunicated him, but not degraded 
 him from his office. ' This ' (they say) ' by way of con- 
 quering his precipitancy by long-suffering ' — that is to 
 say, overcoming evil by good — * though he would justly 
 and lawfully have suffered it, we have reserved for the 
 judgment of your Holiness.' There were, in fact, two 
 superiors of Antioch, which was one of the ' greater 
 sees ' — viz. the See of Peter itself, and a General 
 Council, which included the See of Eome, or must be 
 confirmed by it. The Council was now (Ecumenical in 
 any matter that came properly within its cognisance,^ 
 by reason of the presence of the legates from Eome, and 
 
 but their acts had no validity at all. But the Synod itself answers 
 every objection brought by Dr. Bright against Cyril for beginning with- 
 out John. Dr. Pusey's account, which Dr. Bright is engaged in contra- 
 dicting, keeps much closer to the documents and is supported by 
 Hefele's account. See also Garnier's Preface to Marius Mercator. 
 
 ' hC ?is, 1332. 
 
 - It could not overstep the programme laid down at Rome ; but 
 Celestine had expressly included the treatment of erring bishops in its 
 work. 
 
JOHN OF ANTIOCH 101 
 
 might lawfully have degraded John of Antioch ; but by 
 way of forbearance they left it to Antioch's natural 
 superior. The Synod goes on to contrast the ludicrous 
 sight of a Synod acting as John of Antioch's did, con- 
 sisting of men of such character, and being a mere 
 handful. ' What authority could they have against a 
 Synod gathered from all quarters under heaven ? For 
 there sat with us also the bishops sent by your Holiness, 
 Arcadius and Projectus, and with them the presbyter 
 Philip ; these secured your presence to us and filled the 
 place of the Apostolic See.' They are sure that the 
 Pope will be indignant, considering what harm must 
 come to the Church ' if freedom is given to those who 
 choose to insult even the greater sees and to pass sen- 
 tences illegally and uncanonically on those over whom 
 they have no jurisdiction.' ^ Clearly it was the presence 
 of the legates that put the Council within its rights in 
 passing sentence on a Bishop of Antioch, and as clearly 
 the Bishop of Eome could do the same himself. The 
 bishops left it to him, not as their deputy, but as occu- 
 pant of ' the Apostolic See.' 
 
 They conclude with praising Cyril as the mainstay 
 of the faith, and with speaking of their action with regard 
 to the Pelagians. They say that ' the things decreed by 
 your Holiness ' concerning that set of heretics were in 
 the judgment of the Synod to remain firm. Notice that 
 what Capreolus spoke of as due to the Apostolic See and 
 the agreement of the bishops, the Synod here speaks of 
 
 * Mansi, iv. 1336, ' the greater sees ' — the plural being used 
 possibly because a general law is laid down, not because Ephesus 
 was included. The definite article would probably have been omitted 
 in that case. At the same time, just then Ephesus, as has been re- 
 marked above, may have regarded herself as a 'greater see.' 
 
102 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 as decreed by Celestine simply ; and it must be remem- 
 bered that to judge that decrees should remain firm was 
 the formula used of their adhesion to the decrees of 
 Nicaea. 
 
 Note. 
 
 Dr. Bright has a characteristic criticism on the passage 
 concerning the * greater sees,' as it appeared in the first 
 edition of this work. He says : 
 
 ' And here is an illustration of Mr. Eivington's " ways." 
 (1) He makes the Council give as its reason for this reserva- 
 tion that ** the matter concerned one of the ' greater thrones ' " 
 ... (2) He glosses the assertion of a right to depose John 
 as if it depended on the presence of Eoman legates ; and (3) 
 he omits the reason actually assigned for not doing so — 
 " that by forbearance we might overcome his temerity " ' 
 [Boman See, p. 168). The numeration is my own. 
 
 As to (1) : it is untrue that I ' made the Council give as its 
 reason, &c.' The words were ' They left the severer sentence,' 
 not ' They said that they left.' When their words were quoted 
 it was made plain in that same paragraph. I have enlarged 
 the passage in this edition, so that, at any rate, there may 
 be no mistake about its meaning. 
 
 As to (2) : the * gloss,' in the passage alluded to, is the 
 actual explanation given by the Synod itself, only Dr. 
 Bright, as so often in his book, just gives a turn by omitting 
 the definite article, which makes a difference. It was the 
 presence of the legates as a matter of fact which gave the 
 Synod the right to deal with John of Antioch. They would 
 have had that right, if assembled for the purpose of dealing 
 with it, without the presence of Papal legates. But in this 
 case they put forward the presence of the legates in con- 
 trasting their authority with that of John. Cf. sujrra, p. 101. 
 
JOHN OF ANTIOCH 103 
 
 As to (3) : they imply that they would not have exercised 
 this forbearance had it not baen that Antioch had a natural 
 superior at Eome. It was bicause Antioch was one of the 
 greater sees, and therefore naturally under Eome directly, 
 that they decided to overcome evil by good — i.e. exercise for- 
 bearance where he had been so precipitate — by letting the 
 severer sentence rest with Eome. 
 
CHAPTEE X 
 
 TWO DECREES OF THE COUNCIL 
 
 1. The Nicene Greed. 2. The Independence of Cyprus. 
 
 The Council concluded its sessions with two decisions 
 of unequal importance ; both of them, however, have 
 figured in recent controversy. 
 
 I. In the sixth session, the fathers decided that no 
 Symbol or Creed was to be composed or promulged or 
 proffered to any who sought admission to the Church, 
 save only the Creed of Nicaea.^ Ever since the Council 
 of Constantinople, and indeed before it, various * Symbols ' 
 or Creeds had been drawn up and used, some in agree- 
 ment with the Nicene, others not. An instance of the 
 latter was now produced before the Synod by a certain 
 Charisius, who had been cajoled into signing a Symbol 
 which is generally referred to Theodore of Mopsuestia 
 and was much in vogue among the sympathisers with 
 Nestorius. The Council accordingly did what the Nicene 
 Council itself could not well do, nor the Constantino- 
 politan ; it strictly forbade any other Creed but that of 
 Nicaea from being used. That was the opos in the sense 
 of a Symbol which was to suffice, at any rate for the 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1361. The old Latin edition of the Acts published by 
 Mansi in his fifth volume (p. 559) should be consulted. The Acts of 
 his session have been mutilated. 
 
THE NICENE CREED 105 
 
 present. In this way the Third Council of the Church 
 strengthened the material rule of faith ; the Apostolic 
 deposit was embodied and expanded in the Nicene Creed, 
 and the fathers had met, as Cyril said in his statement 
 to the Synod, for the purpose of strengthening the 
 definition of the Apostolic faith and investigating the 
 heresy of Nestorius.^ They effected this by insisting on 
 the Nicene Creed as the one Symbol to be offered to 
 heretics before their reconciliation with the Church, or 
 to Pagans on seeking admission into the Fold. The 
 term Ssotoko^ (Mother of God) was not inserted in that 
 Symbol ; although several words were added which 
 indicated the agreement of the fathers at Ephesus with 
 those at Constantinople in 381. 
 
 Two difficulties arise. How could they consistently 
 endorse the use of the Constantinopolitan form of the 
 Nicene Symbol, since this contained additions to the 
 original Creed? and how had they safeguarded the 
 Nicene Creed against the misinterpretations of Nes- 
 torius ? 
 
 The answer to the first question was debated 
 centuries afterwards — not, indeed, for the first time, but 
 most fully — at the Council of Florence in 1438. The 
 Bishop of Ephesus at that Council inveighed against any 
 even verbal alteration in the Nicene Creed, on the ground 
 that the (Ecumenical Council of 431 had strictly pro- 
 hibited such change. The Archbishop of Ehodes in his 
 answer pointed out that an addition was one thing — 
 implying, as it did, something added from without — and 
 development or explication from within was another. An 
 explanation was not, he argued, an addition. And so the 
 Constantinopolitan Symbol, being but an explication of 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1305. 
 
106 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 what was already in the Nicene Creed, made the two — that 
 of 325 and that of 381 — but one. The Bishop of Ephesus 
 had himself already excused the elongation of the Nicene 
 into the Constantinopolitan on the ground that they were 
 but one. So that the principle underlying the injunction 
 of the Ephesine fathers in 431 is contained in the 
 original meaning of the word they used, hspa irio-n?, 
 lit. a different Creed. The Constantinopolitan form of 
 the Symbol was not that. But in order to preserve the 
 Creed intact, they forbade in reality, as the context shows, 
 any other Creed, which is frequently the meaning of 
 sTspa in Byzantine Greek. This particular form of 
 prohibition was, in its nature, temporary. They could 
 not bind a future Council. They could not prohibit the 
 use of the Athanasian Symbol, when it should come on 
 to the scene, nor —to leap some centuries forward — the 
 Creed of Pope Pius IV., which contains the Nicene Creed. 
 But they did strengthen the Apostolic faith by corrobo- 
 rating, for the first time in full (Ecumenical Synod, the 
 Creed of Nicsea in its Constantinopolitan form, making 
 it the only Creed for use in the reconciliation of 
 heretics. 
 
 But if this canon, or decision, of the Council of 
 Ephesus consisted in simply prohibiting the use of any 
 other Creed but that of Nicaea, how could they be said to 
 have safeguarded that Creed ? For if merely signing 
 the Nicene Creed were sufficient, was not Nestorius 
 prepared to do that ? If the mere reaffirmation of that 
 Creed were sufficient, what heretic would have been con- 
 demned in the fifth century ? 
 
 St. Cyril himself touched upon this difficulty in his 
 letter to Nestorius. ' It will not suffice for your Holiness 
 merely to confess with us ' [i.e. merely to reaffirm] * the 
 
THE NICENE CREED 107 
 
 Symbol of the faith once put forth by the Holy Spirit by 
 the holy and great Synod once assembled at Nicaea. 
 For even if you acknowledge the words with your lips, 
 you have not understood it rightly.' ^ Cyril then went 
 on to say that Nestorius must further withdraw his own 
 writings and sayings and teach what the rest of the 
 Church teaches— as contained in his (Cyril's) writings, 
 which, he says, had been sanctioned by the Roman 
 Synod and by all the bishops at Alexandria. ' For this ' 
 {i.e. the interpretation of the Nicene Creed given in those 
 writings) ' is the faith of the Catholic and Apostolic 
 Church, with which all the orthodox bishops. West and 
 East, agree.' It is clear that Cyril understood by ' the 
 right definition of the Apostolic faith ' the Nicene 
 Creed as interpreted b}^ Celestine's decree and by the 
 already consentient witness of East and West. This, in 
 the fullest sense, was the definition (opos) which from 
 Cyril's point of view, the Council assembled to strengthen. 
 This decree of Celestine's, involving a particular inter- 
 pretation of the Nicene Creed, which he sent to Nestorius 
 and to the people and clergy i of Constantinople, is called 
 in the Acts of the Council the opos ^ ; it was a decree 
 concerning the faith, as Cyril had impressed on John of 
 Antioch. It was ' not about matters of little moment, 
 but on behalf of th^ faith itself and of the Churches 
 which are everywhere disturbed ; ' such are his words."^ 
 Nestorius, said Celestine, was to teach what the Roman 
 and Alexandrian Churches and the whole Catholic Church 
 and the Church of Constantinople in past times taught 
 as to the faith of Nicaea. This, therefore, was the opos 
 or decree of the Apostolic See, which related to an 
 individual archbishop on a matter of faith. And if we 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1071. ^ j^^^ io48. ' Ibid. 1052. 
 
108 THE COUNCIL OF EPTIESUS 
 
 ask further what exactly the definition of the faith was, 
 the answer is that it was that interpretation of the 
 Nicene Creed which was given in the Eoman Synod of 
 430, when Pope Celestine insisted on the Hypostatic 
 union as enshrined in the term Ssotokos (Mother of 
 God).i 
 
 And so the Bishop of Ephesus at the Council of 
 Florence, in its fifth session, points out how careful the 
 Ephesine fathers of 431 were not to violate their own 
 rule of not adding to the Nicene Creed ; seeing that 
 while they * then sanctioned the word Ssotokos (Mother 
 of God) in opposition to the delirious dreams of Nes- 
 torius,' they did not insert it in the Creed, ' although 
 the term was most necessary in the dogmas ' — i.e. to be 
 included in the dogmas — ' of our salvation.' ^ 
 
 Thus there was a definition of the faith on a particu- 
 lar point given by Celestine at the Eoman Synod ; it was 
 involved in the decree concerning Nestorius ; it was 
 accepted by the Synod ; it explained the Nicene Creed ; 
 that Creed was now understood to contain it, and the 
 Synod decreed that no other Creed should be proposed to 
 heretics or Pagans. But always in the case of heretics, 
 the abjuration of their particular heresy was required, 
 and this, in the case of those tainted with Nestorianism, 
 included an acknowledgment of the single Personality 
 in the two Natures of our Incarnate Lord. 
 
 Every Synod had its opos, its definition of some kind ; 
 so that the Sixth Council renewed expressly (to use its 
 own words) the ' definitions ' {opot) of the five preceding 
 Synods. 
 
 There was another reason why Celestine's definition 
 of the faith would not naturally lead to the insertion of 
 
 ' Cf. supra, p. 7. "^ Mansi, xxxi. 533. 
 
THE NICENE CREED 109 
 
 its crucial term in the Nicene Creed. It was there 
 already in a peculiar sense, in the very terms of the Creed. 
 The Creed said that the ' Son ' was ' born of the Virgin 
 Mary.' Now the Consubstantiality of the Son to, or 
 with, the Father had already been defined : it followed • 
 that Mary was the Mother of God. 
 
 But that this truth was defined at Ephesus was the 
 constant tradition of the Church. Photius thus describes 
 the Council. He says that the fathers ' dogmatised,' i.e. 
 taught dogmatically, that ' our Lord Jesus Christ is wor- 
 shipped and proclaimed, in accordance with the tra- 
 dition of the Fathers, in one and the selfsame Person,' 
 and that they ' delivered or handed down that accordingly 
 His immaculate and ever-virgin Mother is rightly and 
 truly called also the Mother of God.' '^ This is the short 
 description of the Council's work by one who has been 
 called ' the most learned man that ever sat on that 
 throne'^ (Constantinople). And elsewhere Photius has 
 preserved a fragment by one of the most orthodox succes- 
 sors of Cyril in the See of Alexandria, St. Eulogius, 
 the friend of our Gregory the Great. Eulogius says that 
 certain heretics had arraigned the Council of Chalcedon 
 for ' having put forth a definition of the faith ' {opov 
 £ic6sfjLsvr)v) contrary, as they asserted, to the injunction of 
 the Council of Ephesus. They apparently misunderstood 
 the difference between a definition and a Creed. "^ Eulogius 
 accordingly answers that the Council of Ephesus could 
 not have meant what these heretics supposed, for it had 
 done the same thing itself. ' Decreeing this very thing, 
 it defines what no other Synod defined before ' ; and 
 
 ' Lupus Christianus, Sijnod. Deer. Pars I. p. 815 (BruxelJis, 1673). 
 2 Mansi, iv. 457. ^ Puller's Primitive Saints, &c., p. 153. 
 
 ^ Lupus, p. 963. 
 
110 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 ' the Hypostatic union is its definition, which had not 
 been defined by the older Synods.' ^ 
 
 Where is this definition ? The Council itself drew 
 up no definition ; but it accepted Celestine's definition 
 enshrined in his decree concerning Nestorius. (Mansi, iv. 
 548-552.) This decree the bishops had professedly 
 executed, and in doing so had given a Conciliar, as dis- 
 tinguished from a Papal, definition : in other words, 
 Celestine defined, i.e. definitively settled, the truth as to 
 the Hypostatic union contained in the term * Mother of 
 God,' and the Council made the definition its own. ^ 
 
 II. Three Cyprian bishops also brought before the 
 Synod their grievance about the assumption of jurisdic- 
 tion over them on the part of the Bishops of Antioch. 
 
 ' opi^fi avrh tovto Tvirouffa & /XTjSerepa tuv irph avrris SioopicraTO .... 
 aWa Kal r) Ka6^ inroaraffLv 'duaaris avTrjs iariv '6pos, h ra7s irp^crfivrepais tcHv 
 avvodcou oh Sicopiarai. Photii Biblioth., cod. ccxxx. 
 
 - It will be seen from this how very wide of the mark Dr. Bright is 
 when he writes that ' Celestine's " direction " was not a definition of 
 the faith ; and a little more acquaintance with ancient dogmatic 
 phraseology would have saved Mr. Kivington from this blunder ' 
 (Roman See, p. 167). There is here, first, a wrong translation of tvttos, 
 which is ' decree,' not ' direction ' ; and secondly, the idea which he 
 goes on to express that the office of the Council was merely that of 
 ' synodically reaffirming ' the Nicene Creed, shows how little he has based 
 his interpretation on the history of the Council as a whole : and, thirdly, 
 we see such a writer as Photius and such a person as Eulogius (not to 
 speak of others innumerable) differ from Dr. Bright as to the meaning 
 of ' ancient dogmatic phraseology.' And to come to more modern times, 
 is anyone more entitled to speak on ' ancient dogmatic phraseology ' 
 than Mansi ? Yet Mansi again and again speaks of Celestine's 
 ' definition of the faith.' See his Animadversio'nes in Natalis Alex. 
 H. E. ix. 473, 477, and 558. But in truth the matter is settled by 
 Philip's words to the Council, when he says ' Celestine wpiaev.^ ^The 
 ' blunder ' of which Dr. Bright speaks and the ' ignorance of ancient dog- 
 matic phraseology ' which Dr. Bright imputes to me must be assigned to 
 another quarter. 
 
POSITION OF CYPRUS 111 
 
 It had been held on the one hand that Cyprus, which 
 belonged to the civil province of which Antioch was the 
 centre, was included by the sixth canon of Nicaea in the 
 ecclesiastical province of the Bishops of Antioch, but 
 that during the Eustathian schism at Antioch this order 
 had been disturbed by the Arians. On the termination 
 of the schism. Pope Innocent I. wrote to Alexander of 
 Antioch, and on the strength of his assertion decided 
 that the Cyprians ought to return to their obedience in 
 accordance with the Nicene canons. The Cyprians, how- 
 ever, maintained that they had not originally been under 
 Antioch, and that therefore their subjection to that see 
 was not contemplated by the Nicene canon. Great 
 violence, moreover, had been used by the Antiochene 
 party to induce the Cyprian bishops to surrender their 
 independence. 
 
 The Synod accordingly decreed that if the facts were 
 as the Cyprian bishops stated, and the facts appeared to 
 be established as such, the Cyprians were right to resist 
 the pressure of Antioch ; and they decreed, what indeed, 
 except as bearing on the particular case, hardly needed 
 decreeing, that if anyone seized a province and subjected 
 it by force to itself, he should be bound to restore it to 
 its independence, and the provinces were to remain with 
 their territories undisturbed, in accordance with ancient 
 custom.^ The decree doubtless had reference to the 
 attempt which Juvenal made in this Synod to encroach 
 on the province of Antioch, as well as to the violent oc- 
 cupation of the Cyprian province by the Bishop of 
 Antioch. There was at that moment in the East, and 
 had been for many years, a lust of power and attempts 
 to extend their jurisdiction on the part of the more im- 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 1469. 
 
112 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESQS 
 
 portant sees, and the Council, accordingly, very properly 
 spoke of the danger of worldly pride in these ambitious 
 projects. 
 
 But Dr. Bright and other Anglican writers see in 
 this provision and this expression an allusion to Eome — 
 on the ground that the actual expression used by the 
 Ephesine fathers — ' the arrogance of authority '—closely 
 resembles an expression used some years before by the 
 Africans in deprecating the presence of legates, viz. * the 
 smoke of worldly pride ' ; and that this close resemblance, 
 not identity, of expression, ' seems to demand some ex- 
 planation.' ^ The explanation of the use of the words 
 * arrogance of authority ' is not far to seek when we con- 
 sider the history of Juvenal of Jerusalem on the one 
 hand, and of the Antiochene party on the other. And 
 since no one, with the actual historical situation before 
 him could suppose that the Council were thinking of 
 anything going on in the West at that moment. Dr. 
 Bright has recourse to the fact that ' Eastern bishops 
 ninety years before had shown some jealousy of Eoman 
 self-assertion ' and therefore it is not ' incredible ' that 
 they ' should have thought the words opportune in case 
 of its recurrence ' ! Such an interpretation of historical 
 documents only needs to be stated : its statement is its 
 refutation. 
 
 As regards the encroachment on provinces not be- 
 longing to an exarch, it would be difficult to bring in 
 the claim to universal jurisdiction made by ' the Apostolic 
 See.' The two things are not on the same plane. And 
 as regards universal jurisdiction, we have seen that the 
 Ephesine fathers admitted this in the Apostolic See ; 
 and consequently their canon must be interpreted in 
 ' Roman See, pp. 169, 170. 
 
POSITION OF CYPRUS 113 
 
 accordance with their belief. And in view of various 
 precarious applications of this decree, it must be re- 
 membered that these bishops at Ephesus could not fix the 
 territorial limits of provinces for ever and aye. They 
 were providing for the East and for things as they were. 
 Once more, Dr. Bright asks ' How, on Vatican prin- 
 ciples, could a General Council, even provisionally, 
 reverse the alleged " decision " of a Pope ? ' ^ The 
 answer is that a decision which avowedly rested on the 
 assertion of one party to a suit,'-^ as this did, and which 
 said (as the Pope's decree did) ' we persuade them,' could 
 be * provisionally reversed,' on fresh evidence being pro- 
 duced, without any violence done to ' Vatican principles.' 
 Infallibility does not come into the question ; for that 
 has to do with ex cathedra pronouncements, and there 
 was no pronouncement of that kind in Innocent's de- 
 cision. No dogmatic fact was concerned ; no matter of 
 faith. It was a matter of discipline. Neither was 
 there disobedience in regard to the supreme jurisdiction 
 of the Apostolic See : for the whole question was one 
 of facts. If it was proved that the claim of Antioch was 
 not involved in the Nicene canon, because Cyprus had 
 not been in her jurisdiction before the Nicene Council 
 met, the very ground on which Innocent avowedly went 
 would sanction Cyprus being recognised as independent 
 of Antioch. 
 
 ' Roman See, p. 169. 
 
 2 ' Cyprios sane asserts ' are Innocent's words (Ep. xviii. c. 2). 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The story, interesting as it is, of the Imperial assent to 
 the condemnation of Nestorius, and of the eventual re- 
 conciliation of Cyril and John of Antioch, does not 
 belong to my subject. This only may be noticed, viz. 
 that no amount of Imperial displeasure constitutes an 
 argument against the binding nature of the laws of the 
 Church on those who believe in her divine constitution ; 
 and that the Bishop of Antioch too clearly showed the 
 original cause of his quarrel with Cyril for any serious 
 weight to be attached to his objections to the Anathema - 
 tisms drawn up at Alexandria.' Further, the Church 
 owes to St. Cyril an inexpressible debt of gratitude for 
 his firmness and zeal in the defence of what he clearly 
 saw, and all now see, to have really involved the whole 
 question of the world's redemption. If the child ' of two 
 or three months old ' that lay in Mary's lap was not 
 literally Almighty God, the world was not saved by 
 Jesus Christ.^ 
 
 * It is true that he fixed on one expression of Cyril's (evioais (pvatKi]) 
 and on Cyril's use of <^v(ns, which could be misunderstood, but it is 
 clear that but for a certain perversity, which led him into his schismatic 
 action at Ephesus, he would not have misinterpreted Cyril. 
 
 2 Dr. Bright {Waymarlcs, p. 172) carries his depreciation of Cyril to 
 such a pitch that he even allows the idea that Cyril had to do with the 
 aubsequent hardships of Nestorius, not merely to cross his mind, but to 
 inspire the following sentence. Speaking of the severities dealt out to 
 
CONCLUSION 116 
 
 The Church also had in Celestine, the Bishop of 
 Kome, one of whom she is justly proud, who saw, equally 
 with Cyril, what was involved in the contest, and 
 omitted no pains to support the great Bishop of Alex- 
 andria. Before his death Celestine wrote one of his 
 most touching letters to the bishops of the Synod, ^ after 
 their dispersion to their homes, full, as all his letters 
 are, of beautiful applications of Holy Scripture, and dis- 
 playing the firmness of a ruler and tenderness of a 
 father. He strikes the note of joy in the opening 
 sentence ; he then congratulates them on having faith- 
 fully carried this affair into execution ' with us ' ; he 
 applies to himself the words of the Psalmist (Psal. xxiv.), 
 ' The innocent and the upright have adhered to me,' 
 showing that he conceived of the Synod as the Synod 
 conceived of itself, as the executor of his own sentence. 
 He praises their choice of a successor to Nestorius, and 
 congratulates them on the emperor's assent. He then 
 tells them that they must not stop here : they must 
 induce the Emperor to rescind his decree about Nestorius 
 being allowed to go to Antioch. He must be removed 
 further. ' Solitude alone becomes such men.' 
 
 * We,' says the Pope, ' are further off than you are, 
 but by solicitude we see the whole matter closer. The 
 care of the blessed Apostle Peter has the effect of 
 making all present ; we cannot excuse ourselves before 
 God concerning what we know. . . . We ought to have 
 
 Nestorius by the governor of the Thebaic!, Dr. Bright says : ' We may 
 hope that he was not seeking to gratify the primate of Egypt.' Then 
 why suggest such an idea, for which there is not an iota of evidence ? 
 Dr. Bright also in quoting Gamier on Cyril's character {ibid. p. 145) 
 omits the words ' animus eratexcelsus erectusque,' giving no intimation 
 that Garnier had said this in praise of Cyril. 
 ' Ep. Cel. ad Syn. March 15, a.d. 432. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 care for all in general, but it behoves us specially to 
 assist the Antiochenes, who are besieged by pestiferous 
 disease.' 
 
 Such is the care which he evinces for them, in 
 accordance with the title accorded to him by the Synod, 
 viz. * our most holy Father,' and with his own conception 
 of his relationship to the Prince of the Apostles. He then 
 decides what shall be done with respect to those who 
 seemed to think with Nestorius. Although the Synod 
 had passed sentence on them, ' still we also decide what 
 seems best. Many things have to be looked into in 
 such cases, which the Apostolic See has always regarded.' 
 He accordingly orders that they shall be dealt with in 
 the same way as the ' Coelestians,' and desires that the 
 same method of treatment shall be observed in 
 regard to those who have imagined that ecclesiastical 
 cases could be removed to Christian princes. He then 
 instructs them how John of Antioch should be dealt 
 with in case of his correcting himself. 
 
 The letter, considering all the circumstances, is a 
 very remarkable one. It is that of a God-fearing man 
 providing as father for the wants of his children. There 
 is not a trace of any consciousness that he is doing 
 anything but fulfilling the duties of an office recognised 
 by all ; and that office is clearly in his judgment the 
 government of the universal Church entrusted to him 
 as the successor of Peter. On the same day he wrote 
 to the Emperor congratulating him on his better mind, 
 and giving him some exquisite exhortations as to the 
 performance of his high functions. He also wrote to 
 the clergy and people of Constantinople, praising Cyril 
 and drawing attention to Nestorius's sleepless energy. 
 But Kome (he adds) is not behindhand in watchfulness. 
 
CONCLUSION 117 
 
 * The blessed Apostle Peter did not desert them when they 
 were toiling so heavily, for, when the separation of such 
 an ulcer [as Nestorius] from the ecclesiastical body 
 seemed advisable by reason of the putrid decay which 
 became sensible to all, we offered soothing fomentation 
 together with the steel. It was not by the swiftness of 
 our sentence that he became to us as a publican and 
 heathen man. We could not delay longer lest we should 
 seem to run with the thief, and to take our portion with 
 the adulterer against faith.' Celestine here treats his 
 own sentence and its execution by the Council as one. 
 
 It is difficult, after all we have seen, to understand 
 how Dr. Salmon could say that ' the only one of the 
 great controversies in which the Pope really did his part 
 in teaching Christians what to believe was the Eu- 
 tychian controversy.' ^ 
 
 Sixtus succeeded Celestine, and took up the work in 
 the same spirit. In the following year he wrote to Cyril, 
 praising him for his magnificent conduct and directing 
 what was to be done about the followers of John of 
 Antioch, and eventually wrote a most beautiful letter to 
 John himself after the reconciliation between him and 
 Cyril, in which he did not spare the bishop for his past 
 conduct, although he acquitted him of any heretical 
 teaching. He summed up the whole matter, saying, 
 * You have learned by experience what it is to think 
 with us.' ^ 
 
 From all that has gone before, we may deduce the 
 following conclusions as to Church principles in a.d. 431. 
 1. The Bishop of Kome held the Primacy in the 
 Church as the successor of Peter, i.e. by Divine insti- 
 tution. 
 
 ' Infallibility of the Church, p. 426, 2nd edition. ^ Mansi, v. 379. 
 
118 THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS 
 
 2. This Primacy of the Bishop of Kome involved : 
 
 (a) the right to depose a Bishop of Constanti- 
 nople ; 
 
 (^) the right to determine with authority 
 whether or no the said bishop had contra- 
 dicted the common faith of the Church. 
 
 3. The bishops of an (Ecumenical Council exercised 
 a real right of judgment, but in subordination to the 
 defining power of the Bishop of Eome. 
 
 4. There were certain ' greater sees ' in the Church 
 over which only an (Ecumenical Council (which included 
 the Bishop of Eome), or the Bishop of Eome himself, 
 had jurisdiction. 
 
 5. The denial that Mary was the Mother of God 
 constitutes an offence against the faith of the Church. 
 
 6. The meaning of this term Ssotokos (Mother of 
 God) is that there is but one Person, although two 
 distinct Natures, in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 7. It is not enough for Christians to agree to a 
 formula which they interpret in a different way. It is 
 not enough to recite the Nicene Creed ; but it is necessary 
 for a teacher in the Church to abjure the heresies which 
 wrongly interpret that Creed. In her guardianship of 
 the faith the Church eschewed the principle of compre- 
 hension in regard to matters on which she had spoken. 
 
 8. The Church is a living body that can speak, and 
 propose with authority fresh definitions to guard the old 
 truths. 
 
 9. The Church is one in the sense that she is under 
 one form of government, and her several parts are 
 visibly united. Visible union is not for her a matter of 
 hope and aim, but a necessity of her life. 
 
Part II 
 THE LATEOCmiUM oe ' EOBBER-SYNOD ' 
 
 Chapter I. The heretical Archimandrite, p. 121 
 
 II. Papal Intervention, p. 133 
 
 III. The Acquittal of Eutyches, p. 150 
 
 IV. The Deposition of Flavian, p. 161 
 V. Flavian's Appeal to Kome, p. 167 
 
 VI. Leo proposes, Theodosius refuses, a Council, p. 181 
 
PART II 
 
 CHAPTEE I 
 
 THE HERETICAL ARCHIMANDRITE 
 
 The throne of Peter was now occupied by one of those 
 majestic figures which occasionally dominate a whole 
 period. His name was Leo : and well did he merit his 
 name, and rightly has posterity called him ' Great.' The 
 Council of Chalcedon called him the ' wonderful ' Leo, 
 and again spoke of his zeal as equal to that of the Apostle 
 Peter. The Oriental bishops in their letter to Pope 
 Symmachus speak of Leo as ' among the Saints ' ; 
 Facundus, of his ' weight ' and ' constancy ' ; Saint 
 Maximus, the Greek theologian, of his strong-hearted- 
 ness and great sanctity ; Nicolas L, of his having saved 
 the Christian faith; Photius, of his sanctity, great 
 renown, and zeal in piety and religion ; and the Greek 
 Menology, of his virtue, wisdom, and sanctity, and of his 
 having left conspicuous monuments of his virtue, but 
 especially of his witness to the true faith. 
 
 The sum and substance of Christianity was again at 
 stake ; the true Glory of its Founder was again in 
 question under another form, and Leo the Great was the 
 instrument chosen by the Divine Founder of the 
 
122 TFIE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Christian Church to vindicate the truth of His Incarna- 
 tion. 
 
 But it was as occupying the throne of Peter that St. 
 Leo achieved the triumph of Chalcedon. More than once 
 had he quoted the words of Christ, ' I have prayed for 
 thee, that thy faith fail not,' as the source of his con- 
 fidence, and the words ' confirm thy brethren ' as the 
 rule of his conduct.^ And in that confidence he acted 
 throughout his troubled reign, as he guided Patriarchs, 
 Bishops, Emperor and Empress, through the maze of 
 heretical subtleties. He said nothing different from what 
 others had said before him as to the prerogatives of his 
 see ; but the circumstances under which he had to act 
 developed a fuller apprehension of the truth that St. 
 Peter was the appointed ' confirmer of the brethren ' in 
 the matter of faith. It was in the counsels of Divine 
 Providence that the whole force of the ' Petrine Privi- 
 lege ' should be felt on a large scale and under the 
 pressure of unparalleled needs, so that the Church might 
 realise more fully where her strength lay and never 
 
 * St. Leo taught that Peter was placed over all the Apostles : ' De 
 toto mundo unus Petrus eligitur, qui et universarum gentium vocationi 
 et omnibus Apostolis cunctisque Ecclesise patribus prseponatur, ut . . . 
 omnes proprie regat Petrus, quos prineipaliter regit et Christus,' And 
 quoting the words in St. Luke, he says ' pro fide Petri proprie suppli- 
 catur, tanquam aliorum status certior sit f uturus, si mens Principis victa 
 non f uerit. In Petro ergo omnium fortitude munitur, et divinse gratiaa 
 ita ordinatur auxilium, ut firmitas, quss per Christum Petro tribuitur, 
 per Petrum apostolis conferatur.' St. Leo also taught that the preroga- 
 tive of Peter descended to his See : ' si quid etiam nostris temporibus 
 recte per nos agitur, recteque disponitur, illius operibus, illius sit guber- 
 naculis deputandum cui dictum est : et iu conversus confirma fratres 
 tiios ' {Sermo iv.). The references to the writings of St. Leo are to his 
 Sermons and Letters in the Ballerinis' edition, Leoiiis Magni 0;px^. vol. i. 
 Venice, 1753. 
 
EUTYCHES 123 
 
 suffer her locks to be shorn. But throughout his 
 emphatic exercise of his prerogative as the guardian of 
 the Nicene Faith and of the Nicene canons, not a note 
 of surprise, as at any novel claim, was heard. Heretics 
 or politicians might endeavour to evade the force of that 
 prerogative or to use it in their own behalf, but as to 
 the prerogative itself no challenge was ever made. For, 
 as had been said at the Council of Ephesus without 
 challenge, ' It is doubtful to none and has been known 
 to all ages, that the blessed Apostle Peter, the head and 
 prince of the Apostles, received from the Saviour of the 
 human race the keys of the kingdom, and that he lives 
 and exercises rule in his successors.' 
 
 But to proceed to the actual history. The utterances 
 of a ' foolish old man,' as St. Leo called him, erring more 
 from stupidity than the subtlety that misled Nestorius, 
 were the occasion of the storm that now burst with 
 terrific suddenness over the Church— a foolish old man, 
 who boasted that he had kept his vow of continency in 
 the monastic life, and who had all that peculiar influence 
 which is invariably exercised for good or evil by men of 
 recognised austerity. Such was the Constantinopolitan 
 Archimandrite, Eutyches. 
 
 To understand the situation it will be necessary to 
 revert briefly to the events immediately following the 
 victory of Cyril over Nestorius. John of Antioch, who 
 had played such a bad part in the Council of Ephesus, 
 after two years of resistance accepted the decrees of that 
 Council through the joint persuasion, or pressure, of the 
 Emperor and the Pope. And having once done so, he 
 became an influence for good throughout the East. 
 About five years after his submission and reconciliation, 
 he wrote to Proclus, the Archbishop of Constantinople, 
 
124 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 saying that the whole East was quiet and that they were 
 enjoying a breathing-time from the unforeseen evils 
 which the world had experienced through ' the accursed 
 Nestorius.' ^ 
 
 But many elements of mischief were at work. The 
 partisans of Nestorius, of Diodorus, and of Theodore of 
 Mopsuestia, were numerous and excited. Monks and 
 clerics might be heard in the streets of Alexandria and 
 Constantinople wrangling over the rightness or wrong- 
 ness of Nestorius's condemnation and Cyril's Anathema- 
 tisms. But so long as John of Antioch, Cyril, and 
 Proclus lived, these elements of disturbance were kept in 
 check. Each, however, of these sees changed hands 
 within the decade. First, Cyril was succeeded at 
 Alexandria, in a.d. 444, by his nephew and archdeacon, 
 Dioscorus, a man of ungovernable ambition and violent 
 temper, and accused by some of his clergy of an 
 altogether immoral life. He has been called ' the Attila 
 of the Eastern Church.' ^ Next, John of Antioch had 
 been succeeded two years before by his nephew Domnus, 
 a man of weak character, whose career proved to be 
 nothing less than a tragedy. He had experienced a call 
 to the solitary life. Fired, however, with the idea of 
 recalling his uncle from his Nestorian sympathies, he 
 had left his cell, contrary to the advice of the Abbot 
 Euthymius, who predicted the misfortunes that actually 
 befel him. At Antioch he now won his way to the 
 episcopal throne as successor of Saint Peter in the 
 
 » Mansi, v. 974. 
 
 '^ For Dioscorus's character c/. Theophanes, Chronogr. ad annum 439, 
 and Nicephorus, H. E. xiv. 47 ; Liberatus, Brev, c. 10. Theodoret 
 (Ep. 60) gives him a good character before his elevation. He appears 
 to have fearfully deteriorated. 
 
EUTYCHES 126 
 
 third See of Christendom. A deadly animosity sprang 
 up between him and Dioscorus. He had allowed Proclus 
 of Constantinople to take precedence of him at a Synod, 
 and had thus seemed to countenance the provision of 
 the third canon of 381, a mortal offence in the eyes of 
 Dioscorus.^ The latter had also interfered in the 
 diocese of Antioch, and had requested Domnus to 
 publish a letter of his, which Domnus refused to do, 
 grounding his action on the second canon of 381. 
 
 But thirdly, in a.d. 447 the see of Constantinople 
 itself became vacant. To the disappointment of the 
 Archimandrite, Eutyches, who was connected by birth 
 and friendship with the Emperor's favourite chamber- 
 lain, Chrysaphius, and who is said by Theophanes and 
 Nicephorus to have looked forward to the post of arch- 
 bishop, Flavian was appointed to the see. And, more- 
 over, according to Evagrius, Flavian on his appointment 
 sent Chrysaphius some sacred vessels instead of the 
 gold coin for which the covetous chamberlain looked on 
 such occasions. 2 And again, Flavian was a friend of 
 Domnus. Dioscorus omitted to send the usual letters to 
 Flavian on his appointment.^ 
 
 It will be seen from all this that it w^ould require but 
 a spark to produce any amount of dissension between the 
 three sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, 
 
 ' Cf . Theodoret, Ep. 86. This letter is now recognised as written by 
 Domnus, not by Theodoret. The Syriac version differs slightly; 
 probably it was a Synodal letter, and consequently varied slightly 
 according to the bishop to whom in each case it was sent. Cf. Actes 
 du Brigandage d'Ephise, par M. I'Abbe Martin, Amiens, 1874, pp. 139- 
 143. 
 
 2 Evagrius, H. E. ii. )8. 
 
 3 We learn this from the recently discovered letter of Flavian to 
 Leo. Cf. p. 173. 
 
126 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 and that there is no need, as there is no justification in 
 the record, for bringing in the West to explain the 
 troubles that now arose. ^ 
 
 Further, we are told by the historian Facundus that 
 Domnus of Antioch was the first to denounce Eutyches 
 to Theodosius.'^ 
 
 To complete the picture, we must remember that 
 Dioscorus about the same time picked a quarrel with 
 Theodoret, the historian, and Bishop of Cyrrhos, and 
 the quondam critic of Cyril's Anathematisms. Dioscorus 
 looked upon himself as the hereditary champion of the 
 great Bishop of Alexandria, his uncle and predecessor, 
 Cyril, and he wrote to Domnus complaining of Theo- 
 doret, whose see was in the ' Diocese ' (Patriarchate) of 
 Antioch, on account of certain reports as to Nestorian 
 tendencies having appeared in Theodoret's teaching 
 while on a visit to Antioch. Theodoret defended him- 
 self, but in vain so far as Dioscorus was concerned. 
 About the same time ^ Domnus took a step calculated 
 still further to inflame the minds of those who were 
 making anti-Nestorianism their one cry. There was 
 one prominent figure among the lay attendants at the 
 Council of Ephesus, the Count Irenaeus, who had been 
 commissioned by the Emperor to look after the bishops 
 assembled at the Council in temporal matters. Being 
 strongly attached to Nestorius, he had proved a terrible 
 scourge to the orthodox bishops. He had made their 
 
 ' It will be seen from the whole narrative that Harnack's endeavour 
 to account for the turn that the events took by attributing political 
 motives to Leo, is simply without foundation in the record — indeed, is 
 contradicted by it. 
 
 * Pro Trium Defensione Cajntulorum, Lib. viii. cap. 5. 
 
 ' The chronology is difficult to settle. I have followed the Abb6 
 Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode, Paris, 1875. 
 
EUTYCHES 127 
 
 stay in Ephesus almost intolerable, and had afterwards 
 induced the Court party to pronounce against Cyril. 
 This Imperial officer had now professed to be converted 
 to the orthodox side and sought the priesthood ; and 
 Domnus had consecrated him Bishop of Tyre.^ The 
 Monophysites, not believing in Irenaeus's conversion, 
 resented the appointment, and the Emperor Theodosius, 
 whose ear they had gained, when he renewed his edicts 
 against the Nestorians, deposed Irenaeus, on the ground 
 that he was a bigamist. 
 
 I have used the word Monophysite ^ by way of antici- 
 pation. The champions of Cyril as against Nestorius 
 had unfortunately taken as their watchword Cyril's 
 declaration that there is but ' one incarnate <j)vac9 ' in 
 our Divine Lord, by which he meant ' one Person.' But 
 the word (pvacs meant literally 'nature,' and the 
 opponents of Nestorianism (which denied the single 
 Personality in our Incarnate Lord), now losing their 
 balance, spoke of there being not merely one Person, but 
 * one Nature ' in His Incarnate Being, due to a certain 
 mixture or confusion of the Divine and human natures. 
 
 The Emperor, having deposed Irenaeus, proceeded a 
 step further and confined Theodoret to his diocese. Thus 
 the situation was critical. Domnus was left without his 
 chief adviser, except so far as Theodoret could support 
 him by his letters. He was moreover induced to cancel 
 the appointment of Irenseus to the bishopric of T^^-e and 
 to consecrate Photius in his stead. The Monophysites 
 were thus carrying all before them. 
 
 At this juncture (a.d. 448) a Synod was assembled at 
 Constantinople under its archbishop, Flavian, to decide a 
 
 ' Mansi, v. 939. 
 
 2 I.e. maintaining ' one nature,' after the Incarnation. 
 
128 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 difference between the metropolitan of Sardis and two of 
 his suffragans. At this Synod, to the astonishment of 
 many, Flavian himself included, Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
 stepped forward and accused his quondam friend, the 
 great Archimandrite Eutyches, of heresy.^ Cicero's burst 
 in the opening of his oration against Catiline in the 
 Eoman Senate, ' How long, I pray thee, Catiline, will 
 you abuse our patience ? ' did not more take the assem- 
 bly by surprise than this sudden accusation on the part of 
 Eusebius, who had been the great opponent of Nestorius.^ 
 He accused Eutyches of teaching and disseminating a 
 heresy opposed to that of Nestorius, but a heresy none the 
 less. He accused him of teaching contrary to Cyril's 
 second letter to Nestorius, which, as was afterwards ex- 
 plained, taught the co-existence of two Natures in our 
 Incarnate Lord's single divine Personality. He accused 
 him of renewing the heresy of Apollinarius, who made 
 the human nature of our Lord an unreality. After 
 being summoned and refusing to attend the Synod, 
 Eutyches made his appearance, and after much fencing 
 threw off all disguise (as Flavian explained in his letter 
 to Leo), and said that ' we ought not to confess that our 
 Lord subsisted in two Natures after becoming man,' and 
 that ' the Body of our Lord, although born of the Virgin, 
 who is consubstantial with us, is not itself consubstantial 
 with us.' In this, says St. Flavian, ' Eutyches ran 
 counter to all the expositions of the holy Fathers.' ^ 
 Eutyches eventually withdrew the latter statement, but 
 clung to the former. He was degraded from his 
 ecclesiastical rank and deprived of the superintendence ■* 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 652. - Ibid. 653. =« Leon. Ep. 22. 
 
 * rov TTpoKTrivai, Mansi, vi. 748 and 820. In the restoration of 
 
EUTYCHES 129 
 
 of his monastery. But the Synod did not go on to 
 expressly anathematise his teaching. 
 
 Eutyches afterwards maintained that he had made a 
 formal appeal at this Synod ; but he was not consistent 
 in his statements as to the authority to which he pro- 
 fessed to have appealed. It is agreed on all hands that 
 he told a falsehood in saying that he made any formal 
 appeal at the Sy^iod itself. The patrician Florentius 
 deposed at a subsequent Synod, in 449, that Eutyches 
 said to him in a soft low voice ^ just as the Synod of 448 
 broke up, that he appealed to the separate Synods of 
 Eome, Egypt, and Jerusalem. The monk Constantine 
 said (falsely) that Eutyches had appealed to the holy 
 Synods of the Bishop of Eome and Alexandria, and 
 Jerusalem and Thessalonica, while the sentence was 
 being read. 
 
 His reasons for mentioning these particular bishops 
 are obvious. The Bishop of Piome could not be passed 
 over, and Eutyches had lately written to Leo about what 
 he considered a recrudescence of Nestorianism, and had 
 received a gracious answer. He hoped to deceive Leo 
 now, and Anastasius of Thessalonica as Papal Vicar in 
 Eastern Illyricum might be expected to follow suit. 
 The Bishop of Jerusalem, as the event only too fully 
 proved, was not likely to side with the opponents of 
 Eutyches, viz. the Bishops of Antioch and Constantinople. 
 Eutyches carefully omitted the name of the Bishop of 
 Antioch. His pretended appeal, therefore, was to the 
 synodical decisions of these selected prelates. At the 
 Latrocinium he spoke of having appealed to the Synod 
 
 Eutyches, his position is called Tfjyef^oi^ia and apxv indifferently, the two 
 words being used as synonyms ; cp. 836 and 801. 
 ' irpdws, Mansi, vi. 817. 
 
 K 
 
130 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 itself, but he presently explained this by saying that it 
 was to certain archbishops. Flavian, he said, * ought 
 to have written before all things to the archbishops to 
 whom he [Eutyches] appealed.' It has been erroneously 
 imagined that Eutyches professed to have appealed in 
 terms to a General Council.^ But he never once uses 
 the expression, and it is certain that he did not mean to 
 have Domnus, of Antioch, for one of his judges, without 
 whom (if intentionally omitted) a Council could not be 
 General in the full sense of the term. 
 
 He probably wrote letters to every quarter whence 
 help might come. His letters, however, with one excep- 
 tion, are not extant, and we can surmise nothing as to 
 their contents, except, of course, that he asked them to 
 look into his case and to condemn Flavian's decision.^ 
 But what is certain is that Eutyches wrote to Eome 
 sending the Pope, together with Eusebius's accusation 
 and some testimonies (mostly supposititious) to himself, 
 two documents : one a profession of faith, and the other 
 a notice of appeal to Eome which he pretended to have 
 handed in at the Synod of Constantinople, a notice 
 
 ' Dr. Bright imagines this. But he has probably been misled by the 
 wrong reading in the Latin version of the Council under Dioscorus, in- 
 cluded in the Acts of Chalcedon. It runs thus: ' Cum magis oportuerit 
 ante omnibus pontificibus scribere, quos et appellaveram,' ' when he 
 [Flavian] ought first to have written to all the Pontiffs to whom also I 
 had appealed.' But the true reading is * when he [Flavian] ought 
 rather, before all things, to have written to the archbishops to 
 whom also I appealed : ' o^iiKwv irph irdvTuv toIs apxi^p^va-iv eVto-Terxat 
 K. T. X. Mansi, vi. 641. 
 
 2 Liberatus (Brev. cap. 12) says that Eutyches wrote to Dioscorus in 
 this sense, which might be taken as a matter of course. Dr. Bright 
 {Roman See, p. 262) refers to Mansi, vi. 820. But there is not a word 
 in that passage about his having written to Dioscorus. He only professes 
 there to defer to the Bishops of Eome and Alexandria as fathers. 
 
EUTYCHES 131 
 
 which contained a promise, alleged to have been made to 
 the Synod, to follow the Papal decision in every loay. 
 He asked St. Leo that he might suffer no prejudice 
 pending the appeal, and begged for a decision on the 
 matter of faith. It is absurd to suppose that he wrote 
 to anyone else in the same way.^ 
 
 But his statement in his letter to Leo, that he had 
 appealed to him in the Synod at Constantinople, implies 
 that the bishops in the East held that such an appeal if 
 formally made during a Synod must have the effect of 
 suspending their sentence. This was the point of the 
 statement, viz. to stay the proceedings at Constantinople. 
 He knew that the Pope had only to suppose that an 
 appeal had been lodged at the Synod and he would be 
 able to enforce a suspension of the sentence.^ 
 
 • ' Omnibus modis me secuturum qua3 probassetis ' {Leon. Ep. 21, c. i.). 
 Dr. Bright {Roman See, p. 173) thus pretends to summarise what I said 
 in the first edition of The Primitive Church and the See of Peter : ' We 
 know nothing, he [Dr. Eivingion] argues, of any letter from Eutyches, 
 except the one to Leo; therefore, we may practically treat the applica- 
 tion to Leo as standing alone.' Instead of this, I had said that 
 Eutyches ' probably wrote letters to every quarter whence help might 
 come ' (1st ed. p 366). And I mentioned some in particular. Conse- 
 quently there is no suggestion that the ' application ' to Leo ' stood 
 alone,' in the sense that no other applications were made to anyone. 
 But I suggested that the character of Eutyches's letter to Leo was 
 unique ; and that much is certain. A person in his senses could not 
 write to more than one archbishop as he did to Leo, promising to obey 
 his judgment. Dr. Bright proceeds : ' This is a short and easy method, 
 indeed ; but it happens that Eutyches, in 449, charged Flavian with 
 ignoring his appeal to a General Council.' Now Dr. Bright himself 
 says ' We may take it as certain that he [Eutyches] made no formal 
 appeal whatever during the Council.' How, then, can what Eutyches 
 said, and falsely said, a year afterwards affect what he did in 448 ? 
 How could his falsehood in 449 affect the question of his ' application 
 to Leo ' standing alone, in the sense of being unique, in 448 ? 
 
 - Cf. Ballerini, Leon. 0pp. T. ii. ' De Causa Eutyehis.' 
 
 K 2 
 
132 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 I have said that Eutyches made application in other 
 quarters, though necessarily of a different character, 
 since he could not have promised to obey others as he did 
 promise Leo. His object was clearly to enlist anyone 
 that he could in his favour, and accordingly he wrote to 
 a bishop known to have special influence with the 
 Emperor Valentinian, viz. St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop 
 of Eavenna. This saintly archbishop, however, replied 
 that he could not intervene in such a matter ^ without 
 the leave of the Bishop of Kome. He appears not to 
 have learnt from Eutyches anything about the Synod of 
 Constantinople, and he knew nothing about the dogmatic 
 epistle of Leo.^ He accordingly advises Eutyches what 
 to do. Eutyches had obviously said nothing about a 
 General Council, but simply asked St. Peter Chrysologus 
 for his judgment on the matter of faith. We are 
 indebted to an important discovery of an old copy 
 (dating between a.d. 453 and 455, and therefore strictly 
 contemporary) of St. Peter's letter in Greek, for the 
 whole text of the saint's words. He advises Eutyches to 
 * attend obediently to whatever is written from the most 
 blessed Pope of the city of Eome, because blessed Peter, 
 who both lives and presides in his own see, gives to 
 those who seek it the truth of the faith.' ^ 
 
 > TTto-rews aiTias, cases concerning faith {Leonis Ep. 25). 
 ^ S. Leonis Magni 0pp. Tom. I. ed. Ballerini. Admonitio in Ep. 
 25, § 6. 
 
 '' Ibid. Ep. 25. 
 
CHAPTEE II 
 
 PAPAL INTERVENTION 
 
 Archbishop Flavian also had written to St. Leo imme- 
 diately after Eutyches's condemnation at Constantinople, 
 sending him the Acts of the Synod. He notified, indeed, 
 the condemnation of Eutyches to other bishops, but he 
 sent the Acts of the Synod to Leo, a measure which 
 implied a formal appeal to a superior court. His letter, 
 however, did not arrive in due time, whether owing, as 
 is supposed, to the management of Eutyches and his 
 friends, it is impossible to say. ^Accordingly St. Leo, on 
 receiving Eutyches's letter, wrote at once to the Emperor 
 and Flavian. The letters are both of them of the highest 
 importance as showing what the Pope could assume as 
 admitted by the Emperor of the East and the Archbishop 
 of Constantinople, as to the right of a Bishop of Eome to 
 pass judgment on a matter of faith. 
 
 The origin of his writing to the Emperor was this. 
 Eutyches had set to work through his friend and rela- 
 tive Chrysaphius, the Emperor's favourite chamberlain, 
 to gain the help of the Imperial power for the reversal of 
 of his condemnation. Pulcheria had, according to 
 Nicephorus, been removed from the Court and had 
 retired temporarily to a convent. By this means the 
 one influence over Theodosius in behalf of orthodoxy was 
 
134 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 out of the way, and the weak Emperor fell under the 
 complete sway of Chrysaphius, or, which was the same 
 thing, of Eutyches himself. His Majesty accordingly 
 wrote to Eome on behalf of Eutyches.^ 
 
 Leo, however, tells the Emperor that he needs to 
 hear from Archbishop Flavian before he gives judgment.^ 
 He blames Flavian to the Emperor for not having sent 
 the Acts of the Synod to Rome as he ought to have been 
 the first to do.^ The Pope was not aware that Flavian 
 had, as a matter of fact, at once despatched the Acts, but 
 that from some mishap they had been delayed. If the 
 Emperor and Eutyches and Chrysaphius were acting in 
 concert to get judgment from Rome before the cause 
 was properly heard, they were much deceived in their 
 estimate of Leo. For the latter simply told the Emperor 
 that he w^as displeased that Flavian had not written, and 
 that he had written to him to say so and felt sure that 
 after this ' admonition ' Flavian would send a report of 
 all the proceedings, ' so that judgment may be passed in 
 accordance with evangelical and Apostolical teaching.' ^ 
 To Flavian the Pope wrote in terms of censure for not 
 having done his duty, since he had already heard from 
 the Emperor, and also from Eutyches, and the latter 
 had said that he ' had given in a notice of appeal at the 
 time of the judgment itself.' The failure, therefore, 
 with which Leo reproached Flavian was not merely that 
 he had not written quickly on an important matter, but 
 that he had not respected Eutyches's appeal to Rome. 
 He therefore desires Flavian to send an account of the 
 
 * Leonis Ep. 24 (Ball.). 
 
 - ' Ut possit congrue de bene cognitis judicari.' 
 
 ^ ' Cum studere debuerit primitus nobis cuncta reserare.' 
 
 * Ep. 24. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 135 
 
 proceedings and to hold everything over until he [Leo] 
 has cognisance of the matter.^ 
 
 It is impossible not to see in these letters plain evi- 
 dence of the recognised position of the See of Rome as 
 the court of appeal from distant sees in the East. It 
 was not Valentinian, but Theodosius, to whom St. Leo 
 thus wrote, and it was of no less a personage than the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople that he thus complained. 
 He refuses to listen to the application of the Emperor, 
 but requires the formalities of a judicial procedure to be 
 complied with, so that ' judgment may be passed in ac- 
 cordance with the evangelical and Apostolical teaching.' ^ 
 No mere patriarch would thus write to an Emperor con- 
 cerning a matter beyond the limits of his own patri- 
 archate. 
 
 This was in February a.d. 449. The next step on 
 the part of Eutyches was in imitation of Nestorius. He 
 made for a General Council, without waiting for a reply 
 from Leo, whose judgment he had solemnly promised to 
 obey. His friend and relative, Chrysaphius, turned at 
 once to Alexandria, and enlisted the ambition of Dios- 
 corus in the strife, promising him all his own influ- 
 ence at Court (which was immense) in furtherance of 
 Dioscorus's well-known aims at supremacy in the East, 
 if only he would espouse the cause of Eutyches as 
 against Flavian. Dioscorus seized his opportunity, and 
 at once wrote to the Emperor suggesting a General 
 
 • Ep.23: ' usque ad nostram notitiam cuncta deferri.' Dr. Bright's 
 account of this letter is inadequate. He says that Leo ' naturally thought 
 that Flavian " ought to have written " to him as soon as Eutyches did ' 
 (Roman See, p. 173). But why ' naturally ' ? Leo says, because of the 
 supposed appeal — the point which Dr. Bright ignores. 
 
 - Ep. 24 : ' ut in lucem ductis his qua adhuc videntur occulta, id quod 
 evangelicae et apostolicae doctrinse convenit, judicetur.' 
 
136 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Council. In this suggestion there was not as yet formal 
 opposition to the idea of a Papal judgment, since it is 
 not likely that Chrysaphius or Eutyches told Dioscorus 
 of the appeal to Eome. Neither could the Emperor 
 have received the Pope's reply, or have divined its con- 
 tents. Not that, as events proved, Theodosius, Eutyches, 
 or Dioscorus, to say nothing of Chrysaphius, would be 
 in the least troubled with scruples about the Church's 
 order or the common rules of justice. They appear to 
 have now tried the experiment of a second Council at 
 Constantinople itself, in which the trustworthiness of 
 the documents containing the official account of Eu- 
 tyches's condemnation was impugned ; and when this 
 failed they addressed themselves to the actual working 
 of the CEcumenical Council.^ 
 
 But before entering upon this subject, we must con- 
 sider the correspondence which now ensued between 
 Eome and Constantinople. Archbishop Flavian, when 
 he wrote his second letter to Leo in answer to the 
 censure passed on him for not sending the report of the 
 Council of 448, had not heard of the Emperor's defiyiite 
 decision to summon a General Council, but rumours of 
 it were in the air.'^ His letter is of great interest in 
 more ways than one. The whole tone is that of defer- 
 ence to a superior authority. He in no way resented 
 St. Leo's censure of his silence. As a matter of fact, 
 he had written and sent the Acts of his Synod, but they 
 had miscarried, or been delayed on the way. The 
 archbishop recognised the duty which lay upon him to 
 report proceedings to Eome. He describes the whole 
 situation, narrates the deposition of Eutyches, and says 
 that the latter has appealed to the Emperor, thereby 
 
 ' Libeiatus, cap. 12. - •^ QpvXovfiivr} ylvecdai <rvvo5os, Leon. Ep' 26. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 137 
 
 c 
 
 trampling under foot the canons of the Church. 
 Further, Flavian tells Leo that what Eutyches had 
 asserted, unknown to him, in his letter to the Pope, viz. 
 that at ' the time of judgment,' i.e. at the Synod, he 
 gave notice of appeal to Eome, is untrue. He implies 
 that, had it been true, he would have suspended pro- 
 ceedings. Flavian does not afford in this important 
 letter the slightest indication that in his judgment St. 
 Leo was stretching his prerogative in writing to him as 
 he had done. On the contrary, he ends by invoking 
 that prerogative as the only means of securing the 
 peace of the Church. He asks the Pope to be bold with 
 the boldness that becomes the priesthood, to ' make the 
 common cause his own,' and to ' deign to give his decision 
 by means of a brief in accordance with the canonical 
 deposition of Eutyches at the Constantinopolitan Synod.' ' 
 
 ' avfjLip-ncpiaaffdai KaTa^ioDo-oy. Dr. Bright thinks this means ' be so 
 good as to give assent,' and implies no deference. He notices that 
 (rvi.L\l/r}(pi(Ta(rdai is Hterally ' vote with ' {R. See, p. 174). But elsewhere he 
 translates ypricpos • sentence ' (pp. 163, 166) when it is used of the bishops 
 in the Council of Ephesus. This is its general meaning in Conciliar 
 language, the character of the sentence depending on the position of the 
 person who pronounces it. Here the context settles that it is a superior 
 sentence. In an old Latin copy of the letter the word is translated 
 ' simul decernere ' {Leon. Oi^p. Ball. i. 791). KaTa^iwaov is simply ' deign,' 
 not (as Dr. B.) ' be so good as.' It is often an expression of deference. 
 . Out of seventeen letters written by Leo to the Emperor Marcian, its Latin 
 equivalent (dignare) occurs in thirteen, always by way of deference to 
 his Imperial Majesty. It is used three times of the Emperor Theodosius 
 and twice to the Empresses. In Leo's letter to the Emperor Theodosius 
 {Ep. 43), of which we have the Greek and Latin, Leo says atroao^riffai 
 Kara^icoaov, avei'tere dignare. Once the Latin word is used of Almighty 
 God {juvare dignetur, Ep. 37), and once of Divine Providence {Ep. 29). 
 For the Greek word see Liddell and Scott's Lexicon (ed. 8). Flavian 
 wi'ites throughout in the most deferential mood. Eusebius uses kot- 
 a^iaxrai of Archbishop Flavian, clearly as speaking to a superior (Mansi, 
 vi. 656). But what must be considered to settle the question against Dr. 
 
138 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 He asks the Pope also to ' confirm ' the faith of the 
 emperor (using, not the usual word, but that which 
 occurs in our Lord's command to St. Peter in St. Luke 
 xxii.^) ; and he says that ' the matter only needs your 
 impulse and hel^, which is bound by virtue of your 
 own consent, to bring everything into peace and 
 calm ; and so the heresy which has arisen, and the 
 trouble that has ensued, will be brought to a happy 
 conclusion, with the help of God, through your holy 
 letter ; and moreover the Synod, about which there are 
 rumours, will be prevented from taking place, and so 
 the Churches in every quarter will not be troubled.' ^ 
 
 Flavian, therefore, profoundly distrusted the value 
 of the rumoured Synod, as anybody would who grasped 
 the situation ; he looked to the timely exercise of the 
 Papal prerogative as alone sufficient to secure the peace 
 of the Church. 
 
 And in expressing this conviction he bears witness 
 to the fact that an equal reverence was attributed to the 
 authority of the Apostolic See by the rest of the orthodox 
 bishops in the East.^ Otherwise there would be no 
 point in his remark, and no ground for his hope. 
 
 The principle, therefore, of Church government 
 which the Archbishop of Constantinople assumed as 
 
 Bright is that the Count Elpidius said in the Latrocinium to the 
 bishops : Kara^idJcraTe, (TVjxy\ir](pi^ofx4vov vjxiv rod @€ov, irepl rrjs irlo'Tews 
 airo(piii'aa9ai. Elpidius was speaking to the bishops as superiors in 
 matters of faith ; and Almighty God is spoken of as aviJ.\pr]<pos. This 
 disposes of a number of objections raised by Dr. Bright on account of 
 the word <xvixT\n}<pos being applied to Leo (Mansi, vi. 621). 
 
 ' (TT-npi^ai. Dr. Bright explains this as meaning ' to tell on the mind 
 of Theodosius ' ! 
 
 '■^ Leon. Ep. 26. 
 
 ^ Cf. ' Obs. Bailer, de Diss. Quesn. de Eutych. Appell.' Leonis Opera, 
 ii. 1128. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 139 
 
 Catholic was this — he did not consider that matters 
 should necessarily be concluded where they began. 
 There was, as yet, no thought of the independence of 
 national Churches, nor of each province finally settling 
 its own matters. His connection with Kome was 
 intimate and obligatory ; and it is clear that it did not 
 depend on the civil position of that city. He wrote to 
 Leo as to him to whom it belonged to ' vindicate the 
 common affairs of the Churches ; ' he prayed him to issue 
 a brief which might settle the disturbances of the Eastern 
 Churches, and he alluded to the passage in St. Luke 
 xxii., ' Confirm the brethren.' St. Leo had requested 
 him, not merely to notify the deposition of Eutyches, as 
 he would do to other Churches, but to send him the 
 Acts — precisely what is done for the revision of a sen- 
 tence by a superior court. And Flavian fully recognised 
 his obligation to enable St. Leo to do his duty, which 
 St. Leo had said was impossible without a full report of 
 the proceedings.^ He states distinctly that not only 
 was there no need of the judgment of any other Eastern 
 patriarch, but that not even a General Council was 
 needed ; and Flavian knew well what the other Eastern 
 bishops thought.^ This was in March a.d. 449. 
 
 1 Ep. 23. 
 
 ' Mansi.W. 1356. Adnot. Bailer. Dr. Bright thinks that as regards 
 a Council, ' if Theodosius had recognised Leo's See as the supreme court 
 of appeal, he would not have entertained and acted on this scheme in 
 spite of Leo's objections.' He ought to have added ' and in spite of the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople's objections.' These two were better 
 judges of the matter than an Emperor under the sway of a eunuch 
 (Chrysaphius), jplus a heretic (Eutyches), plus the ' Attila of the Eastern 
 Church' (Dioscorus). But, in fact, Dr. Bright's misconception of 
 ' Koman ' teaching on the relation of a Council to the Pope underlies his 
 objection. Theodosius did not contemplate a Council apart from the 
 See of Peter ; but he hoped that a conciliar expression of opinion would 
 
140 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 But in May Leo had received Flavian's report, and 
 he at once took in the whole position. The * lion ' was 
 roused, and from that day onwards his activity, his 
 decision, his wisdom, his piety, his tender charity and 
 his indomitable courage were such as to mark him out 
 as one of the most extraordinary characters that have 
 filled the pages of history, even were we to forget the 
 effect of his noble presence on Attila leader of the Huns, 
 outside the walls of Rome, or his influence over Genseric 
 within the city. He had already given the death-blow 
 to the remnants of Priscillianism ; he had baffled the 
 clandestine movements of the Manicheans, and he had 
 sent Pelagianism to its grave. But here was an enemy 
 that threatened to shake the foundations of the Christian 
 religion by a direct assault on the person of its Founder. 
 All that activity, and ingenuity, and worldly prestige, 
 all that the favour of princes and the friendship of the 
 great could do, was enlisted in its favour. But St. Leo 
 was more than a match for these. He was so in virtue 
 of the divine promises to Peter, for we shall see that it 
 was as the successor of St. Peter, and through the 
 Church's recognition of the authority of the Apostolic 
 See, that Leo eventually triumphed. Had he been com- 
 pelled to vindicate the authority of St. Peter's See— that 
 is to say, if men had been able to resist him on the 
 ground that our Lord did not include the successors of 
 St. Peter in His commission to that Apostle — the posi- 
 
 influence the Papal judgment. Leo would hardly have ventured to 
 speak of the Emperor's wish to have the faith defined by St. Peter, and 
 to say this in a public letter to the Synod, if he had had no foundation 
 for the statement. Theodosius, though under bad influence, had his 
 better moments. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 141 
 
 tion would have been an impossible one. But the faith 
 of the Church had been declared in the most explicit 
 terms at the Council of Ephesus. East and West had 
 there agreed in the position that ' it had been known to 
 all ages, and ivas doubted by none, that the blessed 
 Apostle Peter, Prince and Head of the Apostles, received 
 the keys of the Kingdom from the Saviour of the world,' 
 and that Peter ' lives and exercises judgment in his 
 successors.' Such were the undisputed terms in which 
 the Papal legates at Ephesus had expressed the general 
 teaching of the Church, which by common consent had 
 been placed in the archives of that (Ecumenical Council, 
 as containing nothing strange to the ears of the assem- 
 bled bishops of the East, nay, as spoken ' suitably ' i.e. 
 in accordance with the canons {aK6kov6co9). 
 
 It was, then, as the successor of the Prince of the 
 Apostles that St. Leo now acted, and that he claimed to 
 act ; and no voice in the East was raised to deny this 
 truth, save, indirectly, one, and that was the voice of the 
 man who became the patron of Eutyches, and who was 
 extruded from the Church at her (Ecumenical Council at 
 Chalcedon. 
 
 The ides of June had come, and Leo, having been 
 already engaged on his longer epistle to Flavian, saw the 
 necessity of taking more stringent measures to meet the 
 difficulties in which Flavian was placed. He decided 
 upon sending representatives to Constantinople to inquire 
 into the whole matter, and instead of sending his letter 
 by Flavian's messenger, he sent it by these messengers, 
 together with letters addressed to Theodosius, to Pul- 
 cheria, to the Archimandrites of Constantinople, to the 
 Synod, of which he had now received notice, and in which 
 
142 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 he acquiesced,^ and to Julian, Bishop of Cos, of whom 
 more hereafter. 
 
 The ' Tome of St. Leo,' ^ as the epistle now sent to 
 Flavian is called, stands almost alone, after Holy 
 Scripture, in the reverence with which it was regarded 
 for ages by the entire Church. Its reception was 
 equalled only by the position assigned in the primitive 
 Church to the letter of St. Clement, the third successor 
 of St. Peter, written to the Corinthians in the first 
 century. It was frequently read in the East after a 
 General Council in professions of faith. St. Gregory the 
 Great says : ' If anyone ever presumes to say anything 
 against the faith of these four Synods, and against the 
 Tome and definition of Pope Leo, of holy memory, let 
 him be anathema.' ^ The Sixth QEcumenical Council calls 
 it ' divinely written,' and says that ' by it they [the 
 fathers] made void the understanding between Eutyches 
 and Dioscorus.' 
 
 It opens at once with judging Eutyches, and then 
 proceeds to that magnificent exposition of the ' sacrament 
 of our faith,' which on its first perusal in youth has 
 impressed so many much as the first sight of the sea. 
 
 It is, however, with the ending of St. Leo's Tome 
 that the purpose of this book is concerned. The Arch- 
 bishop Flavian (be it remembered), to whom the Tome is 
 addressed, had come before Leo as the judge of first in- 
 stance, having synodically condemned an Archimandrite 
 of his own archdiocese. He brought him before Leo in 
 
 ' This was clearly the case, in spite of the apparent contradiction 
 given at the Eobber-Synod, which will be explained hereafter. 
 
 - Leoii. 0pp. Bailer., Ep, 28. A ' Tome ' was a doctrinal formulary. 
 The word itself means a part of a book done up (rolled up) by itself — a 
 volume. 
 
 3 Lib. vi. Ep. 2. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 143 
 
 his letter as already condemned in the Constantino- 
 politan Synod, to be condemned more solemnly and by a 
 final peremptory judgment passed by the Apostolic See.^ 
 For he did not merely notify the deposition of Eutyches, 
 but asked for help, and asserted that peace could only be 
 obtained by Leo's approval of the Synod of Constanti- 
 nople (whose Acts he sent) and by his issuing a brief to 
 that effect. Accordingly at the end of his Tome St. Leo 
 gave his judgment. 
 
 Without referring the matter to a Council of the whole 
 West, he reviews the synodical Acts, and in part con- 
 firms, in part disapproves, of the judgment of the Con- 
 stantinopolitan Synod. He confirms the condemnation 
 of Eutyches ; but he reprehends the acts of the Synod as 
 inadequately conducted. He blames the bishops for not 
 having proscribed under anathema the heretical saying 
 of Eutyches, ' I confess that our Lord consisted of two 
 natures before the union, but I confess only one nature 
 after the union.' And then he directs that Eutyches 
 should be received back again if he repents, and gives 
 the exact method of such reception. The matter, there- 
 fore, needed to be done more exactly and canonically 
 than in the Synod of Constantinople. Eutyches, he 
 says, might have thought that he had spoken some of 
 these words * rightly,' or that they were such as could be 
 tolerated (' tolerabiliter '), so far as any expression of the 
 Synod to the contrary was concerned. ' In order, how- 
 ever,' the Pope concludes, * to bring this whole matter to 
 the desired end, we have sent, in our stead, our brethren 
 the Bishop Julius and the priest Eenatus, with my son, 
 the deacon Hilar us, with whom we have associated the 
 notary Dulcitius, whose faith has been approved by us, 
 
144 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 trusting that the help of God will be with us, that he 
 who had erred may abjure his false opinion and be 
 saved. God keep thee safe, dearest brother.' 
 
 Such was the exercise of Papal jurisdiction contained 
 in this letter, one of the most celebrated documents of 
 Christian antiquity. It contains an exercise of authority 
 such as only belongs to the judge of a supreme court. 
 None of the other Patriarchs are taken into account ; 
 St. Leo speaks in full authority, and that he was not 
 usurping an authority which was disallowed by others is 
 certain from the fact that the Council of Chalcedon and 
 the whole Catholic Church accepted the Tome as a 
 solemn judgment and sentence within the competency 
 of the Pope's authority. 
 
 Thus, not only did Eutyches pretend that he had 
 appealed to the Pope, when it suited his purpose, on the 
 understanding that his appeal would be sure to suspend 
 the sentence of the Eastern bishops against him ; not 
 only did the Archbishop of Constantinople send the 
 synodical Acts to be reviewed by the Pope as judge in the 
 matter ; not only did Leo act as judge and decide the 
 case so far as could be done at a distance, and send 
 legates to do the rest in his stead— but, as we shall 
 presently see, an (Ecumenical Synod, and the universal 
 Church for ever after, accepted as an authoritative ex- 
 position of the Nicene faith the Tome which contained 
 this exercise of authority, against which not a protest, 
 not a murmur, not a whisper was ever raised.^ But how 
 could this be unless the position of judge which he 
 assumed therein was in accordance with Apostolic 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Together with his ' Tome ' or Epistle to Flavian, Leo 
 
 ' Cf. ' Observ. Bailer, de Eutych. Appell.' Leonis 0pp. ii. 1130. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 145 
 
 sent a letter to the Emperor Theodosius, which is of im- 
 portance as showing the grounds on which he acquiesced 
 in the convocation of a General Council. He says that 
 Eutyches has been proved to have erred — there is no 
 question, according to St. Leo, about that ; but since the 
 Emperor has settled upon a Council at Ephesus ' that the 
 truth may be made known to the unskilful old man,' he, 
 the Pope, sends legates to supply his place. ' The 
 legates,' says St. Leo, * are commissioned to carry with 
 them a disposition to justice and benignity, so that, 
 since there can he no question as to lohat is the integrity 
 of the Christian confession, the depravity of error may 
 be condemned.' If Eutyches repents — which the kind 
 heart of the Pope always contemplates — the benevolence 
 of the priesthood (' bishops ' in the Greek version) is to 
 come to his aid. Eutyches, says St. Leo, had promised 
 him, in his original petition, that he would correct what- 
 ever the Pope condemned.^ 
 
 The idea of the Council, then, was that it was a 
 fitting machinery to impress on Eutyches the importance 
 of obeying the Papal decision, and to deal with him 
 properly if he asked pardon. It was in this that the 
 Constantinopolitan Synod had come short of perfect 
 justice and charity. 
 
 But St. Leo continues with the following descriptions 
 of the position occupied by the decisions contained in his 
 Tome or letter to Flavian. He says to the Emperor : 
 'But what things the Catholic Church universally 
 believes and teaches concerning the sacrament of the 
 Lord's Incarnation are more fully contained in the 
 writings which I have sent to my brother and fellow- 
 bishop Flavian. 
 
 » Ep. 29. 
 
 Ii 
 
146 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 > 
 At the same time the Pope wrote to the Em- 
 peror's saintly sister, who had brought him up in his 
 tender years under all the best influences of the 
 Christian faith. It was not her fault if her Imperial 
 brother now sided with heretics ; and it was to be her 
 lot to assist the saintly Pope in the Church's struggle 
 with the new heresy. To her— the Empress Pulcheria 
 — St. Leo described the error of Eutyches as ' contrary 
 to our only hope and that of our fathers,' and told her 
 that, if he persists in his error, he cannot be absolved. 
 * For,' he adds, the ' Apostolic ^ See both acts with 
 severity in the case of the obdurate, and wishes to 
 pardon those who suffer themselves to be corrected.' It 
 is obvious to remark that he considers the absolution of 
 Eutyches to rest with the Apostolic See. He hopes that 
 Pulcheria will do her best to help on the Catholic faith, 
 and says that he has delegated his authority to those 
 whom he has sent, that pardon may be bestowed if the 
 error is done away. 
 
 It is here, as elsewhere, the Apostolic See that is 
 assumed to be the agent in the matter, and the Council 
 is to be concerned, not with settling what is the true 
 faith, but with moving Eutyches to repentance by the 
 display of unanimity among the bishops. 
 
 Still more important, if possible, are the terms of the 
 letter which he sent to the Archimandrites of Constanti- 
 nople.^ They are his ' beloved children.' He is sending 
 to them persons ' a latere ' to assist them in ' the defence 
 of the truth,' not for the investigation of the faith. He 
 sets his seal to their condemnation of Eutyches. If he 
 
 ' Literally, ' The moderation of the Apostolic See observes this dis- 
 cipline that it both ' &c. Ep. 30. 
 2 Ep. 32. 
 
PAPAL INTERVENTION 147 
 
 repents and makes full satisfaction — which is the con- 
 stantly recurring thought in Leo's mind — then ' we wish 
 him to obtain mercy.' But ' as to the sacrament of the 
 great love of God {pietatis magnce) in which we have justi- 
 fication and redemption by the Incarnation of the Word 
 of God, our teaching from the tradition of the Fathers ^ 
 is sufficiently explained in letters to Flavian, so that you 
 may know from your chief (per insmuatione7n Prcesulis 
 vestri) what in accordance with the Gospel of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ive wish to be established in the hearts of 
 all the faithful.' 
 
 Still more definite are the words of the Pope to the 
 Synod itself, which was to meet in August. He gives as 
 the ground of its being convoked the Emperor's wish to 
 add the authority of the Apostolic See to his edict,^ as 
 though his Majesty desired ' that the meaning of the 
 answer given by the Prince of the Apostles to our Lord's 
 question should be declared by the most blessed Peter 
 himself,' i.e. through his own see. The object of the 
 Council is further defined to be that ' all error may be 
 done away with by a fuller judgment ' (' pleniori judicio ') 
 — exactly the idea of a Council which has been given 
 above. ^ The Council was as it were the fuller and more 
 
 ' ' Nostra ex Patrum traditione sententia.' 
 
 - Ep. 33. ' Ad sanctffi dispositionis effectum ' — ' dispositio ' being a 
 term in use for Imperial edicts. 
 
 ^ P. 39. So Mansi says : ' Non ergo concilii judicium plenius appellavit, 
 quia a superiore potestate dimanare indicaret, sed quia in majorinumero 
 ibi judices assident.' Mansi, Aninmdv. in Natal Alex. H. E. vol. ix. 
 Diss. xii. Harnack says : ' The Council is merely an opus superaddition 
 " ut pleniori judicio omnis possit error aboleri." Thus the condemnation 
 of Eutyches is already decided upon, and the Council merely repeats it. 
 The Pope enjoins this.' Hist, of Dogma (Tr.), iv. 203. The ' mere repe- 
 tition,' however, is of immense value to anyone who believes in the 
 supernatural character of the Church, and is exactly what is calculated 
 
 L 2 
 
148 THE ROBBEE-SYNOD 
 
 emphatic utterance of the Papal judgment. Its action 
 was to consist in adhering to the judgment of the 
 Apostolic See— in as it were prolonging its utterance, 
 and applying it materially and visibly to the person in 
 hand. It was not a higher judgment, not the confirma- 
 tion of a superior authority, but the sentence of the Pope 
 swelling out and completed by its synodical proclamation, 
 as the sufferings of Christ were completed by those of 
 His followers. His legates were to preside over its 
 actual utterance ; they were to determine with the 
 holy assembly of the episcopal brotherhood by a common 
 sentence ' what things will be pleasing to the Lord.' ^ 
 The Pope then goes on to give a sketch of what Eutyches 
 should do, and repeats what he had already said to 
 Flavian, viz. that Eutyches in the document (' libellus ') 
 which he had originally transmitted had promised to 
 obey the Holy See. He also speaks of his Tome as 
 having been written to abolish error and unite the world 
 in one and the same confession of faith. ^ 
 
 One other letter he wrote on the same day to Julian, 
 Bishop of Cos, in the course of which he says he has sent 
 letters to Flavian ' from which both your beloved self and 
 the whole Church may know about the ancient and only 
 faith, what we hold and preach as of divine tradition.' 
 
 No sooner had the messengers set out with this 
 batch of letters than Flavian's original letter (written 
 immediately after the Constantinopolitan Synod) arrived, 
 containing another copy of the Acts of the Synod which 
 
 to impress those who do not. Bishops do not always repeat what they 
 do not believe. Cf. p. 42. 
 
 1 E;p. 33. Com^nuni vohiscum sententia : not, as Dr. Bright is fond 
 of translating communis, ' by a sentence in which all the agreeing parties 
 are equal,^ for St. Leo taught that the common sentence of the Apostolic 
 See and the bishops was that of the head and members. 
 
PAPAL INTEEVENTION 149 
 
 he had spontaneously sent to Eome, and which had been 
 mysteriously delayed. Leo at once wrote to him briefly, 
 saying that the Synod was not really needed. And he 
 took the opportunity of writing once more to the Emperor, 
 excusing himself from attendance at the Synod on three 
 grounds : first, because there was no precedent for a Pope 
 attending such a Council in person ; secondly, if there 
 were, temporal necessities at home were in the way (the 
 barbarians were wellnigh at the door) ; and thirdly, 
 because the case was so clear that there was no real need 
 (* rationabilius abstinendum ') . Still, he says, he sends 
 
CHAPTEE III 
 
 THE 'robber-synod' OR LATROCINIUM^ 
 
 1. The Acquittal of Eutyches 
 
 On August 8, a.d. 449, the ill-fated Council met at 
 Ephesus. Its salient feature may be described in the 
 
 ' Besides the ordinary sources of information on the ' Kobber- 
 Synod,' such as Prosper, Liberatus, Facundus, &c., the following should 
 be consulted : (1) Martin, ' Actes du Brigandage d'EpMse, Tr. faite sur le 
 texte Syriaque contenu dans le MS. 14530 du Mus6e Britannique par M. 
 l'Abb6 Martin,' Amiens, 1874. This Syriac text was published by Perry, 
 and is to be seen in the Oriental room at the British Museum. (2) Le 
 Pseudo- Synode, Paris, 1875, by the same author. (3) Rdcits de Dioscore, 
 originally in Greek and translated into Coptic — one of the treasures of the 
 Jacdbite Church of Alexandria, read liturgically every year in our Lady's 
 Sanctuary. It will be found in the Revue Egyptologigue, 1880, p. 188. 
 Not much in the way of fact is to be gleaned from this, but it helps to 
 realise the tone of Dioscorus. (4) The appeal of Flavian and of Eusebius 
 in the Spicilegium Casinense, vol. i. (5) Evagrius's account of the whole 
 Eutychian controversy, which is graphic and gives the Oriental (Antio- 
 chene) point of view, and is useful for comparison of the Greek terms 
 with the Acts in Mansi. (6) Christianus Lupus, Synodorum Decreta et 
 Canones, vol. i. : Appendix ad Ephesinum Latrocinium (Brussels, 1673). 
 The value of Lupus's account, to which I am indebted in the following 
 pages, consists in the way he seizes salient points. His references are 
 scanty, but, after verifying his quotations, I have found them uniformly 
 correct. (7) Nothing will make up for a careful study, if somewhat 
 toilsome, of the narrative in Mansi, vi. 587-927. The account of the 
 Latrocinium is included in the account of the first session of Chalcedon, 
 and in that again is included the account of the Councils of 448 and 449 
 
EUTYCHES ACQUITTED 151 
 
 words used by Tillemont of the immediate result, 
 * Dioscore r6gne partout.' It had been the dream of this 
 unhappy man to lower Constantinople and to undo the 
 mischievous canon of 381, which placed Alexandria 
 below the ' upstart ' Imperial See. So far Dioscorus was 
 within his rights. But his political ambition connected 
 itself with a question of the faith, in which, although not 
 originally heterodox, he took the wrong side. As the here- 
 ditary champion of the memory of Cyril, his great pre- 
 decessor at Alexandria, he saw Nestorianism everywhere, 
 and his theology lost its balance. But the support of 
 what he took for orthodoxy was clearly secondary to 
 the attainment of a certain ecclesiastico-political supre- 
 macy, which was thwarted by the third canon of Con- 
 stantinople in 381. Against this Synod his bitterness 
 knew no bounds. These two features of the situation 
 must be borne in mind throughout, if we would not miss 
 the meaning of much which now took place at Ephesus. 
 Whatever should be proclaimed orthodox must be shown 
 to be in accord with Cyril's teaching, and the action 
 of the fathers at Constantinople in 381 must be in 
 every possible way depreciated.^ 
 
 The Council presented every possible feature of 
 irregularity. Its composition was open to the charge 
 
 at Constantinople, under Flavian and Thalassius. I have thought it 
 well to quote these authorities here, because Harnack, without any 
 scholarly treatment of the subject, has minimised the atrocities of the 
 Latrociniujn, even likening it to the CEcumenical Councils (Hist of 
 Dogma, Eutychian Controversy, vol. iv. Eng. Tr.). 
 
 ' A layman of his diocese, Sophronius, deposed at the Council of 
 Chalcedon that Dioscorus ' considered himself above everyone else and 
 would not allow the Imperial decrees (tvttous) nor the highest judicial 
 sentences (airocpda-eis) to be carried out, saying that the country [Egypt] 
 belonged to himself rather than to the rulers.' Mansi, vi. 1032. 
 
152 THE KOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 of ' packing.' Its first session was due to a sudden 
 summons to meet at dawn without consulting the 
 bishops in common.^ Dioscorus took precedence of 
 the Papal legates, who, under protest, retired from the 
 circle of bishops and remained standing aloof. He 
 seems to have justified his position on the ground that 
 the Emperor had ordered it, and that legates were 
 not the same as the person whom they represented. 
 This at least is a fair deduction from the words of the 
 legate Hilary.- The Papal letter to the Synod was 
 handed to Dioscorus to read, and he took it together 
 with the letter to Flavian, (the Tome) as Tillemont 
 suggests,^ and the notary, in collusion with him, 
 immediately spoke of another Imperial letter. Juvenal 
 of Jerusalem, who played the grand Patriarch through- 
 out and sat above Domnus of Antioch, proposed that the 
 Emperor's letter be read at once. The Papal letter was 
 simply suppressed. The Emperor, in his letter, lauded 
 Barsumas to the skies, and this miserable monk, the 
 accuser of Domnus, and the inciter of violence later on, 
 was allowed, contrary to the rules of the Church, to take 
 his seat as a constituent member of the Synod. 
 
 The Emperor had ordered that all those who had 
 taken part in the condemnation of Eutyches should now 
 be under trial. The Imperial letter was summarised by 
 the prejudiced notary in his digest of the Acts thus : 
 ' Concerning Flavian of holy memory as introducing 
 certain disturbances* in regard to the faith against 
 
 ' This is a detail we owe to the recently discovered letter of Flavian 
 to Leo. -^ Mansi, vi. 613. 
 
 ^ Dioscorus was condemned at Chalcedon for not reading the Tome. 
 See infra, and Evagrius, H. E. ii. 4. 
 
 ■» avuKLvovvrds riva. This was the word used in his final condemna- 
 tion. Mansi, vi, 621. 
 
EUTYCHES ACQUITTED 153 
 
 Eutyches.' This was the keynote of the Acts, viz. 
 unsettlement or innovation, and it was really aimed 
 at the Council of Constantinople of 381, which in its third 
 canon placed Constantinople above Alexandria, and 
 which, as we have seen, enacted certain additions in 
 regard to the Apollinarian heresy — a heresy akin to the 
 error of Eutyches.^ 
 
 After Juvenal, Thalassius was the next to speak. He 
 had been appointed President, together with Dioscorus 
 and Juvenal, by desire of Eutyches and Chrysaphius. 
 He was a neophyte, a secular official who had been 
 irregularly foisted into the see of Caesarea Cappadocia, 
 and, it is interesting to note, had a special grudge against 
 Domnus and Flavian by reason of their compact as to 
 the third canon of 381, Domnus having allowed pre- 
 cedence to Flavian's predecessor. He had a natural pre- 
 judice against the see of Constantinople, as its occupants, 
 one after the other, were endeavouring to include his 
 own ' Diocese ' of Pontus in their jurisdiction. He was 
 consequently a ready instrument in the hands of Eu- 
 tyches. He carried his antagonism to Constantinople 
 to the extent (as we shall see hereafter) of at least 
 delaying his adhesion to the twenty-eighth canon of 
 Chalcedon. This prelate now proposed, and justly, that 
 the question of faith should take precedence of everything 
 else, and Julian, the Papal legate, who, with his co-legate 
 ' stayed to see the end,' seconded the proposal. But 
 Dioscorus at once objected. His aim was not in the 
 least to discuss the matter of faith, but to get rid of 
 Flavian on the ground of his deference to the Synod of 
 
 * Apollinarius spoke of the body of our Lord as not strictly human, 
 but as fashioned straight from the Substance of Deity. The heresy of 
 Eutyches equally made the body of our Lord unhuman. 
 
154 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 381. Throughout the Latrocinium this was the object, 
 however suppressed in terras, which Dioscorus kept in 
 view. He urged that they had met to consider the 
 question as to whether the matters which had arisen 
 (that is, as he meant, Flavian's condemnation of Eutyches) 
 were in accordance with the ' statutes of the Fathers,' 
 or whether they were innovations. ' Do you wish,' he 
 imperiously asked, ' to innovate ^ on the faith of the holy 
 fathers ? ' ^ Again, ' For the confirmation of the faith I 
 search the statutes of the fathers who met at Niccea and 
 at EpJiesus '^ — deliberately omitting the Council of Con- 
 stantinople in 381. The whole Synod exclaimed that 
 Dioscorus was ' the guardian of the canons,' ' the guar- 
 dian of the faith,' most of them quite unintentionally 
 condemning the Creed of Nicaea as expanded by the 150 
 fathers of Constantinople in 381. 
 
 Eutyches was now introduced to the Synod. He 
 opened with a little personal vanity as to his labours 
 for the faith against Nestorius, and handed in a docu- 
 ment containing a confession of his faith, which consisted 
 of the Nicene Creed shorn of the Constantinopolitan 
 additions.^ This was afterwards pointed out in the 
 Council of Chalcedon.^^ He omitted, that is, the words 
 ' of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary,' which had 
 been inserted in view of Apollinarian teaching. In a 
 word, he handed in the original form of the Creed, which 
 was not that in common use in Constantinople, where 
 his monastery was situated. It was the Creed in the 
 form in which Apollinarius himself was willing to accept 
 it. Not that Eutyches was averse to condemning 
 
 ' avaa-Kevda-ai, another of the words used in Flavian's final condem- 
 nation. 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 624. » Ibid. 625. " lUd. 629. ^ Ibid. 632. 
 
EUTYCHES ACQUITTED 155 
 
 Apollinarius by name, and those who say that the flesh 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from Heaven,' ^ but 
 he had evaded using the Creed as formulated by a 
 Council (viz. that of 381) which had condemned Apollin- 
 arius. In this last declaration, however, as to the Body 
 of our Lord not having come from Heaven, he receded 
 from the position he had taken up at the Council of 448 
 under Flavian. 
 
 He added that he accepted the Nicene Faith as con- 
 firmed at the Council of Ephesus under Cyril. He had 
 learnt to misinterpret Cyril, and therefore had no diffi- 
 culty in professing agreement with him and retaining 
 his own heresy. As a matter of fact, the Nicene Creed 
 as contained in his profession of faith was not exactly 
 that which the Council of Ephesus accepted from 
 Charisius at the session at which the decree prohibiting 
 any alteration was enacted. This latter was longer in 
 the portion relating to the Third Person in the Holy 
 Trinity. 
 
 His indictment against Flavian was, that he 
 (Eutyches) had been accused before him at a Synod of 
 bishops who happened to be staying in the Imperial 
 city, which was not a Synod for the purpose of dealing 
 with heresy ^ ; that the accusation was too vague and ill 
 conceived ; that Flavian had been on familiar terms with 
 his accuser, Eusebius, while the case was going on, a 
 fact suggestive of collusion ; that Flavian had been 
 prepared to condemn him unheard, trusting to his keeping 
 at home in the silence of his monastery ; that whereas 
 (and this was the real point that commended itself to 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 633. 
 
 - This was the ' Resident Synod,' as it was called, and in this matter 
 Eutyches had the appearance of Canon Law in his favour. 
 
156 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Dioscoriis) he had offered to confess by word of mouth 
 and in writing the Nicene faith as interpreted at Ephesus 
 in 431, Flavian required certain additions to that faith, 
 so that he was really condemned for adhesion to the 
 Council of Ephesus ; and that Flavian had not respected 
 his appeal to the Council before which he now appeared, 
 * whereas he ought before all things to have written to 
 the archbishops to whom he [Eutyches] had appealed.'^ 
 He wound up with an appeal to the Council to stop the 
 mischief at its root by confirming the Creed as the holy 
 fathers at Nicsea handed it down, which the holy fathers 
 at the second Council (that held at Ephesus) confirmed 
 — thus indirectly setting aside the Constantinopolitan 
 additions.^ ' These,' said Bishop Diogenes at Chalcedon, 
 ' he passed by as being Apollinarian.' 
 
 Flavian now asked that Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 
 Eutyches's accuser, might be heard in answer.^ But the 
 Count Elpidius demurred on the ground that all who 
 had acted as judges in the Council that condemned 
 Eutyches (a.d. 448) were there to be judged and that 
 they could not admit the accuser to have his say over 
 again in this Council — a decision contrary to the most 
 ordinary rules of justice. 
 
 It was now proposed that the Acts of the Council of 
 448, in which Eutyches was condemned, should be read 
 through ; but the legate Julius interposed and claimed 
 that the letter of Pope Leo should first be read. This 
 was a difficulty for Dioscorus. It was a serious matter 
 
 > Viz. Leo, Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Anastasius, but not the Arch- 
 bishop of Antioch. 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 640-644. 
 
 3 Eusebius, in his letter of appeal to Leo, speaks of Leo's having 
 ordered his attendance at the Council. 
 
EUTYCHES ACQUITTED 157 
 
 to suppress a Papal letter, and also he could hardly 
 recede openly from his express promise that the letter 
 should be read ; and yet to read it would be to overthrow 
 his whole plan. Bishops might be expected to rally 
 round it who could otherwise be cajoled into the belief 
 that in acquitting Eutyches they were only ' supporting 
 the Ephesine fathers of 431. But Eutyches, probably 
 by arrangement, came to his rescue. He deposed that 
 Flavian had entertained the legates at his archiepiscopal 
 residence, who were thus in collusion with the archbishop, 
 and that therefore no harm ought to accrue to him from 
 what they might say. Ignoring the point at issue, 
 Discorus decided thereupon that the Acts of the Council 
 under Flavian in 448 should first be read and then 
 (though this was never done) the letter of the Bishop of 
 Eome.^ 
 
 When the reader came to Eusebius's accusation of 
 Eutyches in 448, in which he had thought it wise, by 
 way of barring any charge of Nestorian proclivities, to 
 speak of the Nicene Creed as confirmed at Ephesus, the 
 Synod at once burst into exclamations of assent. The 
 bishops were really emphasising the decree of 431 which 
 forbade any additions to the Creed and (though many of 
 them without knowing it) were ignoring the Council of 
 381 which made the additions. The legate even joined in 
 under a delusion. And when the Acts of the Latrocinium 
 were read at Chalcedon and these Acts of the Council 
 under Flavian were in consequence repeated there, the 
 Synod of Chalcedon burst into the same expressions of 
 assent.^ We see from this how adroitly Dioscorus laid 
 his plans. He was now contriving to get the Synod of 
 381 slighted under cover of loyalty to the Council of 431. 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 649. ^ j^j^^ ggo^ 
 
158 . THE ROBBEE-SYNOD 
 
 Another difficulty now confronted the patrons of 
 Eutyches. In the Constantinopolitan Council of 448 
 Cyril's letter on behalf of peace written to John of Antioch 
 and his Synod had been read by order of Flavian. As 
 they were now reading at Ephesus the Acts of the 
 Council of 448, Cyril's letter had to be read also. But 
 nothing could be plainer than Cyril's declaration (in this 
 letter) of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation, 
 which Eutyches denied. Consequently Bishop Eusta- 
 thius rose and said that Cyril had afterwards expressed 
 himself more exactly and explained more carefully what 
 he meant in letters to certain bishops, in which he had 
 said that there was ' one nature of the Word which was 
 incarnate ' and that Cyril had supported this expression 
 from Athanasius.^ In defending himself afterwards at 
 Chalcedon for saying this of Cyril, Eustathius advanced 
 to the middle and held out the book with the passage 
 from Cyril. ' One nature ' meaning ' one Person con- 
 substantial with the Father ' was not an unorthodox 
 expression, and Eustathius was right in asserting this, 
 but wrong in denying that our Lord, as Cyril taught, had 
 also two natures, i.e. after the Incarnation. 
 
 At length in their reading of the Acts of the Council of 
 448 they came to the words in which Eusebius had 
 summed up his accusation against Eutyches in the 
 question : ' Do you, my lord Archimandrite, acknowledge 
 two natures after the Incarnation, and do you say that 
 Christ is consubstantial with us, or do you not ? ' 
 Whereupon the bishops at Ephesus cried out : ' Take and 
 burn Eusebius ; let him be burnt alive ; let him be cut in 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 676. Cyril used the word <f)V(ns (nature) here with the 
 meaning of person. This is quite certain. His reference to St. Athana- 
 sius was a mistake. 
 
EUTYCHES ACQUITTED 159 
 
 two; as he divided [into two] so let him be himself divided.' 
 Dioscorus now put to the Council the question ' Will 
 you tolerate that expression, that there are two natures 
 after the Incarnation ? ' And a cry arose ' Anathema to 
 him who says so.' But Dioscorus evidently saw that 
 the cry did not arise from the entire body of bishops, 
 and accordingly he said that he must have their hands 
 raised. And again a cry arose : ' If anyone says '' two " 
 \i.e. two natures in Christ] let him be anathema.' And 
 every hand was raised. At Chalcedon the bishops 
 deposed that only the Egyptians had said that there 
 was but one nature after the Incarnation. The rest 
 merely held up their hands in terror.^ 
 
 When at last they read the Acts of the second 
 Council held at Constantinople in this same year by the 
 Emperor's order for the purpose of examining the Acts of 
 of the Synod under Flavian, and when Eutyches now 
 repeated his already refuted accusation that those Acts 
 had been falsified, Flavian could no longer restrain 
 himself. He rose and said : ' It is false.' Dioscorus bade 
 him write down whatever he might have to say. 
 Flavian protested that he had not been allowed to speak 
 in his own justification. On this Dioscorus appealed to 
 two or three individual bishops and then to the whole 
 Synod to say if he had prohibited Flavian from speak- 
 ing. Flavian contented himself with saying that his 
 acts as contained in the second, slightly revised, copy of 
 the documents, gave him no fear as before God. He 
 had not, and should not, be of another mind about it. 
 Dioscorus went on to ask the bishops what each thought 
 of Eutyches and what each decided concerning him.^ 
 They decided, one after another, that Eutyches should 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 737, 739. - rl irepl avrov TVTTot. 
 
160 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 be restored to the priesthood and to the government of 
 his monastery, and one after the other spoke of adhering 
 to the faith of Nicsea as confirmed by the Council of 
 Ephesus. We have only to compare these signatures 
 with those at Chalcedon respecting the Tome of Leo, to 
 see the significance of the signatures at the Latrocinium. 
 The omission of all allusion to the 150 {i.e. the fathers at 
 the Constantinopolitan Council of 381) was the measure 
 of Dioscorus's victory. The ' 150 fathers ' disappeared 
 at the Eobber- Synod, but reappeared in the signatures 
 at Chalcedon. Dioscorus signed last and said that he 
 ' confirmed the decisions of this holy and (Ecumenical 
 Synod.' ^ Thus Eutyches was acquitted. 
 
 ' olKovfjLeviKris (rvu6Sov ^■f}<povs, Mansi, vi. 861. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE LATROCINIUM OR ' ROBBER-SYNOD ' {contijlUect) 
 
 § 2. The Deposition of Flavian 
 
 They might have stopped at the acquittal of Eutyches, 
 if the object had been simply to vindicate what they 
 considered the truth. But nothing would satisfy 
 Dioscorus short of seeing the Archbishop of Constanti- 
 nople at his feet. Accordingly, after receiving a 
 deputation from the great monastery in which Eutyches 
 was Archimandrite, and assuring the memorialists that 
 they were perfectly orthodox since they held the same 
 faith as Eutyches (of whose removal from their head- 
 ship they had complained), and after reinstating them as 
 a body, Dioscorus had portions from the (Ecumenical 
 Council of Ephesus read out to the assembly. While 
 the notary was reading the rule laid down at that 
 Council that no one was to transgress its orders as to 
 new Creeds, by adding to the Nicene, and that if a bishop 
 or cleric did so, he should be deprived of his charge, 
 Onesiphorus, one of the bishops, whispered to his neigh- 
 bour that this was aimed at Flavian. His neighbour 
 replied that such madness was inconceivable, and that it 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 829. 
 
162 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 could only concern Eusebius of Dorylaeum. But it was 
 only too true that Dioscorus was making for the ruin of 
 Flavian. 
 
 The long day was now drawing to its close, and the 
 wax candles were lighted for Vespers, when Dioscorus 
 said that he presumed that all were satisfied with the 
 Nicene exposition of the faith as confirmed, and alone 
 recognised as valid, by the sacred Council held in this 
 city in which they now sat, and that anyone who should 
 say anything besides iirapa) this or think, or innovate, 
 or seek for anything beyond, became subject to con- 
 demnation. Bishop after bishop expressed his assent to 
 this principle. Hilarus, the Papal legate, took the op- 
 portunity of proposing that the Papal letter be read, and 
 they would see that ' the Apostolic See ' taught the same. 
 But Dioscorus paid no heed to the suggestion. He had 
 now reached the climax of his programme. He first 
 repeated in full the Ephesine condemnation of anyone 
 who put forth any exposition besides that of Nicaea, 
 * which the Council assembled here confirmed, and 
 decided authoritatively ^ that it alone should be held and 
 delivered in the Church,' ' so that it is not lawful to put 
 forth another Creed besides this or to seek for or intro- 
 duce anything fresh, or to disturb (or initiate) anything 
 concerning our holy religion,' but those who do so ' have 
 subjected themselves and do subject themselves mani- 
 festly to penalties, so that if they are bishops they should 
 be deposed from the episcopate.' He then asserted in 
 the name of the Sj^nod that Flavian, Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople, and Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, had 
 clearly done this by unsettling and changing almost 
 everything, and so becoming the occasion of scandal and 
 
 * TUTTcicroao, Mansi, vi. 908. 
 
FLAVIAN DEPOSED 163 
 
 confusion to the holy Churches and the orthodox people 
 everywhere, and had subjected themselves to the 
 penalties decreed by the holy fathers. Then he added : 
 
 ' Accordingly we, confirming what they decreed, have 
 decided that Flavian and Eusebius are deprived of all 
 sacerdotal and episcopal rank.' 
 
 Each bishop was then called upon to deliver his 
 judgment in turn. 
 
 Flavian now protested to Dioscorus, ' I refuse your 
 jurisdiction.' ^ And Hilarus, the Papal legate, said in 
 Latin, ' It is contradicted ' — thus supporting the protest. 
 
 Then follow the signatures in the Acts, the Bishops 
 of Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and a number of others, 
 emphasising the reason of their judgment, viz. that 
 Flavian and Eusebius had offended against the rule 
 which forbade any addition to, or diminution of, the Creed 
 of Nicaea, confirmed by the Council of Ephesus in 431. ^ 
 
 So the Acts of the Synod ran. But at the Council of 
 Chalcedon it was deposed that this sentence and the 
 signatures had not been managed in the quiet way in 
 which the Acts of the ' Eobber- Synod ' would lead one 
 to suppose. 
 
 When Dioscorus proposed the sentence against 
 Flavian, Onesiphorus, Bishop of Iconium, who, as we 
 have seen, guessed what was coming, rose and knelt 
 before the throne on which Dioscorus sat, and holding 
 his knees, in Eastern fashion, passionately entreated him 
 
 ^ irapairovixai ere. Tillemont, quoted by Dr. Bright (Roman See, p. 272), 
 says that one does not see why Flavian did not say this earlier. But at 
 that period it was a common way of appealing, to decline the jurisdic- 
 tion, even after the definitive sentence. The contrary way was intro- 
 duced by Justinian. Cf. De Marca, De Concordia Sacerd. &c. Lib. VII. 
 cap. vii. § 1. 
 
 - Mansi, vi. 909. 
 
 H 2 
 
164 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 not to proceed to such an extreme measure as the con- 
 demnation of Flavian. Dioscorus rose from his throne 
 and standing on the footstool said, ' Are you stirring up 
 sedition ? Fetch the Counts.' A scene of utter con- 
 fusion followed.' The military entered the church with 
 clubs and swords, the proconsul himself appeared with 
 chains, and presently Barsumas,^ with his monks, joined 
 in the scene of violence ; the writing tables of the 
 notaries were upset and their papers blotted, and 
 Dioscorus with violent gestures bade the bishops sign, 
 or they would have to reckon with him ; blows were 
 freely distributed as the soldiers and monks stood over 
 the reluctant bishops, to whom a blank paper was pre- 
 sented for signature, to be filled in afterwards with the 
 sentence on Flavian and Eusebius.^ Flavian himself 
 was beaten and kicked, but in the midst of the indignities 
 he suffered he remained firm, and, driven into a corner 
 with Eusebius, handed to the legates his appeal to the 
 throne of Peter.^ He was not destined to prosecute his 
 appeal in person, for, owing to the injuries he received, not 
 many days elapsed before he passed to his martyr's crown. 
 
 Dioscorus, secure of the vote of his Egyptians, made 
 sure of the signatures of the Orientals first (the bishops 
 of the Antiochene ' diocese ') and the Egyptians signed 
 afterwards. 
 
 To this unparalleled scene of confusion and violence 
 we have, not merely the witness of the bishops who de- 
 posed at the Council of Chalcedon, but also, though only 
 recently known to historians, two separate accounts by 
 Flavian and Eusebius in their letters of appeal to Leo.^ 
 
 » Mansi, vi. 832. - Ibid. vii. 68. ^ Ibid. vi. 601, 625. 
 
 * Libellus Appellatio7iis, Spicilegium Casinense, i. 132. 
 5 See next chapter. 
 
FLAVIAN DEPOSED 165 
 
 It is therefore not possible to doubt the truth of the 
 main features of this scandalous exhibition of unscrupu- 
 lous violence. ' Where swords are, where is the Synod ? ' 
 said one of the bishops at Chalcedon. Well might many 
 of the bishops there, on the recital of the treatment of 
 Flavian, call Dioscorus a second Cain, who had murdered 
 his brother Flavian. 
 
 Domnus, the Bishop of Antioch, was deposed, as also 
 Theodoret, of whom we shall hear more hereafter. 
 Maximus was irregularly chosen in the place of Domnus, 
 but Theodoret's see was left unfilled. Ibas was also 
 deposed and his see filled by Nonnus. Dorylaeum, the 
 see of Eusebius, was left vacant. This prelate, whose 
 name is so conspicuous in the history of Eutychianism, 
 had, in spite of his impetuous zeal, shrunk from pur- 
 suing his accusation of Eutyches at the Council of Con- 
 stantinople in 448, on the ground that he had everything 
 to lose, since Eutyches had money at his command and 
 Court influence, and he himself had neither.^ He had 
 now, to all appearance lost everything, except his soul : 
 Dioscorus, he afterwards informed the Emperors Valen- 
 tinian and Marcian, had ' by money and by the brute 
 force of his troops, overwhelmed the orthodox faith and 
 confirmed the heresy of Eutyches.' 
 
 No one knows what became of Bishop Julius, the 
 Papal legate, in this scene of disorder, but Hilarus, the 
 deacon, his co-legate, fled for his life and escaped to tell 
 the tale to his master at Rome. St. Leo gave the Synod 
 a name by which it has been known ever since, viz. the 
 Latrocinium or ' Eobber- Synod.' 
 
 But Dioscorus, who was now omnipotent with the 
 Emperor, took one further step, which was eventually 
 
 * Mansi, vi. 736. 
 
166 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 the chief ground of his condemnation. On one of his 
 visits to the Court, inflated with pride, on the very spot 
 where the 318 fathers promulgated the Creed of Christen- 
 dom — at Nicaea—he gave expression to the inordinate 
 notion which he had conceived of his ecclesiastical posi- 
 tion. One bishop in his signature to the acquittal of 
 Eutyches had called Dioscorus the ' universal bishop.' ^ 
 He now acted on the notion of at least supremacy over 
 the whole Church, and in presence of some ten bishops, 
 excommunicated St. Leo himself, probably on the ground 
 that he was supporting bishops excommunicated by the 
 authority of a universal Council. The Council of Chalce- 
 don gave to this act its proper name, viz. simply * mad- 
 ness.' 2 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 855. 
 
 2 In my first edition I had supposed, in accordance with the mar- 
 ginal note in Mansi, vi. 1010, that this took place just before the Synod 
 of Chalcedon. But I think it more probable that Dioscorus acted thus 
 in the lifetime of Theodosius. It is, however, difficult to say for certain. 
 Cf. Ballerini, Leon. 0pp. ii. 1535. Quesnel thinks it took place at 
 Alexandria {ihid.). Cf. also Tillemont, xv. 609. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 Flavian's appeal to rome 
 
 Now let us suppose that the Church at this moment pos- 
 sessed nothing more for the purposes of her government 
 than a 'first patriarch,' primus inter pares in every 
 respect, jurisdiction inckided, with a precedency, a pre- 
 eminence,' and (in a sense not formal or technical) ' a 
 leadership,' but without ' definite powers ' — which is the 
 highest Anglican description of the official position of 
 the Holy See. Suppose, too, that this precedency was 
 owing, not to a divine institution, but to the secular 
 position of the city of Rome, to its having been 
 * organised by Apostolic hands,' and having been con- 
 nected with ' the majesty of the names of Peter and 
 Paul,' and become * famous for its bountiful generosity ' 
 and for ' its traditional immunity from heretical specu- 
 lations.' This is the account given by a representative 
 Anglican writer, of the ' place both lofty and distinctive ' 
 ' undoubtedly assigned by ancient Christianity ' to the 
 see of Rome.^ 
 
 Would such a leadership have proved equal to the 
 crisis that had arisen in the East under the Emperor 
 
 • Cf. The Roman Claims tested by Antiquity, p. 8, by W. Bright, D.D,, 
 Canon of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History. 
 1877. 
 
168 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Theodosius ? Could such a leadership (which does not 
 include the right of being appealed to as a higher court) 
 have been able to reverse the catastrophe of the Eobber- 
 Synod without a miracle ? Could such a position, with 
 no ' definite powers,' no inheritance of rule and judgment 
 from the ' Prince of Apostles ' (for this is excluded by 
 that theory), have sufficed to enable even a Leo the 
 Great to counteract the tremendous success over the 
 orthodox faith which had now been achieved at Ephesus ? 
 Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, complaining to 
 Edward I. of the conflicts that had arisen in England 
 between the Church and State, says that nothing would 
 avail to set things right except that state of things in 
 which Catholic emperors bent before (1) the decrees of 
 the Sovereign Pontiffs, (2) the statutes of Councils, (3) 
 and the sanctions of the orthodox Fathers. And in 
 regard to the first he says, * the sovereign Lord of all 
 gave authority to the decrees of the Sovereign Pontiffs, 
 when He said to Peter in the Gospel of St. Matthew, 
 " Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in 
 heaven." ' ^ Could anything short of this inherited 
 privilege of Peter, which was the teaching of St. Anselm 
 and every other Archbishop of Canterbury, and which is 
 the distinctive feature of Catholic and Eoman teaching 
 at this hour, have been adequate to deal with the state 
 of things that had now arisen in the East ? 
 
 But, putting aside a priori considerations, let us ask, 
 On what did St. Leo actually rely ? He had already 
 expounded the faith which he ' desired to be implanted 
 in the hearts of all the faithful,' as he told the clergy of 
 Constantinople. He had already given an * interpretatio 
 benigna ' to the Emperor's desire for a Council as neces- 
 
 ' Ep. 199 : Registrimi Epistolarum, ed. C. T. Martin (1882), i. 240. 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 169 
 
 sarily involving the wish to have Peter's answer 
 at Caesarea Philippi explained by Peter himself {i.e. 
 through his see), as he told the Synod itself ; he 
 had reviewed and revised the Acts of a previous Synod 
 of Constantinople, and laid down the conditions of 
 Eutyches's restoration, and, in his letter to the Empress, 
 he had assumed, on the ground of his occupying ' the 
 Apostolic See,' the office of absolver of the heretic in case 
 he repented. But he had now to lift up the fallen East. 
 He had the Emperor against him ; the Patriarch of 
 Alexandria was his unscrupulous foe, a new patriarch 
 had been elected to Antioch, the Bishop of Jerusalem 
 had sided with the enemies of the faith, and but one 
 bishop, besides his own legate, had dared to lift up his 
 voice in favour of the murdered archbishop. 
 
 On what, then, did Leo rely in dealing with bishops, 
 patriarchs, and an Eastern Emperor ? His position as 
 Bishop of Old Eome could avail him nothing, for Theo- 
 dosius was Emperor of New Eome. His position as 
 occupant of an Apostolic See would not suffice : the 
 Bishop of Jerusalem was his equal there, to say nothing 
 of the Bishop of Antioch. The traditional orthodoxy of 
 Rome would be of no use to him here ; the East had 
 gone in for its own opinion. He had with him the 
 hearts of many, but the voices of few, while the 
 Emperor professed to believe in an Eastern Council of 
 bishops under his own royal supremacy. What right 
 had Leo to intervene at all ? 
 
 The ground that he did assume was his position of 
 Sovereign Pontilf. He knew well that though they 
 might rebel against it, they could not deny it. He knew 
 that the East to a man believed St. Peter to be ' the 
 Prince and head of the Apostles,' and that Peter ' lives 
 
170 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 and exercises judgment in his successors.' ^ And on 
 this belief he acted throughout. And in the whole 
 course of the Council of Chalcedon not a single protest 
 was raised against the assumption made to Emperor, 
 Empress, to the Synod, and to individual bishops — made 
 publicly and given as the ground of Leo's action : there 
 was, I say, not a solitary protest against the perpetual 
 assumption on the part of the Pontiff that he was the 
 successor of St. Peter, and that as such he had the 
 power of the keys, not exclusively, but pre-eminently ; 
 with a precedence, not of honour merely, but of spiritual 
 jurisdiction over the entire Church of God. ' It is idle ' 
 (so we are told) ' to bid us acknowledge her bishop ' (i.e. 
 the Bishop of Eome) ' as first patriarch, when he will 
 not be acknowledged as anything short of a Supreme 
 Pontiff.' ^ But the history of Eutychianism and the 
 Council of Chalcedon are distinct in their evidence to 
 the truth that the Pope was held to be the successor of 
 the Prince of the Apostles, and as such was, as St. 
 Cyril called Celestine, * the archbishop of the universal 
 Church.' Leo, in leaning on his inherited prerogative, 
 had the conscience of the Church with him, as will now 
 be seen. 
 
 Flavian upon his condemnation at Ephesus had 
 handed to the legates an appeal to Rome. He appealed 
 to ' the Apostolic See : ' so Liberatus, in his Breviarium, 
 states after inspecting the documents. And the Western 
 Emperor, Valentinian, distinctly states the same in his 
 letter to Theodosius : ' the Bishop of Constantinople 
 appealed to him (viz. the Bishop of Rome) by formal 
 notice.' De Marca, whose theories would not incline 
 him to emphasise this, says : * It is clearly proved by 
 
 * Cf. p. 81. ^ Roman Claims, &c., by Dr. Bright. 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 171 
 
 Valentinian's letter that Flavian appealed to Pope Leo ; ' 
 and again, ' so as that he appealed to the Koman Pontiff 
 alone.' 
 
 But in such matters it was the invariable custom of 
 the Koman Pontiff to act in concert with the Roman Synod. 
 A synodical declaration was a more formal utterance ; 
 it was like the emphasis to speech, as when a man 
 gathers up his whole self for a special effort. It was a 
 kind of proclamation that the utterance was formal. It 
 was not indeed a necessary means of signifying that the 
 sentence thus delivered was, so to speak, ex cathedra, 
 for the Tome itself was not a synodical utterance, but it 
 was the usual way in which at that time the Pontiff 
 dealt with serious cases such as the deposition or rein- 
 statement of bishops. It was a means of bringing into 
 play that consultative function of the Episcopate which 
 the Vatican Council spoke of as included in the normal 
 action of the Papacy. The authority of the Roman 
 Synod emanated from its President as successor of Peter ; 
 but its unanimity was a factor in the impressiveness of 
 the Papal judgment. St. Leo himself speaks of certain 
 writings of his as sent to Constantinople, ' not only with 
 the authority of the Apostolic See, but also with the 
 unanimity of the holy Synod which had assented in 
 great numbers.' The authority was that of the Holy See ; 
 the unanimity of the Synod was an additional advantage.^ 
 
 And so the Empress Placidia, writing from Rome, 
 says that Flavian had sent a formal notice to the 
 
 ' Dr. Bright (Roman See, p. 177) quotes these words in Latin, italicising 
 the words ' not only ' (non solum) and * but also ' (sed etiam), ignoring 
 the vital distinction between ' authority ' and * unanimity.' St. Leo does 
 not say that his writings went forth ' not only by the authority of the 
 Apostolic See, hiU also by that of the Synod.' The authority was his. 
 
172 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Apostolic See ' and to all the bishops of these parts,' 
 which was perfectly true. But ' these parts ' did not 
 mean that all the bishops of the West were to be con- 
 sulted, but the bishops round about Eome and others 
 happening to be in Eome, where the Empress was. 
 These bishops did indeed represent the West, but only 
 as the head represents the body ; they did so, not 
 because of any delegation, but because they were as it 
 were the Cabinet Council of the Supreme Pontiff. How 
 else could they exercise authority over the East ? How 
 indeed could a comparatively few — for the numbers of 
 which Leo speaks {frequens convenerat) are to be com- 
 pared with the ordinary meetings, not with the numbers 
 of the entire West — how could this comparative handful 
 of itself, and without any express delegation, represent the 
 West as it did, except from the fact that the head was there ? 
 We have, however, irrefragable evidence in this case 
 that ' these parts ' are not the entire West, except so far 
 as the West was involved in the acts of the Boman 
 Synod, for Hilarus, in writing to the Empress Pulcheria, 
 speaks of the Koman Synod which responded to Flavian's 
 appeal, as ' the whole West ' ; and again, St. Leo, writing 
 to Theodosius, speaks of the tears of * all the Churches in 
 our parts,' by which he certainly did not mean the entire 
 West, for his letter is headed ' Leo, Bishop, and the holy 
 Synod which met in the city of Eome.' '^ When, there- 
 fore, Galla Placidia spoke of Flavian's having written ' to 
 all the bishops of these parts ' she did not mean that 
 the entire West was to be gathered together by represen- 
 
 ' Leon. Ep. 46. 
 
 2 Ep. 43. The ' Kesident Synod ' of Constantinople was the counter- 
 part of the Eoman Synod. Only the Eoman Synod was constitutional, 
 because of the position of its President, the successor of Peter. 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 173 
 
 tation, but that the appeal was to the Pope in his 
 Eoman Synod which was the normal representative of 
 the West. The appeal was to the successor of Peter 
 as such, acting as he did in such cases with the solemnity 
 of a court composed of such bishops as could be got 
 together at the time. Nothing else will suit the ex- 
 pressions used and the acts that followed. 
 
 Such was the state of the argument before a valuable 
 discovery was made which has set the seal to the position 
 maintained by the Ballerini and Mansi, as against 
 Quesnel and others, whom Dr. Bright has followed. The 
 Prior of the Archives at Monte Cassino (Dom Ambrogio 
 Amelli) had the good fortune to discover in the Archives 
 at No vara a Latin copy of the letters written to Rome by 
 Flavian and Eusebius. Both letters are of great interest 
 as containing two separate accounts of the Robber- Synod 
 from those most nearly concerned in it, written immedi- 
 ately after its close, if not, indeed, in part during its 
 proceedings.^ 
 
 We gather from Flavian's letter that Dioscorus had 
 
 * These letters have been inserted by Mommsen in his I^eues Archiv, 
 xi. 362. They are referred to by Duchesne in his Eglises s&paries, 
 p. 202, and by Harnack, in his Dogmengeschichte, on the ' Eutychian 
 Controversy.' Amelli gives good reasons for supposing that they be- 
 longed to Dionysius Exiguus, who is known to have been compiling 
 materials for a History of the Council of Chalcedon. Cf. S. Leone 
 Magno e V Oriente, p. 24 (Monte Cassino, Tipo-Litografia Casinense, 
 189-1). The letters in question have also been inserted in the Spicilegium 
 Casinense, tom. i. (1893), with Mommsen's emendations. This may be 
 seen in the British Museum. I had not had the advantage of seeing it 
 when I published the first edition of this book. Christianus Lupus 
 deplored the loss of this letter of Flavian's, which he says would have 
 stopped OS loquentium iniqua, by which he meant Quesnel and his fol- 
 lowers. It is satisfactory to find that the arguments of the Ballerini 
 and Mansi {Nat. Alex. H. E. vol.ix.) are supported by the discovery. 
 
174 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 conceived an implacable animosity against him from the 
 day of his consecration to the see of Constantinople, and 
 had not sent him the customary letters on his appoint- 
 ment to that see. But Flavian says that notwithstand- 
 ing this he had * obeyed ' Dioscorus ' in everything.' The 
 third canon of Constantinople does not seem to have 
 influenced their respective dealings. But the interest of 
 Flavian's letter centres in the expressions he uses in 
 appealing to Eome. Did he appeal to Eome as to the 
 see of the ' first Patriarch ' or as the see of the Apostle 
 Peter ? 
 
 His letter is addressed to Leo himself in person. He 
 tells him how Dioscorus acquitted Eutyches, and did not 
 allow ' the letter of your Holiness to be read, though it 
 suffices for the confirmation of the faith of the Fathers.' 
 He then speaks of ' the unjust sentence which he issued 
 against me according to his own good pleasure, while I 
 appealed to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter the 
 Prince of the Apostles and the universal blessed Synod 
 which is under your Holiness.' These last words clearly 
 do not refer to an ' (Ecumenical ' Synod, both by reason 
 of the expression ' which is under your Holiness,' evidently 
 referring to something in regular action, and because 
 of the sequel. They can only refer to the Eoman Synod 
 as constitutionally representing the West,^ as, in fact, 
 its normal exponent. 
 
 Flavian then proceeds to describe the scene of 
 
 > The contention of the Ballerini that Flavian did not appeal to a 
 Genera] Council even of the West cannot be maintained since the dis- 
 covery of this letter. But their main contention is supported by the 
 letter. A really representative Council of the West was never sum- 
 moned. Any fair number of bishops sufficed, as long as the Holy See 
 was satisfied. 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 175 
 
 ruffianly violence which took place. His account con- 
 firms what has been already described. ' A crowd of 
 the military surrounded me and, when I was desirous of 
 taking refuge at the altar, would not allow me, but did 
 its best to turn me out of the church. In the midst of a 
 fearful tumult, I managed with difficulty to get to a 
 corner of the church and to remain there with those 
 who were with me. But even this I could not do without 
 being carefully watched, lest I should manage to report 
 to you all the ills I suffered.' 
 
 The archbishop then proceeds to formulate his prayer 
 to his Holiness. It was, first, to busy himself in the 
 cause of the faith, ' which has perished through licence.' 
 Next, to see after the overthrow of ecclesiastical constitu- 
 tions and simply to narrate the whole matter both to the 
 people who are m a majority, ' and also to teach the 
 Emperor by a suitable letter ; moreover to write to the 
 clergy of the holy Church of Constantinople and to the 
 monks ; also to Juvenal, the Bishop of Jerusalem ' (who 
 had taken a prominent part in the last scene) ' and to 
 Thalassius of Caesarea ' (who had been appointed by the 
 Emperor a coadjutor to Dioscorus), ' to Stephen, the 
 Bishop of Ephesus ' (where the disaster occurred), ' and to 
 Eusebius of Ancyra and Cyrus of Aphrodisia ' (prominent 
 members in the iniquitous scene), 'and to the rest of the 
 holy bishops who consented to the unrighteous sentence 
 against me, and to Dioscorus, who held the principal 
 authority in the holy Synod at Ephesus.' 
 
 This was certainly not a programme to be set before 
 a * first Patriarch ' with no ' definite powers ' but a mere 
 precedency of honour without effective jurisdiction. 
 But Flavian entreats for more in addition to this. He 
 
176 THE EOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 asks Leo ' to issue a decree ^ which God will inspire your 
 mind to frame, so that a Synod both of the West and 
 of the East being held, a like faith may be everywhere 
 preached, so that the statutes of the Fathers may prevail, 
 that all that has been done may be rendered void — 
 things done somehow, as they have been, unrighteously 
 and in the shade, and not without levity ; and [so] to 
 apply healing to this horrible wound which has spread 
 serpent-like almost through the whole world.' 
 
 Flavian concludes with saying that the bishops who 
 were forced into signing against him were but few — a 
 statement which conflicts with the records of the Council. 
 But, as Dom Amelli points out, Flavian would not be 
 aware of what was done outside his own immediate pur- 
 view and after he had escaped from the church.^ 
 
 At the same time, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylseum, 
 appealed to Leo to reverse his deposition by Dioscorus 
 and his Synod. Until the discovery of his letter by 
 Amelli, this was a fact unknown to historians of the 
 Councils. He forms another witness to the ruffianly 
 treatment of the bishops at the Latrocinium by Dioscorus 
 and his associates, and he adds a few touches to the 
 picture, just as an independent witness naturally would. 
 It seems that being forbidden to enter the Synod, 
 although St. Leo had ordered him to be admitted, he 
 was nevertheless incarcerated in some dark place 
 in the church, guarded by soldiers. Dioscorus, 
 he says, threatened to have some of the bishops 
 thrown into the sea if they ventured to dispute his 
 ruling. No one was allowed to approach Eusebius, 
 
 ' Dareformavi : the word used almost always (when decretum is not 
 used) to translate tvttos, a decree. Cf. supra, p. 21. 
 2 S. Leone Magno e V Oriente, p. 45. 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 177 
 
 though several bishops had signified their willingness to 
 solace him in his ' passion.' The bishops' signatures 
 were obtained by violence, ' as they know who were sent 
 by your Holiness in the place of your Blessedness, to 
 whom I presented the formal notice {lihellos) of my 
 appeal, in which I have demanded the cognisance of your 
 See.' There can be no question, therefore, to whom 
 Eusebius appealed. 
 
 We must, however, notice the reason of his appeal to 
 the Holy See. In the beginning of his letter, addressed 
 to ' the holy and most blessed Father and Archbishop 
 Leo,' he says : ' The Apostolic throne has been wont 
 from the heginning to defend those w4io are sufiering 
 injustice, to assist those who have been the prey of 
 unavoidable factions, and to raise up those who lie on 
 the ground, according to the possibility [power of so 
 doing] which you possess, and the compassion which 
 you have towards all men. The reason is that you have 
 a right understanding, and preserve the faith towards 
 our Lord Jesus Christ unshaken, and exercise charity 
 without dissembling towards all the brethren and all 
 who call on the name of Christ. Wherefore I, being 
 entangled in unavoidable [embarrassments], fly to the 
 only refuge, after the help of God, in my affliction and 
 extremity, desiring to find a release from the ills that 
 have befallen me.' 
 
 His only refuge was ' the Apostolic throne ' with its 
 inerrancy in the faith and traditional charity towards 
 the whole Christian brotherhood. After describing, as 
 we have already seen, the catastrophe of the Latro- 
 cinium, and stating the formal nature of his appeal ' to 
 your See,' he says : * I entreat your Blessedness, 
 touching your knees at least in word if not with my 
 
 N 
 
178 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 hand,^ pronounce the reversal {evacuatio), and nullity 
 of any unjust condemnation by the most religious 
 Dioscorus, and of their decree, who were forced into 
 consenting to his will, and give me back the dignity of 
 my episcopate, and communion with yourself, by letters 
 from you to my lowliness, bestowing on me my rank 
 and communion ' — i.e. the rank of bishop, and com- 
 munion with the Apostolic See. 
 
 The whole of the letter is in the plural number, but 
 the title and the expressions * your See ' and ' the 
 Apostolic throne ' prove that it is the ' majestic plural,' 
 not a plurality of persons addressed.^ 
 
 It is impossible not to see in these two letters a 
 unique position of authority assigned to Eome as * the 
 Apostolic throne,' or, as Flavian expresses himself, ' the 
 throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the 
 Apostles,' written, too, from Ephesus, where it had been 
 said in the (Ecumenical Council of 431 that ' Peter . . . 
 the Prince of the Apostles . . . lives and exercises judg- 
 ment in his successors.' The position of Leo clearly in 
 Flavian's mind resulted, not from the city, but from the 
 position of Peter in the Apostolic College. He says that 
 the Tome of Leo (his letter to Flavian himself) '■ suffices 
 for the confirmation of the faith.' It was already 
 authoritative. He treats the Apostolic See as the proper 
 court of appeal for an unjustly deposed Archbishop of 
 Constantinople exercising its authority in a Synod 
 ' under ' Leo, as in the case of injured bishops the 
 
 * Just as, in Eastern fashion, Onesiphorus and others knelt at 
 Dioscorus's knees in the Synod, entreating him not to depose Flavian. 
 
 2 The letter is said, in a footnote in another hand, to have been sent 
 by Chrysippus and Constantine, names which occur in the Acts (Mansi, 
 vi. 574, 719, 744, 1062 ; cf. Amelli, Leone Magno, p. 49). 
 
FLAVIAN'S APPEAL 179 
 
 Pontiffs invariably did. Then in regard to the breaches 
 of the ecclesiastical order that had taken place, he looks 
 to Leo to communicate with his own (Flavian's) flock, 
 with the Emperor, and with those Eastern bishops whose 
 conduct had been so unseemly and so cowardly, and 
 with Dioscorus himself. Further, he hopes that Leo, 
 besides respecting this appeal to his see and the Synod 
 under him, will issue an authoritative decree, which, by 
 means of a Council, not merely of the West, but West 
 and East together, a truly (Ecumenical Council, will 
 secure unanimity of teaching throughout the world, and 
 the rest of the bishops deposed will have their cases 
 investigated, and all the injustice done will be rectified. 
 He does not ask Leo to act despotically, but he does ask 
 for an exercise of authority ; while Eusebius asks Leo 
 simply to restore him to his position of Bishop. It 
 must be remembered that the Catholic thesis, while it 
 maintains that the successor of St. Peter is more than a 
 ' first Patriarch,' does not maintain that he is by virtue 
 of his office an absolute ruler. He is Supreme Pontiff, 
 and no cause like that of Flavian's has run its course to 
 its end until Eome has spoken her word — whether with 
 or without the aid of an (Ecumenical Synod depends on 
 the judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff' himself. As a 
 matter of fact, Leo's action in this case followed exactly 
 on the lines proposed by Flavian, i.e. first his Synodical 
 judgment and then a General Council.^ 
 
 Theodoret also appealed, a short time afterwards, to 
 
 ' On the mistake of supposing that the rule of the Sovereign Pontiff 
 is absolute, in the sense of being uncontrolled by contract, by usage and 
 by rights, see Hettinger on The Siq^remacy of the Apostolic See in the 
 Church, i. 27. Pius IX. protested against the idea ; and Bellarmine 
 had already said distinctly that the one absolutely free ruler in the 
 Church is Christ (De Bom. Pont. iii. 19). 
 
 N 2 
 
180 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 Leo and his Council, giving as his authority the 
 precedent of St. Paul. * If Paul, the herald of the truth, 
 the trumpet of the Spirit, ran to the great Peter . . . 
 much more do we in our littleness run to your Apostolic 
 throne, that from you we may receive healing for the 
 wounds of the Church.' * But his case will be dealt with 
 in connection with the Council of Chalcedon itself. 
 
 ' Ep. 113. 
 
CHAPTEK VI 
 
 LEO PROPOSES, THEODOSIUS REFUSES, A COUNCIL 
 
 On September 29, a.d. 449, St. Leo was holding one of 
 his customary annual Synods of the suburbicarian sees 
 and of the bishops who happened to be in Eome, 
 assembled to celebrate the anniversary of his own 
 birthday and to conduct the affairs of the Church, when 
 Hilarus, the deacon and legate, arrived from Ephesus 
 with the sad tidings of the Eobber-Council. The Eoman 
 Synod was accordingly prolonged to consider what steps 
 should be taken to retrieve the disaster which had 
 befallen the true faith. They had now before them the 
 appeals of Flavian and Eusebius. They knew nothing 
 as yet, it would seem, of the death of Flavian or the 
 election of a successor to the see. Hilarus had escaped 
 at the close of the first session, having refused to attend 
 a second. They only knew of the triumph of heresy in 
 a Council of bishops which had received St. Leo's acqui- 
 escence on the understanding that it met to promulgate 
 the condemnation of Eutyches, if he did not withdraw 
 his heretical propositions, and to absolve him by the 
 authority of the Holy See, if he did.^ 
 
 St. Leo in concert with his bishops at once repudi- 
 ated the Council at Ephesus, so that Hilarus, who was 
 
 ' Cf. supra, p. 143, 
 
182 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 present, could write to the Empress Pulcheria saying 
 *that everything done in Ephesus by Dioscorus un- 
 canonically and tumultuously and through worldly hate, 
 is condemned by the aforesaid Pope with the whole 
 Western Council.' This was the first step in the pro- 
 gramme proposed by St. Flavian, who had appealed to 
 ' the throne of Peter and the universal Council which is 
 under your Holiness.' He had originally declared that 
 the exercise of Leo's authority would supersede the 
 necessity of a General Council in the East ; he had 
 now appealed to that authority, and it had nullified his 
 deposition. 
 
 A few weeks ^ after Hilarus brought the tidings of 
 the catastrophe at Ephesus, and after the whole matter 
 had been well weighed in Synod, the Pope wrote to the 
 Emperor Theodosius precisely on the lines suggested by 
 St. Flavian in his appeal to the Holy See. Leo 
 expressed his intense disappointment at the result of the 
 Synod at Ephesus and his confidence that all would 
 have been well with the bishops there, and there would 
 have been no doctrinal innovation,^ if only his legates 
 had been allowed to read his letter ^ to the Synod or that 
 to Flavian, ' for the tumult would have been so quieted 
 by the manifestation which, inspired divinely {divinitus 
 inspiratam), we have received and hold, that neither 
 unskilfulness would have pursued its folly ' (in allusion 
 to Eutyches), ' nor rivalry ' (in allusion to Dioscorus 
 
 ' For the date see Lecniis 0pp. Ep. liv. and Diss, de Ep. deperd. 
 n. 38. 
 
 2 jWTjSey ^vvaffQai KaivoTOixilffQai. 
 
 ^ These particular letters were not those of the Roman Synod, They 
 were Ep. 33 and Ep. 28 (Ball.) ; see also Ep. 45, in which the same 
 letters are spoken of as the teaching of ' the See of the blessed Apostle 
 Peter.' 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 183 
 
 against Constantinople) 'have had the opportunity of 
 doing further harm.' After speaking of the protest of 
 his legates against what was dogmatically proclaimed,^ 
 saying, as they did, * that the Apostolic See could never 
 accept it,' the Pope in the most touching terms urges 
 the Emperor to look to God and think of the judgment- 
 seat of Christ. * Behold I, most Christian and 
 worshipful Emperor, with my fellow bishops . . . entreat 
 you in presence of the inseparable Trinity of the one God, 
 Which is the Guardian and author of your empire, and 
 in presence of Christ's holy Angels, that you would order 
 that all things should remain in the same state in which 
 they were before any judgment ' [had been given].^ 
 
 He now tells the Emperor that ' all the Churches of 
 our regions, all the bishops, entreat your Clemency that 
 you would order a General Synod to be assembled in 
 Italy.' Two reasons are given for this : first, the 
 protest of the legates at the Latrocinium itself, and 
 secondly, the appeal of Flavian. Each of these pre- 
 
 1 5oyidari(T9ev. The Greek, as we have it, is older than the Latin. It 
 dates from two or three years only later than the sending of the 
 letter. 
 
 2 It seems necessary to protest against the absurd cavil of Bishop 
 Andrewes, as it is reproduced by Dr. Bright {Roman See, p. 178), that 
 there is ' no mandate here ' from the Pope ; as if Leo could not be 
 Supreme Pontiff because he entreated the Emperor to do his duty. No 
 one who has read it will easily forget the Conference of the Pastor 
 Adolphe Monod on 'the tears of St. Paul.' St. Leo occupied the 
 Apostolic throne, and nothing better befitted the successor of an 
 Apostle than tears and supplications at a crisis like this. Leo could be 
 true to his name when occasion called for it, as in the presence of 
 Attila ; but when the truth of the Incarnation was at stake, and a 
 Christian Emperor was in danger of losing his soul, he could be the 
 embodiment of tenderness. When the bishops at Chalcedon use the 
 same word of entreaty (Trapo/coAoC^ev) to Leo, Dr. Bright translates it 
 ' request ' {Roma7i See, p. 205). Cf. infra, p. 373. 
 
184 THE ROBBEE-SYNOD 
 
 vented the Synod at Ephesus from being final. The 
 object of the new Council was to be the overthrow of 
 heresy and the healing of schism. St. Leo then adopts 
 a slightly altered tone and says that in point of fact to 
 ask this has become ' necessary ' ; * the decrees of the 
 canons of Nicaea, which have been established by the 
 bishops throughout the whole world, bear witness ' to 
 the necessity ; and from this passage he continues in the 
 mood of exhortation, more tersely and decidedly. The 
 letter obviously comes from one and the same pen, and 
 is in parts a personal appeal to the Emperor in person. 
 
 In this letter, however, Leo strikes the note which 
 resounds to the end of the matter. He assumes the 
 championship of Nicene rules, as of the Nicene faith. 
 Theodosius had been misled into imagining that in sup- 
 porting Eutyches he was supporting the Nicene settle- 
 ment : St. Leo, in effect, tells him plainly that it is he 
 who is guarding both the faith and the rules of Nicsea. 
 This was an essential element of the Papal prerogative. 
 The primary idea of Papal supremacy is that it exists for 
 the preservation of the Apostolic deposit ; this aim took 
 the shape, after 325, of a guardianship of the Nicene 
 settlement. The faith of Nicasa could never, according 
 to the teaching of Piome, be allowed to suffer innovation ; 
 the Nicene canons could only be changed or dispensed 
 from for good reason and by competent authority, to be 
 found in the Apostolic See. Nothing but the most 
 profound misunderstanding of the teaching of the Church 
 as formulated in the Vatican decree could have led some 
 writers to see in Leo's championship of the Nicene settle- 
 ment an abatement of his claim to supreme authority. 
 It was, on the contrary, the most prominent and proper 
 feature of that supremacy. 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 185 
 
 As regards the particular provision to which St. Leo 
 referred in this letter as Nicene, it will be observed that 
 he uses a curious phrase, ' the decisions of the canons of 
 Nicsea.' ^ The provision was that of the fourth and 
 seventh canons of Sardica. The periphrasis perhaps 
 expresses most accurately the real state of the case. It 
 might simply mean the ' canonical decisions ' of the 
 Nicene Council. But, on the other hand, it may point 
 to matters on which the Nicene fathers agreed, but 
 which were not embodied in definite canons until the 
 Council of Sardica met and the necessity for such pro- 
 mulgation of Nicene principles had been shown by the 
 Athanasian conflicts. But the emphatic assertion that 
 * the decisions of the canons at Nicsea,' of which the 
 canons of Sardica, to which he referred, formed part, 
 had been ' established throughout the world,' shows that 
 the African troubles about these Sardican canons had 
 ended well, and the Church had set her seal on the term 
 Nicene being applied to those canons. Leo wrote this 
 letter some thirty years after the African investigation ; 
 and as he was the most accurate of men, his witness is 
 fair evidence that all were now agreed that ' Nicene ' was 
 a proper term to apply to the Sardican canons. In the 
 same way the Church has settled that the Niceno-Con- 
 stantinopolitan Creed, which was certainly not drawn up 
 by the Nicene fathers but which is recited throughout 
 the world as the ' Nicene ' Creed, is rightly so called. 
 
 But, as we shall see, we have not simply an assertion 
 by Leo, made at a time when it is inconceivable that he 
 should lay himself open to the retort that no such 
 Nicene provision existed, to say nothing of his pro- 
 foundly Christian character ; we have also the acceptance 
 
 ' Tchv Kara NiKaiav Kavovuv at \pri<poi. 
 
186 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 of this provision in the East. The essence of these 
 canons was that the fact of a bishop having appealed to 
 Eome from a Synod of bishops enforced the suspension 
 of his sentence of deposition, until the Bishop of Eome 
 had settled upon another court, whether his own or 
 another in the same region, to try the case. 
 
 At the same time St. Leo wrote to the Empress 
 Pulcheria as to one who had never failed the religion and 
 faith of Christ, telling her of his letter to Theodosius, 
 and repeating that his legates had protested at the 
 Ephesine Council that they would never suffer them- 
 selves ' to be separated from that faith which, fully 
 expounded and authoritatively defined by the See of the 
 blessed Apostle Peter, they had brought with them to 
 the holy Synod.' ^ He says that Flavian remains in 
 the communion of Eome, and that he has moved for a 
 Council to be held in Italy, that all things that had 
 caused the trouble might be rehandled with greater care 
 and so they might return to the peace of God. He then 
 says, ' Let your Piety deign to explain our supplication 
 to the Emperor, considering that you hold a special 
 commission as from the blessed Apostle Peter.' ^ 
 
 Leo also wrote a very beautiful and touching letter 
 to the people of Constantinople, the flock of Flavian, 
 whom he imagined to be still alive. In the course of 
 this letter he tells them plainly that if any bishop should 
 
 * Greek : TriffTews 7]V irKi]pri iKT^deiaav koX ZLarviruiQilcrav eK rov Qp6vov 
 rov fiaK. airoaTdXov Uerpov. Ep. 45. The Latin is a translation, not the 
 original. Notice the use of iKriOeis and diarvwdoOeis, and cf. divinitus in- 
 spiratam of Ep. 44. SjoTt^Trwcris is used at the end of this letter for the 
 authoritative action of the Emperor. 
 
 ' Pietas vestra dignetur : Gk. ri evcrefina . . . KaTa^madro). Would 
 Dr. Bright refuse (cf. supra, p. 137) to translate this ' deign ' ? Leo is 
 writing in a strain of deference to the Empress. 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 187 
 
 be elected to Constantinople during Flavian's lifetime, 
 ' he will never be considered in communion with us, nor 
 can he be numbered in the roll of bishops. For as we 
 have anathematised Nestorius in his perversity, so we 
 anathematise with equal execration those who deny the 
 truth of the flesh in our Lord Jesus Christ.' He bids 
 them see in the person of their bishop (Flavian) Him 
 for Whom he has not shrunk from suffering, and 
 desires that they may imitate him, and obtain a common 
 reward of faith with him.^ There was no question with 
 Leo as to the illegitimacy and nullity of Flavian's deposi- 
 tion, nor of the heretical nature of Eutyches's teaching. 
 It was the letter of an Apostle both in its tender care for 
 the flock in Constantinople and its unconscious courage 
 in defying all the forces that were at work in favour of 
 Eutyches. There is also one sentence in this letter 
 which was prompted by a certain tact which Leo com- 
 bined with the lion-like courage that marked his dealings 
 in this tremendous crisis. In exhorting the Constan- 
 tinopolitan Catholics to stand firm, he speaks of the 
 faith on which they were built, ' and in which we know 
 the most Christian Emperor remains firm.' This was 
 really the case : for Theodosius was being simply misled 
 by those around him. 
 
 At the same time Leo wrote to certain Archiman- 
 drites of Constantinople, urging them to adhere to 
 Flavian, and to be ready to suffer for the Catholic faith. 
 
 Theodosius kept perfect silence. But after the lapse 
 
 ' Ep. 50. The letter is entitled * Leo and the holy Synod, which met 
 in the city of Rome, to the Clergy, nobility, and laity, most beloved 
 sons.' It is not likely that the Synod would call itself the Fathers of the 
 clergy of Constantinople. The fact is, that these letters are really Leo's, 
 written after consultation with the Synod. 
 
188 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 of three months the Emperor Valentinian came to Eome 
 
 with the Empresses Eudoxia and Galla Placidia, his 
 
 wife and his mother, on the Vigil of the Feast of the Chair 
 
 of St. Peter (February 450). They came into St. Peter's 
 
 for their devotions, and there met the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 
 They were at the tomb of the Apostle in the basilica. 
 
 After service, when his Holiness approached their 
 
 Imperial Majesties, hardly able to speak for the tears 
 
 and sobs that choked his utterance, surrounded by a 
 
 number of bishops, whom, says the Empress Placidia, 
 
 *he had assembled by virtue of his commanding 
 
 position,' ^ he described the state of things, and told 
 
 them of his petition for a General Council, and besought 
 
 them to use their influence with their Imperial relative 
 
 to induce him to return a favourable answer to the 
 
 petition. The sorrow of the great Pontiff moved them ; 
 
 the Empresses describe it in their letters. That of the 
 
 Empress Galla Placidia is of special interest. She 
 
 speaks of Flavian's appeal ' to the Apostolic See and all 
 
 the bishops of these parts, through the legates of the 
 
 Bishop of Eome, who according to the definitions [or 
 
 canons] of the Nicene Council are wont to be present ' 
 
 (the canon being that of Sardica) . She urged that the 
 
 Emperor should arrange that ' according to the decree 
 
 and decision ^ of the Apostolic throne, which we in like 
 
 manner venerate as at the head of matters,*^ Flavian 
 
 should remain in his Episcopal status and the judgment 
 
 should be transferred to the Synod of the Apostolic 
 
 ' virh TTJs apxvs rod idlov tottov koX t^s d|ios. 
 
 2 rhv TVTTOV Koi TOV '6pOV. 
 
 ^ COS Trporiyov/iiepov irpoa-Kvvovfx^v. The Empress uses the word 
 irpo<TKvvy](ns in the opening of her letter for ' the veneration of the 
 Apostle Peter ' which they had come to render at his tomb on the Feast 
 of his Chair. 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 189 
 
 throne, in which he who was counted worthy to receive the 
 keys of heaven first adorned the Episcopal rule ; ^ when 
 it becomes us to guard the reverence due to this greatest 
 of cities which is the mistress of the whole world.' 
 
 The special interest of this letter lies in the kind of 
 argument which the Empress felt it suitable in the 
 present distress to use to her Imperial relative. That 
 she should press home the dignity of the Apostolic 
 throne on the ground that it is the See of Peter and 
 fixed in the Eternal City witnesses to a general belief 
 to which she felt she could safely appeal. Also the 
 expression ' Synod of the Apostolic throne ' is significant. 
 
 But the letter which Valentinian wrote to Theodosius 
 is of greater importance still. It is impossible to 
 suppose that he would enter upon any disputed ground 
 as to jurisdiction. His letter was doubtless inspired by 
 Leo. And who can read the letters of Leo at this 
 period without feeling that his supreme motive was the 
 honour due to our Divine Lord and his devouring zeal 
 for the truth of the Incarnation ? It is true that 
 Harnack, from his rationalistic point of view, sees 
 only a political motive in Leo's conduct. At this 
 period he was dominated by fear of Alexandria's pre- 
 eminence ; presently, his motive would be fear of that of 
 Constantinople. The theory is certainly read into the 
 record, for there is nothing in that record which ex- 
 plicitly states it, and it involves a complete repudia- 
 tion of the religious side of Leo's character. It is a 
 theory which would be impossible to one who accepted 
 the teaching of the Church on the mystery of the Incar- 
 nation ; and in dealing with motives, it is necessary 
 
 ' Gk. dirKTKOTrrjy ttjs apxt^po:<Tvu7]s. 
 
190 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 to have some sympathy with the deeper currents of a 
 man's mind. 
 
 A very different, but also unjust, estimate of Leo's 
 action is suggested by Dr. Bright. Leo, according to this 
 writer, was at the same time engaged in ' magnifying 
 his own bishopric and consolidating and formulating the 
 " Petrine " ideas which had long grown up among its 
 clergy.' In this he ' went too far.' ^ 
 
 Now let us see what ground Leo had to stand upon. 
 It will be admitted that for twelve hundred years the 
 ' Petrine ideas ' as formulated by St. Gregory the Great 
 have held their own in the West. ' I know not what 
 Bishop is not subject to this See,' are his words. But 
 was there sufficient in the past to exonerate Leo from 
 the charge of having formulated a new Petrine tradition 
 — that is, from ' consolidating and formulating the 
 Petrine ideas which had long grown up among its 
 clergy ' — in the sense of innovating on the immemorial 
 teaching of the Church concerning the see of Peter ? The 
 previous pages of this book supply an answer. In no 
 single passage of his writings does St. Leo say more 
 than had already been said in the beginning of the 
 century by his predecessor Innocent I.^ And St. 
 Augustine detected no sign of ' innovation ' in this teach- 
 ing of St. Innocent. But, further, St. Leo does not in 
 the whole conduct of the Eutychian controversy go 
 one whit beyond St. Julius, the first champion of the 
 Nicene settlement. St. Julius claimed that a Bishop 
 of Alexandria must be judged from Kome, and he 
 grounded his claim on the possession of a Petrine tra- 
 dition. In that case the bishop was St. Athanasius 
 and Julius acquitted him, and Athanasius preserved 
 
 ' Boma7i See, p. 176. - Aug. Epp. 181, 182. 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 191 
 
 the letter in which Julius asserts his claim, and is 
 responsible for handing it down to posterity among 
 the proofs of his innocence. Now in the case before us, 
 Leo had to do with an unworthy successor of Athanasius 
 in the same see, and he claimed the right to judge 
 him. He preferred to exercise his judgment through 
 the instrumentality and with the assistance of a General 
 Synod, but his duty of judgment was in his own mind 
 derived from his relationship to the Apostle Peter. It 
 was simply and absolutely his duty to stand in the 
 breach as the responsible person in the last resort, and 
 in doing so, if the Apostolic throne appeared with a fresh 
 jewel in its crown, it was not he, but circumstances that 
 put the jewel there. He certainly did not ' formulate ' 
 the Petrine ideas in any sense of innovation. But the 
 Petrine prerogative was of that nature that, while always 
 clearly before the minds of the Popes, its rights were 
 capable of consolidation, as circumstances called for 
 their appropriate exercise. As a matter of fact, however, 
 what we owe to St. Leo in this respect is mostly the 
 clear statements of a great theologian, and the provi- 
 dential preservation of a considerable literature in which 
 Emperors, Empresses and Archbishops figure, and all 
 this in connection with the mystery of the holy Incar- 
 nation. It has been well said : ' That Leo, alike in his 
 high official position, and in his force of character and 
 religious earnestness, was the man to stand forward 
 amid the Eutychian peril, will be admitted by all who 
 believe in the One Christ as perfect God and perfect 
 Man, with gratitude due to him for that firm theological 
 equipoise whereby, while the error for the time is being 
 exposed, no advantage is given to its Nestorian opposite.'^ 
 
 ' Bonian See, p. 176. 
 
192 THE KOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 It was under the influence, as we may rightly sup- 
 pose, of this great Pontiff, that the Emperor Yalentinian 
 now wrote his own letter to Theodosius. His letter was 
 shorter than that of his mother, but to the same effect. 
 After mentioning his visit to Eome for the Feast of St. 
 Peter's Chair — he had not yet lost the effects of his 
 training and fallen into the excesses which disfigured 
 his after life^ie speaks of the duty incumbent on them 
 as Emperors to defend the faith received from their an- 
 cestors and to preserve the veneration due to the blessed 
 Apostle Peter. He then says that ' the most blessed 
 bishop of the city of the Komans, to whom antiquity 
 yielded the episcopal rule over all, ought to have 
 opportunity and facility for judging concerning the 
 faith and concerning bishops. For this reason, in 
 accordance with the custom of the Councils ' (in allu- 
 sion probably to the cases of Athanasius and Chryso- 
 stom, and to the canon of Sardica), ' the Bishop of 
 Constantinople [Flavian] formally appealed to him.' 
 At Leo's request, therefore, Valentinian says he prefers 
 his petition to Theodosius ' that the aforesaid bishop, 
 the rest of the bishops from the whole world having- 
 been assembled within Italy, and the whole previous 
 judgment [of Dioscorus] having been set aside, may 
 carefully investigate the case in hand afresh, and 
 promulgate the sentence which the faith and the idea 
 (or doctrine) of true Godhead {ratio verce Divinitatis) 
 demands, &c.' {Leon. Ep. 55). 
 
 It required no development of Petrine ideas to sug- 
 gest this procedure. It was in strict accordance with 
 the wish of the Archbishop of Constantinople. Flavian 
 had both appealed to the Koman Synod, and expressed 
 a desire that another General Council should be as- 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 193 
 
 sembled to counteract the effects of the Pseudo- Synod at 
 Ephesus. The plan commended itself to Leo, and thus, 
 after repudiating Flavian's deposition, he wished for a 
 General Council to assemble in Italy. The case of other 
 bishops had to be considered, and Leo had to draw the Epi- 
 scopate round himself. It was a bold request, for it meant 
 the removal of the investigation from the influences of the 
 Court of Constantinople. Now it would have been the 
 merest folly to write thus if there had been no common 
 agreement as to the prerogative of the See of Peter in a 
 matter of this kind. The answer could and must have 
 been given straight and at once, that the Church knew of 
 no such prerogatives as were assumed by Leo, and recog- 
 nised by the Emperor Yalentinian, by the Empresses Galla 
 Placidia and Eudoxia, by the martyred Archbishop of 
 Constantinople, by the champion of orthodoxy, the Bishop 
 of Dorylseum, and by the ablest bishop of the day, 
 Theodoret of Cyrus (or Cyrrhos), and by the saintly and 
 orthodox Empress Pulcheria in the East. This answer 
 was not given, and the whole course of the proceedings 
 for the next two years shows that it was the one answer 
 that could not be given by orthodox Christians. 
 
 Galla Placidia wrote also to the Empress Pulcheria 
 in the same strain as to Theodosius, entreating her to 
 take care that all that was done in that ' tumultuous and 
 miserable ' Synod at Ephesus should be repudiated, and 
 that the whole cause should be remitted to the ' Apostolic 
 throne in which the most blessed of the Apostles, Peter, 
 who received the keys of Heaven, first adorned the high 
 priesthood,' adding that ' we ought to give the precedency 
 in all things to the eternal city.' Apparently, her 
 thought was that the eternal city had a right to precedency 
 in the civil order, because, as she says, it has filled the 
 
 o 
 
194 THE KOBBER-SYNOD 
 
 world and the like, and in the ecclesiastical order, 
 because it is the See of Peter ; and so in * all things ' it 
 deserves the pre-eminence. 
 
 Now we must either suppose that St. Leo had 
 suddenly converted the Emperor and these two Em- 
 presses to a new view of the Papacy, and that un- 
 toward circumstances had likewise converted the Arch- 
 bishop of Constantinople and the orthodox Bishop of 
 Dorylaeum to the same view, or, if this seem unlikely, 
 we can only see in their writings a witness to a common 
 consciousness that the See of Peter was, in the last resort, 
 the proper judge in matters of faith and in regard to the 
 deposition of bishops, and that St. Leo was not starting 
 a new ' school of thought ' in the Church, but simply 
 working on an accepted belief, in his defence of the faith. 
 That he did assume such a belief as the common inherit- 
 ance of Christendom is certain, as has been already 
 shown, and as is, if possible, still more conspicuous in the 
 letters which he wrote to Constantinople, under the very 
 eye of the Emperor Theodosius. His letter to the clergy 
 and laity there contains a magnificent exposition of the 
 dogma of the Incarnation, shorter far than the letter to 
 Flavian, but a perfect summary of the Church's teaching 
 against Nestor ius on the one hand and Eutyches on the 
 other. He bids them work on the Emperor ' that he 
 may deign {dignetur) to grant our petition, by which we 
 have demanded that a plenary Synod be called.' But 
 later on he wrote to the Archimandrites Martin and 
 Faustus, and spoke of his letters having been sent to 
 Constantinople, ' not only with the authority of the Holy 
 See, but also with the unanimous consent of the holy 
 Synod, which had met in great numbers,' ^ letters which 
 
 * ' Quee ad nos frequens convenerat.' St. Leo calls the letters scripta 
 
A COUNCIL URGED 195 
 
 being thus sent showed ' what care we have for the whole 
 Church.' ' Meanwhile let your love take care that what 
 we preach contrary to the impious sense [of Eutyches] 
 and in accordance with evangelic doctrine, may be known 
 to all the children of the Church. For although we 
 wrote fully what had always been and was the opinion 
 of Catholics, still we have now added no little exhorta- 
 tion to confirm the minds of all. For I am mindful that 
 I preside over the Church in his name whose confession 
 was praised by the Lord Jesus Christ and whose faith 
 destroys all heresies, but specially the impiety of the 
 present error : and I understand that nothing else is 
 permitted to me than that I should spend all my efforts 
 on that cause in which the safety of the universal Church 
 is attacked.' 
 
 ' I preside over the Church in the name of him whose 
 confession was praised by the Lord Jesus Christ ' — such 
 were the plain terms in which the Saint described his 
 responsibilities in writing to orthodox Eastern Archiman- 
 drites. 
 
 But what of the Emperor Theodosius ? It is most 
 unfortunate that the correspondence which ensued 
 between Leo and Theodosius has been lost. The 
 Emperor speaks of several letters which had passed 
 between them, none of which are extant. The question 
 of Flavian's deposition necessarily fell through in conse- 
 quence of his death, owing to the fearful scenes at the 
 Synod in Ephesus ; and the correspondence appears to 
 have turned on the question as to whether there was any 
 
 nostra, sent by the authority of the Holy See, and with the unanimous 
 consent of the Synod : the authority was his, the consent was the 
 Synod's. The letters were Leo's own letters. This is shown by the 
 next paragraph in this letter. 
 
 o 2 
 
196 THE ROBBER-SYNOD 
 
 ground for a revision of the Synod's utterances as to the 
 faith. Leo wrote in December to the Emperor pointing 
 out that they in the West held to the Nicene faith, evi- 
 dently endeavouring to open his eyes as to the delusion 
 into which he had been led. But the Emperor in his 
 reply to Valentinian assumes that the facts of the case 
 were not well known when he and the Empresses wrote 
 at the instance of Leo, to his correspondence with whom 
 he refers them. He in no way denies the jurisdiction of 
 the See of Peter, but he managed to elude its exercise in 
 this instance. We cannot, indeed, argue much from his 
 silence, since we do not possess the correspondence to 
 which he alludes ; but certainly it would have been 
 natural to have given some hint to Valentinian, in his 
 answer to him, that his views as to the authority of the 
 throne of Peter were exaggerated if Theodosius really 
 thought they were. But there is not the most distant 
 approach to such a hint, not a word about the honour 
 due to the Byzantine capital, but mere assertions that if 
 Valentinian had known the whole facts of the case, he 
 would recognise that their adhesion to the Nicene faith 
 remained intact. The position was certainly one of 
 extreme difficulty for Leo. The Emperor appeared to be 
 completely in the hands of the Eutychian party. And 
 it was impossible in those days for the Pope to exercise 
 his right of calling a General Council without the concur- 
 rence of the Emperor, who could forbid his subjects 
 passing from city to city, and whose financial aid was 
 absolutely necessary. But, as before in the history of 
 the Church, so now, man's necessity proved to be God's 
 opportunity. Theodosius was removed from the scene. 
 He died from a stumble of his horse. 
 
Part III 
 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Chapter I. The Council of Chalcedon Convoked, p. 199 
 „ II. The Deposition of Dioscorus : 
 
 1. Placed on Trial, p. 221 
 
 2. The Trial, p. 229 
 
 3. His Contumacy, p. 240 
 
 4. The Sentence, p. 244 
 
 „ III. The Need of a Definition, p. 257 
 
 „ IV. The Adhesion to Leo's Tome, p. 270 
 
 ,, V. The Definition itself, p. 280 
 
 „ VI. The Eestoration of Theodoret, p. 297 
 
 „ VII. Antioch's Dependence on Eome, p. 312 
 
 „ VIII. Previous Encroachments of ' New Kome,' p. 318 
 
 „ IX. The Byzantine Plot ; or the 28th Canon, p. 386 
 
 „ X. Eastern Becoqnition of Papal Supremacy, p. 350 
 
 NOTES 
 
 On Theodoret's Use of rjyefiovCa, p. 219 
 
 On Dioscorus being put on Trial, p. 262 
 
 On the Meaning of eKOeai?, p. 292 
 
 On the Restoration of Theodoret, p. 308 
 
 On Maximus of Antioch, p. 316 
 
 On Dr. Bright's Accusation against the Legates, p. 347 
 
 Appendix I. Dr. Bright and the Letter of the Synod to Leo, p. 367 
 „ II. The Tome irreformable from the first, p, 378 
 „ III. The Papal Legates' version of the 6th Nicene Cauou, p. 394 
 
CHAPTEE I 
 
 THE COUNCIL OF CHALCBDON CONVOKED 
 
 It has been said that before the accident by which he 
 met his death, Theodosius had seen his errors.^ He had 
 banished his intriguing chamberlain Chrysaphius, and 
 recalled Pulcheria. What is certain is that he selected 
 her for his heiress. 
 
 This extraordinary woman, whose life was one of 
 prayer and fasting in the midst of Imperial cares ; who 
 rose night by night to sing the Psalms with some of her 
 equally devout family ; who had made a vow of perpetual 
 virginity ; and who had been the recipient of one of 
 Cyril's most magnificent letters on the subject of the In- 
 carnation, now became a Deborah in the crisis that had 
 arisen. The Council of Chalcedon saluted her as a new 
 Helena. St. Cyril says that in her ' every kind of virtue 
 and every adornment pleasing in the e3^es of the Divine 
 Majesty shone with wonderful splendour.' ^ No woman, 
 however, had as yet held the reins of empire ; and ac- 
 cordingly she ofiered her hand and throne to the most 
 distinguished general of the day, on condition that he 
 should respect her vow. Marcian, for that was his name, 
 was a worthy husband to St. Pulcheria, renowned as 
 well for his piety as for his military skill and sense of 
 
 ' See last chapter. 
 
 ■^ Cyr. Alex, de Fide, ad Pulch. et Sorores Reginas. 
 
200 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 justice.^ His accession to the throne was welcomed alike 
 by the senate, the army, and the people at large. 
 
 Everything was now changed. The governing motive 
 was no longer primarily political but religious. It is not 
 too much to say that Harnack's appreciation of the 
 situation ignores the main facts. Pulcheria's accession 
 was the new factor, and the determining feature of the 
 conflict as it entered upon its second phase was the 
 passionate attachment of the new Empress to the orthodox 
 faith. Her entreaties to Theodosius that he would 
 accede to the Pope's request for a fresh General Council 
 to be called in Italy had failed. But in her new position 
 her first care, as also that of her husband, was to carry 
 out the earnest wishes, as they understood them, of the 
 Sovereign Pontiff.^ 
 
 Their very advent to the throne had made a Coun- 
 cil unnecessary. This, however, they did not see ; and 
 Marcian accordingly wrote to Leo, as ' bishop and ruler 
 of the divine faith, '^ acquainting him with the fact of 
 his accession, asking for his prayers and saying that he 
 hoped that by the Synod assembled with Leo's authori- 
 sation ^ peace would be effected among all the bishops. 
 
 ' TO Trphs &ehv eiia-e^Tjs, ra irpbs TroAtTeuo^eVoi/s S'lKaios (Evagrius, H. E. 
 II. i.). 
 
 ^ Of course, political quiet was the aim of the new Emperor ; but 
 his religious instincts grasped the fact that the peace of the State was 
 best attained through unity in the faith, and he believed Leo's to be the 
 true faith. 
 
 ^ tV o'V ayiw(rvv7]v ciriiTKOirevovcrau Kal &pxov<Tav ttjs Oeias ir'KTTews — 
 words which Dr. Bright understands to mean that ' as chief Christian 
 bishop, he was that faith's foremost guardian ' {Roman See, p. 179). 
 The Latin, which is probably from Marcian's own pen, is ' principatum 
 in episcopatu divinae fidei possidentem.' Principatus on Marcian's lips 
 would imply sovereignty, not, of course, over the faith, but over others 
 in regard to the faith. 
 
 * Sia TTJs (TuyKpoTTjdeicrrjs ravr-qs (rvv6Sov crov avQ^VTOvvros [Leon. Ep> 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 201 
 
 Some correspondence ensued, which is not extant, and 
 Leo sent legates to deal with the Emperor's proposal. 
 Marcian wrote again to Leo in November, and asked him 
 to signify his wish as to attendance at the Council, at 
 which all the bishops were to meet, and at which ' what- 
 ever conduces to the peace of the Christian religion 
 and to the Catholic faith shall be settled as your Holi- 
 ness in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons has 
 defined.' ^ The allusion is to Leo's letter to Flavian. 
 
 Pulcheria also wrote, and spoke of the Council in 
 which the bishops ' would decide with your authority,^ 
 as the faith and Christian piety demand, about the 
 Catholic confession and the bishops who were separated.' 
 In neither of these letters do their Imperial Majesties 
 imply that the doctrine contained in Leo's Tome was 
 an open question. They imply the contrary. Marcian 
 speaks of Leo having the ' rule ' in regard to the faith,^ 
 and of the bishops settling things in accordance with 
 Leo's decision ; and Pulcheria in the letter just quoted 
 speaks of ' the Apostolic confession of your letter ' and 
 rejoices that Anatolius, the new Bishop of Constantinople, 
 has signed it — treating it as a standard of faith. But 
 
 73). The last two words obviously refer to the gathering of the Council, 
 which was due, as Marcian considered, to Leo's origination. If it is re- 
 ferred to the establishment of peace, the inference as to the scope of 
 Papal authority would be stronger still. But the best scholars under- 
 stand it as referring to the Council. Dr. Bright understands it as 
 relating to the settlement of peace, by Leo's authority (Roman See, 
 p. 179). 
 
 ' SiCTuiroxre. - <rov avdevrovvros dpiffwaiv. 
 
 3 &pxov<rau ttjs iria-Tcws. Mansi remarks on the words 'as your 
 Holiness ordained ' &c. : ' Thus the Emperor acknowledged the de- 
 finitions of St. Leo, which obviously consisted of the Tome, and were 
 to be looked into by the Synod in such wise as that they were bound to 
 assent to them ' (Nat. Alex. ix. 521). 
 
202 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 there were bishops who had been led away at the 
 Latrocinium and (it was thought) needed to have the 
 faith set before them, and the lapsed but penitent 
 bishops needed some public restoration which would be 
 made at the Council with Leo's authority.^ The Empress 
 told St. Leo that the body of the martyred Flavian had 
 been brought back in great honour to Constantinople, 
 and that the bishops who had been sent into exile for 
 siding with him had returned to their sees. 
 
 Leo, however, now felt that there was no need to 
 hurry on the Council. It might well wait. The deposi- 
 tion of Flavian was no longer in question, and the dis- 
 honour done had been repaired by the solemn transference 
 of his body to Constantinople ; the bishops driven out 
 by Dioscorus had returned by Imperial order ; and the 
 Tome had been practically accepted. Matters, there- 
 fore, could be now readjusted without the excitement of 
 a General Council ; and, indeed, a Council could not be 
 materially oecumenical by reason of the alarming state 
 of things at this moment in Italy. Attila was on the war- 
 path, and bishops could not move about. The West was, 
 indeed, always sufficiently represented at a Council by 
 the Papal legates, but the actual presence of Western 
 bishops was impossible. On the whole, therefore, he dis- 
 couraged the immediate convention of a General Synod. 
 But Marcian had gone too far to recall the step, unless, 
 of course, Leo actually refused to send legates, in which 
 case it would have been merely an Eastern Council. 
 Leo, however, knowing that Marcian had originated the 
 
 ' aov avdevTovuTos 6pi(To)(nu. Piilcheria, ^ace Dr. Bright {Roman See, 
 p. 179), is speaking here of what was to take place ' in the Council.' 
 The sentence begins KaKela^ y^uoixevris avuohov and ends with the words 
 just quoted, to which the subject is 'all the bishops.' 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 203 
 
 idea of a Council purely from a desire to carry out his 
 strongly expressed and reiterated wish, and knowing 
 that matters were safe in the hands of Marcian and 
 Pulcheria so far as the external ordering of affairs was 
 concerned, decided to send his legates. It was of no im- 
 portance now, that it should be held in Italy, as Leo had 
 originally desired, for the Court influence was no longer 
 opposed to the true faith, and Pulcheria had expressly 
 promised that nothing should be decided without the 
 authority of Leo.* Marcian, therefore, had his way : a 
 fact which has no bearing on the question of Papal 
 rights ; for any such question would only have emerged 
 if Leo had refused to have anything to do with the con- 
 vocation of a General Synod. But their Imperial 
 Majesties and the Sovereign Pontiff were now working in 
 concert, and the one desire of their Majesties was that 
 the authority of the Pontiff should have full sway both 
 in the matter of faith and in the discipline to be observed 
 in regard to the bishops who had failed in their duty at 
 the Latrocinium. 
 
 Everything, therefore, now promised well, mainly 
 owing to the influence of the saintly woman who, in God's 
 providence, was now at the helm. Political issues were 
 subordinated to religion ; and the influence of the great 
 Pontiff was destined to hold its proper place in the fourth 
 (Ecumenical Council of the Church. 
 
 But before entering the church at Chalcedon in which 
 the Council was held, to listen to the discussions, it will 
 be well for us to consider the circumstances under which 
 two of the bishops proceeded to take their seats, viz. (1) 
 the new Archbishop of Constantinople and (2) the cele- 
 brated historian, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. 
 
204 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 1. Upon the death of the martyr St. Flavian, the 
 clergy and people of Constantinople had elected to the 
 vacant see an Alexandrian priest who had acted as 
 secretary to Dioscorus and was in high favour with the 
 Emperor Theodosius. The latter had relied on him in 
 his ecclesiastical administration, and had probably pro- 
 cured his election as archbishop of his capital. Anatolius, 
 for such was his name, wrote to Leo announcing his 
 consecration. What else he said we do not know. It is 
 not correct to say that he ' simply announced his conse- 
 cration, without asking for any consent to it on Leo's 
 part,' ^ if by the latter words anything unusual is im- 
 plied. The purpose of announcing his consecration would 
 naturally be that of receiving Leo's consent. Anatolius 's 
 letter, as we have it, is confessedly a fragment : but 
 St. Leo's letter to the Emperor clearly implies that 
 Anatolius sent his notice for the sake of confirmation. 
 We do know, however, that he omitted a statement as to 
 his teaching ; he gave no account of his faith.^ Leo 
 accordingly waited some months before answering, and 
 then he wrote, not to Anatolius himself, but to the 
 Emperor Theodosius. Now it would hardly be possible 
 to give clearer indications of the relation of sovereignty 
 on the part of the See of St. Peter towards the See of 
 Constantinople than are afforded by this and some 
 succeeding letters. It must be remembered that Leo 
 was then writing to an Eastern Emperor who was 
 opposed to his condemnation of Eutyches ; he was 
 writing, too, about the bishop of that city which was the 
 very apple of the Imperial eye. We know from the 
 * Constitution ' of Valentinian in 445, which bore the name 
 of Theodosius, that the latter accepted in theory the 
 
 » Diet, of Chr. Biogr. art. ' Leo,' by C. Gore. ^ ^^^ 69-71. 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 205 
 
 sovereignty of the See of Peter over all the sees of 
 Christendom ; for although such ' Constitutions ' ordi- 
 narily ran in the joint names of the Emperors as a 
 matter of form, yet they would not on such a vital point 
 contain a doctrine, bearing on politics, which was not 
 accepted by both. It was a matter of course that they 
 agreed in what as a matter of course ran in their joint 
 names. But this sovereignty of the Apostolic See was 
 now expressed in a form most calculated to excite the 
 Emperor's indignation, and to jeopardise the whole 
 position, unless that sovereignty were beyond dispute. 
 A mere diplomatist would not have ventured on such a 
 course. But in truth the Huns, tumultuously crowding 
 into Italy and advancing towards Eome, were not more 
 dreadful in the eyes of Leo than the incursion of heretics 
 into that vineyard of the Lord with which the Eastern 
 bishops declared him to have been entrusted by the 
 Saviour of the world. ^ The time had come when that 
 energetic nature, which had hardly its peer in that half- 
 century, must exercise the authority of his position to 
 the full. The Divine Majesty of his Lord was at stake. 
 It was enough for Leo. He ' made full proof of his 
 ministry.' 
 
 Now there was good ground for suspicion as to Ana- 
 tolius's teaching. Indeed, his conduct after the Synod 
 showed that there was a taint of heresy about him, such 
 as Leo feared. Accordingly Leo wrote to the Emperor, 
 in July 450, and praised him for deciding to adhere to 
 the Nicene Creed. It was on this point that Theodosius 
 had been misled by the Eutychian party. They were, 
 as we have seen, for ever proclaiming their adherence to 
 the Nicene Creed, and made believe that they were con- 
 
 * Letter of the Eastern bishops to Leo after Chalcedon. 
 
206 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 tending for that Creed and for the Ephesine decree. So 
 the Pope gives the Emperor credit for sincerely believing 
 that he was acting in defence of the Nicene settlement ; 
 and on this ground he expresses his surprise that 
 Anatolius has not sent him an account of his faith. Con- 
 sequently he has deferred acknowledging him — ' not that 
 he refused his affection, but because he awaited some 
 manifestation of Catholic truth.' He says that he is not 
 exacting from him anything but what every Catholic 
 would do. He then refers to their predecessors' writings 
 as sufficient tests for those who preceded them, but as 
 insufficient for themselves under present circumstances. 
 Anatolius is to ' read carefully ' ' what the holy Fathers 
 have given as guard to the faith in the Incarnation,' 
 ' and he must understand that what Cyril wrote against 
 Nestorius is consonant with this.' Cyril's letter, says 
 the Pope, is a clear exposition of the Nicene definition, 
 and has been placed in the archives of the Apostolic See.^ 
 Anatolius is to read carefully the Acts of the Ephesine 
 Synod against Nestorius ; and he is ' not to disdain to 
 read also my letter, which he will find agrees in all 
 things with the Fathers.' St. Leo thus places his Tome 
 side by side with other standards of faith, using it as, 
 with them, a test of the bishop's orthodoxy.^ 
 
 ' ' Apostolicae Sedis scrinia susceperunt.' In other words, it was a 
 standard of faith, 
 
 - ' Let him not disdain ' is an expression of courtesy. It is strange 
 that Dr. Bright does not see this, and that he should ask the extraordinary 
 question : ' Can words be plainer as against the assertion that the Tome, 
 qua Leo's, was deemed infallible?' {Roma7i See, p. 181). This is 
 exactly what the words do show — viz. that the Tome was already used 
 as an infallible test of orthodoxy in regard to theEutychian controversy. 
 Notice that Leo gives Anatolius no alternative here— he must read 
 Cyril's letter and St. Leo's own letter. Dr. Bright misses the reason 
 why Cyril's letter was to be read — viz. because it had been accepted as a 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 207 
 
 But this is not all. St. Leo tells the Emperor that 
 Anatolius, having recognised that all this is demanded 
 and expected of him/ is to sign the confession of the 
 Common Faith, and make a declaration before all the 
 clergy and the whole people — a profession of faith which 
 is to be ' publicly notified (1) to the Apostolic See, and 
 (2) to all the Lord's priests [i.e. bishops] and Churches.' 
 Further, he is to send a written statement as soon as 
 possible, plainly (dihicide) declaring that if anyone 
 believes or asserts anything else concerning the Incar- 
 nation of the Word of God than what ' the profession of 
 all Catholics and my own ' declares, he will separate 
 such a one from his communion. And to expedite this 
 important matter, he says he is sending four legates, 
 whose business it will be ' to declare the exact faith 
 which we hold, the form of our faith [i.e. the Tome], so 
 that if the Bishop of Constantinople consents to the 
 same confession of faith, with his whole heart, we may 
 feel secure and rejoice in the peace of the Church. If, 
 however, there is any dissent from the purity of our 
 faith and the authority of the Fathers,' a Council must 
 be held in Italy, so that it may not be open to anyone 
 to talk about the Nicene Creed and yet be in opposition 
 to it.2 
 
 Now, had there been an idea that there was the 
 slightest dogmatic ground for denying the prerogative 
 thus claimed by Leo of dealing with the Archbishop of 
 Constantinople as a subject, and of imposing on him the 
 Eoman ' form of faith,' it is not possible to suppose that 
 
 standard of faith. Leo's letter was such previous to any conciliar 
 acceptance : it was sucli qua Leo's. 
 
 ' ' Expeti desiderarique ' — ' desiderari ' expressing Leo's feeling that 
 something of the kind ought to have been done sooner. 
 
 2 Ep. 69. 
 
208 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 either Theodosius or Anatolius would not have resented 
 this exercise of jurisdiction. It would be impossible to 
 imagine a more extreme case. There is every circum- 
 stance that could emphasise the impossibility of such a 
 tremendous assumption (if if were a gratuitous assump- 
 tion) passing muster without a challenge. The arch- 
 bishop in question was not naturally disposed to submit 
 quietly to anything that could be called a usurpation for 
 the sake of uniting against a common foe, for he had a 
 tender spot in his heart for the party of Eutyches ; 
 neither was he the occupant of a see which had no 
 ambition or no political friends, for it was the Imperial 
 see, and was soon about to attempt a rise in the scale 
 of patriarchal honour over Alexandria and Antioch. 
 Here, too, was an Emperor not favourable to Leo and 
 the orthodox party, but under the influence of Dioscorus 
 and his friends. Such were the circumstances, and 
 they simply preclude the idea that there was not ample 
 recognition of the headship of the See of St Peter on 
 which St. Leo could work ; for Leo was neither a dullard 
 nor void of care for the faith. He lived for the faith, 
 and he knew something of men. 
 
 To Pulcheria Leo wrote to exactly the same eft'ect. 
 Anatolius must consent to the letter of Cyril and to the 
 Tome, and must without delay acknowledge the ' unskilful 
 folly ' displayed by the definition of the Bobber- Synod. 
 And the reason he gives is the same as Leo XIII. would 
 give under similar circumstances, viz. ' because both my 
 confession of faith and that of the holy Fathers con- 
 cerning the Incarnation of the Lord is in all respects 
 concordant and one.' ^ 
 
 1 Ep. 70. Some of the best MSS. make Leo say that Anatolius is to 
 acquiesce in Cyril's letter 'vel epistolae mese, &c.' There can, however, 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 209 
 
 At the same time he wrote to the Archimandrites of 
 Constantinople (a still stronger step in some respects), 
 and complained of Anatolius having given no sign, as 
 if there had been no scandals connected with Constan- 
 tinople. 
 
 Leo seems to have had no fear that he was placing 
 the cause nearest to his heart, the maintenance of the 
 ' peerless sacrament of the faith,' in any jeopardy. If 
 ever there was a case in which the authority of the 
 Apostolic See needed to come forward, it was here, and 
 if ever there was one case more than another in which 
 that authority was used with holy boldness and single- 
 ness of aim, it was this. The result was everything 
 that could be wished, owing (we know not how far) to 
 the accident of Theodosius's death, which occurred a week 
 or two after Leo had thus written. The legates appear 
 to have acted promptly, and in November the Empress 
 Pulcheria was able to announce to Leo that ' Anatolius 
 embraces the apostolical confession of your letter,' and 
 has without delay signed the dogmatic epistle to Flavian, 
 which she calls ' the letter of the Catholic faith.' 
 
 be no doubt that if ' vel ' is the true reading, it = ' and.' The previous 
 letter, just quoted, shows this. And it is quite certain that ' vel ' = 
 • and ' in Ep. 67, where Leo tells the Bishop of Aries that the Tome 
 and (' vel ') Cyril's letter are to be made known to all. And again in Ej). 
 131 ' vel ' is used for ' and.' Dr. Bright here again thinks this would 
 dispose of the idea that the Tome was infallible qua Leo's. He says 
 {Roman See, p. 180) : ' Cyril's letter and the Tome are put side by side.' 
 Exactly : the one was a standard of faith because of its conciliar 
 acceptance ; the other, apart from such acceptance. That is to say, 
 Cyril's letter had already been erected into a standard of faith ; the 
 Tome, in taking rank with it, was proclaiming itself also a test of 
 orthodoxy for the Archbishop of Constantinople. This would hold good 
 even if Ballerini's remark about ' vel ' were not true. But, I repeat, the 
 previous letter just quoted {Ei^. 67) is decisive. 
 
 P 
 
210 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Anatolius's letters to Leo are unfortunately lost.^ 
 Leo answered him and congratulated him, and, after 
 giving directions about the reception of such bishops as 
 had given way at the Latrocinium, he says, * the favour 
 of communion with us is to be neither harshly denied 
 nor rashly bestowed.^ He says that he had received 
 Eusebius into communion, and therefore requests Ana- 
 tolius to have Eusebius's Church taken care of, and 
 desires that all should know that Anatolius has been 
 received into communion with Eome, ' that those who 
 serve our God may rejoice that your peace has been con- 
 cluded ivith the Apostolic See' He further tells the 
 Emperor that he has directed the legates to co-operate 
 with Anatolius,^ and in another letter he tells Anatolius 
 that he joins him with them in the execution of his 
 decree,^ and gives his directions about the lapsed 
 bishops in general and the leaders in particular. As 
 regards the latter, if they repent he ' reserves ' their 
 case ' for the maturer counsels of the Apostolic See,' ^ 
 and bids Anatolius ' to strive to execute such things as 
 befit the Church of God ' in union with his own legates. 
 At the same time, as if, in God's providence, history 
 was to settle for those who search it the lines of Papal 
 jurisdiction, St. Leo exercised the same authority over 
 
 • There is, however, a valuable fragment of the minutes of the 
 Council held at Constantinople, in which Anatolius publicly pronounced 
 his adhesion to Leo's Tome, which was read through. This fragment is 
 contained in a Life of Abundius, the legate sent to Constantinople for the 
 purpose. He speaks of Leo ' who sent us from Eome to teach {ad 
 insinuand'um) the Catholic faith to all ' Cf. Ball. Leon. Ep. i. 1487, 
 or Mansi, vii. 775-778. 
 
 2 Ep. 80. ' Ep. 83. 
 
 ' ' Executionem nostr£e dispositionis. Ep. 85. {Cf. the UBeoidispositio 
 for an imperial edict in the same series of letters, viz. E2}. 91.) 
 
 » Ep. 86. 2. 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 211 
 
 the members of the archdiocese of Constantinople that 
 Zozimus did over Africa. Two Constantinopolitan 
 priests had repaired to Kome to clear themselves of sus- 
 picion as to heresy, and Leo sent them back, saying that 
 
 * at great cost they had opened their hearts to [literally 
 i7i] the Apostolic See, and shown that they receive 
 nothing save what we, by the teaching of the Holy 
 Spirit, have both learned and teach ; ' and he exhorts 
 Anatolius to assist them, as ' being adorned with the 
 favour of Apostolical communion,' i.e. communion with 
 the Apostolic See.^ 
 
 It is difficult to imagine a more perfect anticipation 
 of Catholic ecclesiastical life in the nineteenth century. 
 And so far there is not a solitary protest recorded, not a 
 distant idea that St. Leo was doing more than exercising 
 his proper prerogative in a natural way, and fulfilling 
 the responsibilities of his sacred and divinely instituted 
 office. 
 
 A very important step was now taken by the new 
 archbishop. For the second time he called together his 
 
 * home-synod,' ^ and the bishops not merely themselves 
 signed the Tome or letter to Flavian, but sent it to the 
 absent metropolitans. 
 
 Abundius, the Papal legate, thereupon returned from 
 Constantinople, and obtained, in accordance with the 
 request of Leo, the subscription of the metropolitan of 
 Milan and his Synod to the Pope's dogmatic epistle. 
 The same had already been obtained from the provinces 
 of Gaul. 
 
 So that this letter to Flavian, which had been sup- 
 
 ' Ep. 87. 
 
 2 Consisting of the bishops sojourning at and living around Con- 
 stantinople. 
 
 p 2 
 
^12 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 pressed at the Robber-Council had now received the 
 signatures of well-nigh the whole Christian world. It 
 was issued as an ex cathedra pronouncement on the 
 part of the Pope ; it had now been received as the 
 dogmatic expression of Christian belief at Constantinople, 
 at Antioch,' and in the entire West. No bishop who 
 had signed it could henceforth treat its teaching as an 
 open question ; ^ it only remained to issue a definition in 
 accordance with it, and to induce the Egyptians to with- 
 draw their complicity with Dioscorus and his teaching, 
 and to arrange the return of the lapsed but penitent 
 bishops. St. Leo had already laid down the conditions 
 of their return, but had made an exception in the case of 
 the ringleaders at Ephesus. This, however, he also 
 eventually left to the discretion of the Council on appli- 
 cation from Pulcheria.^ 
 
 2. Such were the circumstances under which Ana- 
 tolius took his seat. But how did matters stand with 
 Theodoret ? He had been condemned by Dioscorus at 
 the Eobber- Synod. Thereupon he appealed to Rome. 
 He wrote to Leo,"* and said ' If Paul, the herald of the 
 truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, betook himself 
 (lit. ran) to the great Peter, so that from him he might 
 convey to those in Antioch who doubted about the proper 
 observance of the law the solution of their difficulty, 
 much more do we in our littleness fly to your Apostolic 
 throne, that from you we may get healing for the 
 wounds of the Church. For on all accounts the primacy 
 fitly belongs to you. For your throne is adorned with 
 many advantages.' He then enumerates the glories of 
 the Apostolic throne. Its seat, the city of Rome, has a 
 
 • Leon. Ep. 88. ^ c/. Appendix on the Tome, p. 378. 
 
 3 El). 85. * Theodor. Ep. 113. Leon. Ep. 52. 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 213 
 
 harvest of blessings as compared with others. They 
 indeed may have size and beauty and a multitude of in- 
 habitants, or none of these, but the splendour of certain 
 spiritual graces. But Eome has both. * The giver of good 
 things has bestowed on yours a vast crop of blessings. 
 For it is the greatest of all cities and the most splendid, 
 presiding over the world, ^ and is swollen with inhabi- 
 tants, and in addition to all this it has produced a still 
 prevailing sovereignty - and has given its own name to 
 its subjects. But [unlike other cities which have only 
 one or the other of the advantages mentioned] the faith 
 adorns it above all others,^ and of this the divine Apostle 
 is an unimpeachable witness when he cried aloud ' Your 
 faith is announced in the whole world ; ' but if immedi- 
 ately after receiving the seeds of the saving doctrine it 
 was laden with such wonderful fruits, what terms suffice 
 to do justice to the religion which prevails within it 
 now? It has, moreover, the tombs of the common 
 fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul, 
 illuminating the souls of the faithful. Now, this thrice 
 blessed and divine pair arose indeed in the East and 
 shed their rays on every side, but gladly came to the 
 end of their days in the West, and thence they illuminate 
 the whole world. These [Apostles] have rendered your 
 throne most illustrious. This is the culminating point 
 of your privileges. Further their God has even now 
 shed light on their throne, by placing in it your Holiness 
 [who is] shedding forth the rays of orthodoxy.' 
 
 ' T7JS otKouMeVrjs irpo/coflTj/ue'i/Tj : for the use of the genitive, cf. irpo- 
 Kad7}fi4vr] rf/s dLyairris (Ign.). 
 
 2 ' Sovereignty ' : thus translated by Dr. Bright {Roman See, p. 191, 
 note). The Greek is rjyefjLouiav. 
 
 ' 5ia(pep6uTa}s, in a distinct and special way. Cf. Liddell and Scott, s.v. 
 
214 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 It will be seen from the above quotations that 
 Theodoret taught that St. Peter was treated as a court 
 of appeal by St. Paul himself in certain matters ; that 
 the whole world was illumined with the doctrine of St. 
 Peter and St. Paul ; that the see of Eome was the see 
 of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, but (as the 
 opening sentence shows) of St. Peter in a peculiar sense. 
 Moreover, Theodoret hands on a truth which had found 
 expression in St. Cyprian and other Fathers, viz. that 
 the praise accorded by St. Paul to the Church at Eome 
 in the opening of his Epistle to the Eomans described a 
 unique and abiding fact,^ and, further, that it was not 
 the Imperial position of the city of Eome that gave to 
 the See its predominant character, but its being the see 
 of the two Apostles, one of whom, however, was so sub- 
 ordinate to the other that he conveyed the necessary 
 teaching to the Christians at Antioch/?'om the other ^ i.e. 
 from Peter. 
 
 Theodoret then proceeds to express his agreement 
 with the Tome of Leo, showing clearly in a single sentence 
 that he repudiated both Nestor ian and Eutychian heresy, 
 and says that he joyfully recognises ' the grace of the 
 Holy Spirit speaking through ' Leo. He then describes 
 his own condemnation by Dioscorus, adding, * But I 
 await the sentence of your Apostolic throne.' He 
 desires to know from Leo whether he is to acquiesce in 
 this unjust deposition or not. ' For I await ' (he repeats) 
 ' your sentence, and if you should command me to abide 
 by the adverse decision, I abide by it, and will hence- 
 forth trouble no man, but wait for the just judgment 
 of our God and Saviour.' He had said also, ' I beseech 
 and entreat your Holiness that your upright and just 
 
 ' Cf. Cyprian, Epi?. 30, 59, 60 (Hartel). 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 215 
 
 tribunal would assist me, who am appealing to it/ and 
 would bid me come to you and show that my teaching 
 treads in the footsteps of the Apostles ' (c. 5).^ 
 
 Theodoret wrote also to Eenatus, the priest of the 
 Eoman Church who had been sent as legate to Ephesus, 
 but was now dead. To him he said : ' Concerning this 
 case, I beseech your Holiness that you would persuade 
 the most holy and blessed archbishop to use his Apo- 
 stolic authority, and bid me fly to your Council,' i.e. the 
 Council which the Pope used in the determing-tion of 
 greater causes, to which Flavian also appealed. 
 
 Its authority was derived from the authority of the 
 Holy See, and that it was the authority of the Holy See 
 which Theodoret was invoking is certain, both from the 
 expression ' his Apostolic authority,' and from the words 
 that follow. He says that he flies to that Council, ' for 
 that most holy See has the sovereignty over the Churches 
 which are in the whole world on many accounts ; and 
 before all these, in that it has remained free from the 
 stain of heresy and none has ever sat in it with thoughts 
 contrary [to the faith] ; it has kept the Apostolic grace 
 whole and uncorrupt.' He then expresses his readiness 
 to acquiesce in its judgment, whatever it may be.^ It is 
 clear from this that it was not the judgment of the Synod 
 
 ' eiriKaXovfi^vcf}, the technical term for an appeal. 
 
 2 Ep. 113. 
 
 * Ixei yap 6 travayios QpSvos iKelvos rSiv Kara r^v oiKovitievrit/ iKK\T)(nwv 
 t)]v ^yijxoviav Sio ivoWa. k. t. A. {Ep. 116). 'Hy^ixovia is the word used in 
 Ep. 92 for the sovereignty of the Imperial city over the world in the 
 civil order. It may be noticed that the paramount reason for exalting 
 the See of Rome is, with Theodoret, that it has never erred from the 
 faith, but has kept ' the Apostolic grace whole and uncorrupt.' The 
 peculiar maintenance of the faith was due to a special grace. Apostolic 
 grace is not the grace of the Episcopate simply, but of the See of the 
 Apostles Peter and Paul, as his previous letter shows, and particularly 
 
216 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 at Rome in itself that he sought, but the judgment of the 
 Sovereign Pontiff, expressed, as it was wont to be, in 
 Synod. The Synod was the apparatus, the machinery, 
 the setting of the Papal judgment. The bishops of this 
 Synod could not be considered infallible as compared 
 with other Synods, except by reason of their relation- 
 ship to the Holy See. It was the infallibility of that 
 see on which he distinctly placed reliance. It never had 
 gone wrong ; its faith had been something special as 
 compargd with that of all other sees from the days when 
 St. Paul spoke of it until now. The inference is that it 
 will not go ivrong now. Theodoret salutes its decision 
 on the matter of faith as the teaching of the Holy Ghost — 
 ' the Holy Spirit speaking through you ' are his words. 
 
 At the same time he wrote to the ' Patrician ' 
 Anatolius to induce him to persuade the Emperor to allow 
 him (since a bishop could not move without Imperial 
 leave and sometimes the assistance of the Imperial 
 purse) *to go to the West and be judged by those 
 bishops most beloved of God,' i.e, the bishops of the 
 Roman Synod. Now Theodoret was not simpleton 
 enough to ask the Emperor's leave for anything that 
 contravened the laws of the Church as understood in the 
 East ; and yet he did ask Anatolius to get him leave to 
 have his case tried at Rome. From this we may justly 
 conclude that the transference of the case of a Greek 
 bishop to Rome was not considered to be in contra- 
 vention of the Church's laws. It was not here the case 
 of anything claimed by the Pope, but a glimpse of how 
 Greek bishops understood the matter. These Western 
 
 of the See of Peter, as the opening of the same letter proves. As 
 Paul repaired to Peter, so Theodoret repairs to the Apostolic throne, i.e. 
 the See of Peter. 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 217 
 
 bishops ' most beloved of God ' could possess no rights 
 over an Eastern bishop, except as being the Council of 
 the sovereign ruler of the Church, as Theodoret called 
 the Koman Pontiff.^ But as the custom was ever to 
 exercise the Pontifical authority by means of a Council 
 it was all one to appeal to the Episcopal Synod at Kome 
 or to the Bishop of Kome himself. Theodoret was 
 in distress, and disposed to lean on any arm that was 
 likely to support him. This may be freely granted and 
 may be thought to discount somewhat his expressions of 
 loyalty to Rome. In fact no one ever does appeal to any 
 authority except when in some distress. But it must be 
 remembered that he had to save his position with others, 
 and that he was both an historian and (in spite of the 
 bad part he took for a time against Cyril) a theologian 
 of no mean order. Men in his circumstances do not 
 appeal to a court that nobody recognises, nor could there 
 be any reason for emphasising the doctrine concerning 
 the relation of Peter to the See of Rome in making his 
 appeal, if it was not a dogma generally accepted. He 
 was a Greek bishop and belonged to the Antiochene 
 jurisdiction. His evidence, therefore, must be allowed 
 to take a conspicuous place in the great body of proof 
 which we have seen to be accumulating, as our narrative 
 proceeds, to the effect that Rome as the See of Peter 
 held the sovereignty of the whole Church in its hands, 
 however imperfectly at particular times and by particular 
 persons the measure of its jurisdiction might be understood. 
 The Vatican teaching was there in substance ; indeed it 
 would be difficult to express in clearer terms, using the 
 language of that age, the teaching of the Vatican Council 
 concerning the relationship of the Holy See to the rest 
 
 ' Ep. 116. Cf. Ballerini, Ohs. in Diss. x. Quesnelli, § 3. 
 
218 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 of the Church than has been done by Theodoret. Accord- 
 ing to him (as we have now seen) that see was ' the all- 
 holy throne ' ; it was ' the Apostolic Throne ' ; it was the 
 See of St. Peter and St. Paul ; it ' held the sovereignty 
 over the Churches throughout the world ' ; and it was the 
 one pure, true channel of the Church's faith. 
 
 It seems that the writings which Theodoret promised 
 to send to Leo for inspection and judgment did not 
 reach Kome until after the legates had left for the East ; 
 but on receiving them Leo at once passed sentence in 
 Theodoret's favour. He was worthy to be restored to his 
 see, which, as a matter of course, it would rest with the 
 Council to effect.^ Both St. Leo and the Commissioners 
 speak of the Papal ' judgment.' ^ So that there can be no 
 doubt that the Sovereign Pontiff passed actual sentence 
 on Theodoret's case as that of a formal appeal on his 
 part. We may assume that there was a careful exami- 
 nation of the case at Rome, considering the caution 
 invariably exercised by this great Pontiff in admitting 
 anyone to communion who had been suspected of 
 heresy. And Theodoret had exhibited sympathy with 
 Nestorius and opposed Cyril, though he had detached 
 himself from all connivance with heresy when the recon- 
 ciliation took place between St. Cyril and John of 
 Antioch. It is therefore in the highest degree im- 
 probable that St. Leo would pass judgment without 
 careful and, presumably, conciliar examination of his 
 present teaching. At the same time there was a certain 
 incompleteness about the affair, seeing that Theodoret 
 had not appeared at Rome in person, owing to his 
 having been cited to Nicsea (afterwards to Chalcedon) ; 
 and he had not definitely anathematised Nestorius, 
 
 » Leon. Ep. 11. '^ Ep. 120, § 5. Mansi, vii. 189. 
 
ITS CONVOCATION 219 
 
 although St. Leo might well presume that he was prepared 
 to do so when opportunity offered, as Anatolius had been 
 compelled by Leo to anathematise Eutyches. When, 
 therefore, Theodoret came to Chalcedon, he was in the 
 position of a man whose right to the position of bishop 
 had been juridically declared by the Papal judgment, but 
 whose actual restoration would be completed at the 
 Synod. ^ He was entitled to act as bishop if he complied 
 with the usual forms, and as such to be the accuser of 
 Dioscorus. 
 
 Note on Theodoeet's Use of rjyefjLoria. 
 
 In a note on Theodoret's letter to the priest Eenatus, 
 quoted above, Dr. Bright says : ' In this letter the Eoman see is 
 said to have " on many accounts the presidency, rrjv rjyejxovCav^ 
 over all Churches." Mr. Rivington mistranslates this by 
 his favourite "sovereignty"' {Roman See, p. 193, n. 1). Now 
 Liddell and Scott's translation of this word is ' the hegemony 
 or sovereignty of one state over a number of subordinates ' 
 (s.v. 11.) ; and, again, it is (they say) * used to translate the 
 Eoman impermm ' (II. b). And certainly in Byzantine Greek 
 rjye/jLovia and apxt] are used interchangeably : e.g. MapKiavos . . . 
 T-^v 'Pw/Atttwv dp)(Yjv'7r€pLf3dW€TaL. '^ A S' ovv KOL vTT avTiS TreTrpaKTaL 
 T(t)v cwcov rjyefjiOvcvovTL (Evagr. H. E. i. 22). Tcuv aTpaTioiTLKwv 
 Tayixdroiv r}yovfX€i'o<; (ibid. ii. 8). 6 Z^vtuv Ste/i-etre Kparcov rrj<s 
 rjyefxovta';, i.e. the Empire {ibid. ii. 17). And when Theodoret 
 in a previous letter had used -j^ye/xovta of the superiority 
 of the city of Eome over other cities Dr. Bright him- 
 self renders the word in that letter by ' sovereignty ' 
 {Roman See, p. 192). In the passage in Thucydides to which 
 Dr. Bright refers, in another ^Novk' {Way marks, ^. 213), a 
 distinction is drawn between rjye/jiovLa and dpxrj, which was 
 very much lost in the 800 years that intervened between 
 • Cf. Ballerini, Obs. in Diss. x. Quesnelli, § 10. 
 
220 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Thucydides and the Byzantine Greek of the Councils of 
 Ephesus and Chalcedon. So in Homer, from whom the 
 distance downwards in time was not as great as between 
 Thucydides and later Byzantine Greek, the verbal form 
 riy€fj.ov€v(D almost always has its original sense of merely 
 leading, whereas in Thucydides it is already attaching to 
 itself the meaning of rule, command, authority (iii. 61). 
 In Greek Testament use it has generally the meaning of 
 government (Matth. xxvii. 2, Luke ii. 2, Acts xxiii. 24), 
 and the participial form is translated by the A. V. ' those that 
 have the rule over you ' in Heb. xiii. 7. In Byzantine Greek, 
 with which we have to do, it generally implies effective 
 jurisdiction. It is used as a synonym of ap)(^ in describing 
 the relation of Eutyches to his monastery. Compare the 
 votes of Domnus and Eusebius in Mansi, vi. 836, with that 
 of Barsumas, vi. 861. The two former use rjyifxovta, the latter, 
 apx^Lv, of the same relation. 
 
CHAPTEK II 
 
 THE DEPOSITION OF DIOSCORUS 
 
 § 1. Placed on Trial 
 
 The great Council met, not, as was originally intended, 
 at Nicaea, but at Chalcedon, in order that the Emperor 
 might attend to his Imperial affairs and yet be near 
 at hand in case of need. The Papal legates had stipu- 
 lated that the Emperor should attend. Their experience 
 of the Latrocinium led to this request. The Council 
 was in reality summoned, as Evagrius puts the matter 
 in brief, because the legates of Leo, who were in Con- 
 stantinople at the time of Marcian's accession to the 
 throne, * said that Dioscorus at the second Council in 
 Ephesus had not accepted the Tome of Leo, which was a 
 definition of the orthodox faith,^ and because those who 
 had been insulted by Dioscorus entreated that their 
 affairs might be synodically adjudged.' ^ 
 
 Leo wrote to Anatolius of Constantinople telling him 
 that in the case of any bishops who repented of their 
 part in the Ephesine gathering, which was not worthy 
 of the name of a Synod, the communion of the Church 
 was to be restored to them, on condition that they 
 
 ' H. E. ii. § 2 : rhu AeovTOS rojxov opOoSo^tas '6pov rvyxdvopTa. 
 
 ^ Harnack says that ' Dioscorus had to submit to a judicial process 
 of an extremely disgraceful and unjust kind' (Hist, of Dogma, iv. 217, 
 Tr.). He gives no proof. I have therefore here given a full account of 
 the proceedings — the best answer to Harnack. 
 
222 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 distinctly anathematised Eutyches and his teaching. 
 But an exception was to be made in the case of Dioscorus, 
 as the ringleader. If he showed signs of repentance, 
 his case was to be * reserved for the maturer counsels of 
 the Apostolic See.'^ 
 
 It must be remembered, moreover, that the whole 
 case turned on the assertion by Dioscorus and the denial 
 by Leo, that the teaching of Eutyches was merely a 
 reflection of Cyril's. Cyril's teaching was the teaching 
 of the Church, not because it was Cyril's but because, as 
 expounded in his two letters to Nestorius read at 
 Ephesus in 431, it had been sanctioned by the Church. 
 It was the teaching of Kome. The bishops in the 
 Council now gathered together, referred to this when they 
 exclaimed : ' Celestine confirmed what Cyril said ; Xystus 
 confirmed what Cyril said,' i.e. two successive Popes con- 
 firmed his teaching. But on Cyril's teaching Eutyches 
 had professedly built his heresy and claimed that his 
 version of that teaching represented the teaching of Nicsea. 
 Leo had written his Tome to show that the Nicene faith 
 was mispresented by Eutyches. The acceptance of this 
 Tome had now been made the touchstone of orthodoxy, 
 and the Council met to enforce this view of the matter. 
 In the words of the Archbishop of Constantinople him- 
 self, in his letter of December, the Council had * to drive 
 away all novelty by confirming with a common decision 
 the faith of the blessed fathers [the Nicene] and the 
 
 ' Leon. Ep. 85. The Pontiff writes of ' those who claimed the 
 highest place in the same unhappy Synod ' — but it is evidently 
 Dioscorus that he has in view. Anyhow, Juvenal and Thalassius, who 
 might be also alluded to, showed that they did not come under the same 
 category. Leo thus consented beforehand to the Synodical deposition 
 of Dioscorus, but did not give the Synod power to finally absolve 
 him if he repented. 
 
DIOSCORUS ACCUSED 223 
 
 Epistle of your Holiness consonant with this.' ^ This, 
 and the restoration of those bishops who had been 
 illegitimately excluded from their sees and the condem- 
 nation or absolution as the case might be, of those 
 bishops who had subscribed to the condemnation of 
 Flavian by putting their signatures to a blank paper, 
 was the proper and the only regular business of the 
 Council. 
 
 The bishops met in the church of St. Euphemia, on 
 whose intercession they avowed their reliance, and on 
 whose altar they placed their definition that (as they 
 afterwards told the Emperor, and St. Leo) it might be 
 presented through her to Almighty God before all saints 
 and angels. In other ^Yords, the whole Church in solemn 
 assembly avowed their reliance on the intercessory media- 
 tion of a great local saint."^ 
 
 There were at least six hundred bishops present, the 
 largest number that had ever met in Council. They 
 were, almost to a man. Eastern prelates, the West being 
 sufficiently represented by legates from Eome. The scene 
 of their meeting is described in glowing terms by 
 Evagrius and is to this day one of the most exquisite 
 spots in that beautiful but ill-fated region. The bishops 
 sat in a circle stretching from the sanctuary into the 
 nave and a copy of the Holy Gospels was placed in the 
 midst. 
 
 Dioscorus at once took his seat, as Archbishop of 
 Alexandria, on the right hand of the Commissioners 
 and Senate, with Juvenal of Jerusalem ; while the Papal 
 legates (Paschasinus, whom the Pope had sent from 
 
 ' Leon. Ep. 101, § 1. 
 
 2 For the miracles she was considered to have performed see 
 Evagrius, H. E. ii. 3. 
 
224 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Sicily, and Lucentius, both bishops, with the presbyter 
 Boniface) sat on the left, the side of honour, with 
 Anatolius, Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Csesarea 
 Cappadocia and Stephen of Ephesus. Dioscorus had — 
 some little while before, though it is difficult to be sure of 
 the exact time— executed the farce of excommunicating 
 St. Leo— an act of madness which eventually afforded 
 the bishops their chief ground for deciding upon his own 
 excommunication. Whether by this means he thought 
 to make it technically impossible for the legates to sit 
 and condemn him, or whether he acted out of mere 
 bravado to show what a Bishop of Alexandria could do, 
 and by way of insulting the Apostolic See, it is impossible 
 to say. He now sat down in the place of honour as the 
 occupant of the second see of Christendom. 
 
 His action naturally produced a scene : and it gave an 
 occasion for showing the general acquiescence of the 
 Council in the position of the Bishop of Kome as their 
 head. The Papal legates at once stepped into the centre 
 and said that they held instructions from ' the most 
 blessed and Apostolic Bishop of the city of Eome, ivhois 
 the head of all the Churches,' to the effect that Dioscorus 
 was not to ' sit with the Council.' They threatened to 
 withdraw unless Dioscorus was ordered out.^ The Com- 
 missioners endeavoured to induce the legates to specify 
 the charges brought against Dioscorus, which, however, 
 they refused to do. They refused to act as accusers, 
 Lucentius said. ' Let him give an account of his own 
 judgment, for he usurped the character of judge which did 
 
 ' fjLT] (TvyKaQ^aQij r^ (rvviSpicf} (Mansi, vi, 581). The legates added to 
 this that he should be sent out of the church altogether, a detail which 
 was not regarded. 
 
DTOSCORUS ACCUSED 225 
 
 not belong to him and he dared to arrange ^ a Synod 
 without permission from the Apostolic See, which has 
 never been done, and is not competenty i.e. lawful to he 
 done' Paschasinus chimed in, saying that the directions 
 of the bishop ' who occupies the Apostolic throne,' as well 
 as the canons of the Church and the traditions of the 
 Fathers, must be obeyed. The Commissioners still urged 
 that ' it is fitting that you should show in particular what 
 is his fault.' On their refusal to act as accusers, the Com- 
 missioners turned to Dioscorus and said that he could not 
 hold the position of judge and accused at the same time, 
 and ordered him in effect to take the place of one under 
 accusation.^ He had to move out of his seat and remain 
 in the middle, whereupon the legates resumed their seats 
 in the place of honour. The decision of the Bishop of 
 Rome given as ' the head of all the Churches ' was thus 
 obeyed, and Eusebius of Dorylgeum now advanced to the 
 middle and entered upon the office of accuser, which the 
 legates had refused to fill. 
 
 Dioscorus maintained that Flavian had been rightly 
 condemned by the Council which the Emperor had con- 
 vened at Ephesus. Accordingly the Acts of the ' Robber- 
 Synod ' were read. In these the name of Theodoret oc- 
 curred and he was at once sent for, on the ground that 
 he had been restored to his episcopate by Leo and com- 
 manded to be present by the Emperor. A scene of wild 
 confusion ensued. The Egyptian bishops, a disorderly 
 set of untrained minds, attached to their ' national 
 Church ' under Dioscorus, and the Illyrian and Pales- 
 tinian Bishops, saw in Theodoret only the enemy of St. 
 
 * iToir\(Tai. It was the arrangement of the Synod, by assuming the 
 office of president, which was objected to Dioscorus. So Hefele. 
 2 Mansi, vi. G15. See note at the end of this chapter. 
 
226 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Cyril. They shouted and protested and maintained 
 that to admit Theodoret into the assembly was to 
 cast out Cyril, whom Theodoret had once opposed.^ 
 The statement which the Commissioners and Senate 
 made as to Theodoret's reinstatement and as to the 
 Imperial command, availed nothing for awhile with 
 these Egyptian partisans. They were furious at the 
 idea of one who had anathematised their former 
 patriarch appearing in the Council as bishop. But the 
 Orientals {i.e. the bishops of the Antiochene diocese to 
 which Theodoret belonged) and the bishops of Asia, 
 Pontus and Thrace cried out that, on the contrary, Dios- 
 corus should be turned out of the edifice as a murderer. 
 They also affirmed that they had signed Theodoret's 
 condemnation at the Eobber-Council under pressure 
 of violence. The Imperial Commissioners hereupon in- 
 sisted that Theodoret had entered — and was qualified 
 to enter — the assembly as an accuser, and the bishops 
 must simply allow the business which they had begun 
 to proceed. They guaranteed that ' no prejudice should 
 arise to anyone' through the presence of Theodoret, 
 but that the opportunity of arguing their case against 
 him was reserved, if they wished to enter upon any 
 mutual discussion, and they insisted that the Egyptians 
 should bear in mind that Theodoret's exarch, Maximus, 
 had, though informally, certified to his orthodoxy. 
 
 Accordingly Theodoret took his seat in the Council, 
 
 ' It must be remembeied that the Egyptian, Illyrian and Palestinian 
 bishops— a trouble in the Council afterwards— were a small minority. 
 The Egyptians were not more than twelve or thirteen, the Illyrians were 
 only thirty-two, and the Palestinians sixteen. The great mass of the 
 Council was against them. Juvenal, after his acceptance of the 
 definition at Chalcedon, had grievous trouble with his subjects in 
 Palestine, 
 
DIOSCORUS ACCUSED 227 
 
 but in the middle, as being an accuser. But this was 
 not likely to put the Egyptian bishops at their ease, for 
 Theodoret was there to exercise an ofBce which could 
 only, according to the Sixth Canon (as it is often called) 
 of the Council of Constantinople in 382, be fulfilled by 
 one who was not excommunicated nor deposed, who, in 
 fact, had one of the distinctive rights of a bishop. 
 When, therefore, he took his seat, the Orientals ex- 
 claimed, ' Worthy, worthy ' — a term applied in ancient 
 times to a newly consecrated bishop, by acclamation. 
 They thus acknowledged his partial restoration.^ But 
 the Egyptians objected : ' Do not call him a bishop ; he is 
 not a bishop.' To which the Orientals returned fire with 
 their clamorous assertion of satisfaction at the decision : 
 * The orthodox in the Synod,' i.e. it is right to admit 
 such as Theodoret to the Synod. ' Cast out the seditious,' 
 i.e. the Egyptian bishops themselves. The Egyptians, 
 in no way behindhand in clamour, shouted out : ' Cast 
 out him who has insulted Christ. Long live the Em- 
 press ! ' i.e. Pulcheria, Cyril's friend. ' Long live the 
 orthodox Emperor ! This fellow anathematised Cyril ' — 
 which was only too true. And again : ' We cast out 
 Cyril if we accept Theodoret.' The Commissioners, how- 
 ever, simply stopped the tumult with the remark that 
 all this excited shouting befitted a mob more than 
 bishops, and, leaving Theodoret where he was, ordered 
 the reading of the minutes of the Ephesine meeting (the 
 Latrocinium) to continue. 
 
 In promising the Egyptians that they should be 
 allowed to have their say with Theodoret afterwards if 
 they wished to enter upon a struggle,^ the Commissioners 
 
 * Cf. Chr. Lupus, Synod. Decret. i. 896 (Brussels, 1673). 
 ^ <f>v\aTTOfj.(vov .... iravrhs KSyov Kol vfuv Koi iKeivtp ft riva ii/ioi- 
 
 q2 
 
228 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 were only doing what Leo himself would have been the 
 first to allow. For the case of the bishops was, according 
 to Pulcheria, to be decided (1) at the Council (2) by his 
 authority/ and Leo himself in his letter to the Synod 
 had expressly said that with regard to bishops driven 
 from their sees by the Latrocinium, they were to apply 
 the medicine of justice to their wounds so that no one of 
 them should be so deprived of what belonged to him as 
 that one should have what belonged to another.^ As 
 a matter of fact the Synod did not allow the subject to 
 be mooted at all, until the whole question of the faith 
 had been transacted and the definition drawn up, and 
 the Emperor had left the scene. And Theodoret was 
 included in the list of bishops who sat in Council during 
 the second Act ; ^ was allowed to sign himself ' Bishop of 
 Cyrus ' at the end of the fourth Act ; and in the sixth 
 also he signed, saying ' I, Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, 
 defining have subscribed,' which is conclusive as to the 
 interim acceptance of his episcopal position by the 
 Council, since he thus exercised the highest prerogative 
 of a bishop, giving his judgment as to the doctrine of 
 the Catholic Church. And all this was done on the 
 ground that he had been restored to his episcopate by 
 Leo. The attestation of Maximus to his orthodoxy was 
 not a judicial act, as was that of Leo. He acquiesced 
 in Leo's decision from personal knowledge of Theodoret. 
 He said he had heard him preach. And Leo's decision 
 must be taken together with his request that the cases of 
 bishops should be, all of them, subject to conciliar in- 
 vestigation. 
 
 fiaius iyyvfivd^eiv fiovX-ndel-nre. Dr. Bright seems to follow a corrupt 
 reading of the Latin. Cf. Baluze's note in Mansi, vi, 591. 
 
 ' aov avOfurovvros dpicrwaiy {Leoil. Ep. 77). 
 
 •^ Ep. 93, c. iii. ^ Mansi, vi. 943. 
 
DIOSCORUS ACCUSED 229 
 
 Thus far, then, Dioscorus had been obliged to pass 
 from the position of judge to that of accused, by order of 
 Leo as ' the head of all the Churches,' and Theodoret 
 had been, at least temporarily, admitted to the rank of 
 bishop in deference to Leo's decision.^ He took the same 
 place in the middle as did the orthodox champion, Eu- 
 sebius of Dorylseum (Mansi, vi. 645). 
 
 § 2. The Trial. The 'Acts ' of the Bobber-Synod 
 
 Point by point was now proved against Dioscorus, as 
 the * Acts ' of the ' Robber- Synod ' at Ephesus (449) were 
 read in the church of Chalcedon. 
 
 1. In the account of those who sat in that Synod the 
 name of Dioscorus came first, before that of the Papal 
 legate. This was the signal for cries of indignation from 
 the bishops : ' The name of Leo was cast out ; ' and as 
 the Secretary proceeded to read out the names of Juvenal 
 of Jerusalem, Maximus of Antioch, and Flavian of 
 Constantinople, the ' Orientals ' {i.e. the Antiochenes) 
 and other bishops exclaimed at Flavian being put in the 
 fifth place.^ It might seem at first sight remarkable 
 
 ^ What happened in the Eighth Session will be dealt with in its 
 proper place (c/. infra, p. 297). Dr. Bright speaks of Theodoret as being 
 ' kept waiting through several sessions as one who was still open to 
 accusation' [Waymarks, p. 231), and ' as an accuser who might himself 
 be accused' {ihid. 227), and again as 'capable also of being accused' 
 (Roman See, p. 194). There is a false rendering of the Greek in 
 Mansi's Latin text, which uses the word ' accusation.' But Mansi gives 
 Baluze's note, which says that none of the old copies have this reading. 
 At the same time, even if this expression were accurate, the action of 
 the Council so far would afford an emphatic testimony to the supremacy 
 of the Apostolic See, since on no other supposition but that of 
 supremacy could the Papal judgment of a Greek bishop, in the Patri- 
 archate of Antioch, be accepted as conclusive even so far as it was in 
 this case. 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 608. 
 
230 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 that the Antiochenes should exclaim against an arrange- 
 ment by which their own mother see was placed above 
 that of Constantinople. And it is still more cm'ious 
 that the Papal legate should have come forward and 
 called attention to the fact that they — i.e. himself and 
 the present Council — had put the present Bishop of Con- 
 stantinople first after Eome. And Diogenes of Cyzicus 
 alluded to the canons, meaning of course the third Canon 
 of Constantinople, which Eome had not received. But it 
 was not really on the ground of that canon that 
 Paschasinus, the legate, had proceeded, but out of 
 respect to the compact whereby Proclus of Constanti- 
 nople and Domnus of Antioch had agreed that the 
 status of Constantinople as decreed by that canon should 
 be accepted by them. Paschasinus's weakness in this 
 matter was afterwards repudiated by Leo, and Maximus 
 was blamed for not taking his proper place. 
 
 That, however, was a minor matter compared with 
 ousting the representatives of Eome from their proper 
 place in favour of Alexandria. This was the first 
 criminal offence committed by Dioscorus. 
 
 2. Next in order, as the recitation of the Acts of the 
 Ephesine catastrophe continued, came the question of 
 Leo's letter to Flavian — his Tome.^ ' It was not read,' 
 was the accusation. Dioscorus endeavoured to shift the 
 blame on to the shoulders of Juvenal and Thalassius, 
 but in vain. This was the second serious offence. 
 
 3. They now in the natural course of the reading 
 entered upon the question of Eutyches's teaching which 
 had been sanctioned by Dioscorus. The violent behaviour 
 of Dioscorus soon came to the front, for the accuracy of 
 the account as entered in the minutes of the Eobber- 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 616. 
 
DIOSCORUS TRIED 231 
 
 Synod was questioned by some of the bishops, and this 
 elicited the declaration from several bishops that they 
 had been unable to use their notaries at the Latrocinium, 
 owing to the party of Dioscorus having overturned their 
 desks and destroyed their tablets and almost broken 
 their fingers. But when they came to the place where 
 Dioscorus was said to have given out that he was acting 
 in harmony with the decrees of the fathers at Nicgea and 
 Ephesus, which he said he had carefully searched, 
 Eusebius of Dorylaeum interrupted with the exclamation, 
 ' I search, said he [i.e. Dioscorus] ; and I too [Eusebius] 
 have done that.' To which Dioscorus now replied, ' I 
 said, " I search," not " innovate," ' i.e. ' I do not introduce 
 doctrinal novelties ' (as he had charged Eusebius with 
 doing). ' For our Saviour commanded us saying, 
 *' Search the Scriptures." But he who searches does not 
 innovate,' i.e. he is kept from doctrinal novelties. To 
 which Eusebius replied in effect, ' That depends on the 
 spirit in which you search.' He suggested that Dios- 
 corus would have found the truth if he had searched in a 
 spirit of prayer,^ ' The Saviour said " Seek and you 
 shall find." ' The reading was then resumed, and when 
 they came to the place where Dioscorus was reported as 
 saying that the decisions of the fathers of Nica3a and 
 Ephesus could not be rehandled, for this would be to 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 625. It is worth noticing that all these Greeks under- 
 stood the word * Search ' in John v. 39, as the imperative. Dr. Bright 
 {Roman See, p. 283) has curiously missed the point of this little incident. 
 He translates Dioscorus's words thus : ' Our Saviour bade us examine the 
 Scriptures ; that is not innovating.' The words are o Se ipswwv rrjv 
 ypa(pr]u, ov Kaivoroixu. Nobody suggested that reading the Scriptures 
 was an innovation. Dioscorus was maintaining that there must be no 
 introduction of doctrinal novelties, and that he was preserved from this 
 because he searched the canons and the Scriptures. 
 
232 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 rehandle what the Holy Ghost had decreed, and the Synod 
 (the Eobber- Synod) was reported as having thereupon 
 exclaimed that Dioscorus was ' the guardian of the 
 faith,' Bishop Theodore burst in with an indignant 
 denial that they ever said that, to which Dioscorus 
 now rejoined (at Chalcedon) that Theodore might as 
 well say he was not present.* So far as presenting a 
 bold front was concerned, Dioscorus was equal to the 
 situation. 
 
 But when they came to the account of Eutyches's 
 profession of faith handed in at the Latrocinium, and to 
 his quotation of the decree of the CEcumenical Council of 
 Ephesus (431) against drawing up or presenting any 
 other Creed than that of Nicaea to persons suspected of 
 heresy or to converts of Christianity, Eusebius of Dory- 
 laeum bluntly declared that Eutyches lied, for that there 
 was no definition or canon that said exactly what 
 Eutyches did.^ Dioscorus thereupon interposed, saying 
 that four codices contained this ' definition.' He drew a 
 distinction between a ' definition ' and a ' canon.' But 
 the Bishop of Cyzicus explained on behalf of Eusebius 
 that the decree of Ephesus did not forbid what Eutyches 
 had quoted it as forbidding : for Eutyches, following in 
 the footsteps of the Apollinarians, had omitted the 
 addition made at Constantinople in 381, viz. the words 
 ' of the Holy Ghost ' and ' the Virgin Mary.' Eu- 
 tyches therefore (said this bishop) acted ' deceitfully ' 
 in quoting the Ephesine decree for his own purpose. 
 But the Egyptians at once shouted out that ' no one 
 accepts an addition ' — in a word, they did not accept the 
 Niceno-Constantinopolitan form of the Creed — and they 
 added : ' Let the things decreed at Nicaea prevail ; the 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 628. - Ibid. 632. ovk tan Kauwv toGto Biayopevwv. 
 
DIOSCORUS TEIED 233 
 
 Emperor ordered this.' And it was true that the Em- 
 peror Theodosius had ordered that the Nicene Creed 
 (and he seems to have understood it in its shortened 
 form) should be the norm and test of the bishops' faith. 
 But the Emperor was under the heretical influences of 
 Eutyches and Chrysaphius. AndEutyches (as has been 
 already remarked) had purposely adopted the programme 
 of accepting as Nicene only that which was actually ex- 
 pressed at Nicaea. The orthodox bishops accordingly 
 now exclaimed, in answer to the Egyptians' plea that no 
 addition was to be allowed but that they were to adhere to 
 the decrees of the fathers at Nicaea, ' Eutyches said that ' 
 — which was true. The Egyptians, however, clung to 
 their ground, and the reading was resumed. 
 
 Eutyches's profession of faith being continued, Eu- 
 sebius interrupted again at the assertion that ' the 
 flesh of our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, descended from 
 heaven.' This was a point in Eutyches's teaching which, 
 as it had been defended by Dioscorus, showed that the 
 latter was really unorthodox. The indictment against 
 him was growing more and more unanswerable. This 
 was a third serious count against him. 
 
 4. After a passage of arms in which Dioscorus elicited 
 that the Bishop of Isauria had shown the white feather, 
 the Antiochenes and their party owned their cowardice 
 in not having withstood Dioscorus when he induced them 
 to sign the deposition of Flavian by putting their names 
 to a blank paper. Even Thalassius, who had so supported 
 Dioscorus, joined in with his peccam? 
 
 The reading being resumed, Flavian's request at the 
 Latrocinium that Eusebius of Dorylaeum might be ad- 
 mitted as having been the accuser of Eutyches at the 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 633. Cf. Rusticus's annotation. = jj^^ 540. 
 
234 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Constantinopolitan Synod of 448, the Chalcedonian 
 magistrates, recognising the monstrous injustice of 
 Eusebius's exclusion, asked Dioscorus why Eusebius had 
 not been allowed to enter. Dioscorus again threw the 
 blame on others : this time on the Emperor, whose repre- 
 sentative, the Count Elpidius, had ordered Eusebius to 
 remain outside. Juvenal and Thalassius disavowed any 
 overt action in the matter. The magistrates naturally 
 refused to accept such excuses, saying : * In case of a 
 matter of faith being tried, this is no defence.' It was an 
 offence against natural justice. Dioscorus, however, 
 endeavoured to blunt the edge of their condemnation by 
 turning to another subject and suggesting that it was as 
 bad for them to have allowed Theodoret to enter and sit 
 as bishop as it was for him to have refused entrance 
 at the Latrocinium to Eusebius. To which the Com- 
 missioners replied : ' Bishop Eusebius and Bishop Theo- 
 doret sit in the rank of accusers, as also you sit in 
 the place of those under accusation ' : ^ i.e. Dioscorus was 
 himself admitted as bishop, so that he could not complain. 
 Thus Eusebius had accused Dioscorus of violating 
 canonical order,^ and Dioscorus's only defence was that 
 the Imperial Commissioner took the lead, and that the 
 Chalcedonian fathers had themselves admitted Theo- 
 doret to the rank of bishop — a plea which was not recog- 
 nised as sufficient. 
 
 5. When they now came to the place where Cyril's 
 pacificatory letter to John of Antioch had been read in 
 the Council of Constantinople under ^ Flavian, the Illyrian 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 645, 
 
 2 aKoKovBla — olkoKovQms, used absolutely, always = canonically. Cf. 
 supra, p. 85, and Christianus Lupus, ScJwlia in Canones et Decreta, 
 i. 903 (Brussels, 1673). 
 
 ^ The minutes of the Council under Flavian were read at the 
 
DIOSCORUS TRIED 236 
 
 bishops, always on the watch for the name of Cyril to 
 throw it against the adversaries of Eutyches, whom they 
 wrongly imagined to be anti-Cyrilline, exclaimed : ' So we 
 believe, as Cyril.' Theodoret here, by way of justifying 
 the position provisionally conceded to him, exclaimed : 
 ' Anathema to him who says there are two Sons. For 
 we adore one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ the Only- 
 begotten.' This was his act of reparation for past 
 antagonism to Cyril.^ 
 
 The reading of Cyril's letter also gave occasion to 
 Dioscorus, a propos of an explanation of that letter by 
 one of he bishops, to disavow any adhesion to the 
 supposed teaching of Eutyches on the ' confusion of 
 natures ' in our Divine Lord. His emphatic words were : 
 * We neither speak of confusion, nor division, nor conver- 
 sion '—of one into the other. ' Anathema to anyone who 
 speaks of confusion, or conversion, or commixture.' "^ 
 
 At length they came to Flavian's declaration of his 
 own faith — his ecthesis, as it is uniformly called.^ Here- 
 upon the Imperial Commissioners asked the bishops 
 of the Synod for their judgment on Flavian's exposition 
 of the faith. The Papal legate at once rose and said that 
 Flavian had expounded the faith ' ^ rightly, for it agrees 
 with the letter {i.e. the Tome) of Leo. Anatolius simply 
 said that ' Blessed ' Flavian had ' expounded the faith ' 
 
 Latrocinium, and as the ' Acts ' of the Latrocinium were being read at 
 Chalcedon, those minutes necessarily formed part of this reading. 
 
 1 Mansi, vi. 673. 
 
 2 Ibid. 676. 
 
 3 Ibid. 680, 681, 683. All through this scene, St. Flavian is spoken 
 of as having ' expounded ' (e|e0eTo) and promulgated an ' exposition ' 
 {^Kdecriv) of the faith. From which it will be seen that it is idle to 
 confine the words eK0e?i/oi and eK6e<ns to the Creed. 
 
 * In each case the Greek is -Klanu i^edero. 
 
236 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 of our fathers in an orthodox way. Lucentius, the 
 Papal legate, said that it agrees with the Apostolic See 
 and the traditions of the fathers ; Maximus of Antioch, 
 that Flavian ' expounded the faith ' in orthodox wise and 
 agreeably with Leo ; Thalassius, that he had spoken in 
 accord with Cyril, which in some sense was the most 
 emphatic thing to say, since Flavian had been condemned 
 at the Latrocinium as though disagreeing with Cyril. 
 After Eusebius of Ancyra and Eustathius of Berytum 
 had spoken to the same effect, Dioscorus put in a word. 
 He asked that more of what Flavian had expounded 
 should be read and it would be found that he contradicted 
 himself, for he said that there wer^ ' two natures after 
 the union,' which Dioscorus implied Cyril had not 
 taught. 
 
 And now Dioscorus's right hand man, Juvenal of 
 Jerusalem, next to whom he had sat when at the opening 
 of the session he took his place in the circle of judges, 
 came prominently forward. He said that if they read 
 Flavian's words to the end, they would find that they 
 were in perfect accord with Cyril. ^ He thus contradicted 
 Dioscorus point blank, and hereupon he rose from his 
 seat and passed over to the other side. Bishop after 
 bishop now did the same. This brought Dioscorus to 
 his feet again, and led to an important utterance of his 
 belief. In spite of the defection of bishop after bishop, 
 he stood his ground, and told the assembly that ' Flavian 
 was manifestly condemned because he spoke of two 
 natures after the tmio7i, i.e. after the Incarnation. So 
 that in spite of his having disavowed the doctrine of 
 
 • Mansi, vi. 681. Harnack calls this change of opinion disgraceful 
 {Hist, of Dogma, iv. 218, Tr.). The disgrace was in the original defer- 
 ence to Dioscorus. 
 
DIOSCORUS TRIED 237 
 
 any confusion or conversion of the natures in our Lord, 
 he maintained the proposition which underlay that false 
 doctrme. He declared now that his teaching was to be 
 found in the Fathers, and that he had carefully compiled 
 the evidence from their writings.' 
 
 As they proceeded with the reading at Dioscorus's 
 request, a declaration by one of the bishops at the 
 Council of 448 elicited a fresh heretical declaration from 
 Dioscorus. The bishop had spoken of Cyril's ecthesis, 
 or exposition,^ as countenancing the expression ' of two 
 natures ' in reference to the Incarnation ; whereupon 
 Dioscorus said, ' " Of two natures " I accept ; " two 
 natures," I do not ' — i.e. he did not agree that there 
 are two natures in our Incarnate Lord. He added that 
 he was obliged to speak without shame, for his soul was 
 concerned. He thus deliberately adopted the expression 
 * of two natures ' (as opposed to ' in two natures ' ) in 
 vogue among the Apollinarians, and in after time 
 perpetually repeated by the Eutychians. Had he stopped 
 with the mere assertion that Christ was ' of two natures,' 
 he would not have enunciated a heresy, but only (as 
 
 ' The expression, as has been said in a previous chapter, on which 
 they built was that there is ' one nature of the Word incarnate ' — i.e. one 
 nature which was incarnate. Dioscorus and the Egyptians generally 
 professed to ground their belief, not only on Cyril, but on a passage in 
 Athanasius ; but there is no such passage. Leontius of Byzantium says 
 that Theodore of Mopsuestia quoted St. Athanasius, but that he 
 (Leontius) could not find the passage in Athanasius's writings (Lib. de 
 Sectis, cap. 8). St. John Damascene speaks of the phrase just quoted 
 as, not Athanasian, but as first used by Cyril, and he explains that 
 ' nature ' {i.e. (pvais) was sometimes used for ' person ' {De Orthod. Fide, 
 lib. iii. c. 11). 
 
 ^ The bishop speaks of Cyril thus : rb Z6yixa iu ttj eiriaTo\f} e^edfro 
 (Mansi, vi. 689). I mention this as some writers are for confining the 
 words iKdf7i'at and ^Kdeats to the Creed. 
 
238 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Leontius expresses it) an imperfect description of the 
 Incarnation. But the Council of Chalcedon refused to 
 canonise this phrase, however innocent it might be on 
 the lips of some. It was in reality, as used at that time, 
 opposed to the orthodox doctrine that Christ exists ' in 
 two natures.' Presently Dioscorus took occasion from 
 another passage in the minutes of the Constantinopolitan 
 Council under Flavian (which condemned Eutyches) to 
 say distinctly, ' I object to this, for after the union there 
 are not two natures.' ^ And further on, when Eutyches 
 was reported to have said at Constantinople in 448, * I 
 confess that our Lord was of two natures before the 
 union ; but after the union ' {i.e. the Incarnation) * I 
 confess one nature,' Dioscorus was found to have said 
 at Ephesus (in 449) ' We all agree to this ' — an account 
 of matters which the Antiochenes now repudiated at 
 Chalcedon.2 
 
 And so they read on hour by hour, with intermingled 
 exclamations from the Antiochenes on the one side, and 
 the Egyptians on the other, the great bulk of the bishops 
 simply sitting and watching the case, which was being 
 conducted with every respect to normal judicial procedure, 
 until at length they had to light the great waxen candles,^ 
 and the sentence passed by Dioscorus on Flavian at the 
 Latrocinium was read out to these 600 fathers at 
 Chalcedon in the half-darkened church at the same 
 hour at which, two years before, that sentence had been 
 passed. At the conclusion, which ended with the one 
 word in Latin from the Papal legate, Gontradicitur^ the 
 Orientals and their party exclaimed: 'Anathema to 
 Dioscorus. At this very hour he passed sentence : at 
 this same hour let him be condemned. Holy Lord, 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 692. - Ihid. 114.. ^ Krjpiwv, 901. 
 
DIOSCORUS TRIED 239 
 
 avenge Thyself. Catholic Emperor, avenge Flavian. 
 Long live Leo ! Long live the Patriarch ! ' * 
 
 The session ended with a proposal on the part of the 
 Imperial Commissioners that Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thal- 
 assius, Eusebius (of Ancyra), Eustathius and Basil (of 
 Seleucia) should all be deposed, and, after some excited 
 rather than edifying exclamations from the Orientals 
 (Antiochenes), in favour of this wholesale deposition of 
 the presidents, the Commissioners ordered that each 
 bishop should prepare a profession of faith, and the 
 Council was adjourned till the following day. 
 
 So far Dioscorus had been convicted of having taken 
 upon himself to degrade the Papal legates from the 
 Presidency of the Synod at Ephesus in 449 ; of having not 
 read the letter of Leo to the Synod, including the Tome ; 
 of having refused to allow Eusebius of Dorylaeum a 
 hearing before acquitting Eutyches ; of having sanctioned 
 Eutyches's heretical teaching as to the Flesh of Christ 
 having ' descended from Heaven,' and as to only one 
 nature remaining in Him after the Incarnation ; of 
 having committed great violence at the Eobber- Synod ; 
 and of having condemned Flavian for heresy, when his 
 (Flavian's) teaching agreed with that of Leo and all the 
 Fathers. 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 911. This is the first instance of the word Patriarch being 
 used in a General Council. It had been used of Leo by Valentinian, but 
 not in Synod. It was a word in use among the Jews for the supreme 
 judge in religious matters (cf. Codex TJieodos. Lib. II. tit. i. c. 10). It was 
 transferred first to Leo, then to the Bishop of Alexandria and others, 
 and eventually to metropolitans and primates in general — its use fluc- 
 tuating somewhat, and its application in legal documents to the Jews 
 gradually dying out. Justinian never applies it to Jews. Cf. Lupus, 
 Canones et Decreta, i. 910. 
 
240 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 § 3. His Contumacy. The Papal Legates deliver 
 Sentence 
 
 The position of Dioscorus was at this moment that of 
 a bishop— but of a bishop who was now under a sentence 
 of condemnation ready at any moment to descend upon 
 him and deprive him of the rank of bishop and of a 
 place within the Christian fold. St. Leo had declared 
 him worthy of deposition, but had expressly committed 
 the act of deposition, if he proved obdurate, to the 
 Council of bishops under his legates ; the Imperial 
 Commissioners, after a minute investigation of his 
 doings at the Latrocinium, had declared also that he 
 was worthy of deposition ; but the actual ecclesiastical 
 sentence had not yet been pronounced. This was left 
 to the bishops assembled, as a matter belonging strictly 
 to the functions of the episcopate by themselves alone, 
 without the magistrates. 
 
 ' What,' it has been asked, ' is the province of the 
 Episcopate in the monarchy of the Church ? It is cer- 
 tain, not only that the episcopal body can never be 
 superseded in the Church by the Pope, but also that it 
 can never be deprived of its inherent jurisdiction in 
 the general government of the Church, although there 
 is no difficulty as to restrictions and limitations being 
 placed by the Pope upon the exercise of their 
 jurisdiction, should necessity require such a course. 
 . . . The power of the aristocratic episcopal body was 
 not intended by Christ to control or to reform the 
 government and the teaching of the supreme ruler of 
 the Church, but to give efficacy to his action on the 
 whole body, to diffuse to every part the streams of 
 divine life, and to draw tighter the bonds of unity which 
 
DIOSCORUS CONTUMACIOUS 241 
 
 link together the whole structure.' These are the 
 words of a writer who received the special approbation 
 of Pius IX. for his works on the subject of Papal infal- 
 libility. What, therefore, we shall be careful to notice, 
 if we wish to scrutinise the witness of history, is, not 
 whether the Pope appears as an absolute monarch— for 
 no one who accepts the "Vatican decrees claims for him 
 such a position as that— but whether he appears as 
 * head of all the Churches,' as he has been already defi- 
 nitely called in our Council. 
 
 When the bishops reassembled,^ Dioscorus did not 
 make his appearance. But Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who 
 had been ' deposed ' by him, and had now to make good 
 his case against him, demanded his presence. They 
 searched the precincts of the church, but nowhere could 
 he be found. They accordingly sent an embassy to 
 him, and, this failing, wrote to him, and persisted until 
 the canonical rule of thrice summoning a bishop under 
 accusation had been complied with. Dioscorus first said 
 that he was under surveillance, being in the hands of 
 the Imperial Guard, having (we presume) been jplaced 
 under arrest after the decision of the first session. But 
 when the officer in command gave him leave to go, he 
 refused to move. He next insisted that the Imperial 
 Commissioners and the Senate should be present at the 
 session. He then gave illness as his reason for not 
 coming. Again, he insisted that not he alone but the 
 others who were prominent in the late Synod should 
 be placed in the dock with him, to which it was replied, 
 
 ' This was not, according to the common opinion, the next — i.e. the 
 second— but the third session. But there is considerable authority for 
 supposing that it was. I have, however, given the account of it here, 
 without presuming to settle the question, merely by way of presenting a 
 consecutive narrative of the treatment of Dioscorus. 
 
242 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 in effect, that he alone was accused by Eusebius. 
 Lastly he recurred to the absence of the magistrates as 
 his ground of refusal. This was the same as contempt 
 of court. 
 
 Meanwhile three clerics of Alexandria and a layman 
 were admitted to the Synod, to prefer their several com- 
 plaints against their patriarch. Their petitions were 
 each one of them addressed to ' the G^ciimcnical Arch- 
 bishop and Patriarch of great Kome, Leo, and the holy 
 and (Ecumenical Synod,' the priest from Alexandria con- 
 cluding his petition with repeating ' I, miserable 
 Athanasius, presbyter of the most renowned city of 
 Alexandria, have presented these petitions to the most 
 holy and (Ecumenical Archbishop and Patriarch Leo, 
 and to the most holy (Ecumenical Synod of most 
 holy bishops and fathers.' The layman, Sophronias, 
 concluded in the same way.^ These documents con- 
 tained accusations against Dioscorus, which the peti- 
 tioners said they were prepared to substantiate, of in- 
 tolerable tyranny and dishonest peculations in his rule 
 at Alexandria. The layman averred that Dioscorus 
 had quashed an appeal to the Emperor, and said that 
 Egypt ' was his own rather than the Emperor's 
 province.' 
 
 The Synod considered that these accusations were 
 sufficiently serious to demand explanation. But Dios- 
 corus absolutely refused to put in an appearance. 
 
 * Dr. Bright says that this term ' (Ecumenical ' was ' obviously put in 
 to please Leo,' and he compares it to the use of the term ' angelical ' 
 used by the memorialists of the company of Bishops {Roman See, p. 182). 
 But (1) the memorialists had to ingratiate themselves with the Council 
 — not with Leo ; and (2) they called the Synod ' (Ecumenical ' in the 
 same breath ; and (3) to call the bishops ' angelical ' involved no doc- 
 trine, whereas to call Leo ' (Ecumenical Patriarch ' did. 
 
DIOSCORUS CONTUMACIOUS 243 
 
 Dioscorus had now definitely refused to obey the 
 summons of the Synod, and had thus involved himself 
 in an offence against the canons, which rendered all 
 further accusations superfluous. Accordingly, the Papal 
 legate, Paschasinus, asked the bishops to declare with 
 their own mouth what he deserved. The Synod said 
 that he incurred the penalty assigned by the canons to 
 contumacy. Paschasmus put question after question, 
 that everything might be done by the Synod itself in due 
 order and with the utmost plainness of speech. He was 
 desirous that the punishment should be the act of the 
 entire Synod. Not a voice was raised in favour of the 
 contumacious Archbishop. No Egyptian clamours, no 
 Illyrian shouts, but in perfect calmness and without 
 hesitation, the Synod decided that this, the highest 
 offence known to canon law, should be visited with the 
 proper sentence. Then Julian, Bishop of Hypsepae, rose 
 and said : ' Holy Fathers, listen. At that time Dioscorus 
 held the authority of judgment ^ in the city of the 
 Ephesians and meanwhile he deposed the most holy 
 Flavian and the most God-fearing bishop Eusebius, 
 himself passing the unrighteous judgment first, and all 
 followed by compulsion. Now, your Holiness holds the 
 authority of the most holy Archbishop Leo, and your 
 Holiness and the whole holy Synod assembled by the 
 grace of God and the command of our most God-fearing 
 Emperors, imow all the injustice perpetrated at Ephesus^ 
 as your Holiness also knows ; and thrice has it summoned 
 
 ' rh Kvpos . . . Tov Kpivaiu. 
 
 - I have followed the oldest Latin versions here. Cf . Baluze's note *» 
 in Mansi, vi. 1043. The Greek, literally translated, makes Julian say 
 that the whole Synod holds the authority of Leo. But it hardly seems 
 likely that they would bring this in here, considering the context : though 
 I cannot be sure that the Greek is not correct. 
 
 & 2 
 
244 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Dioscorus and he has refused to obey. We [therefore] 
 entreat your Holiness, who holds, or rather who hold, the 
 place of the most holy Archbishop Leo, to give sentence 
 against him, and to decree against him the penalty 
 included in the canons. For all of us, the whole of the 
 (Ecumenical Synod, is of one accord with your Holiness.' ^ 
 Paschasinus said : ' Once more I say, '' What pleases [or 
 meets the wishes of] your Blessedness ? " ' And Maximus 
 of Antioch said : ' What seems good to your Holiness, we 
 also agree thereto.' 
 
 Accordingly the legates ' passed sentence.' ^ 
 
 § 4. The Sentence. 
 
 The sentence proceeded on the following grounds. 
 1. ' He received Eutyches, holding the same opinions, 
 
 ^ Lit. ' becomes one in vote with' — <Tv[x^-n(pos yivirai. The context 
 seems to give the meaning as ' will vote with,' or ' pass the same sentence 
 as.' So Dr. Bright translates the answer of Maximus : ' We will vote 
 with you.' 
 
 2 airecp-ni'avTo. Cf . Liddell and Scott s. v., and Evagrius, H. E. i. § 4, 
 used of the sentence of the Synod deposing Kestorius. Dr. Bright 
 {Roman See, p. 293) renders ' proposed a sentence.' This is nothing less 
 than a mistranslation. The legates did not propose, but 'gave,' or 
 ' issued ' — not ' a ' but ' the ' sentence, and the bishops had promised to 
 accept it. Dr. Bright's account of Julian's speech is very inadequate 
 (p. 293, note) and misleading. He omits Julian's saying that Dioscorus 
 liad ' the authority in judging ' (rb Kvpos . . . rov Kpiveiu), with which he 
 compares the position of the Papal legates ; he translates irapaKa\ovfxev 
 ' request ' (Lat. petimus), and he translates avix^-ncpos '^ivirai ' the whole 
 Council was avfj.\pTi<pos with them,' instead of, as on p. 293, ' we will vote 
 with you,' which is the real meaning. Then he calls the legates' sen- 
 tence ' their speech,' and quotes Tillemont's misleading representation 
 of ane(pr]vavro as ' avis.' Then he asks ' If it was the Synodical sen- 
 tence ' — whereas it was the sentence adopted by the Synod beforehand — 
 ' why did it conclude with " the Synod ^'Tj^iVeroi according to the 
 canons " ? ' Because the Synod had promised to accept the sentence. 
 The future is equivalent to ' shall ' in legal documents. 
 
 ^ Mansi, vi. 1045. 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCOEUS 245 
 
 into communion, although he had been regularly deprived 
 by his own bishop, Flavian. This he did ' on his own 
 authority, before he sat in Council with the God-beloved 
 bishops.' 
 
 2. ' The Apostolic See pardoned the latter for what 
 was done by them against their will.' ' They have con- 
 tinued up to this hour obedient to the most holy Arch- 
 bishop Leo and the whole of the holy (Ecumenical Synod, 
 on which account he received them as one in faith into 
 communion with himself. But Dioscorus has continued 
 up to the present to glory in these things which should 
 be his shame.' 
 
 3. ' He did not consent to the Epistle of Leo to Flavian 
 being read, although frequently entreated to read it and 
 indeed after promising on oath that he would. Through 
 this letter not being read, the Churches of God through- 
 out the world have suffered loss.' 
 
 4. All these things might have been pardoned, but 
 * his next iniquity exceeded all these, for he dared to 
 dictate a sentence of excommunication against the most 
 holy and most sacred Archbishop of great Eome, Leo.' 
 
 6. Add to all this that ' when a number of memorials 
 accusing him of irregularities were presented to the 
 Synod, and he was thrice summoned to attend its 
 session, he refused to come, evidently pricked in 
 conscience ; and he received those who had been canoni- 
 cally deprived by various Synods. Thus he bore sentence 
 against himself.' 
 
 Such were the grounds of Dioscorus's condemnation 
 as summarised by the Papal legates. It will be noticed 
 that they refer to the matter of faith ; they mention 
 that Dioscorus was ' of the same opinion ' as Eutyches, 
 that he suppressed the Tome of Leo, and that the bishops 
 
246 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 whose action at the Latrocinium was condoned were one 
 in teaching (at least they came to be so) with Leo, whereas 
 Dioscorus remained obdurate, and so the condition at- 
 tached by Leo to his condemnation was fulfilled. He was 
 proved to be not only heterodox, but a heretic. But as 
 he did not present himself to the Synod to be examined 
 by the bishops in this strictly episcopal session they 
 condemned him for what he was proved to have done. 
 Had he come to the Synod at this session, he would have 
 been convicted of heresy also.^ 
 
 And now for the sentence itself. The legates con- 
 tinued : 
 
 ' Wherefore Leo, the most holy and blessed Arch- 
 bishop of great and elder Eome, by us and the present 
 most holy Synod, in union with the thrice-blessed and all- 
 glorious Peter, the Apostle, who is the rock and founda- 
 tion of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the 
 orthodox faith, has stripped him of the episcopate and 
 deprived him of all sacerdotal rank. 
 
 ' Therefore this most holy and great Synod will vote 
 the penalties assigned by the canons.' ^ 
 
 The bishops are not here asked to consider the 
 sentence or to revise it, or to make any suggestions : but 
 the legates simply say that the bishops will as a matter 
 of course accept the sentence now pronounced and pro- 
 claim their adhesion to it. 
 
 The act of deposition was thus proclaimed to be the 
 act of Leo, and to be accomplished ' with Peter the 
 Apostle, the rock and foundation of the Church.' * Leo 
 
 ' So Leontius, De Sectis, act. 6. 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 1048 : to. S6^avra ro7s Kavdaip. Cf. the legates' request, 
 given above, that the bishops would declare the penalties attached by 
 the canons to Dioscorus's offence. 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCORUS 247 
 
 . . . has deprived him.' But Leo could not thus act ' with 
 Peter ' and with Peter as ' the rock of the Church and 
 the foundation of the orthodox faith ' and in such an act 
 lead the Church astray. Else Peter would not prove to 
 be the ' rock.' 
 
 But the act of Leo was rendered extrinsically greater 
 by the action of the Synol; The bishops are real judges, 
 and by their adhesion bore witness to the visible unity of 
 the Catholic Church. The Papal sentence then having 
 been delivered, those bishops who were orthodox would 
 as a matter of course connect themselves with the judg- 
 ment of the Apostle Peter. * Therefore the Synod will 
 adjudge the things decreed by the canons ' were the words 
 of the legates. 
 
 Many has been the struggle in the last three 
 centuries to evade the force of these plain words. Appeal 
 has been made to the words of the bishops that follow. 
 But so far as the doctrine of Papal infallibility is con- 
 cerned, the appeal is in vain. They only say exactly 
 what would be expected in accordance with that doctrine. 
 They publicly averred that they adjudged the case in 
 the same way as Leo had done. They added nothing to 
 the intrinsic value of the judgment, but they added 
 much to its persuasive force. The judgment became 
 fuller, but not more certain. The unity of the Church 
 was more conspicuous and the accidental reasons for 
 accepting its judgment were increased. 
 
 And so Anatolius of Constantinople led the way. He 
 avowed that, ' being of one mind with the Apostolic 
 throne, he voted with it, or adjudged in harmony with 
 it, on the deposition of Dioscorus,' on the ground 
 that he had incurred the penalties of the canons for 
 having disobeyed its threefold summons. Maximus, 
 
248 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 the Patriarch of Antioch, agreed with Leo and (as he 
 could now add) with Anatolius. Stephen, the Exarch of 
 Ephesus, said the same. Others could now say that 
 they agreed with these ' fathers ' or with the Synod, for 
 it was all one to say it either way. The act of Leo 
 was taking up into itself the action of the Synod. It 
 had indeed already spoken for the Synod, for before any 
 episcopal signatures or affirmations the legates had said : 
 * Leo ... by us and this present holy Synod . . . has 
 stripped Dioscorus of the episcopate.' 
 
 Each bishop's declaration was a definition, each was 
 a judgment, each was a decision, as the action of the 
 limbs in the human body is at once different from, and 
 yet one with, the head. Those limbs that do not move 
 concentrically with the head have to be restored to 
 their proper dependence, or to be cut away. So with the 
 affirmations of the bishops in Council. They themselves 
 selected this metaphor in writing to Leo. He was their 
 head, they the members. The origination of the move- 
 ment was his ; the continuance of the action in regular 
 form was theirs.* 
 
 The sentence as communicated to Dioscorus did not 
 give the bishops' reasons in full, but merely mentioned 
 the technical point of his disobedience to the summons 
 of the Synod, besides ' his other offences.' ^ This was 
 
 * The calculations of Dr. Bright ( Eoman See, p. 183, note) as to the 
 number of times the words ' decide ' ' define ' &c. are used, add nothing 
 to the argument. It was the duty of all bishops to ' define ' and ' decide,' 
 but as members, not as head, of the Synod — revolving round their 
 centre, and not out of their orbit. Dr. Bright on another page (p. 293) 
 renders iyv/jLvwa-eu [Leo] ' deprives.' As he is summarising, this is pre- 
 sumably not meant for a translation. But it misses a shade of meaning 
 conveyed by the Greek. The act originated with Leo the head, and 
 received its external completion at the Synod. It is ' Leo .... deprived.' 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 1093, 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCORUS 249 
 
 sufficient for the purpose. Those who expect that it 
 should bring in the name of Leo and who find an argu- 
 ment in its describing the deposition as its own act 
 might as well deduce something from their not mention- 
 ing the Holy Trinity as they did on one occasion, but did 
 not in their short summary communication to Dioscorus, 
 contained in a single sentence. In communicating the 
 deposition to the clergy of Constantino]3le they allude to 
 the many ways in which he was caught violating the 
 holy canons and the discipline of the Church, but in 
 their very brief document they lay the stress on his 
 refusal to obey the summons of the Council.^ 
 
 But they wrote two official reports, one to the 
 Emperors, and a second, when their numbers were 
 thinned, to St. Leo himself. The two together contain 
 a vast amount of teaching as to the discipline of the 
 Church. The latter assigns the origination of the whole 
 matter to Leo ; but it will be better to deal with this in 
 its proper place. The letter to the Emperors is of high 
 importance, as in this they give the grounds of their 
 condemnation in full.- 
 
 First, Dioscorus had prevented the Pope's letter to 
 Flavian being read at Ephesus. 
 
 Next, he had restored Eutyches ' sick with the im- 
 piety of the Manich^eans ' to his priesthood and position 
 in his monastery, ' and this after the Bishop of Kome 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 1096. Dr. Bright remarks that * instead of accepting even 
 constructively [sic] the position of being Leo's minister, the Council 
 repeatedly describes the deposition as its own act ' (Roman See, p. 184). 
 The ' construction ' that most people would put on their words is that 
 they did not feel it necessary to include the whole theology of the matter 
 in every communication. It was their own act, but not exclusively 
 such. It was originated by Leo. Cf. p. 228, 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 1097. 
 
250 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 had by that same letter decreed what was fitting, and 
 had condemned the perfidy of Eutyches in saying, '* I 
 confess, indeed, that our Lord Jesus Christ was of (e/c) 
 two natures before the union, but there is one nature 
 after the union." ' 
 
 The quotation is from the Tome of Leo, and shows 
 that they understood the latter part of the Tome as 
 a juridical sentence. Dioscorus had seen this sentence 
 which the Pope passed on Eutyches, and had suppressed 
 the Tome in which it occurred. The significance of this 
 reason must not be overlooked. 
 
 Thirdly, his misconduct to Eusebius of Dorylaeum 
 was scandalous. 
 
 Fourthly, he had received into communion those 
 who had been put out of communion, thereby offending 
 against the canon which ' teaches that those who are 
 excommunicated by one should not be received into 
 communion by another.' 
 
 But all this (the Synod says) might have been for- 
 given ; in fact, the Pope had expressly said that a door 
 of repentance was to be left to the last. But Dioscorus 
 (possibly just before the Council met) gathered together 
 ten bishops and induced them to execute the farce of 
 excommunicating St. Leo himself. This was the climax 
 of his madness. And so the Synod continues its report 
 to their Imperial Majesties by saying that — 
 
 Fifthly, 'beyond all this, he has also opened his 
 mouth like a mad dog against the Apostolic See itself, 
 and has endeavoured to frame letters of excommunication 
 against the most holy and blessed Pope Leo.' 
 
 And, lastly, ' has persisted in his iniquities and been 
 contumacious against the holy and (Ecumenical Synod, 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCORUS 251 
 
 refusing to answer to various accusations brought 
 against him.' ^ 
 
 He remains, therefore (so they wrote at the same 
 time to the Empress Pulcheria), ' a pillar of salt, and the 
 rulers of the various Churches have regained their sees, 
 Christ our Lord having prosperously directed their 
 course, Who shows the truth in the wonderful Leo ; for 
 as He used the sapient Peter, so He uses also this 
 champion of the truth,' viz. Leo.^ 
 
 Such, then, was the faith of the Church in the East 
 at that hour, viz. that Peter is the rock in Matt, xvi ; 
 Leo acted ' with ' him ; and that in the Church's gov- 
 ernment of souls, Leo takes the place of the blessed 
 Apostle Peter. The bishops of the Eastern world had 
 gathered round their centre, ' the Apostolic throne,' as 
 they called the See of Piome, and having at the desire 
 of that ' throne ' used their judgment in the matter, 
 they had endorsed its decision, and thus manifested the 
 unity of the Church. The Papal had become a Conciliar 
 judgment, not as though the (Ecumenical Council were 
 a thing apart, for it included the Pope ; but the Papal 
 
 ' Dr. Bright {Roman See, p. 184) says : ' Mr, Eivington stops just short 
 of the momentous words, " He has been fittingly deprived of his 
 episcopate by the Universal Council." ' I do not know why these words 
 are particularly ' momentous,' considering that the report is giving the 
 reasons of the Council's action. But Dr. Bright appears to suggest that 
 there is some ' suppression ' in my account, because these words are not 
 tacked on in this place. That, however, cannot be, for I have begun 
 with stating what he imagines to be suppressed, since it is ' of their con- 
 demnation,' as I have called it, that I am professedly treating. Here I 
 am giving the grounds of tJie Synodical condemnation. The fact itself is 
 placed in the forefront, that it is * their condemnation,' of which the 
 grounds are given. This was not one of the grounds. In fact 
 Dr. Bright's remark is trivial : it gives the impression of some terrible 
 suppression, when there is none whatever. 
 
 2 Mansi, vi. 1101. 
 
252 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 judgment had extended itself so as to gather up into 
 itself the orthodox Episcopate. 
 
 Three times had an Alexandrian * Pope ' deposed a 
 Bishop of Constantinople in this century : Chrysostom in 
 403, Nestorius in 431, Flavian in 449. Here at length 
 a Bishop of Constantinople takes the first place, under 
 Eome, in deposing an Alexandrian ' Pope.' ^ 
 
 There are some ' moments ' of history which deter- 
 mine a long future. Centuries of national life are 
 affected by a single incident, which, of course, has its 
 roots in the past. The deposition of Dioscorus from the 
 pinnacle of power to which he had climbed in 449 was 
 one of these. The Egyptians clung to him, eventually 
 formed a national independent community, and passed 
 out of the unity of the Church. Separate in their 
 religious life from that of the great Catholic stream, 
 their country came under the domination of Islam, to 
 be delivered from the thraldom of the most debasing 
 tyranny in this nineteenth century of the Christian era, 
 when a Gordon died for their deliverance, and a con- 
 queror has taken his name from the centre of the 
 Khalifa's rule. 
 
 But the faith remained, not with Constantinople, 
 who concurred with Eome in the deposition of the 
 Alexandrian Patriarch, but with Eome herself, who 
 had now to settle the balance disturbed by the new 
 heresy. 
 
 Note on Dioscorus being put on his Trial. 
 
 Dr. Bright (1) {Eoman See, pp. 278 and 181) endeavours to 
 make capital out of the fact that the Imperial Commissioners 
 did not send Dioscorus out of the building altogether, but only 
 ' Cf. Duchesne, Les iglises s^par^es, p. 192. 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCORUS 253 
 
 turned him out of his seat among the bishops, as though 
 this showed that they owned no obedience to the Pope as 
 * head of all the Churches.' Also (2) he understands them to 
 reprove Lucentius, the legate, for washing to act, or actually 
 posing, as accuser of Dioscorus, whom he was going to 
 judge {ibid.). 
 
 To prove (1), he translates the words avrov eto-eA^ovros 
 avayKOLOv icTTiv iKecvio avTLTeOrjvai (Mansi, vi. 581) thus : * When 
 he comes in — i.e. after having first gone out — it will be neces- 
 sary to state objections against him ' {Roman See, 211, 278). 
 There is nothing about ' first going out.' The literal transla- 
 tion is : ' He having entered [i.e. since he has entered], it is 
 necessary that he should have been opposed (or objected to),' 
 i.e. that his sitting side by side with the rest of the Council 
 should have been protested against. This, viz. the not 
 sitting with the Council, was all that the Pope had enjoined, 
 OTTOJS AiocTKopos fxi] (TvyKaOeaOrj tw avveSpto) ; the going OUtside 
 the four walls and coming in again was merely a detail which 
 the legates suggested. The essence of the Papal injunction 
 was clearly that Dioscorus was to be put on his trial, and 
 not to be admitted as judge of anyone. So Evagrius seems to 
 take it {H. E. II. iv. and xvii.). And so Quesnel expresses the 
 legates' contention : ' Id mandatum a Leone ne ut judex sed 
 utreus admitteretur ' {Diss, de Vit. Leonis, Chalc. Act. I.). The 
 Commissioners themselves later on say to Dioscorus, when 
 outside the cu'cle of bishops, * You sit in the place of those 
 under accusation ' (Mansi, vi. 645). So Natalis Alexander : 
 ' Petentibus legatis, decernentibus magistratibus, Dioscorus 
 in synodo sedere prohibitus est ut judex, jussus in medio 
 sedere ut reus ' {H. E. Vol. IX. cap. iii. Art. xiii. § 17). And 
 Mansi himself thus writes : * Item enituit dominativa S. 
 Leonis in synodum potestas quia jusserat Dioscorum in 
 synodum tamquam episcopum non recipi sed solum audiri, 
 atque ejus praeceptis synodus obtemperavit ' (Nat. Alex. Diss, 
 xii. Animadv. in potestatem dominativam quam exercuit S. 
 Leo in concilium &c. § 1). The Pope, I repeat, had not 
 
254 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 entered into details, but merely ordered that Dioscorus 
 should not be judge, but on his trial the legates insisted 
 that by way of executing this order, Dioscorus should leave 
 his seat at once, * go out,' else they would themselves with- 
 draw. The Imperial Commissioners hesitated at this strong 
 measure, and wished the legates to accuse him there and 
 then before he left his seat. This the legates refused to do. 
 And here we come to Dr. Bright' s second misrepresentation 
 of the scene ; 
 
 For (2) the magistrates did not say, either ' sharply ' or at 
 all, to the legate Lucentius, as Dr. Bright maintains [Boman 
 See, p. 278), ' If you claim to judge, do not be accuser too,' or, 
 as he elsewhere translates {ibid. p. 182), * If you represent a 
 judge, you must not be accuser as well ; ' neither, as the same 
 writer expresses himself elsewhere, did * the Commissioners 
 tell a legate that he had no business to be both judge and 
 accuser ' (Way marks, p. 226, note 4). The words to which Dr. 
 Bright in each case refers his readers are these : d ZiKaaTov 
 eTrevct? irpoo'WTTOV, u)s 8iKa^o//,ei/os ovk ocjSet'Aets StKatoXoyetcr^at — 
 * If you hold the character of judge, you ought not (or you 
 are under no obligation) to plead your case as one on trial.' 
 How Dr. Bright gets ' accuser ' out of 8iKa^o/x,€i/os . . . 8tKato- 
 XoydaOai, 1 do not know. Possibly he has been misled by 
 the corrupt Latin text, which, however, he must have seen 
 was corrected in the margin. And no one pretends that we 
 have the Latin original even of Lucentius's speeches in this 
 case. Neither did the Imperial Commissioners speak in 
 Latin. Besides Dr. Bright, in each instance, gives his refer- 
 ences to the Greek. The fact is that the words in question 
 were obviously addressed, not to Lucentius the legate at all, 
 but to Dioscorus. It is inconceivable that they should be 
 addressed to Lucentius, since he had refused to be the 
 accuser of Dioscorus ; and the Commissioners, as repre- 
 sentatives of the Emperor, were on the side of the legates, 
 so far as sympathy went ; ^ whereas these words, as 
 ' Cf. Harnack, Hist, of Dogma, iv. 217 (Tr.). 
 
SENTENCE ON DIOSCORUS 255 
 
 addressed to Dioscorus, explain the next three lines, in 
 which we are told that Dioscorus [left the seat he had dared 
 to occupy and] ' sat in the middle,' the place for the accused. 
 In other words, he was transferred at the instance of the 
 legates, pleading the order of * the head of all the Churches,' 
 from the bench to the dock. So that what, according to the 
 Greek text, the magistrates had said to Dioscorus was : ' If 
 you hold the place (or represent the person) of a judge, you 
 must not (= cannot) plead your cause as one on trial {Slku- 
 C6fx€vos).' The suppressed inference is that ' since you have 
 to answer for yourself as under accusation, it follows that 
 you cannot sit in the place of a judge.' The magistrates in 
 fact had given in to the legate. Accordingly, Dioscorus left 
 the seat of judge for the place of accused. It will be 
 noticed that Dr. Bright not only mistranslates SiKa^ofxevos as 
 * accuser,' but he translates et ^CKaarov iirex^is Trpoa-uJirov, * If 
 you claim to judge.' This is doubly wrong. There is 
 nothing in the Greek to justify the italicised * you ' ; and 
 cTrexets is invariably followed by the dative when it signifies 
 to ' aim at,' so that, even if it could here mean * claim,' it 
 would naturally have been followed by the dative, whereas 
 TTpoa-wTTov is in the accusative case. 
 
 Dr. Bright accuses me of culpable omission in the first 
 edition of this work because certain words to the legate were 
 not given. But these are (1) the very words which he 
 has mistranslated, and their omission, if they are correctly 
 translated, does not interfere with the substantial accuracy 
 of the narrative as I have given it; and (2) the other 
 (omitted) words are those which Dr. Bright takes to be an 
 order for Dioscorus to leave, not merely his place as judge, 
 but the building itself, a detail which does not alter the 
 argument as to the deference paid to the decision of Leo. 
 And as for omissions, it is only right to say that Dr. Bright 
 in his somewhat detailed account of the opening scene at 
 Chalcedon in Wayrnarks, p. 226, omits (1) the crucial words 
 ' who is the head of all the Churches,' though this was the 
 
256 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 ground of the obedience claimed for Leo's order ; also (2) the 
 words about Dioscorus having to give account of his own 
 judgment * because he took upon himself the office or 
 character (ttpoo-wttoj/) of judging which he did not possess,' 
 words which give the key to the sentence misunderstood by 
 Dr. Bright ; and, lastly (3), he omits the important words 
 * which is not competent to be done ' from Lucentius'a 
 explanation of the reason why Dioscorus should stand out 
 as under trial. 
 
 On the whole, when we remember that the Emperor had 
 not expressly and explicitly summoned Dioscorus for trial, 
 and yet that he was now put in the dock, after some vacilla- 
 tion on the part of the Imperial Commissioners, in obedience 
 simply and solely to the statement of the legates that Leo, 
 as ' the head of all the Churches,' had ordered that it should 
 be so, this witness of the opening incident in the Council to 
 the prerogative of the See of Peter is as decisive as anything 
 could be. A year before, the Archbishop of Alexandria was 
 master of the position throughout the East ; at this hour he 
 was in the dock by order of the Bishop of Borne. 
 
CHAPTEE III 
 
 THE council's DEFINITION 
 
 § 1. The Need of a Bejinition 
 
 The Emperor Marcian in his letter to Leo concerning 
 the Council had said that * those things which conduce 
 to the [maintenance of the] Catholic faith shall be laid 
 down as yoitr Holiness in accordance ivith the canons 
 of the Church has ruled^ ^ in allusion to the Tome, or 
 letter to Flavian. The Empress Pulcheria had also 
 said to Leo, that the Council was summoned in order 
 that the bishops ' may decide hij your authority in 
 accordance with what the faith and the Christian 
 religion demands.' ^ These two utterances must be borne 
 in mind if we are to have a clear view of the situation. 
 But besides this, we must not forget that Leo had 
 also written to the Emperor Marcian saying that he 
 ought to ' order that what had been established by the 
 ancient Council of Nicsea, should remain firm.' ^ He had 
 also said to the Synod itself that they were to take care 
 * that the decisions against Nestorius in the Council of 
 Ephesus, over which Cyril presided, should be undis- 
 turbed ; ' '' and, to the Empress Pulcheria, saying that 
 he * had given injunctions to his legates as to the " form " 
 \i.e. of sound teaching] which they were to preserve.' ^ 
 
 1 SttTUTToxre. Cf. Ball, in Leon. Ep. 76. - Ep. 77- 
 
 3 Ep. 90. * Ep. 93. ^ Ep. 95. 
 
 S 
 
258 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Further, the Emperors had written to the bishops of the 
 Council saying that * the holy Synod in the city of Nicaea 
 . . . was to be confirmed.' ^ 
 
 Now it was not possible to ' confirm ' the Nicene 
 faith by merely reciting the Nicene Creed. St. Cyril 
 had expressly told Nestorius that it was not sufficient 
 for him to do that. He must also accept the authorised 
 explanations of that Creed. ^ At the Council of Ephesus, 
 however, the bishops had not themselves drawn up 
 any doctrinal formulary ; they had simply accepted the 
 ruling of Celestine as to the Hypostatic union as in 
 harmony with the Nicene faith, and thereupon excom- 
 municated Nestorius.^ But the Council of Chalcedon 
 in its fifth session issued a new doctrinal formulary, 
 based on the Tome of Leo ; and in this it stood alone 
 up to this time. Its formulary was not a Creed, but 
 an explanation of one point in the Creed of Nicaea ; 
 and it was to be presented to those suspected of heresy, 
 not in lieu of, but in addition to, the Nicene Creed. The 
 work of drawing up this definition of faith now 
 occupied the Council during three sessions, and it ad- 
 vanced to its issue by three stages. First, many of the 
 bishops refused to entertain the idea of framing any 
 such definition, but they were overruled ; next, their 
 conciliar adhesion to the Tome on which the definition 
 was based had to be publicly proclaimed, that their unity 
 might be clear and emphatic as to the doctrine to be 
 defined ; and lastly, they had to be guided into an 
 accurate expression of the salient point set forth in that 
 Tome. 
 
 And all through this matter the Imperial Commis- 
 sioners acted in concert with the Papal legates. As 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 552. -' Ibid. iv. 1071. = Cf. supra, p. 77. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 259 
 
 Hefele remarks, the practical good sense exhibited by the 
 Commissioners, even from a theological point of view, 
 leads us to ask whether they were not inspired in their 
 conduct of the business by the Papal legates. Professor 
 Harnack deplores the ascendency of Leo in the Council 
 through his legates ; he thinks that the definition of 
 faith framed in the fifth session had been prepared by 
 them beforehand and shown to Dioscorus at the meeting 
 between him and the Emperor and Empress previous to 
 the Council, and he considers that ' the disgrace attach- 
 ing to this Council consists in the fact that the great 
 majority of the bishops who held the same views as 
 Cyril and Dioscorus finally allowed a formula to be 
 forced upon them which was that of strangers, of the 
 Emperor and the Pope, and which did not correspond to 
 their belief.' ' 
 
 Harnack's theological position, unfortunately, does not 
 allow him to sympathise with the Christology taught then 
 and ever since by the Catholic Church ; and he draws 
 such a sharp line of distinction between East and West 
 as to obscure the unity of the Church, so that the 
 Eastern Emperor and the Pope are in his view of matters 
 
 * strangers ' to the Eastern bishops ; yet his account is so 
 far true that the issue of the Council of Chalcedon was 
 (as events proved) a purely external conformity to the 
 Tome of Leo on the part of some of the bishops ; but 
 Harnack immensely overrates the minority that thus 
 submitted. 
 
 We have now to see how the Commissioners conducted 
 their delicate task of fulfilling the Emperor's order that 
 
 * what was expedient for the Catholic faith should be laid 
 down as his Holiness [Leo] in accordance with the 
 
 • Hist, of Dogma, iv. 215 (Tr.). 
 
 s 2 
 
260 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 canons of the Church decided,' and how the legates exe- 
 cuted the order of Leo to keep to the ' form ' which he 
 had given them in his Tome. 
 
 The matter of Dioscorus having been so far settled at 
 the first session as that he was judged by the Imperial 
 Commissioners worthy of deposition, though the sentence 
 was not then pronounced but deferred until the second 
 or third/ the Commissioners and Senate had closed the 
 first session with saying that on the following day each 
 of the bishops must forthwith ' expound his faith in 
 writing.' ^ They at the same time bade them take note 
 that the Emperor himself ' believes in accordance with 
 the '' exposition " of the 318 holy fathers at Nicasa and in 
 accordance with the " exposition " of the 150 after that, 
 and with the canonical epistles and " expositions " ^ of the 
 holy fathers Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, 
 and the two canonical letters of Cyril confirmed and 
 published in the first Synod of Ephesus.' And they 
 added : ' For moreover Leo, the most reverend Archbishop 
 of older Eome, has sent forth "* his epistle to Flavian of 
 holy memory against the doubts raised by Eutyches in 
 contradiction to the faith of the Catholic Church.' 
 
 One or two points need to be noticed in this injunc- 
 tion of the Commissioners which is the keynote to three 
 following sessions. In the first place, the Constantino- 
 
 ' I have anticipated the acts of the third session in the account 
 given of Dioscorus's deposition, in order to give the narrative a certain 
 unity. It is, however, possible, though (it seems to me) improbable, that 
 the sequence has been disturbed in the ordinary accounts. 
 
 - Mansi, vi. 936 : ottws Tncrrevd, tyypdcpws iKOeaSai inrouSaaa.Tw, 
 yivdaKctJV k.t,\. 
 
 ^ (paiverai eKTre/nJ/as, the equivalent of i^(0iTo which is used by the 
 Emperor of Leo's Bending forth his Tome, ibid. 937 ; also cf. vii. 465, for 
 a similar use. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 261 
 
 politan Creed is expressly mentioned in opposition to its 
 indirect repudiation at the Latrocinium by Dioscorus and 
 his followers. In the next place, no room for doubt is 
 left as to the ex animo reception of Leo's Tome by the 
 Emperor and his representatives, the Imperial Commis- 
 sioners. Thirdly, what the Emperor and his representa- 
 tives considered the subject matter for the Council's 
 action was not, in reality, the truth of Leo's teaching, 
 but the extent of the assent given to it by the bishops. 
 For the Commissioners distinctly spoke of Leo's Tome 
 already in this stage as having opposed the teaching of 
 Eutyches ' in contradiction to the faith of the Catholic 
 Church.' 
 
 In fact, the Becits de Dioscore lets us know that before 
 the Council the Emperor and Empress had done their 
 best to persuade Dioscorus to accept Leo's Tome, but in 
 vain. 
 
 And now in entering upon the session in which the 
 matter of faith was mooted it must be remembered that 
 Dioscorus' s party, though small, was strong, and that 
 their position was this. Flavian had been condemned 
 by virtue of a misrepresentation of the seventh canon, 
 more properly called simply a decree, of the (Ecumenical 
 Council of Ephesus. Dioscorus had read the decree as 
 though it forbade any * exposition ' ^ of the faith other 
 than that made by the 318 fathers of Nicaea. Eutyches 
 had by implication excluded even the Constantinopolitan 
 form of the Nicene Creed, and had been defended by 
 Dioscorus. But Flavian had ' expounded ' ^ the faith so 
 as to show that there was in the Nicene Creed enough to 
 condemn Eutyches, and he was himself condemned by 
 Dioscorus on the technical ground that by publishing an 
 
262 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 * exposition ' beyond that of the Nieene fathers, he had 
 offended against the Ephesine rule.^ This was the 
 standpoint of the faction among the bishops that secretly 
 adhered to Dioscorus. This the Commissioners knew 
 well, and they had added a reason why the bishops 
 should make an * exposition,' viz. ' that those who seem 
 not to have been of one mind with the rest might be 
 brought back to harmony by the full knowledge of the 
 truth.' When, therefore, it was proposed, as it was in 
 the next session, in the same terms as in the first, that 
 the bishops should make an ' exposition,' they, or rather 
 some of them,^ exclaimed against such a course. They 
 had, doubtless, other grounds for protesting ; they 
 were in secret sympathy with Dioscorus. The Commis- 
 sioners, then, having spoken again of the Emperor's ad- 
 hesion to ' the faith handed down by the 318, and by the 
 150, and moreover by the rest of the holy and illustrious 
 fathers ' (those mentioned at the end of the first session), 
 and having asked the bishops ' to expound the faith 
 clearly,' ^ the latter burst into the exclamation : * No one 
 makes another exposition, nor do we attempt nor dare to 
 " expound " ; for the fathers have taught, and the exposi- 
 tions made by them are preserved in writing : besides 
 those we cannot say [anything].' 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 907. 
 
 2 Ibid. 953. Eusticus in his Annotation here says expressly that it 
 was only some of the bishops that thus exclaimed. He apparently 
 argues from the omission of the word ' all.' And Eusticus's experience and 
 the fact that he studied the records in Chalcedon, or Constantinople, in 
 the following century, make him an important witness. I have treated 
 his suggestion as one of great value. If all the bishops thus exclaimed, 
 all one can say is that they afterwards all changed their minds and made 
 an ' exposition,' which, of course, was not a Creed. There was no question 
 about framing a Creed. 
 
 3 ^KQeffBai. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 263 
 
 Cecropius, Bishop of Sebastopol, by way of strengthen- 
 ing their contention, added : ' The Eiitychian matter has 
 sprung up ; on this a " form " ^ has been given by the 
 most holy archbishop at Eome, and we go by it,^ and 
 have all subscribed the letter.' Upon which the 
 bishops shouted : ' This we all say ; the expositions 
 suffice ; it is not competent to us to make another 
 exposition.' In other words, ' We all agree that we are 
 guided by the authoritative decision of Leo on the 
 Eutychian heresy, so that no exposition is needed in 
 regard to that : therefore the expositions already made 
 suffice — we are not permitted to make another.' They 
 were, as the event shows, mistaken in their application 
 of the Ephesine rule. It did not forbid a fresh conciliar 
 * exposition ' such as was contemplated in this case, for 
 such an exposition would not consist in inserting any- 
 thing into the Creed itself, to be presented to converts ; 
 it would only be an explanation.^ 
 
 The Imperial Commissioners were by no means 
 satisfied with this. They therefore proposed that ' the 
 patriarchs of each diocese ' (using ' diocese ' in the sense 
 of a group of provinces) should gather in the middle of 
 the church and deliberate about the faith in common, 
 and then, if all agreed, well and good ; if not, they would 
 make their opinions known. But again the bishops 
 
 • rviros, here, an authoritative mould, an ordinance, in the full sense 
 of the term. 
 
 - (TTOLxovfiev avT(f. 
 
 ^ Of course, it was also true that the authority of the Council of 
 Chalcedon was equal to that of Ephesus. And what the purely Eastern 
 Council of Constantinople could do, that the (Ecumenical Council of 
 Chalcedon could also do, viz. develop the Creed. But it decided not to 
 do that. These same persons actually proposed, in the fifth session, to 
 insert the word Q^otokos into the Creed. 
 
264 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 shouted : ' We make no exposition : the canon rules 
 that the expositions suffice ; the canon rules that no 
 fresh exposition should be made ; let those of the fathers 
 prevail.' 
 
 In fact, as has been already observed, no doctrinal 
 definition had been issued by the (Ecumenical Council of 
 Ephesus. Nestorius had been condemned on the ex 
 cathedra judgment of Celestine, which contained a 
 mention of the Hypostatic union, ^ and decided that this 
 doctrine was expressed m the term ' Mother of God,' but 
 the Council itself was not called upon to frame any 
 exposition of the faith in explanation of its teaching. 
 And these bishops at Chalcedon seem to have argued 
 that it was not competent for them to engage in such 
 work, but that it came under the prohibition of the 
 Ephesine Synod. They appear to have thought that if 
 they could not ' expound ' in the shape of a Creed, they 
 could not expound at all. In this they were mistaken, 
 and eventually they submitted to the proposal of the 
 Imperial Commissioners, inspired as these evidently 
 were by the Papal legates. - 
 
 Florentius, Bishop of Sardis, was the first to give in, 
 if indeed, as may be doubted, he had joined in the cries 
 of protest. By way of executing the wishes of the 
 magistrates, he first deprecated being called on to draw 
 up anything offhand.^ He described himself as among 
 those — indeed he seems to have spoken for all — ' who 
 had been taught to follow the Nicene and Ephesine 
 Synods in accordance with the faith of the holy fathers, 
 
 ' Mansi, iv. 548-552. 
 
 2 See note on p. 292 for a criticism of Dr. Bright's remarks on this 
 incident. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 266 
 
 Cyril, and Celestine, and with the epistle of the most 
 holy Leo.' He asked therefore for a time to be fixed, 
 ' so that we may approach the truth of the matter with 
 becoming consideration, although certainly as regards 
 our own selves, who have subscribed the letter of Leo, 
 we need no setting right.' In other words, to have 
 subscribed the Tome of Leo was a sufficient guarantee of 
 orthodoxy. His request for an interval of delay was 
 a reasonable one, for some time was necessarily required 
 to frame a doctrinal definition expounding the truth 
 which was denied by Eutyches, and, as he must have 
 known well, was not clearly (if at all) held by the 
 faction of Dioscorus. Cecropius, accordingly, spoke 
 again, and proposed what was a natural preliminary to 
 the work before them. ' The faith,' he said, ' has been 
 well expressed ^ by the 318 holy fathers, and has been 
 confirmed by the holy fathers— Athanasius, Cyril, 
 Celestine, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now again by the 
 most holy Leo ; and we beg that the [expositions] of the 
 318 fathers and of Leo be read.' ^ 
 
 It will be noticed that he omits any mention of the 
 150 fathers or of Cyril : probably because the Imperial 
 and Papal order was that whatever was decreed was to be 
 in accordance with the faith of Nicaea as explained by 
 Leo. It was necessary, therefore, to have at least these 
 two documents read publicly. 
 
 The Commissioners accordingly had the Nicene 
 Creed read, which was followed by exclamations such as 
 ' In this we were baptised,' ' Blessed Cyril thus taught,' 
 * Pope Leo thus believes,' ' Pope Leo has thus inter- 
 preted ' — declarations which must be borne in mind 
 
 ■ etp-qTai is undoubtedly the right reading. Cf. Evagrius, H. E. ii. 18. 
 ^ Simply Tck Tcov . . . irarepuv k. t, Aeouros. 
 
266 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 when we come to the bishops' signatures to the Tome in 
 the succeeding session. 
 
 Next the Constantinopolitan form of the Creed was 
 read, which had been obliquely depreciated at the Latro- 
 cinium. The exclamations as given in the record were 
 few : nothing was said about their having been baptised 
 into it.^ As a matter of fact, most Churches of the 
 East still gave the original form of the Nicene Creed to 
 their candidates for baptism. The Roman Church 
 presented only the Apostles' Creed. At Antioch the 
 Constantinopolitan was not sung at every solemn Mass 
 until the time of Peter the Fuller, but only on Easter 
 Sunday. But it received here at Chalcedon a more 
 public welcome than it had received before. For the 
 record says, ' All the most reverend bishops cried out, 
 " This is the faith of all ; we all believe thus." ' 
 
 Next, at the proposal of Aetius, Archdeacon of Con- 
 stantinople, two letters of Cyril were read — his second 
 letter to Nestorius and his letter to John of Antioch, 
 both of which as the archdeacon remarked, had received 
 the Church's sanction. Their recitation was followed by 
 cries of the bishops to the effect that Cyril and Leo were 
 really at one. 
 
 Then was read the Tome of Leo, after which the 
 bishops burst into the following cries, probably as a 
 kind of war song, with slight intonations : * This is the 
 faith of the fathers, this the faith of the Apostles. We 
 all believe thus ; the orthodox thus believe. Anathema 
 to him who does not thus believe. Peter has uttered 
 these things through Leo. The Apostles taught thus. 
 Leo has taught piously and truly. Cyril thus taught. 
 Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril 
 
 • Mansi, vi. 957. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 267 
 
 have taught alike. Anathema to him who does not thus 
 believe. This is the true faith. We the orthodox thus 
 think. Thisis the faith of the fathers. Why was not this 
 read at Ephesus ? This is what Dioscorus concealed.' ^ 
 
 Two things need to be noticed. First, even if the 
 Tome of Leo had not before this been part of the rule of 
 faith (as, nevertheless, we have seen it was) it certainly 
 was such at this hour. The ' anathemas ' settle that 
 question. This is to be borne in mind in view of the 
 next session. Secondly, it is only when we come to 
 Leo's Tome that the mention of the Apostles and the 
 name of Peter occurs in the exclamations. 
 
 But during the reading of St. Leo's Tome, the 
 Imperial secretary was three times interrupted by the 
 Illyrian and Palestinian bishops. It must be re- 
 membered that the latter were under the jurisdiction of 
 Juvenal of Jerusalem, who had failed so conspicuously at 
 the Latrocinium. Why the Illyrians made so much 
 trouble in the Council, it is difficult to say. But the two 
 together formed but an infinitesimal portion of the vast 
 assembly. They were not joined in this action of theirs 
 by the Egyptian bishops, who, as we shall see, had their 
 own line of action. But these forty-eight bishops (out 
 of 600) from Illyria and Palestine were dealt with in 
 most considerate fashion. Three passages in St. Leo's 
 Tome caused them difficulty. They could not under- 
 stand how they could be reconciled with Cyril's teaching, 
 which yet had been sanctioned by the Church. It was, 
 as they said in the next session, a matter of phraseology 
 which confused them ; ^ they did not presume to imply 
 that the occupant of the Holy See was not orthodox. 
 This they distinctly asserted."^ Two of these passages 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 972. ^ ^ ^ (ppda-is Su<rray ijvlrTeTo {ibid. vii. 32). ^ jj^^^ 39. 
 
268 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 were explained by Aetius the Archdeacon, and the 
 third by Theodoret. In each case some passages from 
 Cyril were produced to show the conformity of teaching. 
 
 At the conclusion the Commissioners and Senate 
 asked if any doubted, and the answer shouted out was 
 ' No one.' But it was assumed that not all joined in the 
 cry, and accordingly Atticus of Nicopolis asked that an 
 interval of a few days should be allowed them and that 
 since ' the letter of our lord ^ and most holy father and 
 archbishop Leo ' had been read, they might be allowed 
 to take with them for perusal the letter of Cyril to which 
 the twelve Anathematisms were attached, so that in the 
 time of discussion — i.e. as to the definition of faith to be 
 drawn up — ' they might be fully provided.' Five days 
 were granted and they were to meet at the house of 
 Anatolius and ' consult in common concerning the faith, so 
 that those who doubt may be taught.' ' All the bishops ' 
 then repudiated the idea that anyone doubted, for they 
 had signed the Tome of Leo. Still the Commissioners, 
 who knew well that some needed instruction, as their 
 interruptions had shown, persisted that Anatolius should 
 select some of those who signed {i.e. the enormous 
 majority) and who were fitted to teach the others. 
 
 The Nestorians, in after times, adduced this treat- 
 ment of the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops as a flaw in 
 the Council of Chalcedon, for, they urged, the bishops 
 were placed under Anatolius to be taught, when Anatolius 
 was a known sympathiser with Dioscorus and tinged 
 with Eutychian tendencies. But Anatolius had signed 
 the Tome of Leo and publicly proclaimed his intention to 
 
 ' Mansi, vi. 974. The word SeairdTrjsis used in the Council of Chalce- 
 don (i) of our Divine Lord, (ii) of the Emperor, (iii) of the Pope, and of 
 no one else. 
 
NEED OF A DEFINITION 269 
 
 force it on the acceptance of those under him under 
 anathema ; although it is true that he was still some- 
 what leavened with, not Eutycliian, hut Alexandrian 
 sympathies. And his action in the fifth session was 
 corrected by that of the Papal legates. 
 
 So far, it will be seen, there was no conciliar investi- 
 gation or examination of the Tome of Leo, unless any- 
 one were to dignify with such a name the interruptions 
 of these few Illyrian and Palestinian bishops, who were 
 immediately set right by the Archdeacon and Theodoret, 
 or unless we consider the decision of the Commissioners 
 and Senate to refer these few bishops to Anatolius to be 
 ' taught ' in his house, a conciliar examination. In 
 truth, the objection that has been so confidently raised, 
 that the Tome of Leo was sanctioned by the Synod after 
 examination as by a superior authority, collapses for 
 want of evidence, so soon as we take the whole of the 
 facts into consideration. So far, it had been made from 
 the very beginning the test of orthodoxy. The bishops, by 
 signing it, witnessed to their own orthodoxy rather than 
 set a seal to that of Leo. Their witness, however, did give 
 to the Tome that external recommendation which, though 
 not needed for the strong, was calculated to assist the 
 weak by its impressive exhibition of the Church's unity. 
 And as events proved, every help was needed to preserve 
 the faith in the coming century. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE council's DEFINITION 
 
 § 2. The Adhesion to Leo's Tome as a necessary 
 Prelimi7iary 
 
 We have now reached the second stage in the proceedings 
 immediately concerning the faith. That part of the 
 minutes of the previous session was re-read in which 
 the Commissioners and Senate had requested that each 
 bishop should make an ' exposition,' to teach (that is, 
 to exercise their office of teaching in a solemn way) 
 what all were to hold. The object had been distinctly 
 stated, viz. that as there were a few who appeared to 
 differ from the great majority, ' these might be brought 
 into harmony by a full knowledge of the truth ' — the 
 * truth ' being, according to the Emperor's faith, the 
 Nicene Creed, as amplified by the 150 fathers at Con- 
 stantinople in 381, and as interpreted by the Council of 
 Ephesus under Cyril, in 431 in respect to the heresy of 
 Nestorius, and again as interpreted by the Tome of Leo 
 in regard to the heresy of Eutyches.^ It is of the utmost 
 importance to bear this expressly stated object in mind. 
 They were not engaged in investigating any question 
 as to whether the Nicene Creed was true, or whether its 
 amplification at Constantinople, or its interpretation at 
 Ephesus and again by Leo, was valid ; they were asked 
 
 • Mansi, vi. 252. 
 
ADHESION TO LEO'S TOME 271 
 
 simply to confirm all four by a public conciliar adhesion 
 and a fresh pronouncement of the Episcopate as to the 
 agreement of these four expositions. There was, how- 
 ever, a difference between the Tome or epistle of Leo 
 and the three former : these latter had been already con- 
 ciliarly promulgated ; the Tome had not. The bishops 
 had, indeed, pronounced, and collectively pronounced, 
 an anathema on anyone who did not believe in the 
 teaching of Leo on the subject of the Incarnation ; they 
 had, with very few exceptions, signed that document as 
 expounding the orthodox faith ; and when they found 
 that a small handful of bishops could not see how three 
 passages in it could be reconciled with the teaching of 
 Cyril— through ignorance, as it proved, of Cyril's writings 
 — they had committed these to the care of Anatolius and 
 some others, to be ' taught ' ; they had also, during the 
 last five days, considered the best way of formulating 
 their faith on the basis of Leo's Tome. 
 
 But now they issued forth from their more private 
 considerations, and were to teach before the world what 
 their faith was, that (so the Commissioners had said in 
 effect) proclaiming their own unity they might teach the 
 world with one voice. They themselves, or rather a 
 minority of them, the least naturally disposed to exalt 
 unduly the Apostolic See, afterwards described their 
 situation thus : they spoke of ' the knowledge of the 
 Lord ' ' which the Saviour brought us from above,' ' which 
 you yourself ' (Leo) ' preserved as a golden chain reaching 
 down to us by the precept of the Lawgiver, being consti- 
 tuted the interpreter of the voice of Peter to all, and 
 yourself bringing the blessedness of his faith to all, 
 whence we also, using you as the originator of what was 
 good \h.e, the true faith], showed forth the inheritance of 
 
272 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 the truth to the children of the Church.' * Such is their 
 own account of what took place. Let us compare this 
 with the actual minutes of the Council. 
 
 The Commissioners thus addressed the reassembled 
 Synod : ' The decisions previously arrived at having 
 now been made plain ' — i.e. the minutes of the previous 
 session about the duty of the bishops having been read 
 — * let the Synod itself teach what has been decided 
 concerning the faith.' The Papal legates at once stepped 
 forward and said : * The holy and oecumenical and blessed 
 Synod holds fast the rule of faith of the 318, expounded 
 by them at Nicsea, and likewise the definitions ; and 
 further the Synod of the 150 gathered together at Con- 
 stantinople under Theodosius the Great of blessed 
 memory : the exposition of which Creed ^ at the Synod 
 at Ephesus under Cyril of blessed memory, in which 
 Nestorius was condemned, it likewise embraces. But 
 also the letter sent by the most blessed Leo, Archbishop 
 of all the Churches, makes clear what the true faith is : 
 likewise also the holy Synod holds this faith ; this it 
 follows ; and it allows nothing further to be added or to 
 be taken away.' ^ 
 
 This solemn exposition of the teaching of the Synod 
 
 » Leon. Ep. 08. 
 
 2 Mansi, vii. 9. Notice that the Nicene faith is said to be ' confirmed ' 
 by the Eastern Synod of 381, and that the word ' exposition ' is not the 
 equivalent of ' Creed,' since here it is used of the action of putting forth 
 the Creed : ovtlvos avix^oKov ri]v '^Kdeaiv are the Greek words. So that 
 Dr. Bright is mistaken in identifying iKQ^ffis with the ' Creed ' simply 
 {Roman See, p. 186). 
 
 ^ Thus, again, Dr. Bright is mistaken in imagining that the bishops 
 thought that the Ephesine rule did not forbid additions to document^ 
 like the Tome {ihid.). Mansi says : Fatentur nil addendum seumutan- 
 dum iis, quce S. Leo in sua epistola docuerat {/hiim. in Nat. Alex. 
 H.E. ix. 524.) 
 
ADHESION TO LEO'S TOME 273 
 
 was uttered in Latin, although Paschasinus was acquainted 
 with Greek, but it was the custom that the utterances of 
 Papal legates, when specially solemn, should be made in 
 Latin, and then translated into Greek. This being done, 
 the bishops exclaimed : ' We all believe thus ; so we were 
 baptised ; so we believed ; so we believe.' ^ 
 
 Now these bishops were not informing the world that 
 the Nicene Creed was true ; they were bent on no such 
 superfluous errand : they were proclaiming that the 
 Creed as expoimded by the 150 fathers, by the Council 
 of Ephesus, and by Leo, was the faith of the Church. 
 They were, therefore, now asked to say this (which they 
 had already said) in presence of the holy Gospels, which 
 had been placed in their midst — in a word, to confirm it 
 by oath — or, as the Commissioners put the matter, 
 ' Since we see the holy Gospels placed in front by your 
 Eeverence, let each of the bishops assembled here teach ' 
 [not merely say, but say as holders of the teaching office 
 in common with the occupant of the Holy See] ' whether 
 the exposition of the 318 fathers assembled at Nicasa, and 
 after that the 150 assembled in the Imperial city, agrees 
 with the letter of the most reverend Archbishop Leo.' 
 
 What this really comes to, if we connect it with what 
 had gone before, is this : let each publicly and solemnly 
 say if, as is of course the case,^ the doubts which a few 
 had felt, or pretended to feel, have been removed, and if 
 the harmony of which we spoke in the beginning has been 
 restored ' by the full knowledge of the truth,' so that you 
 hold the same faith as the Emperor holds, viz. the 
 Nicene Creed as interpreted by Leo. 
 
 • Cf. Appendix on ' The Epistle to Flavian irreformable from the 
 first,' for the significance of the bishops' signatures in this session. 
 ■^ The 6i is followed by the indicative. 
 
 T 
 
274 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Anatolius responded at once, saying that the letter of 
 Leo agrees with the Symbol of Nicsea, confirmed by the 
 150, and with the transactions of the (Ecumenical Council 
 of Ephesus under Cyril, when Nestorius was condemned. 
 ' Wherefore I assented and willingly subscribed.' 
 
 Now Leo had told Anatolius to read his Tome care- 
 fully and to compare it with the letters of Cyril, and to 
 sign it as ' the confession of the common faith,' and 
 having done this to make a declaration before all the 
 clergy and the whole flock of Constantinople, and then 
 ' to notify the fact publicly to the Apostolic See and to 
 all the Lord's priests [i.e. the bishops] and Churches.' 
 He had at the same time sent four legates whose business 
 it was ' to declare the exact faith which we hold, the 
 form of our faith, so that if the Bishop of Constantinople 
 consents to the same confession of faith, with his whole 
 heart, we may feel secure and rejoice in the peace of the 
 Church. If, however, there is any dissent from the 
 purity of our faith and the authority of the fathers, a 
 Council must be held in Italy, so that it may not be open 
 to anyone to talk about the Nicene Creed and yet be in 
 opposition to it. ' ' And Anatolius had done this, as we 
 learn from a letter which Pulcheria wrote to Leo in 
 November (450).^ And accordingly, the Pope told Ana- 
 tolius that he joined him with the legates for ' the execu- 
 tion of his decree.' ^ Anatolius, therefore, in this fourth 
 session of Chalcedon merely said before the Council and 
 in presence of the holy Gospels what he had already 
 publicly declared to the bishops of his eparchy, and in 
 immediately succeeding the Papal legates he was acting 
 according to Leo's arrangement. 
 
 But Paschasinus now rose again and in the name of 
 
 Leon. Ep. 69. - Ep. 77. ^ Ep. 85 : ' executionem nostrse dispositionis.' 
 
ADHESION TO LEO'S TOME 275 
 
 the legates made the following statement : * It is clear 
 and it cannot be disputed that there is one faith of Leo 
 the most blessed Pope, prelate of the Apostolic See, 
 agreeing with the faith of the 318 holy fathers who 
 assembled at Nicaea, and of the 150 assembled at Con- 
 stantinople, as also that those things hold which were 
 decided at Ephesus under Cyril of holy memory, when 
 Nestorius was deposed on account of his particular error, 
 and that there is nowhere any discordance whatever. 
 Therefore also the epistle of the most blessed Pope, 
 which has been shown to have expounded that faith on 
 account of the error of Eutyches, agrees in sense and 
 spirit with that faith.' ^ 
 
 Natalis Alexander thinks that Paschasinus in these 
 words objected to the exact shape in which the Com- 
 missioners had put the matter before the bishops. They 
 had called on them to say whether the Tome agreed 
 with the Nicene Creed and the decrees of Ephesus. 
 This may be so ; but the words used by the Commis- 
 sioners do not necessarily suggest any possibility of 
 doubt. The mere fact of thus solemnly confirming may 
 seem to have called for an emphatic declaration from 
 the legates that what they and the rest of the bishops 
 were now doing involved no admission as to the possi- 
 bility of the Tome being other than dogmatically true. 
 It is to be noticed that Paschasinus does not ' ground 
 the claim of the Tome to acceptance on its agreement 
 with the two forms of the Creed and with the Cyrilline- 
 Ephesine dogma,' as a recent writer has stated.^ That 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 10. Cf. for the true reading the Constitutum of Vigilius, 
 in which this speech is recited word for word (Mansi ix. 473). 
 
 "^ Bright, Roman See, p. 190. He refers Paschasinus's words, 'ideo- 
 que, Tovrov xop"'.' to the agreement of the Tome with the Creed. But 
 this is to violate the syntax of the passage. Paschasinus says ' Ka\ 
 
 T 2 
 
276 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 was a claim to acceptance, but not the one that Pas- 
 chasinus emphasised on this occasion. He said that 
 the Tome agreed with the Nicene Creed because it con- 
 tained the faith of Leo, and because no one could doubt 
 that the faith of Leo agreed with the Creed of Nicaea, 
 and with the dogma of Cyril at Ephesus. Reasserted, 
 in the language of the time, the infallibility of the Holy 
 See. Paschasinus thus gave the keynote to the meaning 
 of the bishops in subscribing to the Tome. As Mansi 
 says ; ' If the subscriptions of the fathers of Chalcedon 
 be consulted, which we have in the fourth " Action,"^ 
 we shall find that as the rest, so the legates of St. Leo 
 received his (Leo's) letter as most accordant with the three 
 previous Councils. But as it is certain that they did 
 not receive it precisely on the authority of the preceding 
 Councils, but because it contained the definition of the 
 Apostolic See, and so had always wished the fathers of 
 the Synod to be conformed to that Tome and had already 
 declared in the second ' Act ' that nothing could be added 
 thereto or taken from it, so it is to be believed the others 
 did, although they compared it to the previous definitions 
 
 Toirov xap"' the Tome agrees with the Creed ' — not, the Tome agrees 
 with the Creed and therefore we accept it, but the Tome contains the faith 
 of Leo and therefore it agrees with the Creed. Dr. Bright also says that 
 ' on Mr. Rivington's showing, they ought to have proclaimed the principle 
 of papal infallibility.' I said no such thing, but on the contrary my words 
 were, ' What was then needed was, not an act of faith in the infallibility of 
 the Vicar of Christ, but an intelligent adhesion to his dogmatic decree,' 
 (p. 414, 1st ed.). But as a matter of fact Paschasinus's words do seem 
 to involve a belief in that infallibility. 
 
 ' Dr. Bright has a characteristic passage on these subscriptions, 
 which he says extend, with the Latin rendering, over nearly thirty-seven 
 columns of Mansi's seventh volume ' {Roman See, p. 189), but which he 
 understands in quite a different sense from Mansi himself. The meaning 
 of one is the meaning of all. The present writer had (as above) taken 
 Mansi's view of the matter in the first edition of this book. 
 
ADHESION TO LEO'S TOME 277 
 
 of Councils the more so as nearly the whole Syhod had 
 protested that it believed as was defined in the letter, 
 before any examination.' ^ Golden words these from the 
 great Dominican archbishop whose name occurs on every 
 page of Dr. Bright's work on the Koman See. Mansi 
 warns us against ' stopping short at the rind,' as they 
 do who, because the fathers said that the letter of Leo 
 agreed with the definitions of previous Councils, jump 
 to the conclusion that these fathers thought it might 
 possibly have disagreed with those definitions. Neither 
 is such an expression as * we found ' that the Tome 
 agreed, or ' we have proved,' equivalent to saying ' we 
 found to our surprise,' or * we should not have believed in 
 it if we had not proved it.' When we consider the cha- 
 racter and the ignorance of some of these bishops — two of 
 them in the Latrocinium could not sign their names — and 
 the circumstances under which they acted, it must be felt 
 that it was of the last importance to send them forth, not 
 merely to say, ' the Tome must be right because it ema- 
 nated from the Holy See,' but * we can prove it to be 
 right, having been carefully taught, or having learned for 
 ourselves, that it is as a matter of fact in perfect accord 
 with the standards already acknowledged as such.' 
 
 In the course of the episcopal declarations, the 
 lUyrian bishops made a statement in which they said 
 that their difficulty had arisen from the obscurity of 
 language, which seemed to suggest a division — i.e. a 
 Nestorian division — into two Persons,- but that Anatolius 
 had set them right. The Palestinian bishops said the 
 same. 
 
 ' Nat. Alex. vol. ix. Mansi, Animadv. in potestatem dominativam 
 quam exercuit Leo in concilium Chalcedonense, § iii. 1. p. 525. 
 - ti t] (ppdais SuaTau tjVittcto (vii. 32;. 
 
278 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 The declarations over, some of the bishops pleaded 
 that the five bishops, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius (of 
 Ancyra), Basil, and Eustathius, who had taken a leading 
 part at the Latrocinium, should be admitted to the 
 Council, as they, too, had signed the Tome of Leo. The 
 matter was referred to the Emperor, who referred it back 
 to the Synod. The bishops were admitted amidst cries of 
 * Long live the Emperor ; long live the Commissioners ; 
 long live the Senate. This is the peace of the 
 Churches.' 
 
 Peace, however, was not quite restored. A scene of 
 excitement ensued upon the Egyptian bishops reading a 
 petition which they had presented to the Emperor, con- 
 taining a confession of faith which omitted all reference 
 to Eutyches. It was probably the confession drawn up 
 by Dioscorus with considerable subtlety and presented 
 to the Emperor just before the Synod, to induce his 
 Imperial Majesty to allow him to go to the Synod, after 
 eluding actual subscription to the Tome.^ These 
 Egyptians were now called upon from all sides to 
 anathematise Eutyches and to sign the Tome of Leo.^ 
 They refused to do the latter on the technical ground 
 that no Egyptian could sign any confession of faith 
 without his patriarch. They pleaded the sixth Nicene 
 canon in their behalf. One of the bishops of Lower 
 Armenia seems to have suggested (in strict accordance 
 with the canons) that a General Council could override 
 the powers of a single patriarch, whose jurisdiction was 
 dormant at such a time. And another bishop (of Tyre) 
 
 ' Cf. Lupus, Appendix ad Sym. Chalc. Act. iv. and also the R4cits de 
 Dioscore, which also shows that the Egyptian bishops were under the 
 complete tyranny of Dioscorus. They feared to go to Chalcedon to 
 oppose Leo. Kome and Alexandria had always been such friends. 
 
 - Mansi, vii. 52. 
 
ADHESION TO LEO'S TOME 279 
 
 remarked that these Egyptians could not take part in 
 the ordination of a new patriarch until they were at one 
 with the Council.' In the midst of all the cries and the 
 arguments with which they were plied, they now threw 
 themselves on the ground and, prostrate before their 
 fellow-bishops, called themselves dying men. They 
 would be murdered on their return.- They were, they 
 said, but few, and the bishops of Egypt were numerous ; 
 they could not dare to represent the rest of Egypt. 
 To which it was replied that they came to the Synod for 
 that purpose. Still they lay prostrate, and continued 
 to plead. But the bishops did not believe them. They 
 appealed, however, to Anatolius, who, as an Alexandrian 
 himself, knew the Egyptian canons ; and eventually 
 they were allowed to wait until a new patriarch was 
 ordained by the Synod, as it was within the power of a 
 General Council to appoint a successor to Dioscorus. 
 
 And now, passing over the rest of the business of 
 this session, which concerned certain Archimandrites 
 and dealt with the case of Photius of Tyre, we come to 
 the third and concluding stage in the settlement of a 
 definition. It was the fifth session. 
 
 * Mansi, vii. 56. 
 
 - Harnack remarks that their fear of Coptic fanaticism was greater 
 than their confidence in the Imperial police of Egypt. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 THE council's DEFINITION 
 
 § 3. The legates prevail 
 
 Bishop Hefele has remarked concerning the fifth 
 session of the Council of Chalcedon that it is ' one of the 
 most important in Christian antiquity.' It is certainly 
 one of the most interesting. 
 
 A conflict, which at one moment seemed likely to 
 wreck the Council, arose between the Papal legates and 
 the Imperial Commissioners on the one side, and almost 
 the whole of the Council on the other. Harnack thinks 
 that the 'Robber- Synod ' (a term against which he pro- 
 tests) does not compare unfavourably with the Council of 
 Chalcedon. The justification of such an assertion is to 
 be found, if anywhere, in this fifth session, in which he 
 considers that the bishops put force on their consciences 
 and accepted a formula merely out of deference to the 
 Emperor and the Pope. We hold no brief for the 
 behaviour of Eastern bishops in a Council. Being, as 
 the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were, the occa- 
 sion of bringing the members of the episcopate into 
 unity with their visible head, there might, on a priori 
 grounds, be any amount of pain in stretching and 
 setting broken or injured limbs. It is, however, absurd 
 to compare any of the sessions of the Council of 
 Chalcedon to the action of the Latrocinium. There 
 
THE DEFINITION 281 
 
 was no injustice done here, as there ; there was no 
 actual violence ; and as regards the bishops' submission 
 it was a matter of mere consistency with themselves to 
 insert in their formula what they had already asserted 
 to be of faith, viz. the terms contained in the Tome of 
 Leo. 
 
 In the discussion at this session everything turned 
 upon two expressions — viz. *of two natures' and *in 
 two natures.' Eutyches had said at the Council of 
 Constantinople in 448 : ' I confess that our Lord was of 
 two natures before the union, but I confess one nature 
 after the union,' on which words St. Leo remarked in 
 his Tome, ' It is as impious to say that the Only-begotten 
 Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation 
 as it is unlawful to assert that there is only one nature 
 in Him after the Lord was made flesh.' ^ St. Leo thus 
 condemned the expression ' of two natures before the 
 Incarnation ' ; but the words ' of two natures ' by them- 
 selves were perfectly capable of an orthodox sense, and 
 had been used by St. Flavian in condemning Eutyches. 
 They were, however, also capable of an unorthodox sense, 
 as appears from the fact that Dioscorus used them to 
 express his own doctrine. On the other hand the ex- 
 pression ' in two natures ' was incapable of any such 
 unorthodox interpretation. It did not occur, however, 
 in the definition now presented by the bishops, whereas 
 the expression * of two natures ' did.^ The legates ac- 
 cordingly insisted upon the substitution of 'in two 
 natures,' as conveying the teaching of Leo's Tome. 
 They thus precluded the idea of the existence of our 
 Lord's Humanity previous to the Incarnation, or of its 
 
 • Ep. 28. c. vi. 
 
 2 This proposed definition is not extant. But what we have said 
 
282 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 unreality after the Incarnation. They, or at any rate 
 the majority of them, did indeed give to the word ' of ' an 
 orthodox meaning, for they did not deny the coexistence 
 * of two natures ' after the union at Nazareth. But with 
 Eutyches the expression was originally meant to suggest 
 the unreality of the human nature, and was connected 
 with Apollinarian teaching ; and Dioscorus had himself 
 clung to the first phrase, and repudiated the second. 
 
 When, then, the bishops met on October 22 and 
 their exposition was read containing the expression * of 
 two natures ' and omitting ' m two natures,' the Bishop 
 of Germanicia demurred to the acceptance of such a 
 definition. Anatolius now rose and vigorously defended 
 it, and the church was filled with the approving cries of 
 the bishops. They declared that they all accepted it, 
 and even went so far as to say that anyone who re- 
 pudiated it was a heretic. It was, if we may so speak, a 
 crisis in the history of the Church. If we did not know 
 what happened, we might well hold our breath in 
 suspense. Would a definition be accepted which, al- 
 though not meant in a heterodox sense, yet contained 
 terms which might be accepted by a Eutychian ? 
 Would a formula of comprehension find its way into the 
 Church, so that opposing parties could sign the same 
 formulary, setting each its own meaning on it, each re- 
 taining its own opinion on the point of dispute ? Could 
 anything be more entirely subversive of the teaching 
 character of the Church ? 
 
 The bishops, it appears, were still possessed with 
 the idea that somehow the orthodox teaching concerning 
 the ' two natures ' in Christ involved the heresy of 
 
 results beyond dispute from what the bishops said about the one ex- 
 pression, and from their insisting on the insertion of the other. 
 
THE DEFINITION 283 
 
 Nestorius — which spoke of two persons in our Incarnate 
 Lord. They even cried out for the insertion of the term 
 ' Mother of God ' in the Creed itself, and they called the 
 objecting Bishop of Germanicia a Nestorian, as he passed 
 across the church to the side of the legates. The 
 situation was critical to the last degree. The Papal 
 legates nov; rose from their seats with the objecting 
 Bishop of Germanicia by their side and absolutely con- 
 demned the proposed definition. They insisted on an 
 exact adherence to the teaching of Leo's letter, and, to 
 show they were in earnest, they announced their determi- 
 nation to ask for Imperial rescripts to enable them to 
 return at once to Rome and have a Council celebrated 
 there, if the bishops did not consent to the letter ' of the 
 Apostolic and most blessed man ' Leo. But the Imperial 
 Commissioners, who were present at this session with- 
 out the Senate, having the management of the external ^ 
 business of the Council, anxious to save the bishops from 
 this humiliation, proposed that six bishops should be 
 chosen from the * Diocese ' of Antioch, three from the 
 region of Asia (as being not one of the Patriarchates), 
 three from lUyricum, three from Pontus, three from 
 Thrace, and that, Anatolius and the Roman legates being 
 present, the matter should be arranged between them. 
 
 But no— the bishops clung to their definition. They 
 became more emphatic, not to say excited, than ever. 
 They demanded that their formulary should be signed 
 at once in presence of the holy Gospels. The Commis- 
 
 ' Harnack misrepresents Hefele's statement about the relation of the 
 Imperial Commissioners to the Council. It was, according to Hefele, 
 purely external, and as such real and official, but not (which is missed by 
 Harnack) above that of the legates in ' spirituals.' Cf. Harnack, Hist, of 
 Dogma, iv. 214 (Tr.), and Hefele, Conc.-Gesch. § 188. 
 
284 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 sioners reminded them that Dioscorus had approved of 
 the phrase complained of (viz. ' of two natures ') and had 
 deposed Flavian for the use of ' in two natures.' Where- 
 upon Anatolius made the unhappy remark that Dioscorus 
 was not excommunicated because he was a heretic but 
 [only] because he had pretended to excommunicate Leo, 
 and after being twice summoned had refused to attend 
 the Council. Anatolius's sympathy with his old master 
 showed itself in this misleading statement/ and the 
 Commissioners, fully alive to the gravity of the situation, 
 seem to have felt the necessity of intervening with a 
 question which could only receive one answer : ' Do you 
 accept the letter of Leo ? ' to which the bishops replied 
 at once in the affirmative, appealing to the fact that they 
 had signed it. ' Then,' replied the Commissioners at 
 once, ' let what is inserted in it be inserted in the dej&ni- 
 tion.' 2 The bishops protested that there was no differ- 
 ence between their definition and the Tome of Leo. 
 They wildly averred that ' the definition contains every- 
 thing.' They argued, not without a certain astuteness, 
 that Leo and Cyril were at one in their faith, that Cyril's 
 teaching had been confirmed by two Popes, Celestine and 
 Xystus, and their definition (such was the supposed con- 
 clusion) being in conformity with Cyril's teaching was 
 necessarily in conformity with that of Leo. 
 
 The Commissioners decided that the matter — not of 
 faith, but of how the bishops were to be brought to 
 
 ' Leontius of Byzantium deals very conclusively with this objection 
 in his Apology for tlie Council of Chalcedon. He says that because 
 Dioscorus was condemned on the formal ground of disobedience to the 
 canons, he was not therefore absolved from the charge of heresy, which 
 was implied in all that was done. The whole Apology is worth reading. 
 It is printed in Mansi, vii. 800-824. 
 
 - Mansi, vii. 10-1. 
 
THE DEFINITION 285 
 
 submit to the exact terminology of the Tome of Leo in 
 their definition — must be referred to the Emperor. 
 
 There was accordingly a pause while the Imperial 
 secretary was sent across to the Imperial Palace. 
 
 The crisis that had been reached was this. The 
 whole Council, after having formally declared the irre- 
 formable character of Leo's Tome, were yet introducing 
 an expression into their definition which was quite 
 insufficient to guard the truth, and which, standing 
 alone, would have the effect of producing a system of 
 * comprehension ' than which nothing could be more sub- 
 versive of real unity. To put forth a document which 
 each party could read in its own sense would be to sur- 
 render the truth. The Church would stultify herself as 
 a teacher. 
 
 The Emperor's answer came back, clear and straight- 
 forward. Three courses were open to them, either to 
 agree upon an authoritative decision which could not be 
 excepted against,^ by means of a sub-committee, exactly 
 such as had been proposed, or each one singly to declare 
 his faith through his metropolitan, or else the case must 
 be carried to ' the West,' ^ i.e. to Borne. 
 
 The state of excitement may be measured by the 
 answers of the bishops to this Imperial command. 
 They exclaimed : ' Either let the definition stand, or 
 we depart.' Cecropius asked that the definition be read 
 and those who contradicted it could go. The Illyrian 
 bishops cried : ' Those who contradict [the definition] are 
 Nestorians. Let those who contradict it go to Borne.' ^ 
 
 The Commissioners now brought matters to a head. 
 They said plainly : 'Dioscorus said, " The [phrase] ' of two 
 
 • di'67rtA'^'7rTa)S rmrwaai (vii. 105). - iv ro7s SvtikoIs fifpecriv. 
 
 ' eh 'P(a/J.r]v aireKdwatv. 
 
286 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 natures ' I accept ; * two natures ' [i.e. that there exist 
 two natures after the union] ' I do not." ' * But,' continued 
 the Commissioners, ' the most holy archbishop Leo says 
 that there are two natures in the Christ united without 
 confusion, change, or division — in the one Only-begotten 
 Son, our Saviour. Which, therefore, do you follow — the 
 most holy Leo, or Dioscorus ? ' 
 
 The cry rose up, ' Leo.' ' We believe as Leo ; those 
 who gainsay are Eutychians. Leo expounded^ in an 
 orthodox way.' ' Then,' replied the Commissioners, * add 
 to the definition, according to the judgment of the most 
 holy Leo, that there are two natures united in the Christ 
 without change, or division, or confusion.' 
 
 The commission of bishops thereupon entered into the 
 compartment of the Church in which they had previously 
 consulted and when they came forth, their definition 
 contained no longer the ambiguous expression * of two 
 natures,' but instead, the crucial words ' in two natures : ' 
 that is to say, that, after the union effected at Nazareth 
 when the Archangel Gabriel said, ' Hail Mary, full of 
 grace, the Lord is with thee,' there were, and ever must 
 be, two natures, the Divine and the human, unconfused, 
 in the One Person of our Lord. When they returned 
 to the church, the definition was read and accepted 
 without dissent. The firmness of the legates had saved 
 the situation. Their decision to withdraw, for a Council 
 to be held in the West— which meant, of course, under 
 Leo — helped the Imperial Commissioners to see that 
 unless exact submission was paid to the Tome of Leo in 
 the conciliar definition, all hope of peace was gone. And 
 the bishops themselves, having learnt that the Emperor 
 
 1 Mansi, vii. 105 : i^edero. Again, clearly eKQiais cannot be absolutely 
 identified with ' Creed.' 
 
THE DEFINITION 287 
 
 would insist upon the case being carried to Eome, if they 
 did not make up their minds on a common definition, 
 submitted their judgment, withdrew their protests, and 
 admitted the crucial terms into their doctrinal definition. 
 It is impossible not to feel that there is some truth in 
 Harnack's too contemptuous remarks about the behaviour 
 of these bishops. The deference paid to Dioscorus, the 
 ecclesiastical Pharaoh, would not subside at once. But 
 that they had a genuine admiration for Leo, and felt the 
 impossibility of contradicting him, where he made any- 
 thing a sine qua non, is also evident. This Harnack 
 recognises, but, being out of sympathy with orthodox 
 faith, regrets. We who hold the Catholic faith may well 
 ask where it would have been but for Leo. 
 
 In their corrected formulary ^ the bishops included 
 the Constantinopolitan development of the original 
 Nicene Creed, which we now call the Nicene Creed 
 simply, just as the Sardian canons were always called 
 Nicene. After thus combining this later with the 
 earlier form of the Creed, they also defend the Tome of 
 Leo from the charge of innovation brought against the 
 Eutychians, alleging that just as the 150 fathers at 
 Constantinople published their decisions concerning the 
 Holy Spu'it, not as if anything were lacking to the 
 original Creed of Nicaea, but to obviate the heretical 
 teaching of those who endeavoured to repudiate His 
 * lordship,' ^ and just as the Council received the 
 synodical letters of Cyril as against those who imagined 
 that a mere man was born of the Virgin Mary, so too 
 they combine with these the letter of Leo — written to 
 countervail the false interpretation of Eutyches — as in 
 accordance with the confession of blessed Peter and as 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 108-118. - SeairoTciav. 
 
288 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 being ^ a kind of common pillar against heretics. They 
 also renewed the Ephesine rule against making any 
 other Symbol than the Nicene, having made it quite 
 clear, as against Eutyches, that they combined with this 
 the Constantinopolitan additions. They did not insert 
 the term ' Mother of God ' in the Creed, nor anything 
 else, that they might not even appear to violate their 
 own rule. They might have done so, for their authority 
 w^as equal to that of the 150 fathers in 381, but they pre- 
 ferred to give no handle to the Eutychians. 
 
 The real business of the Council — that which dealt 
 with the affairs of the universal Church and not such as 
 were purely Eastern — was now concluded. Accordingly 
 the Emperor appeared on the scene, attended by the 
 heads of the various departments of the Court, with 
 military escort and the Senate and various great 
 patricians, counts, and tribunes, and delivered an ad- 
 dress in the Church of St. Euphemia, where the Council 
 had held its meetings. One passage in the Imperial 
 allocution establishes all that has been contended for in 
 the last few chapters, viz. that the Tome of Leo was 
 irreformable— in other words, a standard of the faith 
 before the Council met. His Majesty said that the 
 original idea of the Council was that ' presumptuousness 
 should be crushed on the part of those who dared to 
 think or defend anything different concerning the birth of 
 Jesus Christ from what had been proclaimed by the holy 
 Apostles and handed down in accordance therewith by 
 
 ' vndpxova-av — implying that it was such before they received it. Dr. 
 Bright imagines that to * combine ' Leo's letter with these others was to 
 assert a superiority over it. One might as well say that to bind up two 
 books is to put oneself above the writer, or that the Church placed her- 
 self above the Apostles when she combined the Apocalypse with the rest 
 of the canon. 
 
THE DEFINITION 289 
 
 the 318 fathers at Nicaea, in the same ivay as also the 
 letter sent by the most God-beloved Leo, the Archbishop 
 of Imperial Rome, who presides over the Apostolic 
 Throne, to Flavian of pious memory. Bishop of the new 
 Imperial Rome, signifies.' ' 
 
 Clearly, therefore, the Comicil was convened not to 
 inquire whether the Tome of Leo was accordant with the 
 Creed of Nicaea, but to bring the Eastern bishops into 
 unity on the basis of Leo's teaching. The ' truth,' 
 added the Emperor, ' was to be manifested by the expo- 
 sitions of the Council,- but, as he had said more than once, 
 on the lines laid down by the prelate of the Apostolic 
 See. 
 
 The Archdeacon of Constantinople then read the 
 ' definition ' of the Synod. And, probably, the allocution 
 was also read which is found in Mansi's collection at the 
 end of the Acts.^ It is an important document, for it 
 defends the practice of adding ' expositions ' to the 
 Nicene Creed against the charge brought against it by 
 the Nestorians and Eutychians, that it was the introduc- 
 tion of a new principle.' After saying that the Emperor 
 was acting worthity of his rule, in making the things of 
 God his first care and in beginning by gathering his 
 forces against the devil, they at once proceed with this 
 noteworthy declaration : ' Whence God has provided us 
 with an invulnerable champion in regard to error ■' and 
 
 » Mansi, vii. 132, 133. 
 
 - ra7s vfiwu iKdeaeai. Again iKdeais is not Creed, but exposition. 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 455. From the Synod to the Emperor. 
 
 * KaivoTOfMia. It is perhaps worth while pointing out that objections 
 such as these have no bearing on the doctrine of Papal infallibility. 
 They are only concerned with the method of its exercise. And the 
 objection was advanced by heretics. 
 
 * Lit. ' from error ' (tK vKdyrfs) = to bring us out of error. 
 
 U 
 
290 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 has furnished the prelate of the (Church) of the Romans 
 for victory by girding him round with the doctrines of 
 truth on every side,* in order that contending,^ as the 
 fervent Peter, he may draw every mind to God. But 
 lest anyone, declinmg to agree with his faith,^ and wish- 
 ing to shield himself from being convicted of his own 
 private deceit [error] should misrepresent his letter as a 
 composition unknown to and unallowed by the canons, 
 saying that it is not lawful to make any exposition ^ of 
 faith beyond that which "vvas made b}^ the fathers at 
 Nicsea &c.' — they enter into an elaborate proof that the 
 Nicene Creed is one thing, and an exposition by way of 
 interpretation or explanation is another, giving instances 
 from the Fathers. ' Let them not, therefore, produce the 
 letters of the wonderful prelate of Kome as open to the 
 charge of novelty {i.e. on technical grounds, as though 
 it contravened the Ephesine canon) : but if it is not in 
 accordance with the Scriptures let them confute it ' '^ — 
 that is to say, let them attempt the impossible : they 
 will only prove themselves heretics. ' For he that, out 
 of his own mind, when there is no opponent,*^ with his 
 
 ' Lit. * from all sides.' 
 
 2 fiaxofji^yos, the word they use later on when defending the proper 
 occasion for issuing an ' exposition.' 
 
 ^ TTJs iriaTeus ahrov ttju bjudvoiav — i.e. the Tome. ^ eKde(riv. 
 
 ^ Dr. Bright [Roman See, p. 191) mentions that this was omitted in 
 the first edition of The Primitive Church and the See of Peter,' and 
 accuses me in consequence of ' slurring over a critical part of the case,' 
 incredible as it may seem that he should call this ' part of the case.' 
 Does he think that any bishops -considered that the Tome coidd be 
 shown to be repugnant to Holy Scripture ? They had publicly declared 
 the contrary. When our Lord said ' If I have spoken evil, bear witness of 
 the evil ' (St. John xviii. 23) did He mean that they could prove anything 
 against Him ? Is not such a mode of speech often used as a defiance, 
 or as a strong form of denial ? 
 
 *5 ixaxouevos, as they have already said that Leo was. Cf. line 3. 
 
THE DEFINITION 291 
 
 own words out of pure ambition [makes] an exposition,^ 
 such a man is rightly convicted of vainglory : but he 
 that is in conflict with those who hold wrong opinions, 
 &c.' They then ask the Emperor to recognise the Pope's 
 zeal for the faith, * confirming the teaching of the See 
 of Peter as [being] a seal of the religious dogmas, b}^ the 
 Synod gathered together by you.' The text is obviously 
 corrupt, but we can hardly go wrong in interpreting it to 
 mean that they asked the Emperor to confirm (by making 
 it part of the law of the Empire) the definition of the 
 Synod which was the teaching of the See of Peter. That 
 is what he actually did.^ 
 
 The whole of this part of the Council's action is thus 
 summed up by the Archbishop of Constantinople in his 
 report to Leo. Nothing can exceed the importance of 
 this declaration. It is contained in a single sentence, 
 which leaves no possibility of mistake as to the position 
 which the Tome of Leo held in the minds of the orthodox 
 bishops and the Emperor. ' Since,' says the archbishop, 
 ' after the judgment passed on Dioscorus, it was necessary 
 (being the chief reason why the pious Emperor was 
 eager to assemble the Synod) that the understanding of 
 all should agree to the utterance of your orthodox faith.' ^ 
 In other words, the Tome of Leo was from the first the 
 standard of faith to which all were to give an intelligent 
 adhesion. This had now been effected. 
 
 And now the scene in the church must have been 
 
 ' iKQeaiu. Again this word cannot mean simply a Creed, as Dr. 
 Bright translates it elsewhere, for under no circumstances could a single 
 individual draw up a Creed out of his own mind. 
 
 - Comp. Mansi, vii. 465 with 173. 
 
 ' Lecyn. Ep. 101 : irrl rhv t^s opQris vfjLwv iricTTeoos \6yov ttolvtuv 
 (rvv(\6e'iv ttjv 5i,dvoiav. 
 
 V 2 
 
292 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 striking to the last degree. It is thus described in the 
 simplest way by the archbishop. ' The written definition 
 of our faith in accordance with your holy epistle [i.e, the 
 Tome] for the confirmation of that of our fathers ' (I quote 
 his words) drawn up ' under the protecting shield of the 
 holy martyr Euphemia ' was solemnly carried in the 
 presence of the Emperor and Empress and their suite, 
 and the whole Synod of bishops, with the Papal legates, 
 and placed on the altar — that, as the Synod afterwards 
 said, it might be presented by St. Euphemia and all the 
 angels to Almighty God. This was done with prayers 
 and psalms of thanksgiving and every token of holy 
 gladness.^ It was then taken from the altar and pre- 
 sented to their Imperial Majesties to be laid up in the 
 archives, and to remain — not indeed there, for it was 
 afterwards burnt by heretics, but in the copies taken — 
 as the faith of the Catholic Church until the day of 
 doom. 
 
 Note to Page 264, on the Word ' Exposition ' {^kOco-is). 
 
 It will be well to notice here Dr. Bright's exegesis in regard 
 to the bishops' exclamations in the second session about not 
 making another ' exposition.' He first inverts the order of 
 the bishops' exclamations (Boman See, p. 185). He un- 
 fortunately makes them in the first instance object on the 
 ground of the Ephesine rule against compiling another Creed, 
 whereas this comes afterwards, and does not govern the 
 earlier exclamations. He next says that the expositions 
 made ' by the fathers ' mean ' the Nicene and Constantino- 
 politan forms of the Creed to which the Commissioners 
 had referred.' But the Commissioners had also referred to 
 the * expositions ' of the ' rest of the holy and illustrious 
 
 ' uera ff^ocrevx^s, X°-P^^ ''"'' eixppoavvris (ibid.). 
 
THE DEFINITION 293 
 
 fathers ' besides those of Constantinople, and therefore in 
 speaking of ' the fathers ' we must understand them to 
 include a great deal more than those of 325 and 381. 
 Indeed, on the same page further on Leo is included. Then, 
 out of order, he brings in the speech of Cecropius, about 
 the TvTTo? of Leo having dealt with the Eutychian matter, 
 and the bishops' exclamation, ' We all say this,' and he 
 refers 'this,' not to what immediately precedes, viz. Cecro- 
 pius's speech about Leo, but to the bishops' previous excla- 
 mations ! Then he says that the ' expositions ' [i.e. in each 
 case, if his argument is to hold good] * mean the Creed ' and 
 ' do not include the Tome.' For this he gives two reasons : 
 first, that the Ephesine rule which is referred to as an 
 authority would not have excluded any addition to docu- 
 ments like the Tome, which did not profess to be a Creed. 
 But (1) the objection from the Ephesine rule is introduced 
 after the first series of exclamations. And (2) some of the 
 bishops seem to have thought that that rule did exclude 
 additions to the Nicene faith as already expounded by Leo. 
 If (as they had all professed to believe) Leo's Tome contained 
 a true interpretation of the Nicene Creed, it is obvious that 
 they could not add to it. Just as St. Gregory said that any- 
 one who should add anything to the Tome must be considered 
 a heretic. The members of the Synod were really at cross 
 purposes. Some appear to have thought that a General 
 Council could not add a word to the Creed of Nicaea as 
 developed by the bishops at Constantinople in 381 ; others, 
 that a General Council could not even draw up an exposition 
 and make it of faith. It was anyhow not needed, they 
 urged, in this instance, as Leo's Tome satisfied the needs of 
 the case. It was, in fact, the first time that a General 
 Council had been called upon to frame an exposition and 
 launch it upon the world. Hence the genuine doubts of 
 some, while others simply wished to evade giving their 
 judgment. As a matter of fact these same bishops did, 
 some of them, propose to insert the word &€ot6ko^ into the 
 
294 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 Creed ; ^ and, all of them, eventually consented to an expo- 
 sition being drawn up in the shape of a definition. 
 
 Dr.Bright's second argument is that ' in the preceding dis- 
 cussion at Ephesus, * exposition ' had been repeatedly used as 
 meaning ' Creed ' (Boman See, p. 186, note 2). But it would be 
 more true to say that the ' exposition of the 318 Fathers ' 
 means, as a matter of fact, the Creed of Nicsea, not because it 
 was an exposition, but because it was their exposition (eK^co-i?). 
 The question is whether the ' expositions ' alluded to by the 
 bishops, in the first exclamations recorded, can include the 
 Tome of Leo. It should be noticed that the word itself is 
 used again and again of Flavian's statement of his belief : e.g. 
 by the Imperial Commissioners (Mansi, vi. 680), by the Papal 
 legate, by the Bishop of Antioch and his bishops (ibid. 681), 
 and by Athanasius of Busiris, in Egypt — good samples of an 
 oecumenical use of the word. In each of these cases 
 either the substantive eK^eo-i? is used, or part of the verb 
 eKTiOyfjLL. And in none of them does the word (e/c^co-is) 
 ' exposition ' mean a ' Creed.' This, therefore, was its use by 
 the members of the Council of Chalcedon. In the same 
 Council it is used of Cyril's letters (vi. 681) and of the 
 letters of Gregory, Basil, Hilary, Athanasius, and Ambrose 
 (vii. 8), which were not Creeds. And the Egyptian bishops 
 were said to ' expound ' their faith, who certainly did not 
 draw up a Creed, but were probably at the bottom of the 
 objections raised to issuing a conciliar * exposition.' Then 
 the bishops in this very session were called upon to make an 
 ' exposition ' (vi. 952), and most assuredly it was not meant 
 that they were to frame a Creed. Indeed the Emperor 
 described the very object of the Council as being that ' the 
 truth might be made manifest by your exjjositions ' (vii. 133 : 
 Tj dXyjOeca rai? v/xtov eKOecrea-i cfiavepova-Om), and nothing can be 
 more certain than that he did not mean the Council to draw 
 up a Creed. But further, Leo's Tome was itself actually 
 called an ' exposition ' in the fourth session (cK^eVcco? rov ^ta/c. 
 ' Mansi, vii. 104. 
 
THE DEFINITION 295 
 
 AcwTo?, vii. 40), and at the fifth session the bishops cried 
 out with one voice : ' Leo has given an orthodox exposition ' 
 (AeW opOoSo^oig i^edero, vii. 105), and the Synod decided that 
 no one was to go beyond the Nicene faith as interpreted by 
 Leo. 'This faith the Synod holds' — i.e., as the previous 
 words say, the true faith manifested by Leo. ' And the 
 Synod allows nothing further to be added, nor anything to 
 be diminished from it ' {lit. ' suffers to add ' &c., vii. 9), using 
 the very expression of the Ephesine canon, or definition, in 
 regard to the Nicene faith as expanded by the fathers of 
 381 and interpreted by Cyril and Leo. These are expositions 
 which are interpretations, and the bishops here accepted the 
 Tome, before any discussion or examination, as an exposition 
 which they hoped might relieve them from the necessity of 
 making one themselves. The Ephesine rule forbade the 
 exposition of ' another Creed ' or ' Symbol,' not of an explana- 
 tion or interpretation. Harnack caustically remarks that 
 the bishops at Ohalcedon deceived themselves by drawing 
 the delusive distinction that it was not a question of an expo- 
 sition (cK^eo-t?), but of an interpretation {kpixyjveia) {Hist, of 
 Dogina, iv. 218). But the antithesis was really between 
 crvfifSoXov and ipfxijveia. Imagine what confusion it would 
 make to call the ' Ecthesis ' of Heraclius a ' Creed.' 
 
 The interpretation which I have given to the first excla- 
 mations of the bishops concerning the sufficiency of the 
 Nicene Creed because of the existence of the Tome, and 
 which Dr. Bright (in his Waymarks, p. 227) stigmatises as 
 ' very careless,' was given in the words of Hefele. Ballerini 
 {Leon. 0pp. ii. 507, note 22), Mansi {hi Nat. Alex. H. E. 
 ix. 522), Muzzarelli {De Auctor. Bom. Pont. ii. 90), 
 Lupus {App. in Cone. Chalced. p. 913), Jungmann {Diss. 
 Eccl. vol. ii. Diss. x. § 36), and even Quesnel, adopt the same 
 interpretation. Muzzarelli, indeed, understands the bishops' 
 words about ' the canon ' to refer, not to the Ephesine rule 
 at all, but to the general rule of the Church, which forbids 
 things once defined to be discussed as though not defined. 
 
296 COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 
 
 This would destroy Dr. Bright's interpretation root and 
 branch. And no doubt there is a difficulty about the bishops 
 calling the Ephesine rule ' the canon,' since the term had 
 been expressly refused to it in the first session. On the 
 whole, however, I have preferred the interpretation of the 
 Ballerini, Lupus, Mansi and Hefele. I think it will anyhow 
 be admitted by anyone really acquainted with the subject 
 that ' carelessness ' is hardly the term to apply to these great 
 and profound students. 
 
CHAPTEK VI 
 
 THE RESTOKATION OF THEODORET 
 
 Before leaving the Synod, the Emperor had asked the 
 bishops to make three authoritative regulations (tvttovs) 
 concerning monks and clerics, and had finally given 
 them leave to moot anything they pleased during the 
 next three or four days, after which they were free to 
 return to their respective sees.^ Thus the business of 
 the Council qua (Ecumenical was concluded. Con- 
 sequently, as Pope Pelagius II. notes, several Greek 
 manuscripts contain only six * Acts' of the Council, ending 
 with the session at which Marcian and Pulcheria were 
 present.^ The remaining sessions were occupied with 
 matters that concerned the East alone, and which were 
 not included in the programme as described by Leo. 
 Of the bishops, several, such as Juvenal, Thalassius, 
 Eustathius and Eusebius of Ancyra had been pardoned 
 their weakness in the Eobber- Synod ; Dioscorus had 
 been deposed ; and the Synod had expounded its faith 
 in strict accordance with the Tome of Leo. 
 
 But several matters concerning Eastern bishoprics 
 called for adjustment ; and first, among these, the 
 quarrel that had long subsisted between the Bishops of 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 177. 
 
 - E2?. ad ntr., and so St. Gregory, Lib. 7, Indict. 2, Ex>. 53. Cf. 
 Baluze in Mansi, vii. 668. 
 
298 THE EESTORATION OF 
 
 Antiocli and Jerusalem as to the area of their respective 
 jurisdictions. A settlement was now effected, Antioch 
 taking over the two provinces of Phoenicia and that of 
 Arabia, and Jerusalem occupying the three Palestines. 
 The Papal legates consented, and then all the bishops.^ 
 
 And now at length the pent-up eagerness of the small 
 knot of bishops from Egypt, Illyria and Palestine, who 
 had raised such a clamour against Theodoret in the first 
 session, was allowed a vent. Their annoyance at his 
 having been allowed to sit in the Council as a bishop must 
 have been intense ; but they had been promised satis- 
 faction in due course of time.^ Theodoret (as has been 
 already noticed) had been an avowed opponent of their 
 great Cyril, until John of Antioch made his peace with 
 Alexandria. He had then held communion with Antioch, 
 and so, mediately, with Cyril. He had next avowed the 
 perfect orthodoxy of Cyril's letter of pacification to John 
 of Antioch, and had eventually spoken well of Cyril him- 
 self.-^ His supposed letter to John of Antioch on Cyril's 
 death, a most brutal composition, calumniating the 
 Saint in the most savage language, is undoubtedly a 
 forgery, if for no other reason, at least from the fact that 
 John of Antioch died before Cyril, and Theodoret must 
 have known of his own Patriarch's death. But on the 
 other hand, Theodoret had never admitted the orthodoxy 
 of Cyril's letter to Nestorius, to which were appended the 
 celebrated twelve Anathematisms, and he had persistently 
 maintained that, although the teaching attributed to 
 Nestorius was certainly heresy, still the deposition of 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 181. '^ Ibid. vi. 590, and cf. supra, p. 226. 
 
 ^ These particulars were unknown till the discovery of the Synodicon 
 adv. tragcediam Irencsi by Lupus, which was inserted by Baluze in his 
 Supplement to the Council, and has thence passed into the later 
 collections of documents relating to the Councils. 
 
THEODORET 299 
 
 Nestorius was undeserved. At the time, however, of 
 the Council of Chalcedon there is no question but that, in 
 spite of this, he was perfectly orthodox. He had avowed 
 his belief that Leo and Cyril were in agreement, and had 
 signed the Tome of Leo. 
 
 Leo had passed judgment as to his orthodoxy on his 
 appeal to the Holy See, and had quickly sent to the 
 Papal legates to tell them that Theodoret was to be 
 restored to his see — the restoration presumably to be 
 actually effected by a decree of the Synod. There was 
 no time to do more ; and indeed more was not needed, 
 for Leo had already commissioned the bishops to restore 
 to their office by synodical decree those who had been 
 unjustly condemned,^ and Theodoret would now come 
 under this head. Judging from Leo's practice, as 
 instanced by his treatment of Anatolius, we may feel 
 sure that had there been no Council about to sit 
 Theodoret would have been expressly required to anathe- 
 matise both Nestorius and Eutyches by letter. Unfortu- 
 nately, w^e do not possess Leo's letter of directions to his 
 legates. We only know that they were able to say at 
 the Council that Theodoret had been restored by Leo, 
 and accepted by the Emperor — subject, as a matte?' of 
 course, to the usual conditions of such restoration when 
 a General Council was sitting. Accordingly, on the 
 ground of Leo's judgment, to which the civil sanction 
 of the Emperor had been given, the Commissioners had 
 insisted on his being allowed to take his seat in the 
 Council as a bishop, with the right to act as an accuser 
 but without prejudice to the proposed action of the 
 Egyptians and their allies. This, however, was deferred 
 until the matter of faith had been settled. 
 
 ' Ex). 93, 3. 
 
300 THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 Accordingly, the faction of Dioscorus, as those bishops 
 had shown themselves to be in the opening of the 
 Council,^ now cried out that the time had come for 
 Theodoret to anathematise Nestorius.^ That was what 
 he had always refused to do, although ready enough to 
 anathematise his heresy. But this was what these few 
 bishops were determined that he should now be made to 
 do. Nothing would satisfy them but to hear the hated 
 name of Nestorius from his lips after all he had said 
 against their quondam patriarch, St. Cyril. And 
 Theodoret had richly deserved to be called upon to do 
 this. But what he did was to pass to the middle and 
 ask to read his letters to Leo and to the Emperor to 
 show his orthodoxy. But there was no idea of reviewing 
 the judgment of Leo. All that was required of him was 
 that he should anathematise Nestorius by name. 
 
 And they were in fact within their rights. For indeed 
 any orthodox bishop might be called upon to do the same 
 if the slightest suspicions rested on him, although it must 
 be admitted that the demand came with an ill grace from 
 those who had originally maintained that it was enough 
 to sign the Nicene Creed. But the Commissioners up- 
 held these bishops' demands, and the Papal legates stood 
 by as consenting parties. His willingness to anathema- 
 tise Nestorius was really involved in his restoration by 
 Leo. There could be no question but that Leo would 
 himself have approved of the demand being complied 
 
 ' That it was these and not the whole Synod is certain both from 
 the first session and from the expression here later on when ' all the 
 bishops ' (Mansi, vii. 189) are mentioned as exclaiming that ' Leo had 
 judged with God ' — i.e., as ' with ' always means in such a context, ' under 
 the protecting guidance of Almighty God.' Cf. ' I am with you all days ' 
 (Matt, xxviii). 
 
 - Mansi, vii. 188. 
 
THEODORET 301 
 
 with, as indeed he afterwards said expressly in a letter 
 to Theodoret himself, whom he congratulated on coming 
 well out of the trial. It was not in the least allowing 
 Leo's judgment to be reviewed on the part of the Synod, 
 as though that judgment were inadequate in view of the 
 evidence presented, for they expressly refused to review 
 that evidence. They would not have his letter read. It 
 was merely a question of satisfying this knot of bishops 
 as to whether Theodoret would do what one absolved by 
 the Holy See must be ready to do at any moment, if called 
 upon by a Council. It was not a question of the infalli- 
 bility of the Holy See, but of the sincerity of Theodoret. 
 Long years afterwards the successors of these people 
 maintained (quite absurdly) that Theodoret was 
 insincere. 
 
 Besides, all the bishops (on the principles of the 
 Vatican decree) had a right as bishops in a General 
 Council to exercise their judgment on such a case when 
 brought before them. Had they found that Theodoret 
 had been deceiving Leo, about which, however, there 
 could hardly be any real question after his conduct in 
 the Council, the matter would, on those principles, have 
 been referred back to Eome. But, as it was, this difficulty 
 did not arise. Leo proved to be right ; and these 
 Egyptian bishops were wrong. The case, then, stands 
 thus : Theodoret had appealed to Leo as the occupant of 
 the Apostolic See ' to heal the wounds of the Church ' by 
 reason of his position as ' Primate in all things ' ; ^ and 
 Leo had already told the Synod that it was to ' apply 
 the medicine of justice to the wounds ' of the Churches, 
 
 ' Lit. ' that we may receive from you a remedy for the wounds of 
 the Church. For the Primacy in all things fitly belongs to you ' (Leon. 
 Ep. 52, § 1). 
 
302 THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 whose bishops had been driven from their sees, and 
 transported, others being placed in their stead ; and that 
 no one was to lose his proper honour, ' if all, as we 
 desire, relinquish their error.' ^ Clearly, therefore, the 
 Synod had an office to fulfil in the case of all the bishops 
 who had gone astray ; the only difference in the case of 
 Theodoret being that his right to his bishopric was 
 already established by the judgment of the Apostolic 
 See, so far as it was possible for it to judge. What 
 that judgment decided was that the man who wrote as 
 Theodoret did to Eome, expounding his faith as he did, 
 merited restoration to his see. But obviously if any- 
 one could show that the writer was not sincere, the 
 judgment would fall to the ground. Infallibility does 
 not confer the power of reading the heart of man. So 
 that the execution of Leo's judgment was, as a matte^ 
 of course, contingent upon the sincerity of the writer, 
 and subject to his satisfying the Synod, if required to 
 do so, that he had placed his case fully before the Holy 
 See. The test of this was his anathematising Nestorius 
 — at least in the opinion of the Egyptian party. And 
 there was no reason why the Synod should repudiate 
 the test. It was not reopening the question of the cor- 
 rectness of the decision in regard to the evidence 
 adduced. 
 
 Theodoret, then, being called upon by these bishops to 
 anathematise Nestorius, and probably resenting the test, 
 wished that he should be allowed to give an exposition 
 of his faith. 2 But he was roughly interrupted in the 
 middle of his sentence and told that he was still a 
 Nestorian, which, of course, was wholly false. Theodoret, 
 seeing that nothing would satisfy his interrogators but 
 
 ' Leon. Ejp. 93, § 3. - iKQw/xai uirws iricmva). 
 
THEODORET 308 
 
 the words for which they clamoured, at once said : 
 ' Anathema to Nestorius and to him who does not 
 say that the holy Virgin Mary is Mother of God, and to 
 him who divides tlie Only -begotten Son into two sons. 
 Moreover, I have signed the definition of faith and the 
 Epistle of the most holy archbishop Leo ; and thus I 
 think : and now after all this, Farewell.' The Commis- 
 sioners at once stopped further proceedings, and said 
 that all doubt about Theodoret was removed, giving 
 their reasons thus : ' (1) he has anathematised Nestorius 
 in our hearing and (2) has been received by Leo ; and 
 he has (1) willingly accepted the definition of faith given 
 by your Keverence [i.e. the Synod] and (2) moreover 
 has subscribed to the Epistle of Leo. It remains, 
 therefore, that a decree should be issued by yourselves, 
 so that he may receive his Church back again, 
 according as Leo decided.' 
 
 x\nd now the whole body of the bishops ^ who had 
 witnessed this baiting of the great Bishop of Cyrrhos 
 joined in exclaiming : ' Theodoret worthy of the see. 
 The orthodox to his see. . . . Long live Archbishop 
 Leo. Leo decided with God ... let his Church be 
 given back to Theodoret the bishop.' 
 
 Now unless the judgment of Leo as Primate of the 
 Church was a determining factor in the restoration of 
 Theodoret, what need to bring in his name at every 
 turn ? It was not enough, in the opinion of the Com- 
 missioners, to say that Theodoret was restored because 
 he had anathematised Nestorius ; they must needs add 
 that he had been received by Leo. It was not enough 
 to say that he had signed the synodical definition of 
 faith ; they must needs add that he had subscribed the 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 189. 
 
304 THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 letter of Leo. It was not enough to say that a decree 
 for his restoration must be issued by the Synod ; they 
 must needs add that this restoration was in accordance 
 with the decision of Leo. What could this mean but 
 that the judgment of the Apostolic See had a juridical 
 value in the case even of a Greek bishop ? 
 
 And now the sentence of the Synod was delivered by 
 the Papal legates. They did not simply ' give a vote,' ' 
 they delivered the sentence of the whole Synod. They 
 said : ' The most holy and blessed bisJiojJ of the ivhole 
 Church, Leo, [bishop] of the city of Rome, has already 
 received the most holy and venerable Bishop Theodoret 
 into communion, as the letter sent to our lowliness 
 [=our humble selves] bears witness. Since, therefore, 
 he has shown [that he holds] the Catholic faith according 
 to his promise, and according to the aforementioned 
 Bishop he has sent his subscription [to the Tome] in his 
 own document and in that sent to us ; since also he has 
 anathematised both Nestorius and Eutyches not only in 
 writing, but with his own lips in presence of the whole 
 assembly, the most holy and venerable Synod, as well 
 as our lowliness, has decided by this decree that his 
 Church be given back to him.' Thus St. Leo through 
 his legates and the Synod decreed the actual restoration 
 of Theodoret, who had already been restored by him 
 de jure, his actual restoration by the decree of the 
 Synod following immediately upon his anathematising 
 Nestorius, just as Anatolius had been ordered by the 
 Holy See to anathematise Eutyches as well as to sub- 
 scribe to the Tome. 
 
 ' I do not know how Dr. Bright defends his positive assertion that 
 ' the legates did not give the decision, but simply took the lead in giving 
 a vote' {Roman See, p. 194). The minutes are explicit that the legates 
 did give the decision (Mansi, vii. 192). 
 
THEODORET 305 
 
 Six bishops then recorded their assent to the sentence 
 pronounced in their name by the Papal legates, and it is 
 interesting to notice the selection. Anatolius, the suc- 
 cessor of St. Flavian, and the quondam friend of Dios- 
 corus who had deposed Theodoret, led the way, men- 
 tioning the fact that the latter had anathematised 
 Nestorius, but saying first that he had been shown to 
 be orthodox ' for all reasons ' (including, of course, the 
 supreme reason — viz. Leo's judgment, given by the 
 Papal legates in the name of the Synod), ' and from the 
 fact that he had anathematised Nestorius and Eutyches.' 
 Thus Leo's judgment was, according to Anatolius, the 
 first factor in the process of restoration. Next, his 
 patriarch, Maximus, deposed that he had ' known long 
 ago and from the first that Theodoret was orthodox, 
 when he heard [lit. hearing] his doctrine concerning the 
 most holy Church,' probably in allusion to Theodoret's 
 stay in Antioch before Maximus was bishop, which gave 
 rise to the accusations originally brought against him 
 by Dioscorus.^ ' And now much more have I welcomed 
 his Holiness since he has now anathematised Nestorius 
 and Eutyches and agrees with the definition put forth ^ 
 by this holy Synod. Whence I judge that he is properly 
 Bishop of the city of Cyrus.' He thus gave his assent 
 to the sentence delivered by the Papal legates. It is 
 hopeless to argue with people w^ho think that because 
 Maximus does not repeat the words of the legates, he 
 has different rather than additional reasons for agreeing 
 to the decision about Theodoret. He merely adds his 
 own personal witness, and lays stress, as he would 
 necessarily do, on the latest proof of his orthodoxy, to 
 show that Leo was right, not merely on the matter of 
 
 * Cf. supra, p. 126. - '6qov rhv e/cTe0eWa (Mansi, vii. 192). 
 
 X 
 
306 THE RESTORA.TION OF 
 
 faith, but in his judgment on the individual, and that 
 the Synod was right in delivering over his see to the 
 bishop on whose letter Leo had pronounced judgment. 
 It was an intelligent adhesion to that judgment. 
 
 Juvenal was the next to adhere to the synodical 
 (jecree— the bishop who had so tamely yielded to pressure 
 from Dioscorus in the Bobber- Synod, when Theodoret 
 was calumniated and deposed. He endorsed the words 
 of Anatolius, which referred to Leo's judgment as well 
 as to the anathematisation of Nestorius. 
 
 He was followed by his companion dupes at the 
 Latrocinium, Thalassius, and Eusebius of Ancyra, each 
 of these merely expressing their assent to what Anatolius 
 and the other fathers had decided. Lastly, came a 
 bishop from the neighbourhood of Theodoret's see, Con- 
 stantine, whose own see lay in Arabia. 
 
 The rest of the bishops having then assented by 
 acclamation, the Commissioners declared Theodoret re- 
 stored to his see by the decree of the Synod. 
 
 I have given this scene at great length because so 
 much turns on it in the view of certain English writers. 
 It will be well now to notice one or two points of 
 interest in this judicial act of the Synod. 
 
 The legates in delivering the sentence of the Synod 
 speak of the Bishop of Eome as the Bishop of * the whole 
 Church,' and the Synod listens and adheres to the 
 sentence. Clearly, therefore, Leo's judgment on Theodoret 
 had a value which none other could have. The * whole 
 Church ' cannot be above its own bishop. 
 
 The rule of the Pope over the whole Church is not, on 
 Vatican principles, a despotic sway. The Episcopate has 
 a real office of judgment, though in subordination to his. 
 
 The test imposed on Theodoret at the instance of the 
 
THEODORET 307 
 
 impetuous theologians of Egypt, Palestine and Illyria, 
 few in number as compared with the great throng of 
 bishops, was not one which St. Leo had forbidden, nor 
 one of which anyone could suppose he would disapprove. 
 A response to it was involved in the very idea of restora- 
 tion. 
 
 The Synod had distinct orders from Leo to enter into 
 the case of the bishops deposed at the Latrocinium, of 
 whom Theodoret was one. The actual handing over of 
 his see, therefore, naturally lay with them. 
 
 The legates and Commissioners insisted on Theodoret 
 being allowed to exercise some of the rights of a bishop 
 in spite of protest, and that purely on the ground that 
 he had been restored by Leo and consequently (for this 
 we may certainly assume) accepted by the Emperor. 
 
 The decree of the Synod was avowedly based, not 
 merely on Theodoret's compliance with the demand to 
 anathematise Nestorius, but also on the judgment passed 
 by the Bishop of Eome on this Oriental bishop, of the 
 patriarchate of Antioch. 
 
 The Synod did not review the evidence on which 
 Leo's judgment was based. They refused to do that, for 
 whatever reason. But in so doing they deprived contro- 
 versial writers of any right to talk of the synodical 
 decree on Theodoret as though it were a case of review- 
 ing Leo's decision. 
 
 Our conclusion is that there is nothing in the history 
 of Theodoret's restoration to prejudice the doctrine of 
 Papal supremacy, if that doctrine be understood accord- 
 ing to the Vatican decrees, and not as teaching that the 
 See of Peter has absolute sway, or is bound to govern as 
 a despot. One alone has absolute authority. The Vicar 
 of Him who alone absolutely rules the Church is supreme 
 
 X 2 
 
308 THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 in jurisdiction over the whole Church, but is under Him 
 and must act in harmony with the laws which He has 
 laid down, which include a real, though subordinate, 
 authority in the Episcopate at large. 
 
 Note on the Restoration of Theodoret. 
 
 The foregoing pages will have shown how far there is any 
 truth in the objections drawai by Dr. Bright from the history 
 of Theodoret against the Vatican decrees [Boman See, p. 193- 
 195, and Waymarks, p. 231). 
 
 He says that the judgment of Leo ' on Vaticanist principles, 
 should have been amply sufficient to place him, as a matter 
 of course, among the constituent members of the Council of 
 Chalcedon.' So it should. And so it did with all but a tiny 
 section who sympathised with Dioscorus. For it was ruled 
 that he was to be a constituent member of the Council, and 
 his name was entered as such in the Greek lists of bishops 
 at the second session (Mansi, vi. 944), and at the end of the 
 fourth ' Act ' he exercised the supreme function of the 
 Episcopate in declaring the faith along with the rest of the 
 bishops. If he was made to sit in the middle, this was not 
 because he was not a constituent member of the Council, but 
 because, being such, he was about to act as an accuser of 
 Dioscorus, just as Eusebius of Dorylaeum, whose right to 
 the rank of Bishop was unquestioned, took his seat also in 
 the middle. * He could only take his seat in the midst as 
 a competent accuser capable also of being accused,' says Dr. 
 Bright. But to accept him as * a competent accuser ' at all 
 was virtually accepting him as a constituent member of the 
 Council. For no one not in communion with the Church 
 could be accepted as a competent accuser, according to the 
 Eastern regulation drawn up at Constantinople in 382 and 
 called the 7th canon of the (Ecumenical Council. The 
 Council expressly distinguished later on- (Mansi, vi. 645) 
 
THEODORET 309 
 
 between the reason for Dioscorus sitting in the middle and 
 Theodoret doing so. In the latter case it was, as an ' accuser.' 
 Dr. Bright reiterates the fact that Theodoret was ' liable to be 
 accused.' In the passage to which he refers, the word ' accused ' 
 is a misreading. All that the bishops decided was that the 
 Egyptians should be allowed to ' have it out ' with Theodoret 
 afterwards. This did not put him in the condition of one 
 actually accused. To say * liable to be accused ' is very 
 vague. 
 
 ' He did not vote except on such business as was con- 
 nected with his own justification, i.e. as was properly doc- 
 trinal ' {ibid.). But this exception is fatal to Dr. Bright's 
 contention. And if it were not, it would be fatal to his other 
 contention that the Synod in the fourth ' Act ' was a court 
 superior to the Apostolic See. Theodoret formed part of 
 that supposed ' superior ' court. He signed with the rest. 
 
 Then as to pronouncing anathema against Nestorius. 
 ' Then, and not till then, the Council professed itself satisfied ' 
 (Waymarks, p. 231). * The fact remains that the bishops 
 vehemently and persistently imposed on him a test which 
 Leo had not imposed ' (Roman See, p. 194). True, not (so far 
 as we know) explicitly, but that is all that could be said ; and 
 the ' test ' was not to see if Leo's judgment on the evidence 
 submitted to him in Theodoret's letter was correct, but 
 whether he had properly placed his case before Leo. It was 
 not, as Dr. Bright's account implies, the bishops in general 
 who were * vehement ' and ' persistent.' But no one would 
 refuse to insist on Theodoret's answering, when thus chal- 
 lenged. 
 
 ' He was not pronounced " worthy of his see " until he 
 submitted ' to the test imposed {ibid.). Yes, he was dis- 
 tinctly totidem verbis pronounced ' worthy of his see ' in the 
 first session, by all but a tiny knot of sympathisers with 
 Dioscorus. The concession made to these few turbulent 
 bishops was, not that Leo's judgment should be reviewed, 
 but that the case (Aoyo?) between these bishops and Theo- 
 
310 THE RESTORATION OF 
 
 doret should be allowed to come on afterwards, and yet 
 Theodoret was not to rank as an accused person, but as a 
 competent accuser. The distinction (as already noticed) 
 drawn between him and Dioscorus was notable. He sat 
 with the orthodox Eusebius of Dorylaeum. The concession 
 was made, not because the Synod itself had thought it 
 necessary to enter upon the case, but by reason of the 
 clamour of the aforementioned bishops. 
 
 ' The legates did not give the decision, but simply took 
 the lead in giving a vote ' {ibid.). We have seen that this is 
 not correct. 
 
 ' Six bishops followed, of whom five made no allusion 
 referring to Leo's action, while a sixth seems to include him 
 among " archbishops " ' (ibid.). 
 
 There was no need to make any such allusion. They 
 were only expressing their adhesion to the decision of the 
 Synod pronounced by the legates. The only point of im- 
 portance was to say that Theodoret, having anathematised 
 Nestorius, was to take possession of his see. Leo's judg- 
 ment took effect thereupon. He ivas an archbishop. No 
 one denies that. 
 
 But, as a matter of fact, Anatolius alluded to ' Leo's 
 action,' and Juvenal said he agreed with Anatolius, and 
 the next bishop, Thalassius, agreed with 'the most holy 
 fathers,' who included Anatolius and Juvenal, and Euse- 
 bius of Ancyra did the same, and Constantino simply 
 expressed agreement with what had been decreed. And 
 Maximus, as Theodoret's patriarch, naturally added his 
 personal witness. Thus there is nothing ad rem in this remark 
 of Dr. Bright' s. The same may be said of his quotation of 
 the words that Theodoret ' should regain the Church of 
 Cyrrhos, according to the judgment of the Council.' This is 
 a mere matter of fact, but the question is whether tlie judg- 
 ment of the Council involved a * review ' of Leo's judgment, 
 or was simply its execution when Theodoret had shown that 
 he had not played false with Leo. 
 
THEODOEET 311 
 
 * The legates themselves were fain to recognise its [the 
 Council's] decision as superadded to what their master had 
 long before pronounced ' {Waymarks, p. 231). But in what 
 sense * superadded' ? As necessary to its completeness, or 
 because the Egyptians insisted that Theodoret was not what 
 Leo thought him to be ? And, again, what was Leo's judg- 
 ment so far as it can he brought within the scope of his pre- 
 rogative of infallihility ? It was simply that the letter w^hich 
 Theodoret wrote to him contained the true faith. This was 
 never denied, never reviewed. The letter was not even 
 read. It is therefore futile to quote the Vatican decree and 
 ask, * On this showing, how can the Fourth CEcumenical 
 Council be acquitted of disloyal encroachment on the sove- 
 reign rights of the Church's visible head? ' {Wayraarks, p. 232). 
 We must not stretch those ' sovereign rights ' to mean what 
 the context in the Vatican decree shows they do not include 
 and then place them in the presence of past history. 
 
 It cannot, however, be too often repeated that on 
 * Vatican principles ' bishops have a right to exercise their 
 judgment in such a case as that of Theodoret ; and, this 
 being the case, the actual mention of Leo on every occasion 
 was not needed, and in view of the new accusation raised 
 against him it was enough to allege their reasons for 
 adhering to Leo's judgment by themselves without explicit 
 mention of anything besides these. 
 
CHAPTEE VII 
 
 ANTIOCH's dependence on ROME 
 
 Two matters were also decided at the Synod which con- 
 cerned the See of Antioch, and which brought to the 
 front the acknowledged jurisdiction of the See of Kome 
 over the whole Church. The first concerned a compact 
 entered into with Juvenal of Jerusalem, by which Antioch 
 parted with three fair provinces of its patriarchate. 
 Juvenal had long set his heart upon the extension of his 
 jurisdiction. He had succeeded in so completely gaining 
 the ear of the Emperor, Theodosius II., that he had been 
 allowed to count in his rule the two provinces of Phoenicia 
 and also that of Arabia, together with the three provinces 
 of Palestine, which belonged to the jurisdiction of Antioch. 
 St. Cyril had done his utmost to oppose this iniquitous 
 proceeding, and appealed to the Pope, entreating him 
 with ' earnest prayer ' to lend no countenance to such 
 * illicit attempts.' But Juvenal gained his case with the 
 secular power by means of forged documents.' 
 
 This quarrel over their respective jurisdictions had 
 continued until the time of the Council, when Maximus 
 acquiesced in a compromise, by which Antioch was to be 
 shorn of the three provinces of Palestine, and Juvenal 
 was to give up all claim to the two provinces of Phoenicia 
 and that of Arabia. But Maximus consented to this 
 ' Leon. Ejp. 119. 
 
MAXIMUS OF ANTIOCH 313 
 
 arrangement only ' if it was approved by our venerable 
 father, the Archbishop of greater Kome.' ^ Thereupon 
 the legates gave their sanction to the arrangement as 
 though Leo had consented. This, however, Leo had 
 never done, and when his opposition to the 28th Canon on 
 the ground that it contravened the Nicene arrangement 
 became known, Maximus, it would seem, discerned his 
 opportunity and endeavoured to enlist Leo's aid in the 
 recovery of his provinces from the jurisdiction of 
 Jerusalem. Leo expressly disclaimed the consent given 
 by his legates, and gave general advice to Maximus, in 
 favour of his desire to recover his lost provinces, but 
 abstained from any direct advice as to the present 
 moment. The fact was, that Juvenal was then in trouble 
 in his patriarchate in his laudable and stubborn defence 
 of the definition of Chalcedon against his refractory 
 monks. 
 
 But the important point to notice is that the finality 
 of the arrangement was held to depend on the consent of 
 the Holy See. 
 
 The other matter concerning Antioch touched its 
 former bishop, Domnus, for whom Maximus generously 
 asked a pension. Domnus had been Bishop of Antioch 
 at the Latrocinium (Robber- Synod). As has been already 
 said, this unfortunate man, the nephew of John of 
 Antioch, had left his cell contrary to the advice of his 
 abbot, with a view to influencing his uncle in the Nes- 
 torian controversy. At Antioch he won his way to the 
 episcopal throne and appeared as its bishop at Ephesus 
 to take part in the miserable tragedy there enacted under 
 Dioscorus. Having shown the white feather, and allowed 
 himself to be cowed by Dioscorus into consenting to the 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 770 ; also Leon. Opp. ii. 1223. 
 
314 ROME AND 
 
 restoration of Eutyches and the condemnation of Flavian, 
 he was also himself deposed by Dioscorus, on the ground 
 of long-past sympathy with Nestorius and of having once 
 condemned Cyril. He was accordingly exiled by Theo- 
 dosius. While he was still living, Anatolius ordained 
 Maximus bishop of Antioch in his place at Constanti- 
 nople in contravention of the Nicene canons. On the 
 restoration of the bishops who had been similarly ousted 
 from their sees, and the deposition of the intruders, 
 Maximus, instead of being deposed, was allowed to retain 
 his intrusive position. The only reason given by the 
 Council of Chalcedon for this exception was that Leo had 
 ordered that his ordination should hold good. The 
 Archbishop of Constantinople, Anatolius, said : ' We 
 decide that none of those things are valid which were 
 done in that so-called Synod [the Latrocinium] except 
 the matter of Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, since Leo the 
 Bishop of Kome, having received him into communion, 
 decided that he should rule the Church of Antioch ; 
 following which decision, I also have assented and the 
 whole of the Synod present.' ' 
 
 The learned Jansenist, Quesnel, who always avowed 
 the greatest regard for the prerogatives of the See of 
 Peter, but took every opportunity of undermining their 
 historical basis, remarks on this treatment of Domnus 
 and Maximus, that if only the Act in which their case 
 occurs were genuine, we should have in our hands an 
 unequivocal testimony to ' the supreme authority of the 
 Pontiff over Synods and over Oriental bishops, the 
 bishops of the greater sees.' But he set to work to show 
 that the record of this session could not be considered 
 genuine. His arguments were dealt with by Baluze, 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 258. 
 
MAXIMUS OF ANTJtOCH 315 
 
 indeed we may fairly say were crushed to atoms by that 
 learned writer.^ Tillemont, in spite of his theological 
 and historical sympathies, deserted Quesnel and called his 
 arguments nothing less than imbecile. But the matter 
 was set at rest by a manuscript which Quesnel had not 
 seen, but which Cardinal Casanata discovered ^ and 
 transmitted to Baluze, and which has been edited with 
 their usual learning by the Ballerini. This same docu- 
 ment contains the condition which Maximus attached to 
 his compromise with Juvenal, viz. if the Bishop of Kome 
 consented. 
 
 The prerogative admitted in this Act as belonging to 
 Leo covers in substance everything ever claimed by the 
 Holy See in the way of jurisdiction. St. Leo dispensed 
 with the irregularity in the case of Maximus's ordination 
 to Antioch and the Synod gave this reason, and only 
 this, for their action in accepting that ordination. They 
 also, in the same session, assigned the invalidity of the 
 transactions of the Bobber- Synod to the decision of the 
 Bishop of Bome. Now as we know that Leo himself con- 
 templated their entering upon the consideration of the 
 case of individual bishops at Chalcedon, we can only 
 conclude that Leo's decision was regarded as the 
 supremely invalidating factor. But the case of Maximus 
 was more crucial. In ordaining him at Constantinople, 
 and without any regard to the bishops of his provinces, 
 and when Domnus was still alive, they were contra- 
 vening the Nicene canons in every way, and it was in 
 this crucial case that they quoted Leo's decision as the 
 determining element in their own action. 
 
 ' Baluze's arguments are given in Mansi, vii. 6G6-G74, and the most 
 important are repeated by the Ballerini in their Ohserv. in Diss. ix. 
 Quesnelli {Leon. 0pp. ii. 1215, ff). 
 
 - Codex Vatic. 1322. 
 
316 EOME AND 
 
 St. Leo probably dispensed with the irregularity of 
 the proceeding because Maximus had shown his adhesion 
 to the orthodox faith, whilst Domnus, after his cowardly 
 conduct at the Latrocinium, did not ask for reinstate- 
 ment, but found his way back in a spirit of penance to 
 the cell which he ought never to have left. 
 
 Note. 
 
 It has been objected to the deduction as to Papal juris- 
 diction drawn from the case of Maximus (1) that he ' had 
 already approved himself orthodox by circulars throughout 
 his provinces, so that the Council in accepting him from the 
 outset as Bishop of Antioch, had not inerely Leo's act to rest 
 upon ' (Bright, Boman See, p. 195). But, setting aside the fact 
 that this was d propos of Leo's Tome, which Dr. Bright does 
 not allow to have been of faith at that time, the point is that 
 the only ground luhich Anatolius gave for the Synod's action 
 was Leo's decision that Maximus should hold the bishopric 
 (Mansi, vii. 257). It is objected also (2) that * Stephen of 
 Ephesus spoke of the appointment as originally " canonical " ' 
 {ibid). This, however, is not the case. The word ' originally ' 
 is not there. The Ballerini point out that Stephen's words 
 would not necessarily imply more than that Domnus by his 
 subsequent acquiescence had contributed to the possibility of 
 validating Maximus's ordination. The original act needed 
 to be condoned; else why moot the matter at all? Leo 
 expressly says that the ordination was originally irregular 
 (Ep. 104). And in the same sentence Stephen spoke of 
 Leo's decision as preceding that of the Synod, which shows 
 that, whatever he meant by * canonical,' there was something 
 for Leo to do in the way of validating the act, else he would 
 not have been mentioned at all. 
 
 As regards the condition attached by Maximus to his 
 compromise with Juvenal, viz. if the Bishop of Eome should 
 consent, Dr. Bright {Boman See, p. 196) objects (1) that it * is 
 not in the Greek Acts (Mansi, vii. 180).' But the ' Greek Acts ' 
 
MAXIMUS OF ANTIOCH 317 
 
 in Mansi, vii. 180, are considered by Mansi himself to be 
 defective. He has accordingly supplemented the version on 
 p. 180 with the version in which the said salvo occurs {cf. 
 p. 770). Dr. Bright ought to have noticed this. The Latin 
 version discovered by Casanata, which contains the salvo, 
 represents a very old Greek original, as Baluze, and especi- 
 ally the Ballerini, have shown. Mansi himself endorses this. 
 He thinks it older than the version used by Eusticus in the 
 sixth century. The Ballerini give reasons for believing that 
 parts of the Acts of the Council were sent at once to Leo, 
 such as the definition of faith, and this Act, as Leo's consent 
 was mentioned. Probably Maximus sent it in Greek with a 
 translation, or it may have been translated when it reached 
 Eome. Mansi thinks this conjecture of the Ballerini pro- 
 bable. He also notices, after Baluze and the Ballerini, that 
 it is obviously the translation of a Greek version, for the 
 salvo contains the expression 'greater Eome,' which is 
 Greek, not Eoman, style. See Mansi's note in Natal. Alex. 
 H.E. ix. p. 600. Dr. Bright is thus clearly at fault in talking 
 of the salvo as a ' Boman invention.' See Leon. 0]^p. ed. 
 Bailer. T. ii. {De caussa Domni, Observ.). (2) Dr. Bright 
 also objects that ' the legates' speech, even as there given, 
 ignores it,' i.e. the salvo. But as I have shown in the text, 
 the legates' speech, so far from ignoring it, was meant to 
 fulfil it. (3) Again, Dr. Bright adds, ' nor does Leo mention 
 it in his letter of 453.' But he alludes to the legates' con- 
 sent, and deprecates their action being taken for his consent 
 in any matter not explicitly mentioned by him. He is 
 writing to Maximus himself on this very matter (Ep. 
 119, § 5). 
 
 In this same session the invalidity of the acts of the 
 Eobber-Synod is assigned by the bishops simply and solely 
 to the decision of the Bishop of Eome. On this Dr. Bright 
 (ihid. p. 185, note ^) remarks * as if it did not result from the 
 proceedings re Dioscorus.' But in this case the bishops are 
 speakiDg of all the proceedings of the Eobber-Synod. The 
 said proceedings had only dealt wdth some. 
 
CHAPTEE VIII 
 
 PKEVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS OF * NEW ROME ' 
 
 It had been well for the Church if the Council had now 
 dispersed. But it was not to be. The bishops who re- 
 mained engaged in a project which had long agitated the 
 minds of a few leading spirits. 
 
 For more than eighty years Constantinople had 
 nursed a thought which was destined to change the 
 course of ecclesiastical history, and plunge her into a 
 permanent schism. Photius, who consummated the 
 schism between the East and West in the ninth century, 
 claimed for the Bishop of Constantinople the title and 
 position of ' Universal Bishop.' The Bishop of Kome had 
 been such, according to his theory, until the capital of the 
 Empire passed from Rome to Byzantium. But the posi- 
 tion of universal bishop was based, according to Photius, 
 on the secular grandeur of the city ; so that when Con- 
 stantino left Rome it was only a matter of time for Byzan- 
 tium to succeed to the honours of the original capital. 
 
 The difference between this theory and that which ob- 
 tained in the fifth century involved the whole question of 
 the property attributed to the Church in the Nicene 
 Creed under the title ' Apostolic' Under that title, in 
 the mind of the early Church, was included the govern- 
 ment of the Church by the Apostles and their suc- 
 cessors ; understanding by * the Apostles,' as the primitive 
 
PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS OF 'NEW ROME' 319 
 
 Church did, a body of men who were associated together 
 by our Lord under a visible head. ' It has been known 
 to all ages,' so it was said at Ephesus, ' and it is doubtful 
 to none, that the blessed Apostle Peter, the Prince and 
 head of the Apostles, the rock and foundation of the 
 Catholic Church, received from our Saviour the keys of 
 the Kingdom.' And the see of that Apostle, consecrated 
 by the blood of the two Apostles, himself and St. Paul, 
 became, in the words of St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian, 
 the principal or ruling Church, that which, according to 
 St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing in the second century, 
 ' presided over the [covenant of] love,' and in which, 
 according to St. Augustine, ' the principalship had ever 
 been in force,' and was designated in the terminology of 
 the whole Church, East and West, in the fifth century, 
 * the Apostolic See.' 
 
 The chasm between the teaching of the schismatic 
 Bishop of Constantinople, Photius, in the ninth century, 
 and his predecessor in the see in the fifth century at 
 Chalcedon, is exactly expressed in the words of the latter 
 when he said to Leo : ' The see of Constantinople has 
 for its parent your own Apostolic See, having specially 
 joined itself thereunto.' ^ 
 
 But although Anatolius thus expressed the true rela- 
 tion between Eome and Constantinople, his action at 
 Chalcedon prepared the way for the unhappy schism 
 into which the East eventually plunged, under the guid- 
 ance of the miserable Photius, with his claim to be 
 ' Universal Bishop.' The term ' universal bishop ' is one 
 which might be properly used to express the relation of 
 the Apostolic See to the rest of the Church, but even so it 
 needed a certain care lest it should be thought to mean 
 
 ' ' Anatolius ad Leoneni ' {Ep. 101). 
 
320 PKF.VIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 that other bishops were but legates or vice-bishops of 
 the one universal bishop. In fear of this meaning being 
 attached to the term, St. Gregory repudiated it. It was, 
 however, freely used at the Council of Chalcedon. And 
 there is no fear of any Catholic nowadays giving it such 
 an unorthodox interpretation as St. Gregory detected in 
 John's use of the term, and so there is no ground for 
 refusing it to the occupant of the See of Rome. But on 
 the lips of a bishop of Constantinople it necessarily 
 implied a heresy, for it also implied the idea that the 
 government of the Church was not Apostolic but Erastian. 
 The earthly Emperor, according to this theory, by 
 moving his capital, moved the centre of the Church's 
 unity. So Photius argued. Neither he nor his prede- 
 cessors were really prepared to carry out this theory to 
 its logical issue, for, as a Sovereign Pontiff asked of his 
 predecessors, were they prepared to call Ravenna, or 
 Gangra, or Sirmium, the centre of the Church's govern- 
 ment when the Emperor made these, as he did, the 
 centre of his rule ? 
 
 The attack, however, on the original constitution of 
 the Church, which culminated, under favourable political 
 circumstances, in the schismatic action of the 'East under 
 Photius, was commenced in fact at the Council of Con- 
 stantinople in 381. There the bishops assembled under 
 Nectarius had decreed a certain precedency of honour to 
 the ' New Rome,' as Byzantine pride delighted to call the 
 city of Constantino. But they had not ventured so much 
 as to send their canon to the West. It was a purely 
 local arrangement, not sanctioned even by the rest of the 
 East. As a canon^ it was no sooner born than it died. 
 It never took effect as a cano7i ; but it represented 
 ambitions which pursued their path with almost un- 
 
OF 'NEW ROME' 321 
 
 deviating determination until the effort was now made at 
 Chalcedon to give them a higher sanction. 
 
 But to understand this attempt at supremacy in the 
 East, we must recall some events which had occurred 
 since 381, and also what took place in the later sessions 
 at Chalcedon, when the episcopal ranks had been thinned 
 by the departure of several hundreds. 
 
 By the Nicene settlement the arrangement of ecclesi- 
 astical matters in the ' dioceses,' or clusters of provinces, 
 of Asia, Pontus and Thrace lay entirely with the synods 
 of each province within the diocese ; ^ and none of the 
 great Patriarchs, so to call them, claimed any power in 
 these regions, nor did these three groups in any way 
 blend into one. It was, however, in the nature of things 
 that Constantinople, as she grew, should cast her eye on 
 these autonomous ' dioceses ' and desire to form to her- 
 self a new Patriarchate, so that the Imperial city, ' New 
 Eome,' might hold the second place after ' Old Eome ' in 
 ecclesiastical affairs, not only nominally but in an 
 effective way. 
 
 But the advance was gradual. Patriarchal superi- 
 ority included two things — honorary precedence, and 
 effective jurisdiction.^ Under the latter head was included 
 the ordination of metropolitans and the right to con- 
 vene, to receive the reports, and to manage the business 
 of Provincial Synods {avac^opa). Honorary precedence 
 
 ' It is unfortunate that our modern use of the word ' diocese ' 
 denotes a smaller region than a province. In early times the opposite 
 was the case. The ' diocese ' of Asia included Lydia, Caria, Mysia, 
 Phrygia and Hellespont— i.e. Lower Asia — and also Pamphylia, Lycaonia, 
 Pisidia, Isauria, and Cilicia, i.e. Upper Asia. 
 
 2 The mere title of Patriarch was conferred on the Bishop of 
 Chalcedon by the Emperor and the Synod at the sixth session of the 
 Council. 
 
 Y 
 
322 PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 {irpsa-^sla rrjs rcfir/s) had been assigned to the see of 
 Constantinople at the Council of 381 in the third canon 
 — precedence even over Alexandria and Antioch — 
 primacy of honour, but not of administration. Indeed 
 that third canon, coming as it did after the second, 
 could not have ascribed more than a primacy of honour 
 without contradicting the second. Constantinople, ac- 
 cordingly, though situated in the very jaws of Europe 
 and Asia, lay in the ' diocese ' (or group of provinces) of 
 Thrace ; and the administration of the provinces of 
 Thrace was expressly committed by the second canon of 
 381 to their Synods, Heraclea being their canonical 
 centre. The same form of administration was laid down 
 as regards Asia, with its centre at Ephesus, and again as 
 regards Pontus, with its centre at Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
 whose bishop in 451 was Thalassius. Thus any attempts 
 at enlarging the jurisdiction of Constantinople would 
 centre round the sees of Ephesus, Caesarea, and Heraclea 
 — of which the first was vacant in 451, the second was 
 occupied by a bishop of peculiar antecedents, viz. 
 Thalassius, and the third was not at the Council, but 
 was represented by Lucian, a friend of Anatolius, the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople. This singular coinci- 
 dence, much in favour of any move that might be made 
 by Constantinople towards the enlargement of her juris- 
 diction, will go far towards explaining what now took 
 place at Chalcedon. 
 
 After the Council of 381, those three * dioceses ' 
 maintained their separate administration for a while. 
 In the law * de Fide Catholica ' in the Theodosian Code 
 the three groups, with their mother cities of Ephesus, 
 Heraclea and Csesarea in Cappadocia, are mentioned as 
 centres of communion — while Nectarius, the Archbishop 
 
OF 'NEW ROME' 323 
 
 of Constantinople, was a centre of orthodoxy to that city 
 and its suburbs alone and not to Thrace, whose metro- 
 politan is mentioned separately. 
 
 But the honorary precedence assigned to Constanti- 
 nople by the third canon of 381, was being continually 
 converted into a primacy of jurisdiction. The most 
 important step in this direction was taken by the estab- 
 lishment — not of avowed design, nor by any one act, but 
 through circumstances — of a Synod in the Imperial city. 
 Constantinople had no Synod of her own by canon law ; 
 no Synod to which the reports of Metropolitical Synods 
 could be sent in — one of the great signs and instruments 
 of jurisdiction ; no Synod in which the quarrels of 
 bishops could be dealt with ; nor had she any right to 
 ordain metropolitans. This was excluded by the second 
 canon of 381. And yet a Patriarchal Synod was com- 
 posed only of those who received ordination from the 
 Patriarch ; and, conversely, those metropolitans alone 
 were ordained by a Patriarch who were subject to his 
 Synod and jurisdiction. 
 
 But in spite of this what has been called the 
 * Eesident Synod ' came into being. This was not, on 
 strict canonical principles, a Synod at all : but it served 
 the purpose, and acquired the name, of a Synod. Some 
 sixty bishops at a time, of the first and second rank, were 
 wont to be temporarily resident in the Imperial city in 
 connection with the business of their diocese or province 
 at the Court, and these, on occasion, approached the 
 Emperor as a body, and hence the idea, and the usur- 
 pation of the name, of a Synod. Custom soon took the 
 place of canon, and the episcopal gatherings in the 
 imperial city assumed the functions of a regular Synod. 
 
 An instance of the way in which this Synod sometimes 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 worked is found in the fourth * Act ' of the Council of 
 Chalcedon.^ Eustathius, Bishop of Berytus, had induced 
 the Emperor to hand over to him the ordination to 
 certain sees which belonged to the jurisdiction of 
 Photius of Tyre. The Kesident Synod of Constantinople 
 had issued a decision in conformity with the Imperial 
 rescript, and had induced Photius to sign the decision, 
 under threats of deposition. It had also prevailed upon 
 Maximus of Antioch, in whose patriarchate the cities in 
 question were situated, to sign a document in favour of 
 Eustathius, Maximus being at Constantinople at the time, 
 although not at the Synod. But the Council of Chalce- 
 don reversed the decision of the Imperial rescript and 
 nullified its confirmation by the Kesident Synod. It 
 decided that Photius was within his rights in accordance 
 with the fourth Nicene canon, which was read out, and 
 which had decreed that the authority of the metropolitan 
 should be respected in each province. The Council at 
 the same time questioned the application of the term 
 Synod to the Constantinopolitan assemblies, whereupon 
 Anatolius the archbishop, defended their existence on the 
 ground of custom and convenience, but not on canonical 
 grounds.-^ The third canon of Constantinople was not 
 appealed to as though it made the Imperial see a centre 
 of metropolitan authority. That canon, as Leo said, had 
 collapsed from the first. 
 
 But there could be no question of the utility of the 
 Resident Synod under many circumstances. St. Chryso- 
 stom was reinstated by it after his deposition by the 
 Synod ' at the Oak,' ^ and Eutyches was condemned by 
 Flavian in a similar gathering. 
 
 The name of Chrysostom brings us to the most signal 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 85, ff. ^ Ibid. 96. ^ Soz. H. E. viii. c. 19. 
 
OF 'NEW EOME' 325 
 
 instance of Constantinople's intervention in the affairs of 
 one of the three great dioceses or eparchies, over which 
 she always tended to exercise authority. And it affords 
 us an insight into the real difficulties of the problem 
 which demanded a solution as the Church developed her 
 organisation in the East, The splendour of the Imperial 
 see and the new dignity conferred on it, however illegi- 
 timately, by the third canon of 381 in the teeth of the 
 Nicene settlement, naturally led to the Bishops of 
 Constantinople mixing themselves up with the appoint- 
 ment and ordination of metropolitans of provinces, on 
 invitation from the provincial bishops. On the plea of 
 restraining the ambition of other prelates, of putting a 
 stop to pecuniary exactions and illegal traffic in bishop- 
 rics, or, again, of calming seditions and tumults on the 
 occasion of episcopal elections, a wide door was opened 
 for the use of her honorary precedence in the direction 
 of semi-authoritative jurisdiction. In the Council of 
 Chalcedon, Philip, a Presbyter of Constantinople, quoted 
 the action of St. Chrysostom at Ephesus in favour of the 
 ordinations to that see being assigned to Constantinople 
 as a matter of right. ^ 
 
 But St. Chrysostom went to Ephesus by desire of the 
 Ephesian clergy and the rest of the bishops in that 
 region. Antoninus had been accused of selling bishoprics 
 but died before his case came on. On his death the 
 city of Ephesus was torn with factions over the election 
 of a successor, which led to St. Chrysostom going there, 
 and, with the general feeling in his favour, consecrating 
 his deacon Heraclides to the see. Antoninus had been 
 accused by Eusebius at the Eesident Synod, and had 
 presented himself at this Synod in Constantinople, 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 293. 
 
326 PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 which thus exercised consensual jurisdiction in the 
 matter ; so that on several grounds St. Chrysostom was 
 justified in his intervention. The second canon of 
 Constantinople, while expressly safeguarding the rights 
 of the exarch of Ephesus among others, had disallowed 
 bishops going to other dioceses to ordain, but only if not 
 invited,^ just as the fourteenth and thirty-fourth of the 
 Apostolic Constitutions had contemplated the possibility 
 of intervention at the instance of ' many bishops ' ' and 
 with the most pressing invitation.' ^ 
 
 It was not, therefore, the third canon of 381 that was 
 relied on in the advancement of Constantinople's position 
 of authority. The growth of her authority was due 
 sometimes to an occasion of public utility, sometimes to 
 a move on the part of an ambitious archbishop, sometimes 
 to an act of deference, not to say subservience, to 
 Imperial authority, which naturally endeavoured to use 
 the archbishop of the new capital to further its ends. 
 As, for instance, Sisinnius, when Archbishop of Constanti- 
 nople, designated Proclus for the bishopric of Cyzicum, 
 the metropolis of Hellespont, in the ' diocese ' of Asia. 
 The Cyzicenes resisted the intrusion successfully, and 
 whereas Sisinnius pleaded an enactment of the Emperor 
 Theodosius, the Cyzicenes set this aside on the ground 
 that it applied only to his predecessor Atticus, being a 
 personal privilege. It is to be noticed that on the one 
 hand Sisinnius did not appeal to the canon of 381, and 
 on the other hand, the contention of the Cyzicenes shows 
 that they also did not consider that Constantinople had 
 received anything in the way of jurisdiction by that 
 canon. 
 
 It was not, then, the canon of 381 that prevailed to 
 
OF 'NEW ROME' 327 
 
 shelter Constantinople in her growing tendency to 
 exercise jurisdiction over the eparchies or ' dioceses ' that 
 lay close over against her ; it was rather the example of 
 such a saintly prelate as St. Chrysostom, misapplied ; it 
 was the temptation to act in conformity with Imperial re- 
 scripts ; and it was a natural fruit, human nature being 
 what it is, of the honorary precedence spoken of in that 
 third canon of 381 ; but the result was not on that 
 account regular or canonical. At the same time, so far 
 as those three Eastern dioceses of Asia, Pontus and 
 Thrace were concerned, it was an arrangement which, if 
 the Nicene settlement were set aside, would commend it- 
 self to good sense. But there was only one power which 
 could alter the Nicene arrangement, viz. the Church 
 herself acting through the Apostolic See, or through an 
 (Ecumenical Council commissioned to act in such a 
 matter, or confirmed in its action by the Holy See. 
 
 Constantinople tried her best with the fragments of 
 an (Ecumenical Council, and with the Apostolic See, in 
 451 and the two following years, but, as we shall presently 
 see, in vain. She seems from the first to have had some 
 idea of improving her position by means of intrigue at 
 the Council : such at least is the natural deduction from 
 the caution given to the legates not to be a party to any 
 alteration of the Nicene arrangement in the relative 
 position of sees. De Marca thinks that the subject of 
 ordinations was purposely introduced with a view to 
 leading up to the question of her position. Whether this 
 be so or not, that question at length came to the front, 
 though not in the regular sessions of the (Ecumenical 
 Council, which ended with the sixth. 
 
 It was in this wise. In the eleventh session, the 
 whole subject of the relation of Ephesus to Constantinople 
 
328 PREVIOUS ENCEOACHMENTS 
 
 came before the Council through the appeal of Bassian, 
 who claimed to be the rightful occupant of the see of 
 Ephesus, as against Stephen, who advanced a counter- 
 claim. The history of the matter was as follows. After 
 the deaths of Memnon and Basilius, Bassian seized the 
 bishopric by means of violence and bribery, without the 
 vote of the Synod. The Emperor Theodosius on appeal 
 confirmed him in the bishopric. Bassian forthwith 
 went to Constantinople and ingratiated himself with 
 Proclus, the archbishop, and was received into com- 
 munion by him and by the bishops of the 'Eesident 
 Synod,' at the desire of Theodosius. Eventually, how- 
 ever, he was ejected by Stephen, who threw him into 
 prison, and Stephen was elected by the vote of forty 
 Asiatic bishops. The matter had been again referred by 
 Theodosius to the Patriarchs, including of course the 
 Bishop of Eome, on whose decision Stephen specially 
 relied.^ Their decision was in favour of Stephen, but it 
 was intended to be executed, not by force, but through 
 proper synodical action. Stephen, however, had used 
 force. Consequently, both Bassian and Stephen were 
 deposed, but permitted to retain the rank of bishop with 
 an allotted pension. 
 
 Now in dealing with this affair the rights of Con- 
 stantinople were touched upon. Lucian, the political 
 Vicarms of Byza and Bishop of Heraclea, a strong parti- 
 san of Constantinopolitan privileges, pleaded that since 
 Proclus, the archbishop, had received Bassian to com- 
 munion, he had settled the matter. He spoke of Proclus 
 as possessing authority ^ in the matter, though Bassian 
 himself only said that he had been received into com- 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 289. 
 
 '^ Ibid. 284. o excoi/ t^ kD/joj, This latter term is that regularly used 
 
OF 'NEW ROME' 329 
 
 munion at Constantinople — a different matter. Both 
 Bassian and Stephen were treated as in communion with 
 the Church, though not as necessarily legitimate Bishops 
 of Ephesus. The act of Proclus was one of charity, not 
 of superior jurisdiction.^ 
 
 But Lucian's expression about the authority of Pro- 
 clus seems to have started the all-important question in 
 the mind of Eusebius of Dorylaeum, as to where the 
 Bishop of Ephesus ought to be ordained. At once the 
 bishops of the diocese of Asia prostrated themselves on 
 the ground before their fellow-bishops, terrified at the 
 thought of the Ephesine ordinations being conducted at 
 Constantinople. They entreated the Synod that they 
 might not be performed in the Imperial city. The city 
 of Ephesus would be in a tumult ; lit would be the 
 destruction of the city. The Imperial Commissioners 
 then put the question to the Synod, and the answer came 
 at once, that the ordination should take place * in the 
 eparchy,' i.e. at Ephesus itself. Diogenes of Cyzicum 
 then took up the cudgels for Constantinople and pleaded 
 custom.- We have already seen that the Cyzicenes 
 themselves resisted the ordination of their own bishop 
 at Constantinople, on the ground of a custom to the con- 
 trary. Here Diogenes put forward the prevalence of cus- 
 tom in favour of Constantinople. Another bishop objected 
 that from St. Timothy onwards twenty-seven bishops 
 had been ordained in Ephesus itself ; to which Philip, 
 the cleric of Constantinople, replied that the 'blessed 
 John,' i.e, St. Chrysostom, when Archbishop of Constan- 
 tinople had deposed fifteen bishops in Asia and ordained 
 
 for metropolitan jurisdiction. Cf. De Marca, Diss. Eccles. de Cmistant. 
 Patriarch. Institutione. 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 292. -' Ihid. 
 
330 PEEVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 others in their stead ; and that he had ordained Memnon 
 in the Imperial city itself. Aetius, the Archdeacon of 
 Constantinople, produced other instances, and especially 
 that of Basilius (the last occupant of the see of Ephesus 
 before Bassian or Stephen), who had been ordained at 
 Constantinople by Proclus, and in this act the Emperor 
 Theodosius and Cyril of Alexandria had cooperated — a 
 fact which, as De Marca acutely remarks, indicated a 
 sense of some need of artificial support. The bishops, 
 however, at Chalcedon exclaimed hereupon, ' Let the 
 canons prevail,' i.e. against the claim, as though this 
 action of Constantinople was not covered by the canons. 
 And now for the first time, so far as the historical 
 records go, the clergy of Constantinople, showing their 
 hand, pleaded, to all appearance, the third canon of 
 381. They exclaimed ; * Let the canons of the 150 fathers 
 prevail : let not the privileges ^ of Constantinople perish. 
 Let the ordination take place here by the archbishop, 
 according to custom.' It will be noticed that, after all, 
 they had to fall back upon custom ; they could not rely 
 simply on the canon. But they seem to plead custom as 
 the legitimate interpreter of the canon. How the alleged 
 custom could possibly be reconciled with the second canon 
 of 381, which assigned ordinations to the Synod of the 
 eparchy, one is at a loss to conjecture. In fact it is 
 impossible to reconcile them. The Imperial Commis- 
 sioners were naturally dissatisfied ; they accordingly 
 postponed the settlement of the matter.^ 
 
 * Tpovdfxia (Mansi, vii. 293). 
 
 2 T7J e|7}s TovTo T€\€lws TUTTwO^treTot {ibid. 293) = ' shall be 
 authoritatively decided to-morrow.' Dr. Bright admits that in this 
 passage Tvirdu does mean ' authoritative regulation ' {Canons of tlie 
 Councils, p. 200). 
 
OF *NEW ROME' 331 
 
 The next day it was decided that neither Bassian nor 
 Stephen should retain the see of Ephesus but that both 
 should be pensioned off. Paschasinus, the Papal legate, 
 thereupon said that ' another bishop should be decided 
 upon according to the canons.' The Commissioners, 
 summing up the synodical decision, quoting Anatolius's 
 witness and that of the Papal legates — the one, we may 
 presume, because of his connection with the affair, and 
 the other, because of their special position as legates — 
 decreed the ejection of both Bassian and Stephen, and 
 their maintenance by the Church of Ephesus ; and then 
 concluded with saying that ' another bishop shall be 
 ordained according to the canons of the Church.' This 
 was received by acclamation as a pious decree {tvtjos). 
 Thus far, then, the clergy of Constantinople had en- 
 deavoured to base a custom on such instances as that 
 of Proclus's ordination, in contravention of the canons, 
 both of Nicsea and of Constantinople in 381, i.e. of the 
 second canon, and the third canon of that Synod had not 
 been explicitly quoted in favour of their wishes. 
 
 As regards Alexandria and Antioch, Constantinople 
 had not as yet claimed to act upon the third canon of 
 Constantinople. That canon, indeed, had never received 
 the adhesion of Alexandria, whose Bishop Timothy was 
 absent when it was drawn up.^ And it had been enacted 
 when the Bishop of Antioch was in a peculiar relation to 
 Constantinople. Flavian of Antioch, contrary to all rules 
 of justice, had just been consecrated by Nectarius to the 
 archbishopric of that city, and was neither in a mood nor 
 in a position to resist the encroachment on the honours of 
 his see which that canon involved. Domnus of Antioch 
 had also recently entered into a compact with Proclus of 
 
 ' Cf. Le Quien, Oriens'fihristianus, i. 16. 
 
332 PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 Constantinople, which enabled the latter to take the first 
 place, but Dioscorus wrote indignantly to Domnus as one 
 who was betraying the cause of Antioch, which he could 
 not have done if the regulation of 381 had been recognised 
 as a canon of the Church.^ Seventeen years after the 
 enactment of the canon, Theophilus of Alexandria conse- 
 crated St. Chrysostom to Constantinople,^ and then, in 
 his place, Arsacius in 406. And in all the subsequent 
 troubles between Theophilus and Chrysostom the canon 
 of 381 was never appealed to : which seems inconceivable 
 if it was held to be a really valid decision, seeing that 
 the relation of the sees emerged again and again. At 
 the Synod of the Oak, Theophilus did not preside, to 
 afford an appearance of equity. He voted last. 
 
 The canon had thus, as a canon, collapsed from the 
 outset.^ Dioscorus's action towards Flavian of Constanti- 
 nople, although in the interests of heresy, and attended 
 with the grossest injustice, implies, nevertheless, the 
 absence of any consciousness that the third canon of 381 
 had conferred a real precedence over Alexandria.'' 
 Flavian did not attempt to plead such precedence ; in- 
 deed, in his letter to Leo he even spoke of having always 
 obeyed Dioscorus ; ^ neither did the Council of Chalcedon 
 in condemning Dioscorus suggest that the primacy of the 
 East in any sense belonged to Constantinople. 
 
 Thus between 381 and 451 the third canon of 381 
 had been a dead letter so far as Alexandria and Antioch 
 were concerned ; but circumstances had led to Constan- 
 
 ' Theodoret, Ep. 86. 
 
 2 ' A certain proof of his [Theophilus's] power over that see,' i.e. 
 Constantinople ' (Le Quien, ii. 337). 
 
 8 ' Ab initio caducse,' said St. Leo ; he is referring to its irregularity 
 as contravening the Nicene canon. 
 
 ■» Le Quien, ibid. ^ Cf. supra, p. 174. 
 
OF 'NEW ROME' 333 
 
 tinople exercising a good deal of occasional and temporary 
 authority over the three great * dioceses ' of Asia Minor 
 (so to call it), Pontus and Thrace. But in the Council of 
 Chalcedon, Constantinople's decision had in one case been 
 reversed, and, again, its desire to ordain to the see of 
 Ephesus had not been granted. A third case, moreover, 
 came before the Council which must have been equally 
 distasteful to Constantinople, connected again with 
 ordinations. In the thirteenth session the Bishop of 
 Nicomedia was supported by the bishops at the Council 
 in his metropolitical rights in the province of Bithynia 
 as against the Bishop of Nicaea, the quarrel between 
 them turning on their respective rights to ordain a 
 bishop to Basilinopolis in that province. Hereupon 
 Aetius, the Archdeacon of Constantinople, suddenly 
 stepped forward and put in a claim for the Imperial see, 
 saying that it had been itself accustomed to ordain to 
 Basilinopolis or else by letters dimissory to permit others 
 to ordain. But the Synod at once exclaimed, as in the 
 previous instances : * Let the canons prevail. Let the 
 canons obtain their due.' The Imperial Commissioners 
 accordingly pronounced in favour of Eunomius, Bishop 
 of Nicomedia, and then went on to say that ' whatever is 
 suitable for the throne of Constantinople concerning 
 ordinations in the " eparchies " ' (i.e. the three ' dioceses ' 
 of Asia Minor, Pontus and Thrace) ' shall be examined in 
 its proper order before the Synod.' Eunomius publicly 
 thanked the Synod for keeping to the canons, and at the 
 same time in a somewhat cringing tone averred his 
 affection for the Archbishop of Constantinople.^ 
 
 Now it must be remembered that in the fourth 
 session the Imperial Commissioners had asked the 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 92. 
 
334 PREVIOUS ENCROACHMENTS 
 
 bishops in full Synod to settle two questions — first, 
 * whether it was lawful for Anatolius the most holy 
 Archbishop of Constantinople to send an excommunica- 
 tion to the most reverend Bishop Photius and to order 
 that certain Churches in the province should be taken 
 from him ; and [secondly] whether he ought to call the 
 assembly of bishops in the Imperial city a Synod.' 
 Neither of these questions was answered, so far as their 
 essential points were concerned. It was decided that 
 Anatolius ought not to have condemned a man in his 
 absence. And the second question was left severely 
 alone. Thus a slur had been cast upon Constantinople's 
 method of action at its core, viz. its use of the ^ Eesident 
 Synod ' to determine such matters at all. And now the 
 Council had withdrawn Basilinopolis, in the ' diocese ' of 
 Pontus, from the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and had 
 ordered that the whole question of her rights as to 
 ordinations in the provinces of those three great dioceses, 
 or eparchies, should be regularly examined.^ 
 
 It is a singular and unfortunate fact that the records 
 of the next session are missing. Had they been to the 
 credit of Constantinople, we can hardly suppose that she 
 would have allowed them to disappear. But so it is. 
 We have only a list of canons, twenty-seven of which are 
 supposed by the Ballerini and others to have been enacted 
 
 ' Dr. Bright [Rovian See, p. 197) says that ' the Council had not 
 refused to call the Sojourning Synod a Synod, but simply blamed it for 
 condemning a bishop unheard.' It did more. It refrained from answering 
 the question as to whether the ' Sojourning Synod ' was a Synod. And 
 it at once quoted the fourth Nicene canon (Mansi, vii. 93), which decreed 
 that bishops should be ordained * in the eparchy ' — a sufficiently plain 
 rebuff for Constantinople, which was thus declared to be wrong in two 
 ways — first, in condemning a bishop unheard, and, secondly, in inter- 
 fering in the province of another. 
 
OF 'NEW KOME' 335 
 
 in an earlier session, while the twenty-eighth was not 
 even entered as a canon of Chalcedon in the Greek 
 collections, until much later on. But it is this twenty- 
 eighth canon which has been the sheet-anchor of the 
 Anglican position : with what justice, we shall now see. 
 What we know of it is gathered from the record of the 
 Papal legates' protest, and of the struggle that ensued, 
 in the session which followed upon its enactment. 
 
CHAPTEE IX 
 
 THE BYZANTINE PLOT : OR, THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 
 
 The circumstances under which Constantinople made her 
 supreme effort to gain synodical sanction for the position 
 she was assuming over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and 
 Thrace were sufficiently favourable to ensure success, so 
 far as the bishops there were concerned. The three or 
 four days assigned by the Emperor for the bishops' stay 
 in Chalcedon had passed, and they had left by the 
 hundred. Hardly more than two hundred out of the 
 original six hundred remained. And among those that 
 lingered behind there was not one that might not be 
 counted on for either assent or silence. 
 
 Of the two ' greater sees ' Alexandria was vacant, and 
 Antioch was occupied by a partisan of Anatolius, to 
 whom he owed his irregular elevation, which had been 
 pardoned by Kome only (as Leo said) ' for the sake of 
 peace.' ^ 
 
 Constantinople, therefore, had nothing to fear from 
 these. She only needed a lack of scrupulous fairness on 
 her own part to enable her to press the matter to a 
 successful issue under these favourable circumstances. 
 But further, she could count upon at least the silence of 
 
 ' ' Studio pacis.' 
 
THE BYZANTINE PLOT OR THE 28TH CANON 337 
 
 another leading prelate, viz. Juvenal of Jerusalem, who 
 had himself just gained the object of his ambition for the 
 last twenty years in the compromise by which he had 
 wrested three provinces from Antioch. He at any rate 
 was not in a position to complain of any illicit stretch of 
 jurisdiction on the part of another. And Juvenal and 
 Anatolius had a further bond in that both had come 
 under the influence of Dioscorus and coquetted with 
 Eutychianism. Then the Bishop of Heraclea, the Pri- 
 mate of Thrace, was absent, and he was very closely 
 concerned in the project that Constantinople had before 
 her of extending her actual jurisdiction as well as 
 securing the semblance of synodical sanction for titular 
 precedence. This primate was represented by Lucian, 
 who was so friendly to Anatolius that he was sent by 
 him to Eome on this very matter. Ephesus, again, of 
 supreme importance, as one of the exarchies to be robbed 
 of its autonomy, was vacant, Bassian and Stephen hav- 
 ing been deposed. Thalassius of Caesarea m Cappadocia 
 was there, but did not subscribe, and he was Exarch of 
 Pontus ; so that no one of the three dioceses or eparchies 
 was properly represented among the signataries ; and 
 yet it was exactly these ' dioceses ' that were concerned in 
 the matter. The Illyrians were not there, not even 
 Thessalonica, neither was Ancyra, Corinth, Nicomedia, 
 Cos, nor Iconium, all of them important centres. In fact, 
 the little knot of bishops whom Constantinople gathered 
 round herself by various means could not by any stretch 
 of language be called a representative ecclesiastical body, 
 for the purpose of enacting a canon concerning the 
 jurisdiction of Constantinople. Moreover they had no 
 leave from Eome to discuss the question now forced upon 
 the bishops by Constantinople ; it was no part of the 
 
338 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 Council's programme. It was simply a plot against the 
 Church's order, with hardly a name that would command 
 the confidence of the Church except the impetuous 
 Eusebius of Dorylseum. The legates, though pressed 
 to attend, refused. The Imperial Commissioners were 
 also asked to assist at the session, but they also refused, 
 though they gave their permission for the matter to be 
 mooted.^ There was not a single Western bishop present. 
 But these ' astute ' Orientals, as the African bishop 
 Facundus called them, drew up a canon which flung 
 the Nicene settlement as to precedence to the winds, and 
 assigned, on the one hand, the first place in the East to 
 Constantinople, and on the other hand gave her jurisdic- 
 tion over ' Asia,' Thrace and Pontus. The exarchs of 
 these regions were to be deprived of their position as 
 left to them by the Nicene fathers, and Constantinople 
 was to be not only New Eome in the civil order, but 
 in the ecclesiastical hierarchy was to stand second to 
 Eome in point of titular precedence, and at the same 
 time to receive an enormous extension of her jurisdiction 
 in the East. She had hoped and tried to gain the con- 
 firmation and ordination of the provincial bishops as 
 well as of the metropolitans, but owing to the opposition 
 of some metropolitans she failed in this part of her project. 
 On the following day the Papal legates demanded an 
 explanation of what had been done in their absence. 
 
 ' TrapeKaXdaafiev rovs iiricKSTTOvs robs airh 'Pcvfirjs .... irapririja-avTO 
 avqviyKafXiv KoX [sic] eVi tV ufieTtpav /xeyaAoirpeneiav (Mansi, vii. 
 428). Dr. Bright in his criticism {Roman See, p. 198) on the first 
 edition of my book on The Primitive Church, &c. ignores the force of 
 the KoX, which shows that the bishops asked the Commissioners to 
 attend, but that they refused— Hefele thinks, from diplomatic con- 
 siderations. They evidently thought that the bishops were skating on 
 thin ice. 
 
OR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 339 
 
 They had absented themselves on the technical ground 
 that after the definition of faith had been drawn up, and 
 the matter of the lapsed bishops dealt with, their com- 
 mission ended. But it turned out that they had also 
 received orders from Rome to oppose any attempt at 
 altering the relations of bishops on the ground of the 
 civil status of their sees.^ Leo was already well aware 
 of the ambitious projects of Constantinople. 
 
 Aetius, the archdeacon, now did his best to purge the 
 action of the bishops of its irregularity. He said that it 
 must be owned that the matters of faith had been decided 
 in a fitting way, but pleaded that it was customary to 
 take in hand other necessary matters ; that they had 
 asked the legates to be present, but without success, and 
 that they had received the permission of the Imperial 
 Commissioners to proceed with the business. The legates, 
 however, maintained, and were probably justified in 
 maintaining, that the bishops had signed in fear, and, 
 indeed, their antecedents and the present position of 
 those that signed, fully justify such an assertion, how- 
 ever little some of them may have realised it ; they said 
 also that the proposed canon contravened the Nicene 
 settlement ; that it was professedly grounded on canons 
 which had not been enrolled among those of the 
 Church ; ^ and, lastly, that if Constantinople had been 
 benefiting by the said canon up till now, what need of 
 anything further ? — and if she had not, why did she now 
 apply for sanction for that which is an infringement of 
 the canons ?^reasoning which was unanswerable. 
 
 In consequence of this mention of the canons, the 
 
 ' For an answer to Dr. Bright's accusation against the legates 
 {Roman See, p. 198) see note at the end of this chapter. 
 - ' Non conscripti,' i.e. the third of Constantinople. 
 
 z 2 
 
340 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 Commissioners requested that each side should read those 
 on which they relied. The legates accordingly read the 
 sixth canon of Nicsea, in which Alexandria and Antioch, 
 and not Constantinople, came next to Kome. They also 
 read the seventh canon, which by anticipation reproved 
 Juvenal. Aetius is then supposed to have produced first 
 a slightly different version of the same canon, and then 
 (omitting the seventh of Nicaea) the third of Constan- 
 tinople was read. But this is in the highest degree im- 
 probable, since his supposed reading of that version of 
 the sixth canon makes nothing for the point at issue. 
 The rise of Constantinople took place after the Council of 
 Nicaea ; no one pretends, or pretended, that the Nicene 
 canons in any way assisted Constantinople in its present 
 aims ; on the contrary, they were dead against the new 
 canon. Constantinople was then an inferior see, and left 
 so by the Nicene fathers. It was on the third canon of 
 Constantinople that these bishops took their stand. The 
 Nicene canon was their difficulty.^ Indeed, in one of the 
 oldest versions of the Acts of Chalcedon that we possess 
 the production of the sixth canon by Aetius does not 
 appear.2 There are also other indications that the text 
 has been tampered with here ; for between the supposed 
 recitation of the sixth canon and that of the third of 
 Constantinople occurs the statement that ' the same 
 secretary read from the same codex the synodicon of the 
 
 • Dr. Bright thinks that ' if the legates' version of the canon was 
 alone read, then the Greek text ' (he ought to have said the Constantino- 
 politan version) ' was practically thrown overboard ' {Roman See, p. 
 203). But why ? Each was to read the canons on which each relied, 
 not those on which the other relied. The legates did not rely on the 
 opening words, but the latter part, which is admittedly genuine. 
 
 - The Codex Julianus, now called Parisiensis. Baluze first noticed 
 this, and has been followed by the Ballerini. 
 
OK THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 341 
 
 second Synod,' which Mansi rightly transferred to the 
 margin, as an impossible statement to have occurred in 
 the original. The Council of Constantinople was not 
 called ' the second Synod ' at that time — not until in the 
 compilations of canons the four (Ecumenical Councils 
 came to be separated from the local Councils, which took 
 place later on. The expression, therefore, belongs to a 
 later period than the original of the Council of Chalcedon. 
 Accordingly, Eusticus, who had before him very early 
 manuscripts, omits this whole sentence, although (incon- 
 sistently enough) the sixth canon appears in his manu- 
 script. The insertion, therefore, had been made before 
 his time, doubtless, as has been suggested above, by a 
 Greek scribe, who, seeing a Greek version of the sixth 
 canon in the margin, put there as a note by some previous 
 scribe, inserted it in the text, and some later copyist 
 inserted the remark about the second Synod. x\nd most 
 people will feel with Hef ele that if two confiictmg versions 
 of the Nicene canon had been read, some remark must 
 have been made on such a subject.^ 
 
 What, however, is of greater importance is the conclu- 
 sion which the Imperial Commissioners now drew from the 
 whole discussion. The legates had quoted the sixth and 
 seventh Nicene canons, beginning ' Eome has always held 
 the primacy,' and had read onwards about Alexandria, 
 
 ' Ballerini, De Aniiq. Collect. Canonum, Part I. cap. vi. 8. Dr. 
 Bright {Notes on the Canons, &c., 1892, p. 227) refers to the expression 
 ' oecumenical,' meaning ' of the whole East,' used by the Council of 382 
 in reference to the Council of 381 ; but this would not account for the 
 expression ' second Synod,' which only came into use when the canons 
 were collected in the way stated in the text. Cf. Ballerini, 0pp. Leon. 
 iii. p. xxxvii ; Dc Antiq. Coll. I. vi. § 8. The reference to Theodoret 
 which Dr. Bright gives adds nothing to the authorities. It only con- 
 tains the letter of the Council of 382. 
 
342 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 Antioch and Jerusalem, this latter portion being that on 
 which they relied. The Archdeacon of Constantinople 
 had had the third canon of Constantinople read with a 
 long addition (which was dishonestly joined on) placing 
 Asia, Pontus and Thrace under the jurisdiction of the 
 Imperial city. Several of the bishops had taken the side 
 of Constantinople, and expressed their perfect willingness 
 to subordinate their sees to that of the imperial city ; 
 Eusebius of Ancyra, however, while he proclaimed his 
 willingness to do the same, protested against the 
 pecuniary exactions with which this subordination had 
 been accompanied. The Commissioners, however, de- 
 cided that two things were plain from the Acts and 
 depositions : first, that the primacy (irpcoTsla — the very 
 word used in the sixth Nicene canon, as cited by the 
 Papal legate) belonged to Old Eome. About this there 
 had been no question, and it is obvious that the Imperial 
 Commissioners could decide nothing about that. But, 
 secondly, they decided that New Eome ought to have — 
 not a primacy {irpwrsla) such as Eome had, which the 
 whole history of the Council proves to have involved 
 jurisdiction in the minds of all the bishops — but the 
 same honorary privileges {irpsa^ela) as Eome, besides her 
 primacy and as a consequence of it, also possessed. 
 Eome, they had said, possessed two things — honorary 
 precedence and primacy ; Constantinople ought to possess 
 in the East that honorary precedence which Eome 
 possessed over the whole Church.' 
 
 ' irph irduTwv fiep to wpurela Koi Tr]v e^aipeTOU ri/x^v Kara robs 
 Kav6vas rw rris TrpeafivriSos 'Pw/irjs B^ocpiK^crrdrcf dpyicirirrKSir^ (pvXdT- 
 reffdai. I do not see how, in view of this undisputed original, it 
 can be maintained, as it is by so many Anglican writers, that the 
 legates' version was a forgery. The Council clearly accepted the 
 
OR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 343 
 
 Thus Constantinople laid the foundation of her 
 desired patriarchate over the East, and supplied the 
 premiss from which Photius was one day to draw the 
 conclusion in claiming universal jurisdiction. 
 
 It is difficult to understand how Canon Gore could 
 manage to see ' Rome's self-assertion ' at the bottom of 
 all this. Canon Bright also reproduces with approval 
 the sentence in which Canon Gore makes the strange state- 
 ment, that it is * more than probable \_sic] that the self- 
 assertion of Rome excited the jealousy of the East, and 
 thus Eastern bishops secretly felt that the cause of 
 Constantinople was theirs.' It must have been very 
 
 Papal legate's quotation as expressing the truth (c/. Appendix I.). 
 TO Trpwreio, primacy, and irpecr^e'La ttjs rifiris, honorary precedence, are 
 distinguished throughout. Primacy in general is assigned to Rome 
 in the legates' version of the Nicene canon. It is assigned to Alex- 
 andria and Antioch over their respective restricted jurisdictions in 
 the same canon, and to the other eparchies. Honorary precedence, 
 aKoXovOia rfjs Tt^ufjs, is assigned to Jerusalem. The 28th canon 
 now in dispute said that * the [Nicene] fathers naturally rendered pre- 
 cedence to the see of older Eome on account of the Imperial position 
 of that city ' (Mansi, vii. 428). They did not say ' gave,' nor ' gave the 
 primacy.' But they said aTroSeSw/cao-i = ' rendered.' It is the word used in 
 Matt. xxii. for ' Render unto God the things that are God's.' It was 
 presently used in the same session by Eusebius of Ancyra for rendering 
 in the sense of paying up what was owing : iroKKriv 6\kt)u aireSooKa 
 (Mansi, vii. 452). The Trpea^ela, rank, or dignity, rendered to Rome was 
 the result of to irpcoTela = her primacy as the See of Peter. ' The 150 
 fathers,' says the 28th canon, • assigned ' (airevei/jiav, not ' rendered ') 
 ' equal honours [i.e. in the East] to the see of New Rome.' It desired to 
 confirm the 3rd canon of 381, which decreed that the Bishop of 
 Constantinople should have honorary precedence (Trpea/Sera ttjs tiij.7js) 
 after the Bishop of Rome. Thus the primacy of Rome was never in 
 question, but only the honorary precedence that resulted from the 
 primacy. The latter was mentioned in the legates' version of the 6th 
 Nicene canon, and conceded as a matter of course. Constantinople 
 wanted to usurp honorary precedence over Alexandria and Antioch and 
 effective jurisdiction over the ' dioceses ' of Asia, Pontus and Thrace. 
 
344 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 ' secretly ' felt, for there is not a solitary allusion in their 
 speeches to such an idea, while they are from end to end 
 of the Council brimful of acknowledgments of the service 
 which Leo had rendered to the Church of God. So far 
 as the records go, the bishops, whatever they * secretly 
 felt,' were open in their avowals that, to use their own 
 words, * God has given the Synod an invulnerable 
 champion against every error in the person of the 
 Eoman bishop, who, like the ardent Peter, desires to lead 
 everyone to God.' (Synod's letter to Marcian.') Pope 
 Nicholas I. said to Photius, of the crisis which arose in 
 consequence of the Latrocinium, ' If the great Leo had 
 not been divinely moved to open his mouth, the Christian 
 religion would have perished outright.' 
 
 Canon Gore's suggestion bears, indeed, no serious 
 relation to the facts. It may be fairly said of it, as 
 Canon Bright has said of a contention of the Ballerini, 
 mentioned above, that ' nothing but an intelligible bias 
 could account for a suggestion so futile.' ^ The 'self- 
 assertion ' was all on the part of Constantinople. 
 
 The legates entered their protest on the technical 
 ground that the Apostolic See had not been consulted as 
 to the discussion of this question,^ and that the proposal 
 was a violation of the Nicene canons. They asked that 
 the proceedings of the previous day be cancelled, or else 
 that their opposition be recorded, ' so that we may know 
 what we ought to report to the Apostolic man, the Pope 
 of the Universal Church, so that he himself may pass 
 sentence on the injury done to his see or on the overthrow 
 
 ' Quoted in the ' Collectio Lacensis,' Acta Concilii Vaticani, vii. 449. 
 2 Bright's Notes on the Councils, p. 148. 
 
 ' This seems to be the meaning of the legates' words. Cf. Leon. 
 Ep. 119, 5. 
 
OR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 345 
 
 of the canons ' — the injury done to the Holy See by 
 debating the question without its consent, and the over- 
 throw of the canons by displacing Alexandria in favour 
 of Constantinople. 
 
 In spite, however, of the legates' protest the bishops 
 voted the canon, the Commissioners calling them ' the 
 whole Synod,' i.e. all except the Papal legates. 
 
 The matter could not, of course, stand there. Com- 
 paratively speaking, as we have seen, they were but a 
 handful of bishops, most of them of sees grouped round 
 Constantinople, and their leaders far from enjoying the 
 esteem of the Catholic world. Their canon was the work 
 * rather of Greek sophists than of Fathers of the Church.' ^ 
 They had adroitly tacked on their new claim over three 
 large eparchies (which by the Nicene Council had been 
 left autonomous) to the third canon of Constantinople, 
 so that the new and old parts read like one : in which, as 
 Canon Bright remarks, they were more ' astute than 
 candid.' 
 
 The matter, then, could not rest there. Indeed these 
 bishops themselves did not entertain the idea that their 
 act was final ; and accordingly they set to work to gain 
 a favourable decision from Leo, in spite of his legates' 
 protest. They had the Emperor on their side, and the 
 game was worth pursuing ; for even if they lost in the 
 present, they had taken a step forward for the future. 
 
 It is certainly astonishing that writers who are so 
 full of Home's supposed ' self-assertion ' and ' exorbitant 
 claims ' should not see the worthlessness of what these 
 comparatively few bishops said and did, two-thirds of 
 the bishops of the original Synod being absent, and the 
 Presidents of the same refusing their assent. Yet it is 
 
 ' Rohrbacher, Hist. iv. 539. 
 
346 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 the case that the most universally accepted writers 
 among Anglicans have for the last three centuries 
 taken their stand on this canon, and seen in it an ac- 
 ceptance, hij the Church, of the principle that Eome owed 
 all her privileges, not to her relationship to the Apostle 
 Peter, and through him to our Lord's institution, but to 
 her secular position as the capital of the Eoman Empire. 
 How, it may be asked, can the Church be identified with 
 these Eastern adventurers, men whose antecedents were 
 in almost every case sufficiently suspicious to deprive 
 their judgment on such a matter of half its value? 
 Anatolius, originally secretary to Dioscorus, and waver- 
 ing in the Eutychian troubles ; Juvenal, one of the 
 leaders at the Kobber-Synod, and himself involved in an 
 ambitious scheme for the stretch of his jurisdiction ; 
 Maximus, who had been irregularly ordained by 
 Anatolius himself, his ordination only sanctioned by Leo 
 for the sake of peace ; Alexandria vacant ; the Exarch of 
 Ephesus, so deeply concerned, not there ; and the rest, 
 most of them, in no position to withstand the pressure 
 which the legates, who knew the position of matters 
 well, asserted had been put upon them by Constanti- 
 nople — how can these be taken to represent the 
 Church ? 
 
 It may be asked how did the Emperor Marcian come 
 to second Constantinople's ambition ? Perhaps the true 
 answer is, that he saw in the proposed arrangement 
 certain conveniences which commended it to his mind 
 from a political point of view.* And it was undoubtedly 
 the case that the proposed arrangement had much in its 
 favour, and might have passed muster had it not con- 
 flicted with a higher principle of action. As things then 
 
 ' Cf. Hefele, in loco. 
 
OR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 347 
 
 stood, Constantinople having become the actual centre 
 of life in the East, it was certainly a natural position for 
 a politician to adopt, that the ecclesiastical apparatus 
 should adapt itself to the new circumstances, and that 
 the London of the East should become the root and 
 womb of the Church in the future. But Marcian did not 
 see that another principle was being introduced which, 
 if admitted, must have been subversive of the Church's 
 spiritual and supernatural order, as, indeed, it proved to 
 be under Peter the Czar. When Marcian found that St. 
 Leo was opposed to the arrangement, he dropped his 
 patronage of the scheme. But the bishops braced them- 
 selves to the work of persuading Leo that their canon was 
 harmless and worthy of that sanction which they felt to 
 be all important. 
 
 Note on De. Beight's Accusation against the Legates. 
 
 Dr. Bright accuses the Papal legates roundly of telling a 
 falsehood at the fifteenth session. ' Their former reply, then, 
 was a falsehood which had served its purpose ' {Roman See, 
 p. 198). Now the legates were asked in the fifteenth session 
 to take a share in (Kotvcovou? ytyveo-Oat) certain matters which 
 the Church of Constantinople said that she had to transact 
 (8ta7r(oa|ao-0ai), without mentioning exactly what they were. 
 The legates, however, knew perfectly well that the business 
 was concerned with the jurisdiction of Constantinople in the 
 matter of ordinations in the three ' dioceses ' of Asia, Pontus 
 and Thrace, for it was of this that the Commissioners had said 
 that the rights of the see of Constantinople must be investi- 
 gated. They accordingly ' refused, saying that they had re- 
 ceived no such orders ' (Mansi, vii. 428). This was, according 
 to Dr. Bright, their falsehood. But it was absolutely true. 
 For they afterwards, in the sixteenth session, read to the 
 
o48 THE BYZANTINE PLOT 
 
 Synod the instruction which they had received, viz. * Suffer 
 not the constitution of the holy fathers to be violated or 
 diminished by any rashness, preserving in every way the 
 dignity of our person ' {i.e. of Leo) * in yourselves whom we 
 have sent in our stead ; and if it should happen that any, 
 trusting in the power of their cities, shall have attempted any 
 usurpation, repudiate this with proper constancy ' (ibid. 443). 
 There was, therefore, not the remotest approach to a false- 
 hood in what they said. Their instructions gave them no 
 leav^ to enter upon the discussion of matters such as the 
 relationship between Alexandria, Antioch and Constanti- 
 nople, nor the subjugation of those ' other eparchies,' men- 
 tioned in the sixth Nicene canon, whose mutual relationship 
 had been there settled. This was a recognised principle, 
 laid down in regard to the matter of Maximus in a subse- 
 quent letter by Leo {Ep. 119). Accordingly, when the affair 
 of Constantinopolitan jurisdiction was thus brought on, they 
 refused to have anything to do with its discussion : they had 
 no orders to take part in it, as they said with the strictest 
 accuracy. Celestine gave definite orders to his legates not 
 to take part in discussions, but to give their judgment on 
 the sentences of the bishops in the Council of Ephesus ; and 
 the legates here could truthfully say that they also had no 
 orders to enter upon a discussion on such a matter. But 
 they had orders to repudiate certain attempts at usurpation, 
 if they should be made. They were made, and, accordingly, 
 when the 28th canon was read at the next session, having 
 been carried by a mere remnant of bishops, they repudiated 
 it, as Leo told them to do. They protested against it, 
 appealing to the judgment of ' the bishop who presides over 
 the whole Church ' (Mansi, vii. 453). Dr. Bright was bound 
 before he accused men who had boldly stood up for the 
 foundation of our Christian faith, and had been appointed for 
 the oflQce of presiding in place of Leo, to produce some in- 
 structions bidding the legates take a share in the transaction 
 of business (Kotvwvovs ytyi/ecrflat twv TrpaTTOfxevwv — the present 
 
OR THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CANON 349 
 
 tense) which had not been allotted to the Council. An order 
 to oppose any violation of the Nicene settlement is not an 
 instruction to take part in a meeting improperly held for the 
 obvious purpose of promoting such a violation. Until Dr. 
 Bright can produce such an instruction, he stands convicted 
 of a false accusation. His translation is grievously mislead- 
 ing ; the legates did not say, as he makes them say, that 
 * they had no instructions about such a matter,' i.e., as he 
 applies it, the subject of Constantinopolitan jurisdiction. 
 They said that ' they had no such orders,' i.e. as to be sharers 
 {kolvwvovs) in the transactions of a particular meeting held to 
 promote it by a comparative handful of bishops under sinister 
 influence. It would be possible to construct a falsehood out 
 of the legates' speech as mistranslated by Dr. Bright ; but it 
 is not possible to invent one from the words correctly trans- 
 lated and applied to their actual context. It is to be regretted 
 that Dr. Bright perpetrates the same mistranslation in a book 
 intended for young men at one of our universities. He there 
 translates the words of the legates * we have no instructions 
 on the matter ' (Canons of the first four General Councils, 
 p. 220, 2nd ed. 1892). The words of the legates as given by 
 the bishops are TTapyrycravTO Xcyovre?, evroAa? /jltj elXrjcfiivaL 
 roLavTa<;, and what they were asked was Kotvuivovq yiyvea-QaL twv 
 TrpaTTo/xevojv. It will be seen that their actual instructions 
 fully justified them in refusing to attend a meeting to pro- 
 mote, or even discuss the affairs of Constantinople's jurisdic- 
 tion in the matter of ordinations. Cf. Mansi, vii. 428 and 444. 
 It is clear that this is how their words of refusal were 
 understood by the bishops, for in the following session the 
 legates were asked if they had any orders ' about this,' 
 i.e. about the matter decided by the bishops, and they then 
 read their order (Mansi, vii. 442, 444). But they could not 
 have been asked this, if they had been understood in the 
 fifteenth session to mean what Dr. Bright understands them 
 to have meant, i.e. that they had no instructions on the 
 matter. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 EASTERN EECOGNITION OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 
 
 No one will deny the incomparable importance of the 
 letter which was now addressed to Leo by the remnant 
 of the Synod concerning their new proposal. The 
 twenty -eighth canon of Chalcedon has long been the 
 sheet-anchor of the Anglican position. Eelying as that 
 position does on the first four General Councils, it is 
 maintained that the judgment of the Council of Chalce- 
 don, supposed to be expressed in this canon, establishes 
 the theory that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was 
 considered in the East to be due, not to his relation to 
 St. Peter, but to the Imperial position of the city of 
 Rome. The belief in any real relationship to St. Peter 
 postulates a divine origin for the primacy of the Bishop 
 of Rome, for it involves the belief that our Lord included 
 that primacy in His words to the Apostle. And if the 
 primacy be in any sense divine, it is indispensable. No 
 amount of misconduct on the part of its representatives 
 can justify us in altering the lines laid down by our 
 Divine Lord Himself. But this twenty-eighth canon 
 proves, so it is confidently asserted, that the Bishop of 
 Rome only held a certain primacy by reason of his being 
 bishop of the Imperial City. He was, so it is said, only 
 primus inter pares. Constantinople (it is urged) was 
 placed by this canon in the second position on a principle 
 
EASTERN EECOGNITION OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 351 
 
 which proves that Eome's primacy was one of mere 
 presidency, of honour * without definite powers ' — in a 
 word that the Bishop of Rome was only the ' First 
 Patriarch.' 
 
 Now it is important to remember that the Bishop of 
 Rome loas the first patriarch, and this canon recognises 
 him as such. There is no dispute about this. Leo 
 XIIL is to-day not only Bishop of Rome, but Patriarch 
 of the West. The fault of the so-called twenty-eighth 
 canon, therefore, did not lie in its recognition of 
 Rome's patriarchal position ; its mistake lay in at- 
 tributing even that position purely to her connection 
 with the Imperial city, whereas the matter really stood 
 thus : — St. Peter selected Rome, and Rome was the 
 capital of the empire. His successors reaped the fruit 
 of his wise choice, and utilised, as they were meant to 
 do, the advantages of a natural centre. Ecclesiastical 
 Rome was able to be what she was because she was the 
 See of Peter : she was also able to do her work at first as 
 she did because her influence radiated from the metropolis 
 of the Empire. Her patriarchal sway was subordinate to 
 her apostolical jurisdiction ; but it was a reality. It is 
 difficult to draw the line between the apostolical and 
 patriarchal elements of her position, for the latter is 
 necessarily overshadowed, and coloured, and informed 
 by the former ; but her relationship to Peter, the prince 
 and head of the Apostles, is clear, and occupied an un- 
 mistakable place in the thoughts of the bishops at 
 Chalcedon. It was expressed emphatically and in the 
 most precise terms by the comparatively few bishops 
 who passed this canon in favour of Constantinople. The 
 terms which they use in their letter to Leo cannot all of 
 them, without doing violence to the laws which govern 
 
352 EASTERN RECOGNITION 
 
 men's minds, be attributed simply to flattery or general 
 Eastern courtesy. This, which is the favourite Anglican 
 explanation of these bishops' statements, is excluded by 
 the circumstances which produced the letter.^ 
 
 The bishops were, it is true, concerned to flatter St. 
 Leo, if possible : they wanted to gain something from 
 him. But what they wanted to gain was of that nature 
 that the particular terms used by them were the last in 
 the world that they would have dreamt of addressing to 
 him at this juncture, merely with a view to flatter, even 
 if they supposed that Leo was the man to be seduced by 
 honeyed words in a matter of such supreme importance. 
 Consider the circumstances under which they wrote. 
 Leo had shown himself above all things zealous for the 
 canons of the Church. It was this trait which the 
 Emperor Marcian singled out for praise in his encomium 
 of the Pontiff during this whole transaction. And the 
 bishops at Chalcedon who passed the twenty-eighth 
 canon were, as the African bishop Facundus described 
 them in the next century, ' astute as serpents.' Is it to 
 be supposed that these astute bishops would give away 
 their case by telling St. Leo that he was in precisely 
 that position which their canon, according to the 
 Anglican interpretation, was concerned to deny or 
 ignore ? If they admitted that St. Leo was their * head,' 
 they were admitting that their position next after him 
 was secondary in the sense of subordinate, and that 
 their canon was valueless without his sanction. If they 
 asserted that St. Leo was the instrument whereby the 
 teaching of the Prince of the Apostles was made known 
 to them, they were giving away the whole position which 
 our Anglican friends consider essential to their own 
 
 » Leon. Ep. 98. 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 353 
 
 security. Terms which expressed, in plain Greek and 
 Latin, a truth which Leo had all along maintained and 
 acted upon, and which his legates had stated in the 
 Council, cannot be called mere compliments ; they de- 
 note the acceptance of the position. 
 
 Now the bishops did tell St. Leo that ' he was their 
 head, and they but members.' What could be their 
 idea in using, by way of compliment, such an expression 
 as that ? Did they suppose that Leo would not take 
 them at their word and treat them as members and act 
 as their head ? 
 
 Then, again, they did tell St. Leo that he was their 
 ' leader ' in the Council, through his legates. They used 
 the very word which our Lord used to His Apostles when 
 He told them that there should be a leader (or ruler) 
 among them, and that their leader should be as He 
 Himself was in their midst — ' Even as I am among you ' 
 not lording it over them, but teaching, guiding, govern- 
 ing. Did they suppose that Leo would smile at the term 
 and take no advantage of it ? 
 
 Again, they did tell St. Leo that he had been to 
 them * the interpreter of the voice of Peter.' It was, on 
 the Anglican supposition, exactly the wrong occasion to 
 say that. They were not Eastern heathens addressing 
 heathen rajahs, or Hindu suppliants before their con- 
 querors. They were Christian bishops — not, it is true, 
 the best specimens ; but still, all Eastern as they were, 
 they had not lost all Christian sense of truth in spite of 
 their Eastern cunning. On the other hand, they knew 
 that it was the teaching of Leo that he was the successor 
 of Peter, and as such the ruler of the Christian Church. 
 And they were not so utterly devoid of all sense of truth, 
 and of ordinary common sense, as to suppose that in 
 
 A A 
 
354 EASTERN RECOGNITION 
 
 putting such a weapon into Leo's hand as their own 
 recognition of his position as successor of Peter, they 
 would advance the cause of Constantinople. Whereas if 
 the Christian world held that Leo was their head, their 
 language was natural, for then they lost nothing by 
 saying so. 
 
 Again they did tell St. Leo that * the vineyard had 
 been entrusted to him by the Saviour,' in a way which 
 implied that he stood in a different relation to that 
 vineyard from the rest of the bishops. And they did 
 tell him that he was the ' father ' of Constantinople, 
 and trusted that he would ' extend his ivonted care over 
 that part of the vineyard.' In fact they as much as 
 said there is no such thing as an independent national 
 Church. Although we are the East, and under one 
 Emperor, and you are in the West and under another, 
 still you have responsibilities towards the East, and a 
 paternal relation to it, and you acted as our ruler in the 
 Council, and were the interpreter to us of the Prince of 
 the Apostles, and we apply to you for that sanction 
 without which our canon can never be the voice of the 
 Catholic Church. This was what they said in effect. 
 
 Indeed, they said more than this ; for they told 
 St. Leo that their own delivery of the truth to the 
 children of the Church was but as the flowing forth of a 
 stream from him as its Apostolic source. ' Thou wast 
 constituted the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter 
 to us all, and didst bring to all the blessing of his faith. 
 Whence we also show the inheritance of truth to the 
 children of the Church.' ^ And hence unity of teaching 
 
 ^ '66€v Kal rifxeTs . . . ttjs dArj0€;'as toIs ttjj iKKX-qaias TtKvois rhv KXr\pov 
 iBd^afieu {Leon. Ep. 98, § 1). 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 355 
 
 is secured by what they distinctly state as the mediatorial 
 position of their head. 
 
 Of Eutyches, who, be it remembered, was deposed by 
 the Synod of Constantinople, the Acts of which were 
 sent to Leo, as to a court of revision, these bishops say 
 that ' his dignity was taken away by your Holiness ' 
 — which is the result arrived at above from a considera- 
 tion of the facts (Leon. E}-), 98, § 2). 
 
 And of Dioscorus they say that he meditated an 
 excommunication 'against thee, when thou wast all 
 eager to unite the Church,' and ' he repudiated the 
 letter of your Holiness.' 
 
 They speak also of being eager to ' confirm ' the 
 mercy of the Saviour towards him (which was what 
 Leo had desired them to do)— not as if ' confirming' 
 necessarily implies the action of a superior court, but in 
 obedience to their Saviour's words {ibid. § 3). 
 
 They speak of the actual help derived from St. 
 Euphemia- ' God was with us and Euphemia was with 
 us ' — on whose altar we know they placed their defini- 
 tion, for the entire Synod believed in the Invocation of 
 Saints. 
 
 And then they ask that Leo will ' accept and con- 
 firm ' their canon. 
 
 When they mention the legates' opposition to their 
 canon, they profess to ascribe that opposition to the 
 idea in the legates' minds that everything ought to 
 originate with his Holiness, ' so that even as the right 
 settlement of the faith is set down to your account, so 
 also should that of good discipline.' They in fact 
 acknowledge that the matter of faith was settled by Leo, 
 but they thought that they might initiate a matter of 
 discipline, which they had now brought before hia 
 
 A A 2 
 
356 EASTERN RECOGNITION 
 
 Holiness for his acceptance and confirmation. ' There- 
 fore, we entreat thee, honour the decision with your 
 favourable judgment, that as we have introduced har- 
 mony with the head in the things that are excellent, so 
 the head may supply to the children that which is 
 becoming.' 
 
 They have (they say) sent the Acts to Leo for his 
 approval and sanction.^ 
 
 Now these are, many of them, positive statements of 
 doctrine. Is sentence by sentence, one after the other, 
 to be dismissed as mere compliment ? Could anything 
 but the exigencies of controversy have led Canon Bright 
 and Canon Gore, and other Anglican writers, to set aside 
 all these definite statements on the part of the bishops 
 on the ground that they were mere compliments ? 
 
 If they were ' compliments,' they were those of men 
 who found themselves compelled to couch their compli- 
 ments in terms which, if they wished to be independent 
 of Eome, cut the ground from under their feet, sentence 
 after sentence. They are not in the place in which 
 compliments would come, nor are they of the nature of 
 honorific expletives. They form the substance of the 
 letter. 
 
 If insincerely used, they testify to the necessity under 
 which these bishops found themselves, of crouching at 
 the feet of a master in order to gain the object of 
 their desires. If used in sincerity, they are the testi- 
 mony of witnesses, naturally the most unwilling, to the 
 position of headship which the East recognised in the 
 occupant of the See of Peter. We cannot claim for 
 them the authority of the Council, for these men were 
 
 1 Twv Trap* Tifxoov ireTrpay/xepwv ^efia'atriv tc koI avyKardOeaiv (Leon. Ep, 
 98, last line). 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 357 
 
 not the Council ; but we are compelled to see in these 
 terms the strongest possible evidence that the idea of 
 the connection between Rome and St. Peter, and of 
 such a consequent ' headship ' of Rome over Constanti- 
 nople that the latter could not arrange its own relations 
 with other sees in the East without the acquiescence of 
 Rome — we are compelled, I say, to acknowledge that 
 this was so deeply rooted in the mind of the Eastern 
 Church that it was simply useless to ignore it, and that 
 the only thing to be done was to admit it plainly and to 
 win the adhesion of Rome to their projected canon. 
 
 But side by side with this letter of the bishops is 
 another, written by Anatolius himself, not less emphatic 
 in its witness to the Constantinoj)olitan conviction as to 
 the Pope's supremacy. Anatolius speaks of the bishops 
 at Chalcedon having confirmed ' the faith of the blessed 
 and venerable fathers ' of Nicsea, ' and also your Holi- 
 ness's letter agreeing with them' — showing that the 
 attitude of the Synod towards the Tome was the same in 
 one respect as towards the Nicene faith — viz. that their 
 confirmation of it was an acceptance of an authoritative 
 statement.^ He then says that Bishop Lucentius is 
 bringing the Acts of the Synod, since ' it was a matter 
 of necessity that all things should be brought to the 
 cognisance of your Holiness.' '^ But beside these things, 
 since some matters were transacted which specially 
 
 ' In the first edition this sentence was without the words ' in one 
 respect.' I have added these words because Dr. Bright managed to 
 misunderstand my meaning, as though I had stated that the attitude of 
 the Synod towards the Nicene Symbol and the Tome of Leo was in all 
 respects the same, which it would be absurd to suppose. 
 
 2 eSet anavra avayKalws [Leon. Ep. 101, cap. 1). This could not be 
 said of other absent bishops. Sending the Acts was treating Leo as a 
 higher court. 
 
358 EASTERN RECOGNITION 
 
 concerned themselves/ and these must also of necessity 
 he brought to the knowledge of his Holiness, Anatolius 
 says that he sent these letters by the same messengers, to 
 receive an answer concerning them. He then mentions 
 the acts in order. First came Dioscorus's excommunica- 
 tion, which he feels sm^e will obtain his Holiness's assent. 
 Next {Leon. Ep. 101, c. 3) he speaks of the reception 
 of the Tome in exact accordance with what we have seen 
 above. He says that it was needful that ' the under- 
 standing of all should agree with the meaning of your 
 orthodox faith,' and that this was the end for which the 
 Emperor convened the Council — words which are com- 
 pletely corroborative of the view of the matter taken in 
 this book (pp. 270-292). Anatolius's words express the 
 object of the session held after Dioscorus's excommunica- 
 tion, as that of obtaining an intelligent adhesion to the 
 faith as propounded by Leo. Consequently, Anatolius 
 says, that with prayers and tears, and with the help of 
 Leo himself, assisting in spirit and co-operating by 
 means of the well-beloved men whom his Holiness 
 sent to the Council, and under the protection of St. 
 Euphemia, he and those with him had devoted them- 
 selves to the work — in allusion to the ' instruction ' 
 given in Anatolius's house to the Illyrian bishops. And 
 when the time had come for all to issue an harmonious 
 definition, they had done so, in spite of some contentious 
 opposition from the first, and for the confirmation of 
 their definition ' in accordance with that holy epistle of 
 yours,' they placed it on the holy altar. This latter 
 remark explains the statement of the bishops that their 
 definition was offered by Euphemia to her divine Spouse. 
 
 ' Sia rh l^iKws Tiixlv iriTrpaxOai riva — called ' negotia privata ' in 
 Pelagius II.'s letter to the Istrian bishops. 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 359 
 
 So that Anatolius, writing thus publicly an account 
 of the Synod, emphasises (1) the necessity of agreement 
 with the definition of faith issued by Leo, and (2) the 
 necessity of reporting to the Pontiff whatever was done 
 at the Synod ; and (3) describes the confirmation of their 
 canon by Leo as at once necessary for them and free on 
 his part.^ 
 
 Having thus described the relation of the Council to 
 the Pope, in exact accordance with all that has been 
 said in these pages, Anatolius proceeds to introduce the 
 subject of the canon. He describes it as having for its 
 object the confirmation of the canon of the 150 Fathers, 
 who decreed that the Bishop of Constantinople should 
 have honour and precedence (not irpcoTsia, primacy) 
 next after the most holy throne of Eome, by reason of 
 her being ' New Eome.' And he says it {i.e. the canon 
 drawn up at Chalcedon) decided that the ordination of 
 the metropolitans of the diocese of Pontus, of Asia and 
 of Thrace should rest with Constantinople ; but that 
 the bishops under them should not be ordained, as had 
 been the case for sixty or seventy years, by the latter, 
 but by their own metropolitans. 
 
 He then complains of the legates' opposition to all 
 this, and speaks of the sanction of the Emperor. He 
 says that they paid all possible respect to the legates, 
 but that they have now reported their decision to his 
 Holiness, in hope of gaining his assent and confirmation, 
 which they entreat him to give. ' For the throne of 
 Constantinople has your Apostolic throne as its Father, 
 having specially attached itself to you.' And so he asks 
 for the ratification of the canon. 
 
 Later on (in 454) the archbishop tells the Pope that 
 
 ' Cf. Leon. Ex?. 101, ed. Ballerini, 7wte. 
 
360 EASTERN RECOGNITION 
 
 ' all the force and confirmation of what was thus done 
 was reserved for the authority of your Blessedness.' ^ 
 
 Now after these two letters— the one from the enact- 
 ing bishops at Chalcedon, and the other from the Arch- 
 bishop of Constantinople himself— it is idle to talk of 
 the ' self-assertion ' of Eome as having anything to do 
 with the twenty-eighth canon. St. Leo doubtless knew 
 how to magnify his office. But, indeed, there was no 
 need to do that here ; it was already done for him. He 
 was recognised publicly and unmistakably by these 
 bishops of the Eastern part of the Church as the 
 natural and, indeed, the necessary guardian of the 
 canons of the whole Church, and this, too, in virtue of 
 his relationship, through his see, to the blessed Apostle 
 Peter. To attribute all this plain dogmatic and public 
 exposition of the relationship of the Holy See to the rest 
 of the Church to mere courtesy can only be the shift of 
 those who find themselves driven hard to explain un- 
 toward facts. The facts are that the bishops who drew 
 up the twenty-eighth canon did avow their entire depend- 
 ence on Rome as the See of St. Peter, and that the 
 Archbishop of Constantinople himself counted the pro- 
 posal canonically null and void without the subsequent 
 confirmation of the Bishop of Eome. The explanation 
 proposed and adopted by those writers who are out of 
 communion with Rome, and have drawn up canons 
 independently of her, is that all this plain speech was 
 meie pretence. Even so it would require to be noticed 
 that the pretence took that particular shape. But, in 
 fact, pretence will not explain such statements unless 
 these bishops were utterly regardless of truth. But 
 
 ' Ep. 132, c. 4 : ' Cum et sic gestorum vis omnis et confirmatio 
 auctoritati vestrse beatitudinis fuerit reservata.' 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 361 
 
 what, then, is the value of their canon, so much reHed 
 on by our Anglican friends ? 
 
 The letters of St. Leo in regard to all this are full of 
 Christian royalty. Majestic, uncompromising, and tender, 
 they would by themselves be sufficient to establish his 
 claim to the title which Christendom has accorded to 
 him — Leo the Great. 
 
 To Anatolius he wrote,^ reminding him of the sus- 
 picion which had originally attached to his orthodoxy, 
 praising the faith which he now exhibited, but regretting 
 that he had allowed himself to be influenced by the lust 
 of honour and power. He blames him for endeavouring 
 to use a Council, assembled for the matter of faith, for 
 his ambitious projects, and for imagining that any 
 number of bishops could override the Nicene settlement 
 (cap. 2). He considers that Anatolius's blame of the 
 Papal legates is their commendation, for they were 
 bound to oppose any infringement of the Nicene canons 
 (cap. 3). He says he is sure that Anatolius will please 
 the royalties more by self-restraint than by ambition. 
 The decision of ' some bishops,' sixty years ago, ' never 
 transmitted to the Apostolic See,' is no support what- 
 ever. (In other words, the third canon of Constantinople 
 is of no account.) Alexandria ought not to suffer 
 because of Dioscorus, nor Antioch, where Peter first 
 preached, be degraded (cap. 5). The Pontiff concludes 
 with most earnestly and lovingly entreating Anatolius to 
 cultivate humility and charity. 
 
 Already Leo had written to the Emperor, severely 
 blaming Anatolius for not being content with being 
 bishop of the royal city, but aiming at the rank of an 
 Apostolic see, which Constantinople can never become. 
 
 ' Ep. 106. 
 
362 EASTERN EECOGNITION 
 
 And he tells the Emperor, in answer to his Majesty's 
 request that his Holiness would give his consent to 
 Constantinople taking place above Alexandria and 
 Antioch, that Nicene arrangements cannot thus be set 
 aside, and that in their defence, by the help of Christ, 
 it is necessary for him to be a faithful servant unto the 
 end, * since a dispensation has been entrusted to me ' 
 (' dispensatio mihi credita est'), 'and the guilt will be 
 mine if the rules sanctioned by the fathers in the 
 Synod of Nicaea, for the government of the whole 
 Church, by the assistance of the Spirit of God, should 
 be violated by my connivance, which God forbid.' ^ 
 
 But, as Leo's overlooking the ordination of Maximus 
 of Antioch by Anatolius (which contravened the Nicene 
 canon) might seem inconsistent, he adds that he has 
 not rehandled that, out of love for the recovery of the 
 faith and desire for peace.^ 
 
 To Pulcheria he writes in the same strain, saying 
 that he renders null and void (' in irritum mittimus ') 
 what the bishops agreed to contrary to the Nicene regu- 
 lations, and that he does so by the authority of the 
 blessed Apostle Peter.^ 
 
 In the following year the Emperor wrote to St. Leo, 
 telling him that he was unwilling to resort to extreme 
 measures with the monks in Palestine until he could 
 show them his (Leo's) confirmation of the Chalcedonian 
 definition. He says that the Eutychianisers had thrown 
 doubts on that confirmation.* The Emperor, in this 
 letter, yields the point of the twenty-eighth canon, and 
 
 ' Ep. 104. 2 xbid. § 5. => El). 105. 
 
 ■• ' Whether your Blessedness has confirmed the things decreed 
 (TviruQivTa) in the Synod,' i.e. on the matter of faith and excommunica- 
 tion of Dioscorus. Ep. 110. 
 
OF PAPAL SUPREMACY 363 
 
 expresses his warm sympathy with the Pope for the 
 stand he had made on behalf of historical veracity and 
 the ancient ways. ' For assuredly,' wrote his Imperial 
 Majesty, ' your Holiness did excellently well, as became 
 the Bishop of the Apostolic See, in so guarding the 
 canons of the Church as not to suffer any innovation on 
 ancient custom or the order settled of old, and inviolably 
 observed to this day.' Considering what Leo had 
 written to Marcian, this public acknowledgment of the 
 position of the Apostolic See as guardian of the canons, 
 from an Eastern Emperor who had his desires as to a 
 rise in dignity for his Imperial city, and had for a 
 moment been led away by the Bishop of Constantinople, 
 is at once a tribute to his real goodness and a witness, if 
 further witness were needed, to the ingrained conviction 
 of Christendom that the Holy See had a special dispensa- 
 tion committed to it, and that its charge was nothing 
 less than the government of the universal Church. For 
 to guard the canons of the Church, as Bishop of the 
 Apostolic See, is to govern the universal Church. 
 
 St. Leo left Julian, Bishop of Cos, as his legate at 
 Constantinople ('vice mea functus'), 'lest either the 
 Nestorian or the Eutychian heresy should revive, since 
 there is not the vigour of a Catholic in the Bishop of 
 Constantinople.' * And he wrote to all the bishops who 
 had been at Chalcedon to say that they could have had 
 no doubt about his approval of what had been done at 
 Chalcedon in regard to the faith, had Anatolius only 
 shown the letter he had received, which he had kept 
 back because of what concerned himself. ' In regard to 
 the faith ' — for it was for that alone that the Council 
 was convoked ' by order of the Emperors, and with the 
 
 ' Ep. 113. 
 
364 EASTEEN RECOGNITION OF PAPAL SUPEEMACY 
 
 consent of the Apostolic throne.' And he says, where- 
 fore ' if anyone shall dare to hold the perfidy of Nestorius 
 or Eutyches and to defend the impious dogma of Dios- 
 corus, let him be cut off from the communion of Catholics.' 
 At the same time they will see from his letters to 
 Anatolius with what reverence the Apostolic See deals 
 with the regulations of the Nicene fathers, and that, by 
 the help of God, he (Leo) is guardian of the faith of our 
 fathers and the canons of the Church.^ 
 
 As it is the duty of a king to guard the laws, and 
 himself to set an example of their observance, so Leo, as 
 the divinely instituted governor of the Christian Church, 
 while, for the sake of peace, he allowed Maximus, though 
 otherwise uncanonically ordained, to remain in his epi- 
 scopate, would not allow the ambition of a prelate in the 
 Imperial city to oust Alexandria and Antioch from the 
 position assigned to them by the Nicene fathers, on a 
 principal fatal to the spiritual character of the Church, 
 viz. that civil dignity could of itself, apart from the 
 action of the See of Peter — i.e. without the consent of the 
 Church — raise a see to the rank which Alexandria and 
 Antioch then held. 
 
 ' E2J. 114, e. 1. 
 
APPENDICES 
 
APPENDICES 
 
 APPENDIX I 
 
 DR. BRIGHT AND THE LETTER OF THE SYNOD TO LEO 
 
 The account just given of the bishops' letter to St. Leo, asking 
 for his confirmation of the twenty-eighth canon is almost 
 word for word the same as in the first edition of my book on 
 The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. I now 
 subjoin Dr. Bright's criticisms on this account, with replies. 
 
 1. He protests that 'the canon must be taken in its 
 grammatical sense and not explained away on the score of any 
 expressions in the letter ' (Boman See, p. 205). With that 
 we should agree. But at the same time if we want to know 
 what the bishops thought as to the validity of their canon in 
 the case of its not receiving the assent of the Apostolic See 
 — in other words, what they thought of the authority of that 
 see — we shall find an exposition of their doctrine on this 
 head in the letter which accompanied their canon. 
 
 2. ' Then look,' says Dr. Bright, ' at their expressions : 
 the bishops call Leo their " head " because by his legates he 
 was their president ' {ibid.). 
 
 They do not say so. They say ' whom you, as head of 
 the members, were ruling [or presiding over] in those who 
 held your place.' ^ The words, taken in their strict literal 
 
 ' wu (TV fifu, ojs KC(pa\i] ixeXwv, riy^fxovfvis iv ro'is k. t. A. 
 
368 APPENDIX I 
 
 sense, signify that Leo presided as being head of the 
 members, not that he was head because he presided — in fact 
 that he presided because of his position in the Cathohc 
 Church. The Emperor Marcian, in his letter to Leo about 
 the Council, had said that the Emperors were assembling it 
 with Leo's authority, aov av6€VTovvTo<; {Leon. Ep. 63). Leo 
 had authorised it by requesting it of Theodosius. And the 
 Empress Pulcheria had said that the object of the Council 
 was that its members might decide with Leo's authority {aov 
 avOevTovvTos opiamcnv) the matter of the bishops who had 
 gone wrong at the Latrocinium {Ejj. 11). Then Leo had 
 been called by the legates ' the head of the universal 
 Church ' at the opening of the Council. And in this letter 
 Leo is presently called the ' head ' with no reference to presi- 
 dency over the Council. In this latter passage not only is 
 the word K€^aA>i used of Leo, but also Kopvcfirj, the regular term 
 for the Emperor, or head of the Empire (Mansi, vii. 89), and 
 this with respect to Leo's subsequent confirmation of their 
 canon. This could not be the act of the president merely, 
 for that, they say, was fulfilled through the legates. * As we 
 have given consent to the head in good things [i.e. in the 
 matter of faith, in the Council] so let the head fulfil what is 
 becoming towards the children ; ' ^ the metaphor of * father' 
 naturally slipping in, since the Pope was the ' Holy Father,' 
 in their language, as well as the ' head.' It is obvious that 
 the bishops are not here speaking of presidency over the 
 Council, but of a general headship over themselves. For 
 the consent of which they speak was not given to the Pope 
 as president of the Council, but to his letter or Tome, irre- 
 spective of his presidency ; and the ratification asked for is 
 compared at once with that of the Emperor in the civil 
 order, which was given, not as president, but afterwards as 
 Emperor.^ Nor is this all. In the earlier passage before 
 us, from which the word quoted by Dr. Bright is taken, the 
 
 ' ovTO) Koi 7) Kopv(pri rails naialu avairXripwaoi rh irpeirou. 
 - ^a(Ti\€'is . . . ^e^ai(v<TauT(s, C. iv. end. 
 
DR. BRIGHT AND LETTER OF SYNOD TO LEO 3G9 
 
 bishops also compare the Pope with the Emperor. Their 
 words are : * Whom while you, as head of the members, pre- 
 sided over [or ruled] in the person of those who hold your 
 place, the faithful Emperors presided over for the purpose 
 of keeping order.' ^ Here the Pope and the Emperor are 
 both compared and contrasted. Each has rule over the 
 members of the Synod, but the relationship of the Emperor 
 is external, that of the Pope is interior and intimate, being 
 that of the head to the limbs. 
 
 3. Dr. Bright says that Leo ' had " held the position of 
 interpreting the words " [he thus translates rrjs (jnovrj^ — one 
 sees why] "of blessed Peter," inasmuch as they had accepted 
 his Tome expressly on the ground that it truly represented 
 the purport of Matt. xvi. 16 ; and by publicly affirming the 
 true faith they had " used him as an originator of what was 
 good " ' {ibid.). 
 
 They say something very different. They speak of the 
 * faith ' and ' knowledge of the Lord,' * which the Saviour 
 brought us from above,' ' which you yourself preserved as 
 a golden chain reaching down to us, by the precept of the 
 Lawgiver, being constituted interpreter ^ of the voice of 
 blessed Peter to all ' [it w^ill be noticed that Dr. Bright un- 
 fortunately omits those words * to all ' ] ' and yourself bring 
 the blessedness of his faith to all.' The position of interpret- 
 ing the voice of Peter is not here attributed to the acceptance 
 of the Tome, but to appointment by our Lord. Then— and 
 this is of supreme importance — they go on to say, ' Whence ' 
 [i.e. since you hold the position of interpreter of the voice 
 of Peter, and yourself bring to all (cc^eA/co/xci/o?, present 
 
 ' The word used of the Pope's presidency is r}y€fx.6v€v€s : that used of 
 the Emperor's is e^vpxov. But they are synonymous, (^vpxof is used 
 of the presidency of Cyril and Celestine (Mansi, vii. 477), and of Osius 
 at Nice {ibid. 464), and of Leo at Chalcedon {ibid. 85), and in this letter 
 laity without their bishop are called avrjy efiovevrcov, which to those who 
 believe in Episcopacy shows that the word implies rule. 
 
 - Readers of Eusebius will remember his description of St. Mark as 
 fpiirtvevrris U^rpov in his Gospel. 
 
 B B 
 
370 APPENDIX I 
 
 middle) the blessedness of Peter's faith] loc also by using you 
 as originator of what was good ' [i.e. the true faith] * shoiued 
 forth the inheritance of the truth to the children of the 
 Church,' i.e. by their common public confession of the faith, 
 as they explam, making it known with one mind. So that 
 Dr. Bright's interpretation needs to be exactly reversed. It 
 was not the acceptance of the Tome that made Leo the in- 
 terpreter of the voice of Peter, but Leo's action as such, that 
 led to their common confession at the Council. Nor is this 
 all. They proceed to liken their doings to a spiritual feast 
 of good things ' which Christ furnished to the guests by your 
 letter' The Tome, then, was furnished them by our Lord 
 as their spiritual food. It was not their acceptance of the 
 Tome that made it spiritual food ; that acceptance was their 
 assimilation of the food prepared by Christ. It was not, 
 then (to be exact), ' by publicly affirming the true faith that 
 they had used him [Leo] as an originator,' as Dr. Bright 
 puts it, but it was by using him (x/ov/o-a/xcj'ot) as leader or 
 originator {ap^qyi^) that they were led publicly to affirm that 
 faith (o^tv. . • eSa'^a/ACv). 
 
 4. Dr. Bright further speaks of ' that curious passage 
 which assumes that the legates only resisted the new canon 
 that Leo might have the pleasure of approving it ' {ibid. 206), 
 and says : * Mr. Rivington himself would not deny that 
 Oriental fluency of " compliment " appears in that curious 
 passage.' 
 
 I am sorry I cannot give Dr. Bright even this crumb of 
 comfort. For his words are a curious misreading of a passage 
 touching on an important point of discipline. There is 
 doubtless Oriental ingenuity, and the truth is put in a 
 deferential shape ; but the passage (in which Dr. Bright's 
 words do not occur) contains what they intended for a 
 real argument. The bishops are here giving as the 
 legates' ground for resisting the canon the contention that 
 such a matter should be initiated by Rome,^ so that the 
 
DR. 
 
 restoration ^ of order as well as of the faith, should be set to 
 the account of Kome, who was responsible for each. This 
 was what the legates had actually said when they refused to 
 attend the fifteenth session, and their instructions from Leo 
 as to repelling any attempt to alter the relations of the sees 
 to one another implied the same. They had ' no such 
 instructions ' from Eome,^ i.e. as to take part in discussing 
 such a question, which was not in the original programme as 
 set forth by Leo. The bishops in this letter go on to say that 
 they had had respect to the wishes of the Emperor, the 
 Senate, and the whole city, and authorised ' a confirmation 
 of its honour ' {i.e. of the city), feeling sure that this might be 
 considered to have emanated from his Holiness, zealous as 
 he always was to cherish their welfare and ' knowing that 
 every settlement made by the children redounds to their own 
 fathers.' Here, of course, they are creeping along, insinuat- 
 ing, and softly persuasive. But consider what they have to 
 concede in order to soften any possible objection from Leo. 
 They accept the principle that such matters, if discussed in 
 a Council, ought to have been part of the programme settled 
 at Eome, but — and here comes in their ' Oriental fluency ' — 
 they pretend that the gain in this case is so obvious thab 
 they may count on Leo's acceptance of it in the spirit of a 
 father, and may consider that practically, owing to his 
 general goodwill (here is compliment), he may be considered 
 to have included it in his original programme by implication. 
 There is nothing in the letter to justify Dr. Bright's inter- 
 pretation that 'the legates are said to have resisted the 
 canon only that Leo might have the pleasure of approving 
 it.' This is a fundamental misconception of the situation. 
 They are said to have resisted on the ground of Eome's 
 right of settling beforehand the business of the Council 
 (dpiaaOaL) ; the Council, however, suggest that this was a 
 case in which Leo could not but approve. I am far from 
 
 ' Or 'right settlement,' KarSpeu/xa. 
 
 ■ Mansi, vii. 428. See note on the meaning of this above, p. 347. 
 
 B B 2 
 
372 APPENDIX I 
 
 denying that these Easterns were writing with diplomatic 
 courtesy, but the Papal principles which underlie their 
 expressions are unmistakable, and in the first part of their 
 letter they are stating doctrine, not indulging in compHment, 
 when they speak of the method adopted by our Divine Lord 
 for communicating the knowledge of Himself. 
 
 5. But the next sentence in the bishops' letter is still 
 more strangely dealt with by our critic. They say, ' We 
 entreat you, therefore, honour also by your own decrees the 
 decision ' [i.e. about the exaltation of Constantinople over 
 Alexandria and Antioch] ' as we have exhibited [lit. intro- 
 duced] agreement with the head in those things that are 
 good ' [i.e., as the same word means earlier in their letter, 
 ' the matter of faith ' ] so that the head also may fulfil toward 
 the children what is becoming.' They then speak of the 
 Emperor having confirmed ' the judgment of your Holiness as 
 a law,' as a counterpart to the confirmation which they hope 
 for from the Pope. The Imperial ratification of the Papal 
 judgment in the matter of faith was, of course, in the civil 
 order, making it legally binding. But they ask for a similar 
 confirmation of the matter of discipline from Leo in the 
 ecclesiastical order, and adduce, as a proof that they have 
 not acted in the way of favouritism or party spirit, but with 
 the divine approval, the fact that * we have made known to 
 you all the force of our transactions for our own establish- 
 ment [or consistency]* and for the confirmation and agree- 
 ment with [or sanction ^ of] what we have done.' 
 
 Now for Dr. Bright's translation. He says (the italics 
 
 > (Tvaraffiv = making compact, consolidating. The ordinary Latin 
 version of the letter has ' ad comprobationem nostras sinceritatis,' which 
 is a gloss rather than a translation. The older Latin translation has 
 ' consistentiam.' I can find no authority for the gloss in the first men- 
 tioned translation. 
 
 2 (TvyKardQeaiv = agreement of any kind. Here, being connected with 
 fie^aiuio-iv, it probably = sanction. Cf. Liddell and Scott, s.v. The older 
 Latin version has disjyositionem, which is a word betokening authority. 
 
DR. BRIGHT AND LETTER OF SYNOD TO LEO 373 
 
 are mine), ' They requested him to honour the decision by 
 adding his own vote [i/^r/c^ots, plural] andl so to " confirm and 
 assent to " what had been done *' by the (Ecumenical 
 Council," and, as they do not shrink from adding, " under 
 the guidance of a Divine command " ; and accordingly they 
 " make known to him the whole purport (Swa/xtv) of their 
 proceedings " ' (Boman See, pp. 206, 207). 
 
 Let us take this rendering point by point. 
 
 (a) 7rapaKaXovfji€v is transformed into ' request.' On p. 
 278, note S Dr. Bright twice insists that this word (Lat. 
 ohsecramur) means urgent entreaty. Why not here, as it 
 does so often, indeed generally ? 
 
 (/?) TifXTjaov Kol rats o-ats \prj^oL<i tyjv Kpiaiv is ingeniously 
 rendered ' honour the decision by adding his own [your 
 own] vote.' Now i/^7/(^ots (the plural) had been already used 
 in this very letter for the ' sentence ' passed upon Eutyches 
 by Dioscorus, and again the singular i/^Ty^ov had been used for 
 the sentence which Dioscorus brought upon himself by his 
 misdeeds. Dr. Bright has himself elsewhere twice translated 
 \prj(fiov ' sentence ' (Boman See, pp. 163, 166), and has also 
 deduced an argument from the word if/r]<f>L(r€TaL as meaning 
 
 * will pass sentence.' The Latin translation is ' decretis ' in 
 Mansi, vii. 1098, and ' sententiis ' in the older Latin version 
 of the letter {ib. 1133). Why, then, does Dr. Bright trans- 
 late Kttt . . . rats a-als if/-q(f)oi^ ' by adding your vote ' ? 
 
 (y) The words * confirm and assent to ' are closely con- 
 nected by our critic with those words about honouring the 
 
 * decision ' with his ' vote,' whereas in the original the lines 
 about the Imperial confirmation intervene, giving a certain 
 complexion of authority to the word ' confirm ' by the 
 parallelism. The effect of the omission is obvious. Also the 
 words ' by the CEcumenical Council,' are between inverted 
 commas as though they were a quotation, whereas they do 
 not exist in the original, and they suggest that the Council 
 was oecumenical in its decision, without the Pope. And, 
 translating Oetio vivixan as * by a Divine command,' our critic 
 
374 APPENDIX I 
 
 adds : ' And accordingly they make known to him the whole 
 pm'port of their proceedings.' And here Dr. Bright stops, 
 instead of going on to the words that immediately follow, 
 viz. * for our own consolidation [or for our consistency] and 
 for the confirmation and sanction of [or assent to] what we 
 have done.' These crucial words, not exhibited by our 
 critic in English, appear only in Greek in a note. And yet 
 it is the application ' for the purpose of ratification and 
 assent ' or (since this would be such an anticlimax) * ratifi- 
 cation and sanction ' that (they say) proves that they were 
 acting under Divine approval. I venture to submit to any 
 impartial reader whether all this can be called adhering to 
 the record. 
 
 (8) Lastly, in regard to the bishops' assertion that to 
 Leo ' had been committed by the Saviour the guardianship 
 of the Vine,' Dr. Bright adds by way of interpretation, * to 
 him conspicuously and eminently, as holding a [sic] primary 
 place, but certainly not in a sense generically unique ; for they 
 themselves had received authority both'to root up and to plant, 
 and they treated the ' " definition " as their own ' (p. 205). 
 
 The ' certainly not ' (if the words are meant to deny 
 supreme authority) cannot be extracted from what the 
 bishops say. Consider the context. They make the climax 
 of Dioscorus's madness to consist in his actually extending 
 it to * the very person (avrov tov) who has been entrusted by 
 the Saviour with the guardianship of the Vine ' : words which, 
 occurring in such a context, do certamly convey the im- 
 pression of at least a unique relationship to the Vine. This 
 much Dr. Bright appears to admit. But seeing that the 
 unique relationship is in the matter of guardianship to the 
 whole Vine, the statement that others had authority to do 
 the work of gardeners in that vineyard, cannot be held to 
 counterbalance the impression of supreme authority con- 
 veyed by the mention of the ' guardianship of the Vine.' 
 If we take the words by themselves, they only speak of a 
 delegated authority (i^ovatav) which may be either by 
 
DR. BRIGHT AND LETTER OF SYNOD TO LEO 375 
 
 immediate or by indirect delegation ; whereas if we go outside 
 the words of the letter, we have to remember that they had 
 entered in the ' Acts ' their sentence as delivered by Pas- 
 chasinus, that Dioscorus was stripped of his episcopate by 
 Leo, in concert with Peter the foundation of the Catholic 
 Church, acting by the Synod as his instrument (supra, p. 246). 
 In the words following the statement about the guardian- 
 ship of the Vine, the bishops say of Leo, * who didst hasten 
 to unite the body of the Church,' thus reverting to their 
 metaphor about the head and the members. Whether this 
 is a position ' generically unique ' may be questioned, but at 
 least such a guardianship is unique and specificaJly pre- 
 eminent, which is sufficient to satisfy the Vatican decree. 
 
 As for the bishops 'treating the "definition" as their 
 own,' it was of course their own qicd Conciliar. Yet they 
 call it (as Dr. Bright should not have omitted to notice) 
 distinctly in this letter ' the decision of your Holiness,' and 
 also distinctly state that they were able to make it through 
 Leo ' being interpreter of the voice of Peter to all, and 
 bringing to all the blessedness of Peter's faith, luJience we 
 showed forth, &c.' 
 
 To sum up. The steps, as we find them, in this letter, 
 so full of doctrine as to the government of the Church, are 
 as follows :— (1) Christ brought the knowledge of the Lord 
 from Heaven. (2) Leo, by the ordinance of the Lawgiver 
 extended the golden chain of teaching to the bishops, and 
 this as being appointed ^ the interpreter, to all, of the voice 
 of Peter. (3) The bishops consequently {o6iv) proclaimed 
 it to the world by an harmonious confession. (4) The Em- 
 peror confirmed it in the civil order. ^ As for the relation of 
 Alexandria and Antioch to Constantinople expressed in their 
 twenty-eighth canon, they pretended that it might be con- 
 sidered to have been initiated to all intents and purposes by Leo, 
 
 ' Kadicrafxcvos. 
 
 ^ The Emperors are spoken of as TTjf tj)? aria d<Tiuri]Tos, ws v6nov, 
 fie^aiwcai^Tes Kpiaiv [Ep. 98, § 5, and Mansi, vii. 1009). 
 
376 APPENDIX I 
 
 because his goodwill was sure to sanction it ; but they now 
 apply for its ratification, as a measure which pleased the 
 Emperor and Senate and all the city, and as something that 
 was not the offspring of likes and dislikes, since they have 
 sent it for his confirmation and assent, or sanction, as well 
 as for their own consolidation (ets o-vo-rao-tv rjfxcripav kol tcui/ 
 
 Trap' rjfxojv TrtTrpayfievoiv fiaftaiWdLV re kol crvyKaTaOefTiv). 
 
 That this which I have given is the true interpretation is 
 placed beyond reasonable doubt by the words of Anatolius 
 written in 454. He was one of the writers, probably the 
 real author, of this letter which we have been considering, 
 and in his letter to Leo he says that ' all the force and con- 
 firmation of what was done was reserved for the authority ' 
 of Leo.^ This is a categorical statement by the archbishop, 
 who was president at the session, as to a matter of fact, and 
 must be considered decisive. Indeed, but for this, we 
 cannot imagine the letter of the bishops being written at all. 
 For it is not merely that expression after expression indi- 
 cates their sense of Leo's authority, but the sum and 
 substance, the very basis, of the letter, consists in an 
 endeavour to gain the assent of a superior authority. The 
 letter, then, cannot be regarded as a mere farce, as an attempt 
 to gain the assent of an equal in authority by proclaiming 
 him in every sentence their superior. Nor would Anatolius 
 give away his case in his accompanying letter, and — which is 
 beyond words significant — again two years later, when he 
 wrote in the same strain. Dr. Bright's suggestion that the 
 canon was sent to Rome because it ' mentions the See of 
 Rome and because they expressly assign a cause for the 
 privileges which had been " given " to it ' {Roman See, p. 206) 
 is futile to the last degree. This would be to suggest that 
 it was a new thing thus to speak. And there is not a word 
 in the letter to justify it. They actually begin their letter 
 with another reason — nothing less than the Saviour's ap- 
 pointment. 
 
 ' Leon. Ep. 132. 
 
DR. BRIGHT AND LETTER OF SYNOD TO LEO 377 
 
 It is true that they did not act up to their words. But 
 acts do not always say more than words in explaining what 
 people hold to be true. Acts evince the working of love or 
 its opposite ; they may be the expression of rebellion ; but 
 faith is a distinct thing from charity in the teaching of the 
 Catholic Church. Anyhow here are both action and language : 
 the act of sending their canon and the words explaining 
 why they sent it. Both show that these prelates believed 
 that a canon had not established itself in the life of the 
 Church until it had received the sanction of the Apostolic 
 See, where, as the archbishop and bishops of the province 
 of Canterbury said in 1413, ' such causes ought to be ter- 
 minated.' ^ The Greek historian had said more than a 
 thousand years before that no canon could be made for the 
 Church without the judgment of the Bishop of Rome 
 (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 8). 
 
 ' Wilkins, Concilia, iii, 350. 
 
APPENDIX II 
 
 THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN {COMMONLY CALLED 
 THE ' TOME ' ') IRBEFORMABLE FROM ITS FIRST PRO- 
 MULGATION BY LEO. 
 
 The position maintained by our Anglican friends is that it 
 was at the 4th Session at Chalcedon that * the Tome was 
 solemnly accepted by the Council' (Boman See,ip. 186), and 
 that it was not part of the rule of the Catholic faith until 
 then. Dr. Bright argues that as Cyril's letters were ad- 
 mittedly not irreformable before the Council of Ephesus set 
 its seal upon them and thereby erected them to the position 
 of Church standards, so with the Tome of Leo at the 
 Council of Chalcedon. It was not (he maintains) a 
 standard of faith until then. The special proof of this is to 
 be found, according to Dr. Bright, in the reason given by the 
 bishops for their subscriptions to the Tome at the fourth 
 session of Chalcedon. It was a * real judgment ' passed at 
 Ephesus on Cyril's letters, and it was the judgment of a 
 superior authority ; it must, therefore (he argues), have been 
 the same in the case of Leo's Tome, because the expressions 
 used in passing judgment are in both cases identical. In 
 the latter case, the formal declarations made by the bishops 
 signify, according to Dr. Bright, that they ' accept the Tome 
 because they personally believe it to be conformable to 
 
 ' A ' Tome,' as has already been remarked, is a doctrinal formulary. 
 The word itself means ' a part of a book written and rolled up by itself,' 
 a ' volume.' Liddell and Scott, s.v. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 379 
 
 Church standards, just as their predecessors had dealt with 
 Cyril's letter ; and thus by their act it acquires a place among 
 Church standards ' {Roman See, p. 188, 189). 
 
 These concluding words, which I have italicised, contain 
 the pith of the matter. Much in the preceding sentences is 
 of the nature of an ignoratio elenchi. No one denies that the 
 judgment of the bishops on the Tome was a real judgment. 
 Neither is it denied that the bishops accepted the Tome of 
 Leo because it was conformable to Church standards. 
 What we do deny is that the judgment was that of superiors 
 or equals, or that it involved the liberty of disagreeing and 
 yet remaining within the Church or that they thought this 
 liberty possible : in other words, the Tome was part of the 
 rule of faith before its conciliar acceptance at that fourth 
 session. We also deny that the reason given for their 
 judgment in the fourth session was meant to comprehend the 
 entire array of motives by which they were swayed : or that 
 it involved the belief that the See of Peter could go wrong 
 under such circumstances. We maintain that the bishops 
 merely aggregated their judgment to that of the Apostolic 
 See ; and as St. Leo himself put forth his Tome as in 
 conformity with the Nicene faith, so the fathers in Council 
 adopted the same mode of expression, and certified to their 
 own orthodoxy rather than guaranteed that of Leo. But 
 they did not say so without having read the Tome and 
 without having, indeed, carefully examined it, so that their 
 subscription to it was not a blind act, but an intelligent ad- 
 hesion to an authoritative exposition. As they said totidem 
 verbis, Leo was their guide in the matter : ' Thou wast made 
 the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter to us all, and 
 didst bring to all the blessing of his faith. Whence we also 
 show the inheritance of truth to the children of the Church ' 
 {Leon. Ep. 98, i.). His Tome was the lux prcefulgens, as 
 Vigilius called it, a kind of technical conciliar expression for 
 a guiding light, determining the course of action : words 
 used of the Imperial order at the Council of Ephesus 
 
380 APPENDIX II 
 
 (Mansi, iv. 1261) and of the Nicene Creed in the Council of 
 Chalcedon's definition (Mansi, vii. 110). 
 
 The point, therefore, to be proved is this, viz. that it is 
 not correct to say, as Dr. Bright does, that * by their act ' 
 (i.e. by the declarations of the bishops in the fourth session) 
 *it [the Tome of Leo] acquired a place among Church 
 standards ' just as Cyril's letters did at the Council of 
 Ephesus {Boman See, p. 189). We say that it already held 
 that position by reason of its emanating with such solemnity 
 from the See of Peter. 
 
 Dr. Bright's account is not clear in this particular 
 passage on one point, i.e. as to the time when the signatures 
 were affixed to the Tome. It looks as if by * their act ' he 
 meant * by their subscriptions ' as well as by their declara- 
 tions. It must, however, be remembered that the ' subscrip- 
 tions ' themselves to which the bishops alluded in the fourth 
 session were not given at that time at all, but previously — 
 in some few (very few) cases in the house of Anatolius, in 
 others at an earlier date. Bearing this in mind, it is capable 
 of demonstration that before the bishops entered the Council 
 the Tome of Leo had obtained oecumenical acceptance. 
 The voice of the Church diffused had spoken clearly ; and 
 the Church in Council cannot contradict the voice of the 
 Church dispersed throughout the world. The Tome was, 
 therefore, irreformable on that account alone, were there no 
 other reason, before the Council met. The following proofs 
 will suffice. 
 
 1. The bishops of Gaul had received the Tome in the 
 previous year ; and three of them, writing for an exact copy, 
 speak of this dogmatic letter as being already ' celebrated in 
 the meetings of all the Churches, so that it is unanimously 
 declared that the principate of the Apostolic See is deservedly 
 placed there whence the oracles of the Apostolic spirit may 
 still be unfolded ' {Leon. Ep. 68). And the bishops of Gaul 
 in a body late in the following year (451) speak of the Tome 
 as having been already * inscribed on the hearts of all who 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLA.VIAN 381 
 
 care for the sacrament of redemption, having been committed 
 to memory, as a symbol of the faith.' Again, they write, 
 * Who would think that he could sufficiently thank your 
 Apostolate for such a gift, by which it has adorned, not only 
 the Gauls, hut the luhole ivorlcl with as it were certain most 
 precious gems ? The faithful owes it to your teaching after 
 God that he holds with constancy what he believed ; the 
 unbelieving also owes it [or, according to another reading, 
 ' will owe it ' ] thereto that he departs from his unbelief and 
 acknowledges the truth, and, penetrated with the light of the 
 Apostolic institution, leaves the darkness of his error and 
 rather follows and believes what our Lord Jesus Christ 
 teaches by your lips concerning the sacrament of His Incar- 
 nation ' {Ep. 99). This was before the bishops in Gaul had 
 received any report of the Council of Chalcedon. (Cp. § 4 
 with Ep. 102.) It would be difficult to express in plainer 
 terms their conviction of the irreformable character of St. 
 Leo's Tome, before that Council met. 
 
 2. Eusebius, the Bishop of Milan, in this same year 
 assembled a Synod and wrote to Leo on the occasion of the 
 return of certain bishops from the East, sent thither on the 
 affairs of Eutyches. He then wrote to Leo in the name of 
 the Synod. The letter is of great importance as giving the 
 sense of the West concerning the Tome. They speak of our 
 Lord providing for the Catholic faith * when He placed you in 
 the See of His Apostle, a suitable champion of His worship, 
 ( ' quando vos idoneos cultus sui assertores in Apostoli sui 
 sede Praesulem collocavit,' ), who can both think what is right 
 concerning the sacrament of the Lord's Incarnation and still 
 more rightly guard the same.' Then, speaking of the Tome, 
 the Synod says : * It was clear that it shone with the full 
 purity of the faith, with the assertions of the Prophets, with 
 the authorities of the Evangelists, and the testimonies of 
 Apostolic teaching, and radiated with a certain brightness of 
 light and splendour of truth, and agreed with the ideas 
 which the blessed Ambrose, incited by the Holy Spirit, in- 
 
382 APPENDIX II 
 
 serted in his books concerning the mystery of the Lord's 
 Incarnation.' They then say that all in the Tome agrees 
 with the ancient faith, and that therefore they affix their 
 signatures by way of declaring that * all who think otherwise 
 {impie) ought to be visited with befitting condemnation ; 
 the sentence of your authority going before. Therefore, follow- 
 ing the form of your letter, we show by this letter, sent 
 through our brother-bishop Cyriacus, that we have kept the 
 manner of the appointment prescribed,' i.e. have observed 
 the appointed form prescribed by the Pope. In other words 
 his Tome was * a lamp to their feet ' (Ps. cxviii. 105). They 
 conclude with saying that in future ages it will be felt that 
 this contumacious sect was permitted to arise when it did, 
 ' that it might be for ever overthrown by your guardianship ' 
 (' ut vobis propugnatoribus in aeternum prostrata succum- 
 beret,' Ep. 97, Bailer.).' 
 
 It is clear, after this, that when the Council of Chalcedon 
 met, the Tome of Leo was already of faith in the West ; for 
 these words, like those of the bishops of Gaul, were written 
 before that Council's decision had reached the West. 
 
 3. Let us now turn to the East, and we shall see that 
 on all sides the Tome had been accepted before that fourth 
 session, indeed before the Council began. 
 
 (a). Leo himself, in writing to the Eastern Emperor 
 Theodosius, treats his Tome as an irrevocable exposition of 
 the faith. He tells him that he has sent legates to Ephesus, 
 and speaks of the case of Eutyches as one not to be dealt 
 with in the Council in a way that would imply any doubt 
 about his heresy, adding that Eutyches himself had promised 
 to correct himself in accordance with whatever Leo's sen- 
 tence disapproved of in his opinions ; and that ' the letter 
 which I have sent to our brother and fellow-bishop Flavian 
 \i.e. the Tome] fully contains what the Catholic Church 
 
 ' Muzzarelli, De Auct. Rom. Pont. ii. 88, noticed that Bossuet, or the 
 author of the Def. Gleri Gallic. Pt. III. lib. vii. c. 17, omitted the word 
 prcBcedcnte, and the last words quoted — a fatal omission. 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 383 
 
 universally believes and teaches concerning the sacrament of 
 the Lord's Incarnation ' {EjJ. 29). 
 
 To the Council itself Leo writes saying that the Emperor 
 wished ' the authority of the Apostolic See to be applied to 
 his decree,' and that he ' desired to have the confession of 
 Peter declared as it were by the most blessed Peter him- 
 self,' i.e. by the See of Peter. He assumes that Eutyches 
 has erred from the faith (cap. i.). He describes the Council 
 as assembled ' that all error may be abohshed by a fuller 
 judgment.' He does not say that its object is to investi- 
 gate the truth, or decide upon the faith, but to abolish error, 
 by more numerous judges — the idea being that they would 
 add their witness and take the case of the individual into 
 account. His legates are sent that in his stead * they may 
 decide, by a sentence in common with you, what may be 
 pleasing to God, that, pestiferous error being condemned, 
 the restitution of him [Eutyches] who has foohshly erred 
 may be dealt with, if at least (tamen) embracing the teach- 
 ing of truth he shall have fully and openly with his own 
 voice and subscription condemned the heretical views in 
 which his folly had been entangled, and this he actually 
 promised in the petition sent to us, engaging to follow in all 
 things our judgment ' (' sententia,' dTroc/xxo-co-t). He then 
 says that he had written to Flavian more fully about what 
 that prelate had referred to him, ' so that, the error which 
 appears to have arisen being destroyed, there may be one 
 faith and one and the same confession through the whole 
 world, to the praise and glory of God ' {Ep. 33). 
 
 Nothing can be clearer than that Leo required the 
 Council to regard Eutyches as a heretic unless he retracted, 
 and that his own teaching was to be the basis of any judg- 
 ment passed. That is to say, it was to be the guiding light, 
 lux prcefulgens, the ' lamp to their feet.' 
 
 Again, he writes to the Council of Chalcedon saying that 
 he is present in his legates — * and I am not wanting in the 
 proclamation of the CathoHc faith, so that you who cannot 
 
384 APPENDIX II 
 
 be ignorant of what we believe in accordance with ancient 
 tradition, may not doubt what our wish is.' And * let not 
 that be allowed a defence which it is not permitted to 
 believe, since in accordance with the authority of the 
 Evangelists, the voices of the Prophets, and the teaching of 
 the Apostles, the holy and pure confession concerning the 
 Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ has been most fully 
 and clearly declared by the letter which we sent to Flavian 
 of blessed memory ' {Ep. 93). 
 
 Clearly the writer of these words did not contemplate 
 the bishops sitting in judgment as superiors on this irre- 
 vocable decision as to the true faith. 
 
 {(3) The Emperor Marcian took the same view of Leo's 
 Tome. He describes the object of the Council as the 
 furtherance of the Christian religion by the declaration of 
 what would conduce to the Catholic faith, ' as your Holiness 
 has defined in accordance with the ecclesiastical canons,' 
 KaOui<; Tj err] dyiuiavvr) Kara tovs €KK\r]crLa(TTLKOv<; Kavova? StervTrwcrc 
 (Lat. definivit) (Ep. 76). 
 
 (y) The Empress Pulcheria at the same time spoke of 
 the Council as about to decide concerning the Catholic con- 
 fession ' by your authority,' o-ov avd€VTovvTo<s bpiaoicriv. She 
 had already spoken with satisfaction of Anatolius having 
 signed the Tome {Ep. 11). 
 
 (8) Flavian himself, the (afterwards) martyred Bishop of 
 Constantinople, had sent the Tome to the metropolitans all 
 round to be signed (Mansi, vii. 92). And he held as a matter 
 of principle that the whole matter could be settled by Leo 
 himself : ' For so the heresy which has arisen, and the trouble 
 consequent upon it, will be easily brought to an end through 
 the Divine assistance by your holy letter ' {Leon. Ep. 26). 
 
 All this was in accordance with what St. Peter 
 Chrysologus, the great Bishop of Eavenna, wrote to 
 Eutyches : * We exhort you to listen obediently to the 
 things written by the most blessed Pope of the city of 
 Eome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 385 
 
 own see, gives to those who seek, the truth of the faith ' 
 (Leon. Ep. 25). This was said before the Tome was known 
 to have been written, and it stamped it with infaUibihty 
 beforehand. 
 
 4. And now for the Council of Chalcedon itself, (i) In 
 the first session, when dealing with St. Flavian's condemna- 
 tion by Dioscorus, the fathers prove the orthodoxy of 
 Flavian by the mere fact that he was in accord with the 
 Tome of Leo — * since the exposition of the faith agrees with 
 the letter of the most blessed and apostolic man, the Pope of 
 Kome,' are the words of Paschasinus ; ' since the faith of 
 Flavian of holy memory agrees with the Apostolic See and 
 the tradition of the Fathers,' are the words of Lucentius ; 
 * Archbishop Flavian of holy memory expounded the faith 
 rightly and in agreement with the most blessed and holy 
 Archbishop Leo,' said Maximus of Antioch, adding * and we 
 all eagerly receive it,' i. e. that same faith. Some of the 
 bishops then testified to the agreement of Flavian with the 
 teaching of Cyril (Mansi, vi. 680, 681). The Tome of Leo 
 was, then, already on a par with the teaching of Cyril, which 
 had received Papal, conciliar, and universal sanction. It was 
 part of the rule of faith. As Evagrius of Antioch says, it 
 was already ' a standard of orthodox belief ' (op^oSo^ta? opov, 
 H. E. ii. § 2). 
 
 (ii) Again, in the second session, the fathers had said that 
 a * norm' or authoritative rule (tvVo?) had been given them 
 by the Tome of Leo * and we follow him [or, we go by it] ; 
 we have all signed the epistle ' or Tome ; and Florentius 
 said that those who had signed the Tome needed no * cor- 
 rection ' of their faith ; and both he and Cecropius placed 
 together the letter of Cyril (admittedly of faith) and also the 
 Tome, as all equally confirmatory of the faith (Mansi, vi. 954). 
 In that same session the Nicene Creed was read, and also 
 the Constantinopolitan, two letters of Cyril's, and the Tome 
 of Leo, and after each of them the fathers said * This is the 
 
 c c 
 
386 APPENDIX II 
 
 faith of all of us,' adding in the case of Leo's Tome, * Peter 
 has spoken these things through Leo ' (Mansi, vi. 972). 
 
 It is therefore, impossible for anyone who has regard to 
 the history of the whole matter, to maintain with Dr. 
 Bright and others that by the ' bishops' act ' in the fourth 
 session of Chalcedon the Tome of Leo ' acquired a place 
 among Church standards.' We must therefore find some 
 other meaning for the declarations of the bishops in that 
 session to the effect that they signed the Tome because it 
 was in accordance with the Nicene faith. Whatever their 
 meaning, it could not have been that they were then settling 
 the authoritative nature of that Papal utterance. Indeed 
 when Paschasinus, the Papal legate, said that he had signed 
 the Epistle to Flavian because it agreed with previous 
 standards it is certain that he, at any rate, was not saying 
 that he had examined it as something that might have dis- 
 agreed with the same, or that he had ever felt himself free 
 to repudiate its authority. 
 
 What, then, was the meaning of these declarations? 
 Mansi expresses it thus : ' They did not approve that Epistle,' 
 i.e. the Tome of Leo, ' as though without their appro- 
 bation it lacked anything in the way of irrefragable 
 authority, but to show that they themselves fully recog- 
 nised in it the traditional faith of the Lord's Incarna- 
 tion ' (Nat. Alex. ix. 525). What sort of examination 
 they gave to it, we do not know ; there was no conciliar 
 examination, but merely a private examination by a few for 
 the purpose of convincing some bishops who had difficulties 
 about two or three expressions, while even these distinctly and 
 emphatically said that they did not doubt Leo's complete 
 orthodoxy, meaning his orthodoxy as expressed in the Tome 
 (Mansi, vii. 29). The examination, such as it was, ' served,' 
 as Mansi comments, ' for a better understanding of the 
 words, but not because there was room to doubt concerning 
 what had already been defined' (Nat. Alex. ix. 526). It 
 had been alleged that those who condemned Eutyches were 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 387 
 
 unfaithful to the teaching of Cyril. No, said the bishops in 
 effect ; we have each one of us perused the great docu- 
 ment, and we find this allegation untrue ; the Tome is, as a 
 matter of fact, in perfect accord with that teaching and in 
 signing it we signed what we knew to be in harmony with 
 Nicaea and Ephesus. We were guided by Leo ; we followed 
 him ; he was (to quote again their own words in their letter 
 to Leo) ' the interpreter to us of the voice of blessed Peter ' 
 {Leon. Ep. 98). But we signed after discerning for our- 
 selves the harmony between Cyril and Leo (Mansi, vii. 44). 
 We compared his letter with the other standards of the 
 faith and their agreement was clear. 
 
 The question of Papal infallibility was not before them. 
 Their declaration was in answer to the demand of the 
 Imperial Commissioners that they should each say whether 
 the Creed of Niccea tvas in accordance with the letter of Leo 
 (Mansi, vii. 9). Now, as it would be absurd to argue from this 
 expression that Leo was placed above the Nicene Creed, so 
 it would be a gratuitous assumption to say that in using the 
 converse expression — namely, that the Tome of Leo was in 
 accordance with the Creed of Nicaea — they were declaring 
 that Leo might have gone wrong and that on that ground 
 they examined his Tome. 
 
 Dr. Bright in maintaining his thesis refers to Mansi's 
 seventh volume as his authority {Boman See, p. 189). It will 
 be of interest, therefore, to see from the words of that great 
 scholar and theologian, when dealing with the subject, what he 
 would have thought of Dr. Bright's theory, which, of com'se, 
 is borrowed from the Def. Cleri Oallicani. Mansi says that 
 quoting the words of the bishops in the way Dr. Bright 
 does is * sticking to the rind,' not getting beyond the surface : 
 * Non est hie in verborum cortice sistendum.' ' We are 
 not to suppose that when the Synod compared the Epistle 
 of Leo with other Fathers and preceding Councils, it could 
 have doubted concerning it and that it gave judgment as 
 a superior. From what took place before the Council and 
 
 cc 2 
 
388 APPENDIX II 
 
 until the Council was finished, it always appears that the 
 Epistle of Leo was bound to be observed as a rule of the faith 
 to be defined ' (Mansi, in Nat. Alex. H. E. vol. ix. Diss. xii. 
 Animadversiones, § iii. 17). 
 
 The objection drawn from the bishops saying that they 
 signed the Tome because it was in accord with the Nicene 
 Creed, instead of merely saying that it came from the See 
 of Peter, has been well answered in these words : * It has 
 often been remarked that the general practice of the Church 
 in enacting a decree of faith is to declare the doctrine to 
 be in agreement with the doctrine laid down by the Fathers 
 and the (Ecumenical Councils, and therefore, when the 
 irreformable character of a canon of faith [already] sanc- 
 tioned by a General Synod is spoken of, this reason is 
 alleged and not the infallibility of the assembly by which it 
 was decreed. In proof of this, it will be enough to refer to 
 the answer which many bishops, scattered over all parts of 
 the Church, gave to the Emperor Leo, when con-suited by 
 him as to the irreformability of the doctrines sanctioned in 
 the Synod of Chalcedon. They did not say [what never- 
 theless they unquestionably held] that the Synod was 
 the voice of the Church, and that for this reason its 
 decrees could not admit of reformation ; they only said 
 that the Council had not imposed any doctrine beyond 
 that defined at Nicsea and confirmed by the following 
 Councils ' (P. Bottalla, S.J., The Infallibility of the Pope, 
 1870, p. 227 ; cf also Mansi, vii. 539-619). MuzzareUi 
 also, in the end of the last century, entered into this 
 same question in his refutation of Bossuet, or the author 
 of the Defensio Cleri Gallicani, and ends with saying : 
 * Behold the verification of the promises of Christ, who 
 is always present loith the Pontiff when defining and ivith 
 the brethren universally, so that they may confirm with their 
 assent what the Supreme Pontiff has previously defined ; 
 so that one can have no doubt about the assent of the 
 brethren being given to the definition of the head ; so that 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 389 
 
 the same Lord gives inerrancy to the consent of the brethren 
 in general and to the definition of the head in particular ; 
 so that that chimerical [notion of] dissidence (discissio) 
 between the head and the brethren 7iever can be realised in 
 matters of faith ' {De Auctor. Rom. Pont. 11. § vi. p. 105). 
 St. Leo has ^himself given us a summary of the w^hole 
 matter in the following words : ' Those things which He 
 [the Lord] had previously defined by our ministry, He con- 
 firmed by the irreformable [irretractabili=tha.t cannot be 
 rehandled with a view to being withdrawn] assent of the 
 brethren, so as to show that that which was first formed by 
 the first See of all, and had been received by the judgment 
 of the whole Christian world, emanated from Himself ; so 
 that the members should agree with the head &c.' (Ep. 
 120). Here are the two steps — first, the definition by the 
 See of Peter, which loas of God — ' the Lord had defined ' — 
 and was therefore irreformable ; secondly, the reception by 
 the whole Christian world, the members agreeing with their 
 head, so that by a twofold emphasis the decision should be 
 seen to be of God. And the result is, according to Leo in 
 the same passage, that by this agreement of the members and 
 head * our material for rejoicing the more increases and the 
 enemy the inore smites himself, as he has the more ruth- 
 lessly risen up against the ministers of Christ ' ( * ut in hoc 
 quoque capiti membra concordent in quo &c.' ). The irreform- 
 able assent of the brethren increases, not first produces, the 
 joy and the power of vanquishing heresy. 
 
 So that, as Fr. Boitalla says of the proceedings in the 
 (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, * The Fathers sitting in a 
 General Council keep before them as a guide in their re- 
 searches the doctrine defined by the Pope, and they examine 
 the whole controversy because it is their business to confute 
 the heretics and confirm and justify before the world the 
 doctrine defined by the Roman Pontiff. This doctrine is 
 clearly seen in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus ' {The 
 Pope and the Church, vii. 207). The only difference 
 
390 APPENDIX II 
 
 in the case of the Council of Chalcedon is that the Tome of 
 Leo was not conciharly examined, nearly 580 of the bishops 
 having deliberately refused to do so (Mansi, vi. 974) ; 
 whatever examination these had made of it having been 
 completed, in many cases at some previous time, and in 
 some cases in the previous year. When Pope Vigilius 
 speaks of the Tome ' requiring these comparisons ' he is 
 referring to the comparison made in the house of Anatolius — 
 required, not for its acceptance by the orthodox, but for the 
 sake of teaching the few bishops who could not understand 
 the Latin wording in some places — and to the declarations 
 in the fourth session that all the bishops in their perusal of 
 the same had certified to its conformity with the doctrine 
 of the previous Councils. He is arguing that the sanction 
 given by the Council of Ephesus to the teaching of Cyril 
 must be held to be of the highest character, because in 
 making this comparison that teaching was put side by side 
 with the Council of Nicaea. Dr. Bright {JRoman See, p. 189, 
 and Waymarks, p. 229) has assumed without any warrant 
 that Vigilius is speaking of an examination with tbe liberty 
 of revision, instead of merely for the sake of elucidating iis 
 harmony with previous standards, which falls within the 
 province of a bishop as understood by the Vatican Council. 
 He seems to emphasise the word exigit instead of his and to 
 give it his own interpretation. We may conclude in the 
 words of Muzzarelli : ' Constat adeo irreformabilem [i.e. the 
 Tome] ante retractationem fuisse, ut earn concilium reformare 
 non posset nisi per apertam contradictionem cum ecclesia 
 tum dispersa tum congregata' (De Auct. Bom. Pont. ii. 
 94). Leo's Tome was no more then and there for the 
 first time * erected into a Church standard ' than the doctrine 
 of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, already accepted (not 
 to mention previous decisions) at the Second Council of Lyons, 
 could be said to have only attained the position of a matter 
 of faith when, for the purpose of convincing the Greeks, it 
 was examined at the Council of Florence {ihid. p. 103) ; or 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 391 
 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation when it was examined at 
 the Council of Trent — a doctrine of which our Archbishop 
 Lanfranc had already said, * Hanc fidem tenuit a priscis tem- 
 poribus et nunc tenet ecclesia, quae per totum diffusa orbem 
 Catholica nominatur ' {Lih.de Corp. et Sang. Christi, c. xviii.), 
 and for denying which the Province of Canterbury in 1413 
 had excommunicated Sir John Oldcastle (Wilkins, Concilia, 
 iii. 353 seq.). 
 
 In each case there was a ' true personal judgment,' to 
 use Dr. Bright's words {Waymarks, p. 229) ; but it was not 
 the judgment of superiors, nor with the idea of possible 
 revision, but only for the purpose of exhibiting the Church's 
 unity. In each case there was ' confirmation,' but in the 
 sense in which the previous standards were 'confirmed,' 
 just as age is said to confirm the authority of truth. In 
 each case there was ' comparison ' for the sake of intelligent 
 adhesion, and in each case the adhesion might be said to 
 be due to such comparison, though not necessarily to that 
 alone. When some bishops speak of having * found ' that 
 the Tome agreed with the faith of Nicsea, it was not the 
 finding of a superior court, nor a discovery after doubt ; it 
 was faith finding its confirmation in the order of reason — 
 fides qiicerens intellectum. If Dr. Bright had given a more 
 exhaustive, or more fairly illustrative, list of the bishops' 
 declarations in the fourth session, the reader would become 
 aware that they are clearly not speaking of themselves as 
 giving the judgment of superiors : as when one says that 
 he * consents ' to the Niccne Creed, the expression used often 
 of their adhesion to Leo's Tome (Mansi, vii. 37) ; or when 
 another says that he ' perceives ' (=finds) that * there is no 
 difference between the expositions of Nicasa and those of 
 the 150 fathers [at Constantinople] and knows that the 
 letters of Cyril [already standards] and of Leo agree tvith 
 these ' ; or when another says that he ' finds ' that those things 
 which were set forth (to. iKreOevra) in the first Ephesine 
 Synod by Cyril [which were now admittedly standards 
 
392 APPENDIX II 
 
 of faith], and further also the letter of Leo, are in harmony 
 with the faith of Nicaea (p. 28) ; or when a fourth says that 
 * the letter of our father and pope, Leo, and the first " Acts " 
 of our blessed father, Cyril, at Ephesus against Nestorius, 
 agreed with the 318 fathers of Nicaea, as also did the 150 in 
 Co7istantinople, and we believe these ' — using the same term 
 of his acceptance of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed as 
 of his acceptance of the Tome of Leo {ibid. p. 37) ; or when 
 again Theodorus says that the letter of Leo and the letters 
 of Cyril agree with the Nicene exposition {ibid. p. 14) ; or 
 when another says, ' We have learnt and received that we 
 should beheve the exposition of the 318 holy fathers at 
 Nicaea and the 150 at Constantinople and the letter of the 
 most blessed Archbishop Leo agreeing with the faith of 
 the holy fathers and the interpretation of Cyril ' {ibid. p. 41), 
 clearly witnessing to his own orthodoxy on the whole faith ; 
 or when another says, ' I so believe, as the 318 fathers have 
 expounded, and the 150, as also blessed Cyril, beheved, and 
 I receive the Epistle of the most blessed Pope Leo, agreeing 
 with these ' {ibid. p. 45) ; and further when they insist on the 
 few bishops that remained not merely subscribing to the 
 Nicene Creed but to the Tome of Leo, under pain of ipso 
 facto excommunication {ibid. p. 54) —if, I say, Dr. Bright had 
 given a fuller account of the session, it would have become 
 apparent that the subscription of the bishops to the Tome 
 was obligatory, the touchstone of their orthodoxy, and that 
 they were not settling the question of its authority, but pro- 
 claiming their own orthodoxy by giving expression to their 
 belief that it was already matter of faith, as they had 
 assumed, and said that they assumed, at the opening of the 
 Council in dealing with the case of Dioscorus. A more 
 representative list would have made it evident that these 
 bishops were doing what they afterwards said they had done^ 
 in the memorable words of their letter to Leo : * Thou wast 
 made to all the interpreter of the voice of blessed Peter, 
 bringing to all the blessedness of his faith, whence also we, 
 
THE EPISTLE OF LEO TO FLAVIAN 393 
 
 using you as the originator (a.pxvy'e> ^^^- if^hoatore) of good 
 to our profit, showed forth to the children of the Church 
 the inheritance of the truth, not each singly setting forth the 
 teaching [of our faith] in secret, but with a common spirit, 
 with one symphony and harmony, declaring the confession 
 of faith ' (Ep. 98). Whether any positive evidence results 
 from all this, or not, in favour of Papal infallibility, one 
 thing is certain, viz. that there is nothing in the acceptance 
 of the Tome by the bishops which conflicts with a conviction 
 that the See of Peter was the divinely constituted interpreter 
 of the faith of Peter. The Council's own idea of its action 
 was clearly that it was a common expression of a common 
 faith, of which Leo was, at any rate in this case, the 
 originator, the interpreter, and, as they afterwards say, the 
 head. The Tome was, as Vigilius called it, the lux 
 prcefulgeJis,' the ' lamp to their feet.' And so the faith was 
 rivetted on the minds of the faithful by a double bolt : the 
 infallible utterance of the Apostolic See and the harmonious 
 declarations of the bishops in Council. One of these would 
 have sufficed for the ordinary faithful; the two together 
 formed a bulwark of extraordinary force. 
 
APPENDIX III 
 
 ON THE PAPAL LEGATE'S VERSION OF THE SIXTH 
 NICENE CANON BEAD AT CHALOEDON. 
 
 It is certain that before the Council of Chalcedon a Codex 
 of Canons was in use among the Easterns which contained 
 a hst distinguishing the canons by numbers carried on con- 
 secutively from Council to Council, not beginning afresh at 
 each. We also know that in the fourth session of Chalcedon 
 (dealing with the case of Carosus and Dorotheus) the fourth 
 and fifth canons of the Council of Antioch were quoted by 
 Aetius, the Archdeacon of Constantinople, as Canons 83 and 
 84.^ Now if we add together the 20 canons of Nicaea, the 
 25 of Ancyra, the 14 of Neocsesarea, the 20 of Gangra, and 
 the first three of Antioch, we get the number 82, which 
 exactly brings us to the numbers (viz. 83 and 84) assigned to 
 the two canons of Antioch read from the Codex produced by 
 Aetius on that occasion. This Codex used to be identified 
 with that which Dionysius Exiguus translated into Latin ; 
 but the BaUerini have shown that this cannot be maintained, 
 as also (and this is important) that the oldest Greek Codex 
 did not contain the canons of Laodicea, Constantinople, or 
 Antioch.^ Aetius, therefore, was not quoting from the oldest 
 collection in existence. 
 
 The question therefore arises. From what Codex did 
 Aetius, whose copy contained the Canons of Antioch, pro- 
 
 ' Mansi, vii. 84. '-' Ballerini, De Antiquis Collect. Can. Pars T. c. 2. 
 
THE SIXTH NICENE CANON 395 
 
 duce the various Canons read at Chalcedon? And did the 
 compilation used by him later on, in the sixteenth session at 
 Chalcedon, exclude the exordium, or heading, of the sixth 
 canon of Nicsea as read by Paschasinus, the Papal legate, 
 about the primacy of the Church of Eome ? And, if it did, 
 which of the two was held by the Council to be the more 
 accurate ? 
 
 Before answering these questions, it must be remembered 
 that it may fairly be questioned whether the sixth Nicene 
 canon was read in any shape by the Imperial secretary at 
 Chalcedon. As we have seen, it is highly improbable that it 
 was, while, on the other hand, it is certain, so far as the record 
 goes, that no objection was raised to the heading read by 
 Paschasinus,^ but that, on the contrary, the Imperial Com- 
 missioners appear to have taken from it part of the conclu- 
 sion adopted by the bishops then present. ^ 
 
 But supposing that Aetius did give the Imperial secretary 
 a Codex to read containing the sixth Nicene Canon, and that 
 this canon was without the; heading or exordium in question, 
 what is the comparative value of Paschasinus's version? 
 Seeing that no objection can be raised against it from the 
 history of the Council, but that, on the contrary, a presump- 
 tion is raised in its favour, what evidence is there in support 
 of its being an accm^ate representation of the oldest Greek 
 text ? , The Codex used in the earlier session by Aetius did 
 not, as we have seen, contain the oldest collection of canons, 
 since it included the canons of Antioch. Did, then, this 
 Latin version from which Paschasinus read represent an 
 older collection than that ? 
 
 Now we must at once put aside Dr. Bright's gratuitous 
 assumption that the version of the Nicene canon supposed 
 to have been produced by Aetius contains the original 
 Greek text. That writer assumes too much when he calls 
 Aetius's version of that canon ' its Greek text ' (Boman See, p. 
 203). If this were the case, the question would be settled. 
 ' Mansi, vii. 444. - Ibid. 452. 
 
396 APPENDIX III 
 
 It is only ' a Greek text.' Dr. Bright elsewhere calls 
 Aetius's version ' the Greek original ' {Cmio7is of the . . . 
 Councils, p. 24, 1892), 'the authentic Greek text' {ibid. p. 
 226), and again * the genuine Greek text ' {Waymarhs, p. 233), 
 and in another place he calls it six times in one page ' the 
 Greek text,' in a way that implies that it was that of the 
 original autograph. But, as Hefele says, ' the original was not 
 read.' They were each of them only copies, in Greek or 
 Latin, which we must not begin by assuming to be identical 
 with the original autograph. 
 
 Now Paschasinus's reading of this Nicene canon is sup- 
 ported by two other versions — the Prisca and the Antiquis- 
 sima — which appear to represent earlier Greek Codices than 
 that which is represented by the text produced by 
 Aetius in the fourth session of Chalcedon when two of the 
 Antiochene canons were read. This fact raises a presump- 
 tion against the comparative superiority of Aetius's version 
 on the score of antiquity. We cannot, however, in fairness 
 assume that, if the Nicene canon was actually read by Aetius 
 at the sixteenth session of Chalcedon, it was read from 
 the same Codex as that used by him in the fourth session. 
 If we might make this assumption, the case would be greatly 
 in favour of Paschasinus's version being from an older 
 Codex than that used by Aetius. But a careful attention to 
 the titles and numbers (and the numeration of canons is, as 
 every student of the subject is well aware, of vast import- 
 ance) might justify a protest against raising this hypothesis, 
 without further proof , into more than a conjecture. Still, as 
 a conjecture, it must be allowed its weight against any dog- 
 matic assumption to the contrary. 
 
 We are, then, quite in the dark as to what the Codex 
 was from which Aetius produced (if he did produce) his 
 copy of the sixth Nicene canon, and what is the value of the 
 text of that canon thus produced. It agrees, however, with 
 the Greek Codex translated in the Latin version called the 
 Isidorian, both in the words quoted and in the numeration, 
 
THE SIXTH NICENE CANON 397 
 
 and in the omission of the exordium. It is possibly only a 
 transcript of the text in that same Codex. 
 
 But this Isidorian version, great as is its value, is not a 
 conclusive authority when it is a question of something 
 found in another Codex and not in itself. Martin Bracarensis 
 notices two things about the Isidorian collection, viz. its 
 frequent obscurity and the variations in which it indulges.^ 
 On the other hand, Paschasinus's reading of the sixth canon 
 is supported by the Prisca version, which is the translation 
 of a very old Greek Codex. That particular portion of the 
 Prisca which contains the Nicene canons was translated 
 toivards the end of the fourth century, though the rest of the 
 collection was not finished until after the Council of Chalce- 
 don. The Codex, therefore, which it renders, goes, in its 
 earlier or Nicene portion, still further back, for a Codex 
 exists before its translation. Dr. Bright is therefore certainly 
 mistaken when he stigmatises Paschasinus's reading as the 
 'fifth-century clause ' [Roman See, p. 483). 
 
 But Paschasinus's reading is further supported by an 
 important discovery by the Ballerini brothers in the shape 
 of a very ancient Latin collection of the canons, including the 
 Nicene, anterior to the Prisca translation mentioned above. 
 The Greek Codex which it represents appears to have had 
 an order of its own both in the numeration and gi'ouping of 
 the Nicene and Sardican canons. The rest of the collection 
 is the same as in the Prisca version. Thus two ancient 
 translations of Greek Codices older than themselves support 
 Paschasinus's version, while the collection which agi-ees 
 with Aetius's version has been proved untrustworthy in the 
 matter of omissions. 
 
 Again, this Isidorian version itself (which agrees in point 
 of omission with that of Aetius), in several of its Codices which 
 were received in the Gallic Churches, exhibits the reading of 
 
 » St. Martin (of Bracara, in Spain > had been much in the East, and 
 collated such Greek texts as existed in the sixth century. He had seen 
 a Greek original of the canons of the Council of Ancyra. 
 
398 APPENDIX III 
 
 Paschasinus. This is probably a recension due to the fact 
 that the authority of the Prisca was considered sufficient to 
 justify the insertion. Dr. Bright endeavours to discount 
 from this by the fact that the regions in which that reading 
 was received were ' dependencies ' of Italy. But a collation 
 of the numerous collections received within these * depend- 
 encies ' shows that their adhesion to Rome in this matter 
 was not so slavish as Dr. Bright imagines. A good deal of 
 independence discovers itself. 
 
 When, however, we speak of collections of the canons 
 being ' received,' we must be on our guard against supposing 
 that they were recognised by public authority. Not even in 
 Italy was any one collection at that time officially sanctioned 
 by Rome. Dr. Bright has fallen into an error in speaking 
 of the version of Dionysius Exiguus as having been * sanc- 
 tioned by the Roman Church ' (Boman See, p. 482), from which 
 he argues that the reading of Paschasinus at the Council of 
 Chalcedon was ' officially withdrawn in the early part of the 
 sixth century.' This is incorrect. Cassiodorus, in the 
 middle of the sixth century speaks indeed of the Dionysian 
 collection as ' hodie usu celeberrimo,' * in most frequent use,' 
 in the Roman Church ; but, as the Ballerini point out, it is 
 of use, not of definite public sanction, that he speaks.' 
 
 We have, then, if we admit (which is here only admitted 
 for argument's sake) that the sixth Nicene canon was read 
 in Greek by the secretary at Chalcedon, a Greek text of the 
 canon brought from Constantinople, and a Latin text brought 
 (possibly from Sicily) by the Papal legate. The former, on 
 the supposition just mentioned, lacks an exordium, or head- 
 ing, which the latter contains — an exordium, however, 
 which has no bearing on the point at issue in that session. 
 The difference between the two versions may be explained 
 by supposing either that Aetius's Greek version was 
 defective, or that Paschasinus's reading was in excess of the 
 
 ' Ball. De Ant Coll. Can. Pars III. c. 1, § 2. Cf. also Bouix, Tract, 
 de Princ. Juris Can. Pars III. 5, § 1. 
 
THE SIXTH NICENE CANON 399 
 
 original Greek text. Both of these explanations can claim 
 some standing ground in the midst of the numerous repre- 
 sentations of the original Greek copies, none of which we 
 possess. But they cannot both be true. Which, then, is 
 the more probable ? The first supposition seems to be 
 attended with the fewest difficulties. The omitted clause, or 
 heading, whichever it may have been, viz. * The Koman 
 Church always held the Primacy,' contained a truth denied 
 by none, and impHcitly contained in the rest of the canon. 
 Indeed, I presume that even Dr. Bright would not reject 
 such terms as containing no truth, though he would have his 
 own explanation to give of the term ' primacy ' (Trpwreta). 
 
 But our choice does not really lie between these two 
 explanations. A third explanation is that the sixth canon 
 was not read at all by the Constantinopolitan party, as being 
 their real difficulty.^ It was Leo's contention throughout 
 the controversy with Anatolius that the sixth Nicene canon 
 gave an order which was being overturned by the bishops at 
 Chalcedon who proceeded on the ground of the third canon 
 of Constantinople. 2 And if we were to suppose that the 
 clause in question had been added without authority, in 
 order to push a doctrine such as that of Papal supremacy, it 
 is in the highest degree improbable that those Eastern bishops 
 would sit like * dumb dogs ' and express no surprise or indig- 
 nation at the alteration of a Nicene canon, if Paschasinus's 
 reading contained anything contrary to their teaching, 
 Silence would be impossible under such circumstances, and 
 out of keeping with their bearing throughout the Council. 
 Their native element was clamour. Still less would the 
 Imperial Commissioners have inserted in a statement as to 
 what they all believed, the crucial word of this heading or 
 exordium, and conceded it to Rome. 
 
 In truth, the mention of primacy would most naturally 
 be welcomed by an advocate of the Constantinopolitan pro- 
 jects. For the bishop of the Imperial city wished to have a 
 ' Cf. supra, p. 340. 2 j^g^n. Ep. 35. 
 
400 APPENDIX III 
 
 primacy in the East on the ground that Old Kome had a 
 pecuHar primacy, as Patriarch in the West, which she had 
 formed as being the central city of the Empire, over and above 
 her relation to the universal Church. Paschasinus's reading, 
 therefore, did not in any way help his case. It was the rest 
 of the canon which supplied the ground of Eome's objection 
 to the displacement of Alexandria and Antioch in favour of 
 Constantinople. 
 
 And as regards forgery, for which we have now seen 
 there was no sufficient motive, or ' the false use of docu- 
 ments,' of which the Bishop of Lincoln, following Dr. 
 Bright, accuses Paschasinus,^ it must in all fairness be con- 
 ceded that anything coming from Constantinople was more 
 likely to be in that direction than what came from Rome. 
 For while Rome had been distinguished for her courageous 
 maintenance of the respect due to Nicene decrees, and 
 indeed had given her public sanction to them alone and to 
 the Sardican as one with them, the see of Constantinople 
 had richly deserved a character for loose dealing with 
 orthodox documents. The Arians, who had their way 
 plentifully in that city from time to time, were specially 
 addicted to the occupation of forging and mutilating canons. 
 Other heretics had also tampered in Constantinople with 
 the Acts of a Council more recent still, viz. those of Ephesus, 
 in the interests of Pelagianism, and the Greek originals at 
 Constantinople of the Council of Chalcedon were destined to 
 be destroyed outright in the interests of Monothelism and 
 Erastianism. It would be well, therefore, to drop the ex- 
 planation of forgery, as though any difference between Rome 
 and the East about documents necessarily implied forgery 
 on the part of the former and accuracy on the part of the 
 latter. St. Gregory tells Narses that it was exactly the 
 other way. He gave the Easterns credit for cleverness in 
 this matter, but claimed for the Romans less astuteness 
 with greater integrity. ' Our Roman books are much more 
 ' The Primitive Saints, &c., by Kev. F. W. Puller, Preface, p. xxi. 
 
THE SIXTH NICENE CANON. 401 
 
 truthful than the Greek ones, because, as we are blessed 
 with fewer brains than you, we are not such good hands at 
 imposture.' Such was the verdict of one who had first-hand 
 experience in this matter, having investigated it in Constanti- 
 nople itself — one, too, of unquestioned integrity and ability 
 and who has earned the name of ' Great.' 
 
 But, indeed, in the very act of reading the canons or 
 canon at this sixteenth session of Chalcedon, Aetius was 
 acting dishonestly in producing and making the secretary 
 Constantine read a tremendous addition as though it were 
 part of the canons of Constantinople.^ The man who would 
 do this would omit with equal readiness. Dr. Bright calls 
 this procedure ' more astute than candid.' What eloquence 
 we should have had from him if a Roman legate had done 
 the same ! 
 
 The conclusion is, that the accusation which Dr. Bright 
 has launched (though indeed he has been preceded by certain 
 German Protestants) against the Roman legate, and which 
 has been recently so readily caught up by Anglican writers 
 of less learning, has no premisses to support it, except the 
 eagerness with which some people catch at anything that 
 seems to score a point against the Church of Rome. 
 
 N.B. — Dr. Bright altogether misses the point of my con- 
 tention as to the improbability of Aetius having had the 
 sixth Nicene canon read, when he asks, ' If it was ad rem 
 for a legate to quote his version of a Nicene canon, why was 
 it irrelevant for a Constantinopolitan to read its [sic] Greek 
 text? ' (Roman See, p. 203). It was ad rem for the legate to 
 read the sixth canon, because it placed Alexand»:ia and Antioch, 
 and not Constantinople, next to Rome ; it was not ad rem 
 for a Constantinopolitan to touch that sixth canon with the 
 tip of his fingers, because the only justification of the Con- 
 stantinopolitan contention lay in the third canon of 381, 
 which dictated a fundamental alteration of the Nicene 
 settlement as to the relative position of the sees. 
 * Mayisi, vii. 445. 
 
 DD 
 
INDEX 
 
 Aetius, Archdeacon, 339, 394 ff 
 
 Alexandria, its position, 5 
 
 Anatolius, Archbishop of Constan- 
 tinople, 204 ff ; discussion of 
 the Tame, 268, 274 
 
 Antioch. See John, Domnus, 
 Maximus 
 
 Baksumas, monk, 152 
 Bishops. See Council 
 Bossuet, 20, 52, 55, 98, 382 
 
 Candidian, Count, 60, 63, 92 
 
 Canons, violated by Nestorius, 51 ; 
 third of Constantinople (a.d. 381), 
 323 a, 330, 340; null from 
 beginning, 332, 342 ; twenty- 
 eighth of Chalcedon, 338, 343, 
 345, 360. See mcene, and Pre- 
 face, xii 
 
 Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, 
 49 
 
 Celestine I., St., Pope, character, 6, 
 ex cathedrd definition, 7, 19 ; 
 sentence on Nestorius, 12 ; presi- 
 dent of Council, 35 ; letter read, 
 48 ; obedience to, 50 ; instruc- 
 tions to legates {Commonitor- 
 ium, 66 ; last letter, 115 
 
 Chrysaphius, Imperial Chamber- 
 lain, 125, 135 
 
 Chrysologus, St., 132, 384 
 hrysostom, St., action at Ephesus, 
 325 
 
 Constantinople, people of, Leo's 
 children, 187 ; desire for a Patri- 
 archate, 321 £f ; position at Chal- 
 cedon, 336 
 
 — Council of, in 381, detested by 
 Dioscorus, 125 ; slighted at the 
 Latrocinium, 151, 156, 160; 
 when inserted in list of (Ecum. 
 Councils, 341. See Synod 
 
 — Council of, A.D. 448, 158 
 
 — Creed of, 232, 261, 266, 287 
 Council, function of (Ecumenical, 
 
 39, 301 ; Leo's idea of, 145, 383, 
 389 ; the Emperor's idea of, 288 ; 
 Bottalla on, 389, 391 
 Cyprus, quarrel with Antioch, 110 
 Cyril, St., of Alexandria, on the 
 Incarnation, 4 ; his position in 
 A.D. 430, 5 ; asks Celestine to 
 define, 10 ; his Synod, 29 ; pre- 
 sident at Ephesus, 34 ; on the 
 Apostolic See, 84 ; Eutyches's 
 use of his name, 222. See Union 
 
 Dalmatius, monk, 93 
 Diocese, meaning of, 34, 323 
 Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alex- 
 andria, 124, 135, 151 ; object in 
 the Latrocinium, 154 ; treat- 
 ment of Flavian, 164 ; made to 
 sit in the middle, 224, 252 ; his 
 trial, 229 ff ; his heresy, 238 ; 
 sentence on, 244 
 Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, 124 
 126, 165, 313 
 
404 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Egypt, effect of Eutychianism, 252 
 
 — Bishops of, 225, 226 note, 278, 
 298, 301 
 
 Ephesus, people of, against Nes- 
 torius, 30 ; Bishop of, at 
 Florence, 105 ; ordination of its 
 bishops, 329 
 
 — Council of, question at issue, 3 
 a device of Nestorius, 24 
 absence of John of Antioch, 31 
 condemnation of Pelagianism, 
 49 ; no definition issued, 264 
 
 Episcopate, its function in a 
 Council, 39 ; relation to the 
 Pope, 48, 240. See Preface 
 
 Eulogius, St., on Council of Ephe- 
 sus, 109 
 
 Euphemia, St., 223, 292 
 
 Eusebius, of Dorylseura, accuses 
 Eutyches, 128 ; not admitted to 
 the Latrocinium, 156, 158 ; 
 appeals to Kome, 164, 165 ; his 
 letter of appeal, 176, 232; his 
 position at Chalcedon, 308 
 
 Eutyches, character, 123 ; accused, 
 128 ; appeals, 130 : defence at 
 Latrocinium, 154 ff; claims 
 agreement with Cyril, 222 ; his 
 confession of faith, 232 
 
 FiRMUs, Bishop of Csesarea in 
 Gappadocia, 69 
 
 Flavian, Archbishop of Constanti- 
 nople, 125, 128, 133; corre- 
 spondence with Leo, 136 ; re- 
 porting to Leo, 149 ; accused by 
 Eutyches, 155, 159 ; appeals to 
 Eome, 164 ; his letter of appeal, 
 173 ff ; his ecthesis, 235 
 
 Galla Placidia, Empress, 188, 193 
 
 John, Bishop of Antioch ; letter 
 from Cyril, 17 ; urges Nestorius 
 to obey, 20 ; his delay near 
 Ephesus, 31 ; schismatic action, 
 60 ff ; summoned to the Council, 
 96 ; excommunicated, 98 
 
 Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem. 44, 
 46, 48, 96, 152, 236, 2.39, 337 
 
 Latrocinium (or Bobber- Synod), 
 literature on, 150 ; irregular 
 features, 152 ; Dioscorus's object 
 thereat, 154; Council of 381 
 slighted, 151 ; ill-treatment of 
 Flavian, 164 
 
 Legates, Papal, sent to Ephesus, 
 65 ff ; deference to, 79 ; Philip's 
 speech, 81, 85, 338 ; Dr. Bright's 
 accusation, 347, 371. See Pas- 
 cUasinus, Philip 
 
 Leo, Eutyches's appeal to, 130 ; 
 correspondence with Flavian, 
 134; asked to settle matters 
 without a Council, 137 ; zeal for 
 the faith, 140 ; his Tome, 142 ff ; 
 claim to absolve Eutyches, 146 ; 
 relation to St. Peter, 122, 147 ; 
 Petrine prerogatives relied on, 
 167 ff, 186, 190, 194, 195, 209, 
 211 ; invalidates the Latro- 
 cinium, 182 ; deprecates a 
 Council, 202 ; decides Theo- 
 doret's ease, 218 ; directions 
 about Eastern bishops, 221 ; his 
 Tome read, 266 ff : the Tome to 
 be followed, 286 ; its promulga- 
 tion defended by the Council, 287 ; 
 his judgment on Theodoret not 
 reviewed, 299 ; dispenses in 
 Maximus's case, 313, 315 ; care 
 for the canons, 352 ; head of the 
 Church, 368, 369 
 
 Haknack, 259, 283 
 Hilavus, legate, 181 
 Hypostatic. See Union 
 
 Iben^us, Count, 60, 126 
 
 Mansi, Archbishop, on the Council 
 of Ephesus, 88 ; on the suffici- 
 ency of the Tome, 295 ; on 
 Maximus of Antioch, 317 ; on 
 i the bishops' declarations as to 
 
INDEX 
 
 405 
 
 the Tome, 386 ; on the Council 
 of Chalcedon's attitude towards 
 the T&me, 387 
 
 Marcian, Emperor, 199, 288, 346, 
 362 
 
 Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, 165 ; 
 compact with Juvenal, 312 ; dis- 
 pensed by Leo, 315, 317 
 
 Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, 30, 
 61,63 
 
 Nestokius, his pride, 6 ; con- 
 demned by Pope Celestine, 8 ; 
 his idea of a Council, 24 ; his 
 reception at Ephesus, 30 ; con- 
 demned by the Council, 50 ; 
 banished to Antioch, thence to 
 the Thebaid, 114, 115 
 
 Nicene, Canons, Sardican called 
 thus, 185 
 
 — Sixth Canon, version read at 
 Chalcedon, 340, 394 
 
 — Creed, its enlargement in a.d. 
 381, 105 ; signing Nicene Creed 
 not sufficient, 106 ; additions to, 
 slighted by Dioscorus, 154 ; 
 and by Eutyches, 156 ; Leo's 
 guardianship, 184 (and see 
 Preface) ; confirmed at Chalce- 
 don, 222 
 
 (Ecumenical, applied to Leo, 242. 
 See Council 
 
 Paschasinus, legate, 223, 225, 243, 
 275, 395. See Legate 
 
 Patriarch, meaning of, 239 ; posi- 
 tion of, 321 ; Western Patri- 
 archate, 351 
 
 Pelagians, 25 ; condemnation re- 
 newed, 49 
 
 Philip, legate, 67, 71, 81 (speech 
 on See of Peter) 
 
 Placidia. See Galla 
 
 Pulcheria, St., Empress, 133, 146, 
 186, 199 (character), 201, 208 
 
 Robber- Synod. See Latrocinium 
 
 Sabdican, Canons. See Nicene 
 
 Socrates (historian), 86 
 
 Synod, ' Piesident ' or ' Home,' at 
 
 Constantinople, 155, 323. 334 
 — Roman, 171 If, 174, 178 
 
 Thalassius, Bishop of Caesarea in 
 Cappadocia, 153, 322, 337 
 
 Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (or 
 Cyrrhos), 179, 212 ff (letter to 
 Leo), 215 (letter to Renatus) ; at 
 Chalcedon, 225, 228, 232, 298 £f 
 (restoration) 
 
 Theodosius II., influenced by Nes- 
 torius, 27 ; dislike of Cyril, 29 ; 
 misled by Candidian, 92 ; visited 
 by Dalmatius, monk, 93 ; inter- 
 cedes for Eutyches, 134 ; refuses 
 second Council, 182, 187, 195 
 
 Theotokos {QeorSKos), meaning, 4 ; 
 repudiated by Nestorius, 9 ; not 
 inserted in Creed, 108, 109, 283 
 
 Union, Hypostatic, the question at 
 Ephesus in a.d. 431, 3, 4, 5 ; 
 Pope Celestine's definition, 7, 
 107 
 
 Universal, Bishon, 116, 319 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NE-VV-STREET SQUAKE 
 
 LONDON 
 
April 1899. 
 
 A Selection of Works 
 
 IN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 
 
 London : 39 Paternoster Row, E.C. 
 
 New York : 91 and 93 Fifth Avenue. 
 
 Bombay : 32 Hornby Road. 
 
 Abbey and Overton.— THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE 
 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By Charles J. Abbey, M.A. , Rector 
 of Checkendon, Reading, and John H. Overton, D.D. , Canon of 
 Lincoln. Crown Zvo. js. 6d. 
 
 Adams.— SACRED ALLEGORIES. The Shadow of the Cross 
 
 —The Distant Hills— The Old Man's Home— The King's Messengers. 
 By the Rev. William Adams, M.A. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. 
 
 The four Allegories may be had separately, with Illustrations. 
 i6mo. ij. each. 
 
 Aids to the Inner Life. 
 
 Edited by the Venble. W. H. Hutchings, M.A., Archdeacon of Cleve- 
 land, Canon of York, Rector of Kirby Misperton, and Rural Dean of 
 Malton. Five Vols, ^'zmo, cloth limp, 6d. each; or cloth extra, 
 15. each. 
 
 OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By THOMAS X Kempis. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN YEAR 
 
 THE DEVOUT LIFE. By St. Francis de Sales. 
 
 THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL. 
 
 THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT. By Laurence Scupoli. 
 Alexander.— THE CHRISTIANITY OF ST. PAUL. By the 
 
 Rev. S. A. Alexander, M.A., Reader of the Temple Church. 
 Bamett.— THE SERVICE OF GOD : Sermons, Essays, and 
 Addresses. By Samuel A. Barnett, Warden of Toynbee Hall, 
 Whitechapel; Canon of Bristol Cathedral; Select Preacher before 
 Oxford University. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Bathe.— Works by the Rev. Anthony Bathe, M.A. 
 
 A LENT WITH JESUS. A Plain Guide for Churchmen. Containing 
 Readings for Lent and Easter Week, and on the Holy Eucharist. 
 S2fno, IS.; or in paper cover, 6d. 
 
 AN ADVENT WITH JESUS, s^mo, xs.; or in paper cover, 6d. 
 
 WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. A Simple Manual of Self-Instruction 
 for Church People. Small Svo, limp, is. ; cloth gilt, -zs. 
 
 Bathe and Buckham.— THE CHRISTIAN'S ROAD BOOK. 
 
 2 Parts. By the Rev. Anthony Bathe and Rev. F. H. Buckham. 
 Part I. Devotions. Sewed, td. ; limp cloth, is. ; cloth extra, \s. td. 
 Part II. Readings. Sewed, xs. ; limp cloth, 2s. ; cloth extra, 35. ; 
 or complete in one volume, sewed, xs. 6d. ; limp cloth, 2S. 6d. ; cloth 
 extra, y. 6d. 
 
A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Benson.— Works by the Rev. R. M. Benson, M.A., Student of 
 Christ Church, Oxford. 
 THE FINAL PASSOVER : A Series of Meditations upon the Passion of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ. Small Svo. 
 
 Vol. IIL— The Divine Exodus. 
 
 Vol. L— The Rejection. 5^, 
 Vol. IL— The Upper Chamber. 
 
 Part I. 5^. 
 
 Part II. 5J-. 
 
 Parts I. and II. s,s. each. 
 Vol. IV.— The Life Beyond the 
 Grave, sj. 
 
 THE MAGNIFICAT ; a Series of Meditations upon the Song of the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary. Small Svo. 2s. 
 
 SPIRITUAL READINGS FOR EVERY DAY. 3 vols. Small Svo. 
 
 35. 6d. each. 
 I. Advent. II. Christmas. III. Epiphany. 
 
 BENEDICTUS DOMINUS : A Course of Meditations for Every Day of 
 
 the Year. Vol. I.— Advent to Trinity. Vol. II.— Trinity, Saints' 
 
 Days, etc Small Svo. 35'. dd. each ; or in One Volume, 7s. 
 BIBLE TEACHINGS : The Discourse at Capernaum.— St. Johnvi. Small 
 
 Svo. y. 6d. 
 THE WISDOM OF THE SON OF DAVID : An Exposition of the First 
 
 Nine Chapters of the Book of Proverbs. Small Svo. 35-. 6^. 
 THE MANUAL OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER. Royal s^mo. ; cloth 
 
 boards, is. ^d. ; cloth limp, gd. 
 THE EVANGELIST LIBRARY CATECHISM. Part I. Small Svo. 3s. 
 PAROCHIAL MISSIONS. Small Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Bickersteth.— YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER: 
 a Poem in Twelve Books. By Edward Henry Bickersteth, D.D., 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter. One Shilling' Edition, iSmo. With red borders, 
 i6mo, 25. 6d. 
 
 The Crown Zvo Edition (sj.) may still he had. 
 
 Blunt.— Works by the Rev. JOHN HENRY Blunt, D.D. 
 
 THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: Being an 
 Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional 
 System of the Church of England. /\to. 21s. 
 
 THE COMPENDIOUS EDITION OF THE ANNOTATED BOOK 
 OF COMMON PRAYER : Forming a concise Commentary on the 
 Devotional System of the Church of England. Crown Svo. xos. 6d. 
 
 DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. 
 By various Writers. Imperial Svo. 21s. 
 
 DICTIONARY OF SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PAR- 
 TIES AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By various 
 Writers. Imperial Svo. 2xs. 
 
 THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: its 
 History, Principles, and Results. 1574-1662. Two Vols. Svo. 34J. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Blunt. — Works by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, D.D.—conifd. 
 
 THE BOOK OF CHURCH LAW. Being an Exposition of the Legal 
 Rights and Duties of the Parochial Clergy and the Laity of the Church 
 of England. Revised by the Right Hon. Sir Walter G. F. Philli- 
 MORE, Bart., D.C.L., and G. Edwardes Jones, Barrister-at-Law. 
 Crown 8vo. gs. 
 
 A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE : Being a Plain Commentary on 
 Scripture History, to the end of the Apostolic Age. Two Vols, small 
 8vo. Sold separately. Old Test, 3^. 6d. New Test. 35. (id. 
 
 HOUSEHOLD THEOLOGY: a Handbook of Religious Information 
 respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, etc., etc. 
 Paper cover, \6mo. is. Also the Larger Edition, 35. 6d. 
 
 Body. — Works by the Rev.GEORGE BODY,D.D., Canon of Durham. 
 THE LIFE OF LOVE. A Course of Lent Lectures. -lSjuo. 2s. 6d. 
 THE SCHOOL OF CALVARY ; or, Laws of Christian Life revealed 
 
 from the Cross. i.6mo. -zs. 6d. 
 THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION. i6mo. zs. 6d. 
 THE LIFE OF TEMPTATION. x6mo. 2s. 6d. 
 THE PRESENT STATE OF THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED. Small 
 
 Svo. sewed, 6d. -^zmo. cloth, ts. 
 
 Boultbee.— A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRTY-NINE 
 
 ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, By the Rev. 
 T. P. Boultbee, formerly Principal of the London College of Divinity, 
 St. John's Hall, Highbury. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 Bright.— Works by William Bright, D.D., Regius Professor 
 
 of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford, 
 
 and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
 
 SOME ASPECTS OF PRIMITIVE CHURCH LIFE. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH : And other Studies 
 
 in Church History. Crown Svo. js. 6d. 
 WAYMARKS IN CHURCH HISTORY. Crown Svo. -js. 6d. 
 LESSONS FROM THE LIVES OF THREE GREAT FATHERS. 
 
 St. Athanasius, St. Chrvsostom, and St. Augustine. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 THE INCARNATION AS A MOTIVE POWER. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 Bright and Medd.— LIBER PRECUM PUBLICARUM EC- 
 CLESI^ ANGLICANS. A Gulielmo Bright, S.T.P., et Petro 
 Goldsmith Medd, A.M., Latine redditus. Small Svo. js. 6d. 
 
 Browne.— WEARIED WITH THE BURDEN : A Book of 
 
 Daily Readings for Lent. By Arthur Heber Browne, M.A., 
 LL.D,, late Rector of St. John's, Newfoundland. Crown Svo. 45-. 6<f. 
 
 Browne.— AN EXPOSITION OF THE THIRTY-NINE 
 
 ARTICLES, Historical and Doctrinal. By E. H. BROWNE, D.D., 
 sometime Bishop of Winchester. Svo. i6s. 
 
 Campion and Beamont.— THE PRAYER BOOK INTER- 
 LEAVED. With Historical Illustrations and Explanatory Notes 
 arranged parallel to the Text. By W. M. CAMPION, D.D., and W. J. 
 Beamont, M.A, Small Svo. js. 6d. 
 
A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Carter.— Works by, and edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., 
 Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
 
 THE SPIRIT OF WATCHFULNESS AND OTHER SERMONS. 
 
 Crown ^vo, 55, 
 THE TREASURY OF DEVOTION : a Manual of Prayer for General 
 
 and Daily Use. Compiled by a Priest. 
 
 i^mo. 2s. 6d. ; cloth limp, 2s. Bound with the Book of Common 
 Prayer, 3^. 6d. Red-Line Edition, Cloth extra, gilt top. iSmo, 
 2s. 6d. net. Large-Type Edition. Crown Svo. 35, 6d. 
 THE WAY OF LIFE : A Book of Prayers and Instruction for the Young 
 
 at School, with a Preparation for Confirmation. Compiled by a Priest, 
 
 i8mo. IS. 6d. 
 THE PATH OF HOLINESS: a First Book of Prayers, with the Service 
 
 of the Holy Communion, for the Young. Compiled by a Priest. With 
 
 Illustrations. i6mo. js. 6d. ; cloth litnp, \s. 
 THE GUIDE TO HEAVEN : a Book of Prayers for every Want. (For 
 
 the Working Classes.) Compiled by a Priest. iSw^. u. ^d. ; cloth 
 
 limp, xs. Large- Type Edition. Crown Svo. is. 6d. ; cloth limp, is. 
 
 THE STAR OF CHILDHOOD : a First Book of Prayers and Instruction 
 for Children. Compiled by a Priest. With Illustrations. i6m<f. 2s. 6d. 
 
 SIMPLE LESSONS ; or, Words Easy to be Understood. A Manual of 
 
 Teaching, i. On the Creed, 11. The Ten Commandments, in. The 
 
 Sacrament. i8mo. y. 
 A BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER FOR MORNING, MID-DAY, AND 
 
 OTHER TIMES, i8mo. limp cloth, is. ; cloth, red edges, is. 3d. 
 NICHOLAS FERRAR : his Household and his Friends. With Portrait 
 
 engraved after a Picture by CORNELIUS Janssen at Magdalene 
 
 College, Cambridge. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 MANUAL OF DEVOTION FOR SISTERS OF MERCY. 8 parts in 
 
 2 vols, 32mo. los. Or separately : — Part i. is. 6d. Part ii. is. 
 
 Part III. IS. Part iv. 2s. Part v. is. Part vi, is. Part vii. Part 
 
 viii, IS. 6d. 
 HARRIET MONSELL : A Memoir of the First Mother Superior of the 
 
 Clewer Community. With Portrait. Crow7t Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 PARISH TEACHINGS, First and Second Series, CrownSvo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 each sold separately. 
 SPIRITUAL INSTRUCTIONS. Crown Svo. 
 
 Our Lord's Early Life, 3s. dd. 
 Our Lord's Entrance on his 
 Ministry. 3^. 6d. 
 
 The Holy Eucharist, 3^, 6d. 
 The Divine Dispensations. 35, 6d. 
 The Life of Grace. 35. e>d. 
 
 The Religious Life, 3^, 6d. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE CHURCH 
 
 OF ENGLAND, Crown Svo. 4J, 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CONFESSION IN THE CHURCH OF 
 
 ENGLAND. Crown Svo. 55. 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST, drawn from the Holy 
 
 Scriptures and the Records of the Church of England. Fcp. Svo. gd. 
 VOWS AND THE RELIGIOUS STATE. Crown Svo. zs. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Coles.— LENTEN MEDITATIONS. By the Rev. V. S. S. Coles, 
 
 M.A., Principal of the Pusey House, Oxford, \^mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Congreve.— CHRISTIAN LIFE A RESPONSE. With other 
 Retreat Addresses and Sermons. By George Congreve, Mission 
 Priest of the Society of St. John the Evangehst, Cowley St. John, Oxford. 
 Crown 8t'0. ^s. 
 
 Conybeare and Howson.— THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF 
 
 ST. PAUL. By the Rev. W. J. Conybeare, M.A., and the Very 
 Rev. J. S. Howson, D.D. With numerous Maps and Illustrations. 
 Library Edition. Two Vols. Zvo. 21s. Students' Edition. One Vol. 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. Popular Edition. One Vol. Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. 
 
 Creighton.— A HISTORY OF THE PAPACY FROM THE 
 
 GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME (1378-1527). By 
 Right Hon. and Right Rev. Mandell Creighton, D. D., Lord Bishop 
 of London. Six volumes. Crown 8vo. 6s. each. 
 
 DAY-HOURS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, THE. 
 
 Newly Revised according to the Prayer Book and the Authorised 
 Translation of the Bible. Crowfi 8vo. sewed, 2^- ; cloth, ^s. 6d. 
 SUPPLEMENT TO THE DAY-HOURS OF THE CHURCH OF 
 ENGLAND, being the Service for certain Holy Days. Crown 8vo, 
 sewed, 35. ; cloth, 3^. 6d. 
 
 Devotional Series, 16mo, Red Borders. Each is. 6d. 
 Bickersteth's Yesterday, To- ; Lear's (H. L. Sidney) For Days 
 
 Day, and For Ever. ' and Years. 
 
 Chilcot's Treatise on Evil j Francis de Sales' (St.) The 
 
 Thoughts. ! Devout Life. 
 
 The Christian Year, Wilson's The Lord's Supper. 
 
 Herbert's Poems and Proverbs. ; Large type. 
 Kempis' (a) Of the Imitation | *Taylor's (Jeremy) Holy Living. 
 
 OF Christ. I * Holy Dying. 
 
 * These two in one Volume. 55. 
 
 Devotional Series, 18mo, without Red Borders. Each is. 
 
 Bickersteth's Yesterday, To- 
 day, and For Ever. 
 
 The Christian Year. 
 
 Kempis' (a) Of the Imitation 
 of Christ. 
 
 Herbert's Poems and Proverbs. 
 
 Wilson's The Lord's Supper. 
 
 Large type. 
 Francis de Sales' (St.) The 
 
 Devout Life. 
 *Taylor's (Jeremy) Holy Living. 
 * Holy Dying. 
 
 * These two in one Volume, is. 6d. 
 
 Edersheim.— Works by Alfred Edersheim, M.A., D.D., Ph.D. 
 
 THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. Two Vols. 
 8vo. 24s. 
 
 JESUS THE MESSIAH : being an Abridged Edition of 'The Life and 
 Times of Jesus the Messiah.' Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE JEWISH NATION AFTER THE DESTRUC- 
 TION OF JERUSALEM UNDER TITUS. 8vo. x8s. 
 
A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 EUicott. — Works by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester. 
 
 A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL C0MMP:NTARY ON ST. 
 
 PAUL'S EPISTLES. Greek Text, with a Critical and Grammatical 
 
 Commentary, and a Revised English Translation, ^vo. 
 
 Galatians. 8j. dd. Philippians, Colossians, and 
 
 Ephesians. 8j. 6d. Philemon. \os. td. 
 
 Thessalonians. ^s. 6d. 
 Pastoral Epistles, los. 6d. 
 HISTORICAL LECTURES ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD 
 JESUS CHRIST. Bvo. X2s. 
 
 ENGLISH (THE) CATHOLIC'S VADE MECUM : a Short 
 Manual of General Devotion. Compiled by a Priest. 2'^mo. /imp, 
 IS. ; cloth, 2s. 
 
 Priest's Edition. 32^0. i^. 6d. 
 Epochs of Church History.— Edited by Right Hon. and Right 
 Rev. Mandell Creighton, D.D., Lord Bishop of 
 London. Small Zvo. is. 6d. each. 
 
 THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN 
 
 OTHER LANDS. By the Rev. H. W. 
 
 Tucker, M.A. 
 THE HISTORY OF THE REFOR- 
 MATION IN ENGLAND. By the 
 
 Rev. Geo. G. Perry, M.A. 
 THE CHURCH OF THE EARLY 
 
 FATHERS. By the Rev. Alfred 
 
 Plummkr, D.D. 
 THE EVANGELICAL REVIVAL IN 
 
 THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 By the Rev. J. H. Overton, D.D. 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. 
 
 By the Hon. G. C. Brodrick, D.C.L. 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CAM- 
 BRIDGE. By J. Bass Mullinger, 
 
 M.A. 
 THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE 
 
 MIDDLE AGES. By the Rev. W. 
 
 Hunt, M.A. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE 
 EASTERN EMPIRE. By the Rev. 
 H. F. Tozer, M.A. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE ROMAN 
 EMPIRE. By the Rev. A. Carr, M.A. 
 
 THE CHURCH AND THE PURI- 
 TANS, 1570-1660. By Henry Offlet 
 Wakeman M.A. 
 
 HILDEBRAND and HIS TIMES. 
 By the Rev. W. R. W. Stephens, M.A. 
 
 THE POPES AND THE HOHEN- 
 STAUFEN. By Ugo Balzani. 
 
 THE COUNTER REFORMATION. 
 By Adolphus William Ward, Litt. D. 
 
 WYCLIFFE AND MOVEMENTS 
 FOR REFORM. By Reginald L. 
 Poole, M.A. 
 
 THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. By 
 the Rev. H. M. Gwatkin, M.A. 
 
 EUCHARISTIC MANUAL (THE). Consisting of Instructions 
 and Devotions for the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. From various 
 sources. 32^0. cloth gilt, red edges. \s. Cheap Edition, limp cloth. <)d. 
 
 Farrar.— Works by Frederick W. Farrar, D.D., Dean of 
 Canterbury. 
 THE BIBLE : Its Meaning and Supremacy. %vo. 155. 
 TEXTS EXPLAINED ; or. Helps to Understand the New Testament, 
 Crow7i 8vo. Un the press. 
 
 ALLEGORIES. With 25 Ill-ustrations by Amelia Bauerle. Crown 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 Contents.— The Life Story of Aner— The Choice— The Fortunes of a 
 Royal House— The Basilisk and the Leopard. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Fosbery.— Works edited by the Rev. Thomas Vincent Fosbery, 
 M.A., sometime Vicar of St. Giles's, Reading. 
 VOICES OF COMFORT. Cheap Edition. Small ^vo. 2>s. ^d. 
 
 The Larger Edition (ys. 6d.) tnay still be had. 
 HYMNS AND POEMS FOR THE SICK AND SUFFERING. In 
 connection with the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. Selected 
 from Various Authors. Small 8vo. 35. 6d. 
 
 Geikie. — Works by J. Cunningham Geikie, D.D., LL.D., late 
 Vicar of St. Martin-at-Palace, Norwich. 
 HOURS WITH THE BIBLE : the Scriptures in the Light of Modern 
 Discovery and Knowledge. New Edition, largely rewritten. Com- 
 plete in Twelve Volumes. Crown 8vo. 3,^. 6d. each. 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 In Six Volumes. Sold separately. 3^, ^d. each. 
 
 Creation to the Patriarchs, ' Rehoboam to Hezekiah. With 
 
 With a Map and Illustrations. 
 
 MosES TO Judges. With a Map 
 and Illustrations. 
 
 Illustrations. 
 Manasseh to Zedekiah, With 
 the Contemporary Prophets. With 
 a Map and Illustrations, 
 ; Exile to Malachi. With the 
 Samson to Solomon. With a Contemporary Prophets. With 
 Map and Illustrations. I Illustrations. 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 In Six Volumes. Sold separately, y. 6d. each. 
 The Gospels. With a Map and 
 
 Illustrations. 
 
 Life and Words of Christ. 
 With Map. 2 vols. 
 
 Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 With Maps and Illustrations. 
 
 2 vols. 
 St. Peter to Revelation. With 
 
 29 Illustrations. 
 
 LIFE AND WORDS OF CHRIST 
 
 Caiinet Edition. With Map. 2 vols. Post 8vo. ys. 
 
 Cheap Edition, without the Notes, i vol. 8vo. 55. 
 A SHORT LIFE OF CHRIST. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 
 
 y. 6d. ; gilt edges, 45. 6d. 
 OLD TESTAMENT CHARACTERS. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 
 
 2,s. 6d. 
 LANDMARKS OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. Crown 8vo. 
 
 y. 6d. 
 THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. 
 ENTERING ON LIFE. A Book for Young Men. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. 
 THE PRECIOUS PROMISES. Crown 8vo. zs. 
 
A SELECT/ON OF WORKS 
 
 GOLD DUST : a Collection of Golden Counsels for the Sancti- 
 fication of Daily Life, Translated and abridged from the French by 
 E.L.E.E. Edited by Charlotte M. Yonge. Parts L 11. Ill, 
 Small Pocket Volumes, Cloth, gilt, each is. Parts I. and II, in One 
 Volume, IS. 6d. Parts I,, II., and III, in One Volume, 2s. 
 
 *.^* The two first parts in One Volume, large type, iSmo. cloth, gilt. 2s. 6d. 
 Parts I. II, and III, are also supplied, bound in white cloth, with red 
 edges, in box, price 35, 
 
 Gore.— Works by the Rev. Charles Gore, M.A., D.D., Canon 
 of Westminster. 
 THE MINISTRY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 GREAT TRUTHS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 
 Edited by the Rev, W. U, Richards, Small Svo. 2s. 
 
 HaU.— Works by the Right Rev. A. C. A. Hall, D.D., Bishop 
 of Vermont. 
 THE VIRGIN MOTHER: Retreat Addresses on the Life of the 
 Blessed Virgin Mary as told in the Gospels, With an appended 
 Essay on the Virgin Birth of our Lord. Crown Svo. 4^, 6d. 
 CHRIST'S TEMPTATION AND OURS. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. 
 
 HalL— THE KENOTIC THEORY. Considered with Parti- 
 cular Reference to its Anglican Forms and Arguments. By the Rev. 
 Francis J, Hall, D.D., Instructor of Dogmatic Theology in the 
 Western Theological Seminary, Chicago, Illinois. Crown Svo. y. 
 
 HALLOWING OF SORROW, THE. By E, R. With a Pre- 
 face by H, S, Holland, M,A., Canon and Precentor of St. Paul's. 
 Small Svo. 2s. 
 
 Harrison. — Works by the Rev. Alexander J. Harrison, B.D., 
 Lecturer of the Christian Evidence Society. 
 PROBLEMS OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCEPTICISM. CrownSvo. 
 
 js. 6d. 
 THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO SCEPTICS : a Conversational 
 
 Guide to Evidential Work. Crown Svo. y. 6d. 
 THE REPOSE OF FAITH, IN VIEW OF PRESENT DAY DIFFI- 
 CULTIES. Crown Svo. -js. 6d. 
 
 Hatch.— THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY 
 
 CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, Being the Bampton Lectures for 1880. 
 By EDViriN Hatch, M.A., D,D., late Reader in Ecclesiastical History 
 in the University of Oxford. Svo. $s. 
 
 Heygate.— THE MANUAL : a Book of Devotion. Adapted for 
 General Use, By the Rev. W, E, Heygate, M,A,, Rector of Brigh- 
 stone. xSmo. cloth limp, is. ; boards, u, 3d. Cheap Edition, 6d. 
 Small Svo. Large Type, xs, 6d. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Holland. — Works by the Rev. Henry Scott Holland, M.A., 
 Canon and Precentor of St. Paul's. 
 
 GOD'S CITY AND THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM. Cr. 8vo. 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 PLEAS AND CLAIMS FOR CHRIST. Crown Svo. 3s. 6(i. 
 
 CREED AND CHARACTER : Sermons. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 ON BEHALF OF BELIEF. Sermons. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 CHRIST OR ECCLESIASTES. Sermons. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 LOGIC AND LIFE, with other Sermons. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 HollingS.— Works by the Rev. G. S. HOLLINGS, Mission Priest of 
 the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford. 
 
 THE HEAVENLY STAIR ; or, A Ladder of the Love of God for Sinners. 
 
 Crown Svo, 3s. 6d. 
 PORTA REGALIS ; or, Considerations on Prayer. Crown Svo. limp cloth, 
 
 \s. 6d. net ; cloth boards, 2S. net. 
 
 MEDITATIONS ON THE DIVINE LIFE, THE BLESSED SACRA- 
 MENT, AND THE TRANSFIGURATION. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. Suggested by 
 Passages in the Collects for the Sundays in Lent. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS ON THE Vl^ISDOM OF GOD. Crown Svo. 4s. 
 
 PARADOXES OF THE LOVE OF GOD, especially as they are seen in 
 
 the way of the Evangelical Counsels. Crown Svo. 45. 
 ONE BORN OF THE SPIRIT ; or, the Unification of our Life in God. 
 
 Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Hutchings.— Works by the Ven. W. H. HUTCHINGS, M.A. Arch- 
 deacon of Cleveland, Canon of York, Rector of Kirby 
 Misperton, and Rural Dean of Malton. 
 
 SERMON SKETCHES from some of the Sunday Lessons throughout 
 the Church's Year. Vols. I and II. Crown Svo. 5J. each. 
 
 THE LIFE OF PRAYER : a Course of Lectures delivered in All Saints 
 Church, Margaret Street, during Lent. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST : a Doctrinal 
 and Devotional Treatise. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 SOME ASPECTS OF THE CROSS. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 THE MYSTERY OF THE TEMPTATION. Lent Lectures delivered a 
 St. Mary Magdalene, Paddington. Crown Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 A2 
 
lo A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Hutton.— THE CHURCH OF THE SIXTH CENTURY. 
 
 Six Chapters in Ecclesiastical History. By William Holden 
 Hutton, B.D., Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Trinity 
 College, Cambridge. With ii Illustratio?is. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Hutton.— THE SOUL HERE AND HEREAFTER. By the 
 Rev. R. E. Hutton, Chaplain of St. Margaret's, East Grinstead. 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 INHERITANCE OF THE SAINTS ; or, Thoughts on the 
 Communion of Saints and the Life of the World to come. Col- 
 lected chiefly from English Writers by L. P. With a Preface by the 
 Rev. Henry Scott Holland, M.A, Seventh Edition. Crown Zvo. 
 ys. 6d. 
 
 Jameson. — Works by Mrs. Jameson. 
 
 SACRED AND LEGENDARY ART, containing Legends of the Angels 
 
 and Archangels, the Evangelists, the Apostles. With 19 Etchings and 
 
 187 Woodcuts. 2 vols. Svo. 20s. net. 
 LEGENDS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS, as represented in the 
 
 Fine Arts. With 11 Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. 2>vo. \qs. net. 
 LEGENDS OF THE MADONNA, OR BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. 
 
 With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts. Zvo. \os. net. 
 THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD, as exemplified in Works of Art. 
 
 Commenced by the late Mrs. Jameson ; continued and completed by 
 
 Lady Eastlake. With 31 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 
 
 Svo. 20s. net. 
 Jennings.— ECCLES I A ANGLICAN A. A History of the 
 
 Church of Christ in England from the Earliest to the Present Times. 
 
 By the Rev. Arthur Charles Jennings, M.A. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Jukes.— Works by ANDREW JUKES. 
 
 THE NEW MAN AND THE ETERNAL LIFE. Notes on the 
 Reiterated Amens of the Son of God. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE NAMES OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE : a Revelation of 
 His Nature and Relationships. Crown Svo. 4^. 6d. 
 
 THE TYPES OF GENESIS. Crown Svo. ys. 6d. 
 
 THE SECOND DEATH AND THE RESTITUTION OF ALL 
 THINGS. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 THE ORDER AND CONNEXION OF THE CHURCH'S TEACH- 
 ING, as set forth in the arrangement of the Epistles and Gospels 
 throughout the Year. Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN HOME. Crown Svo. ss. 6d. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 
 
 Enoz Little.— Works by W. J. Knox Little, M.A., Canon 
 Residentiary of Worcester, and Vicar of Hoar Cross. 
 
 THE PERFECT LIFE : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN 
 LIFE. Ten Sermons preached in jManchester Cathedral, in Lent and 
 Advent. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. 
 
 SERMONS PREACHED FOR THE MOST PART IN MANCHES- 
 TER. Crown Bvo. y. 6d. 
 
 THE MYSTERY OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY 
 REDEEMER. Crown Bvo. zs. 6d. 
 
 THE LIGHT OF LIFE. Sermons preached on Various Occasions. 
 Crown Bvo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. 
 Sermons preached for the most part in America. Crown Bvo. 3J, 6d. 
 
 Lear. — Works by, and Edited by, H. L. Sidney Lear. 
 
 FOR DAYS AND YEARS. A book containing a Text, Short Reading, 
 and Hymn for Every Day in the Church's Year. i6mo. zs. 6d. Also a 
 Cheap Edition, jfimo. u. ; orclothgilt, xs. 6d. ; or with red borders, 2s. 6d. 
 
 FIVE MINUTES. Daily Readings of Poetry. z6mo. 3J. 6d. Also a 
 Cheap Edition, 2'2mo. is.; or cloth gilt, is. 6d. 
 
 WEARINESS. A Book for the Languid and Lonely. Large Type. 
 Small Bvo. 55. 
 
 JOY : A FRAGMENT. With a shght sketch of the Author's life. Small 
 Bvo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES. Nine Vols. Crown Bvo. ^s. 6d. each. 
 
 The Revival of Priestly Life 
 IN THE Seventeenth Century 
 
 Madame Louise de France, 
 Daughter of Louis XV., known 
 also as the Mother T^rese de 
 St. Augustin, 
 
 IN France. 
 A Christian Painter of the 
 
 A Dominican Artist : a Sketch of ■ Ninftfknth rirxTTTTPv 
 the Life of the Rev. Pere Besson, I nineteenth Century. 
 of the Order of St. Dominic. Bossuet AND his Contempora 
 
 Henri Perreyve. By Pere 
 
 Gratry. 
 St. Francis de Sales, Bishop and 
 
 Prince of Geneva. 
 
 RIES. 
 
 Fj^nelon, Archbishop of Cam- 
 
 BRAI. 
 
 Henri Dominique Lacordaire. 
 [continued. 
 
12 A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Lear. — Works by, and Edited by, H. L. Sidney Lear — 
 
 continued. 
 DEVOTIONAL WORKS. Edited by H. L. Sidney Lear. New and 
 
 Uniform Editions. Nine Vols. i6mo. zs. 6d. each. 
 F^nelon's Spiritual Letters to i The Hidden Life of the Soul. 
 
 ^^^* The Light of the Conscience. 
 
 F^nelon's Spiritual Letters to Also Cheap Edition, z^mo, 6d. 
 
 Women, ' cloth limp ; and xs. cloth boards. 
 
 Self-Renunciation. From the 
 
 A Selection from the Spiritual 
 Letters of St. Francis de 
 Sales. Also Cheap Edition, ^^zmo, 
 6d. cloth limp ; xs. cloth boards. 
 
 The Spirit of St. Francis de 
 
 French. 
 
 St. Francis de Sales' Of the 
 Love of God, 
 
 Selections from Pascal's 
 
 Sales. ' ' Thoughts.' 
 
 Lepine.— THE MINISTERS OF JESUS CHRIST : a Biblical 
 Study, By J, Foster Lepine, Curate of St. Paul's, Maidstone. 
 Crozmi Svo. c^s. 
 
 Liddon. — Works by Henry Parry Liddon, D,D., D.C.L.,LL.D. 
 
 SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF ST. PAUL, Crown Svo. 5^. 
 SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. i'86o-i889. 
 
 Crown Svo. 55. 
 EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE 
 
 TO TIMOTHY. Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 CLERICAL LIFE AND WORK : Sermons. Crown Svo. 55. 
 ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES : Lectures on Buddhism— Lectures on the 
 
 Life of St. Paul — Papers on Dante. Crown Svo. ^s. 
 EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE 
 
 TO TIMOTHY. Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE 
 
 ROMANS. Svo. 14J. 
 SERMONS ON OLD TESTAMENT SUBJECTS. CrownSvo. 55. 
 SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF CHRIST, Crown Svo. 5^. 
 
 THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. 
 Being the Bampton Lectures for 1866. Crown Svo. 55. 
 
 ADVENT IN ST. PAUL'S. Two Vols. Crown Svo. y. Sd. each. 
 Cheap Edition in one Volume. Crown Svo. t^s. 
 
 CHRISTMASTIDE IN ST, PAUL'S, Crown Svo. 5s. 
 
 PASSIONTIDE SERMONS. Crown Svo. 5^. 
 
 EASTER IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Resurrec- 
 tion of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown Svo. y. 6d. each. Cheap 
 Editio7t in one Volume. Crown Svo. 5J. 
 
 SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF 
 OXFORD, Two Vols. Crown Svo. y. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in 
 one Volume. Crown Svo. 5^. 
 
 [continued. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 13 
 
 Liddon.— Works by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., 
 
 LL. D. — conti7iued. 
 
 THE MAGNIFICAT. Sermons in St. Paul's. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 SOME ELEMENTS OF RELIGION. Lent Lectures. Small 8vo. 
 2S. 6d. [The Crown 8vo. Edition (5^.) may still be had.] 
 
 SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF. Crown Bvo. 35. 6d. 
 
 MAXIMS AND GLEANINGS. Crown i6mo. is. 
 
 Linklater.— TRUE LIMITS OF RITUAL IN THE CHURCH. 
 Edited by Rev. Robert Linklater, D.D., Vicar of Stroud Green. 
 Crown 8vo. 55. 
 Contents. — Preface— Introductory Essay, by the Rev. Robert Link- 
 later, D.D. — The Ornaments Rubric, by J. T. Micklethwaite, 
 V. P.S.A. — The CathoUc Principle of Conformity in Divine Worship, 
 by the Rev. C. F. G. Turner— A Plea for Reasonableness, by the Rev. 
 John Wylde— Intelligible Ritual, by the Rev. Henry Arnott — The 
 English Liturgy, by the Rev. T. A. Lacey— Eucharistic Ritual, by the 
 Rev. W. F. Cobb, D.D. — Suggestions for a Basis of Agreement in 
 Matters Liturgical and Ceremonial, by the Rev. H. E. Hall. 
 
 Luckock.— Works by Herbert Mortimer Luckock, D.D., 
 
 Dean of Lichfield. 
 
 THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE, JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN, IN 
 RELATION TO DIVORCE AND CERTAIN FORBIDDEN 
 DEGREES. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 
 AFTER DEATH. An Examination of the Testimony of Primitive 
 
 Times respecting the State of the Faithful Dead, and their Relationship 
 
 to the Living. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. 
 THE INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND 
 
 JUDGMENT. Being a Sequel to After Death. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. 
 FOOTPRINTS OF THE SON OF MAN, as traced by St. Mark. Being 
 
 Eighty Portions for Private Study, Family Reading, and Instruction 
 
 in Church. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. 
 
 FOOTPRINTS OF THE APOSTLES, as traced by St. Luke in the 
 
 Acts.' Being Sixty Portions for Private Study, and Instruction in 
 
 Church. A Sequel to ' Footprints of the Son of Man, as traced by 
 
 St. Mark.' Two Vols. Cro^vn 8vo. 12s. 
 THE DIVINE LITURGY. Being the Order for Holy Communion, 
 
 Historically, Doctrinally, and Devotionally set forth, in Fifty Portions. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 3J-. 6d. 
 STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON 
 
 PRAYER. The AngUcan Reform— The Puritan Innovations— The 
 
 Elizabethan Reaction — The Caroline Settlement. With Appendices. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 3J-. dd. 
 THE BISHOPS IN THE TOWER. A Record of Stirring Events 
 
 affecting the Church and Nonconformists from the Restoration to the 
 
 Revolution. Crown 8vo. 35. td. 
 
14 A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 MacColL— Works by the Rev. MALCOLM MacColl, D.D., Canon 
 Residentiary of Ripen. 
 THE REFORMATION SETTLEMENT : Examined in the Light of 
 
 History and Law. With an Introductory Letter to the Right Hon. 
 
 W. V. Harcourt, M.P. Crown ^vo. 
 CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO SCIENCE AND MORALS. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 6s. 
 LIFE HERE AND HEREAFTER : Sermons. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 Mason.— Works by A. J. Mason, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor 
 
 of Divinity in the University of Cambridge and Canon of Canterbury. 
 THE CONDITIONS OF OUR LORDS LIFE UPON EARTH. 
 
 Being the Bishop Paddock Lectures, 1896. To which is prefixed part 
 
 of a First Professorial Lecture at Cambridge. Crown Svo. e,s. 
 THE PRINCIPLES OF ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY. Four Lectures 
 
 delivered in St. Asaph Cathedral. Crown Svo. 35, 6d. 
 THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL. A Manual of Christian Doctrine. 
 
 Crown Svo. ys. 6d. Cheap Edition. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. 
 THE RELATION OF CONFIRMATION TO BAPTISM. As taught 
 
 in Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Crown Svo. js, 6d. 
 
 Maturin.— Works by the Rev. B. W. Maturin. 
 
 SOME PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE SPIRITUAL. 
 
 LIFE. Crowfi Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 PRACTICAL STUDIES ON THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. 
 
 Crown Svo. 55-. 
 
 Medd.— THE PRIEST TO THE ALTAR ; or, Aids to the 
 Devout Celebration of Holy Communion, chiefly after the Ancient 
 English Use of Sarum. By Peter Goldsmith Medd, M.A., Canon 
 of St. Alban's. Fourth Edition, revised and enlarged. Royal Svo. 15^. 
 
 Meyrick.— THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF ENG- 
 LAND ON THE HOLY COMMUNION RESTATED AS A 
 GUIDE AT THE PRESENT TIME. By the Rev. F. Meyrick, 
 M.A, Crown Svo. 4^-. 6d. 
 
 Mortimer.— Works by the Rev. A. G. Mortimer, D.D., Rector 
 of St. Mark's, Philadelphia. 
 
 JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION 
 Thirty Addresses for Good Friday and 
 Easter. Crown 2>vo. 55. 
 
 CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRAC 
 
 THE LAWS OF PENITENCE : Ad- 
 dresses on the Words of our Lord from 
 the Cross. i6mo. is. 6d. 
 SERMONS IN MINIATURE FOR 
 TICE • ^ A ^ Manual "o'f ^The T^^' ' EXTEMPORE PREACHERS : 
 
 Two Parts. Crown Svo. Sold sepai I Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy 
 
 ratPlv Part T n<: f,d Pp,rf tt nc- Day of the Christian Year. Cr.Zvo. ds, 
 
 MTrrp^T^nT^^^i^TTATrnM Qu'T: NOTES ON THE SEVEN PENI- 
 HELPS TO MEDITATION: Sketches TENTIAL PSALMS, chiefly from 
 
 for Every Day in the Year. Patristic Sources. Fcp. 8w. 3^. 6rf. 
 
 Vol. I. Advent to Trinity. %vo. -js.Gd. 
 Vol. II. Trinity to Advent. Zvo.-js.6d. 
 
 STORIES FROM GENESIS : Sermons 
 for Children. Crown Svo. ^s, 
 
 THE LAWS OF HAPPINESS; or, 
 The Beatitudes as teaching our Duty 
 to God, Self, and our Neighbour. 
 1 8mo. 2S. 
 
 THE SEVEN LAST WORDS OF 
 OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER: 
 with Meditations on some Scenes in 
 His Passion. Crown Svo. 5s. 
 
 LEARN OF JESUS CHRIST TO 
 DIE : Addresses on the Words of our 
 Lord from the Cross, taken as Teach- 
 ing the way of Preparation for Death. 
 i6mo. 2S. 
 
ESSAYS, HISTORICAL AND THEO- 
 LOGICAL. Two Vols. 8vo. 24s. 
 
 EIGHT LECTURES ON MIRACLES. 
 Being the Bampton Lectures for 1865. 
 Crown 8vo. ^s. 6d. 
 
 RULING IDEAS IN EARLY AGES 
 AND THEIR RELATION TO 
 OLD TESTAMENT FAITH. 
 
 IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 15 
 
 Mozley.— Works by J. B. Mozley, D.D., late Canon of Christ 
 Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. 
 
 SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF OX- 
 FORD, and on Various Occasions. 
 Crown Zvo. 3J. 6<f. 
 
 SERMONS, PAROCHIAL AND 
 OCCASIONAL. Crovjnlvo, zs.6d. 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE BAPTISMAL 
 CONTROVERSY. Crown 8vo. 
 8v0. 6s. I ^s. td. 
 
 Newbolt.— Works by the Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon 
 and Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral. 
 RELIGION. Crown 8vo. 55. {The Oxford Library oj Practical 
 
 Theology. ) 
 PRIESTLY IDEALS ; being a Course of Practical Lectures delivered in 
 
 St. Paul's Cathedral to ' Our Society' and other Clergy, in Lent, 1898. 
 
 Crown 8vo. y. 6d. 
 THE GOSPEL OF EXPERIENCE ; or, the Witness of Human Life 
 
 to the truth of Revelation. Being the Boyle Lectures for 1895. 
 
 Crown 8vo. 55. 
 COUNSELS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE: being Sermons preached 
 
 on various occasions. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. 
 SPECULUM SACERDOTUM ; or, the Divine Model of the Priestly 
 
 Life. Crown 8vo. js. 6d. 
 THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Being Ten Addresses bearing on 
 
 the Spiritual Life. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 THE MAN OF GOD. Small 8vo. \s. 6d. 
 THE PRAYER BOOK : Its Voice and Teaching. Crown 8vo. 2J. 6d. 
 
 Newman. — Works by John Henry Newman, B.D., sometime 
 Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford. 
 
 LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEW- 
 MAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. With 
 a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's request, by 
 Anne Mozley. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. js. 
 
 PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight Vols. Cabinet Edition. 
 Crown 8vo. 5 J. each. Cheaper Edition. 3^. 6d. each. 
 
 SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLE- 
 SIASTICAL YEAR, from the ' Parochial and Plain Sermons,' 
 Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. ^s. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d, 
 
 FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF OXFORD Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. Cheaper Edition. 
 3J. 6d. 
 
 SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Cabinet 
 Edition. Crown 8vo. 5^. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 3J. bd. 
 
 LECTURES ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cabinet 
 Edition. Crown 8vo. 51. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d. 
 
 *»* A Complete List of Cardinal Newman's Works can be had on Application. 
 
i6 A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Osborne.— Works by Edward Osborne, Mission Priest of the 
 
 Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford. 
 
 THE CHILDREN'S SAVIOUR. Instructions to Children on the Life 
 of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Illustrated. i6mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 THE SAVIOUR KING. Instructions to Children on Old Testament 
 Types and Illustrations of the Life of Christ. Illustrated. i6mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 THE CHILDREN'S FAITH. Instructions to Children on the Apostles' 
 Creed. Illustrated, xdmo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Ottley.— ASPECTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: being the 
 Bampton Lectures for 1897. By Robert Lawrence Ottley, M.A., 
 Vicar of Winterbourne Bassett, Wilts ; sometime Principal of the 
 Pusey House. Svo. Nezv and Cheaper Edition, 'js. 6d. 
 
 XTbe ©jfort) Xtbrat^ ot practical XTbeolo^^* 
 
 PRODUCED UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF 
 
 The Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of 
 
 St. Paul's, and the Rev. F. E. Brightman, M.A., Librarian 
 
 of the Pusey House, Oxford. 
 
 The Price of each Volume will be Five Shillings. 
 
 The following is a list of Volumes as at present arranged : — 
 
 1. RELIGION. By the Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon and 
 
 Chancellor of St. Paul's. Crown Svo. 55. 
 
 2. BAPTISM. By the Rev. Darwell Stone, M.A., Principal of the 
 
 Missionary College, Dorchester. Crown 8vo. k,s. [I71 the press. 
 
 3. CONFIRMATION. By the Right Rev. A. C. A. Hall, D.D., 
 
 Bishop of Vermont. 
 
 4. HOLY MATRIMONY. By the Rev. W. J. Knox Little, M.A., 
 
 Canon of Worcester. 
 
 5. THE HOLY COMMUNION. By the Rev. F. W. Puller, M.A., 
 
 Mission Priest of St. John Evangelist, Cowley. 
 
 6. THE PRAYER BOOK. By the Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A., 
 
 Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford. 
 
 7. RELIGIOUS CEREMONIAL. By the Rev. F. E. Brightman, 
 
 M.A., Librarian of the Pusey House, Oxford. 
 
 8. PRAYER. By the Rev. A. J. Worlledge, M.A., Canon of Truro. 
 
 9. VISITATION OF THE SICK. By the Rev. E. F. Russell, M.A., 
 
 St. Alban's, Holborn. 
 Confession and Absolution. I Devotional Books and Reading. 
 Fasting and Almsgiving. | Ordination. 
 Retreats, Missions, Etc I Foreign Missions. 
 Church Work. The Bible. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 17 
 
 OUTLINES OF CHURCH TEACHING : a Series of Instruc- 
 tions for the Sundays and chief Holy Days of the Christian Year. For 
 the Use of Teachers. By C. C. G. With Preface by the Very Rev. 
 Francis Paget, D. D. , Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. Crown Zvo. 
 35. 6d. 
 
 Oxenham.— THE VALIDITY OF PAPAL CLAIMS : Lectures 
 delivered in Rome. By F. Nutcombe Oxenham, D.D., English 
 Chaplain at Rome. "With a Letter by His Grace the Archbishop of 
 York. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Paget.— Works by Francis Paget, D.D., Dean of Christ Church. 
 
 STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER : Sermons. With an 
 
 Introductory Essay. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 THE SPIRIT OF DISCIPLINE : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 FACULTIES AND DIFFICULTIES FOR BELIEF AND DIS- 
 BELIEF. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 THE HALLOWING OF WORK. Addresses given at Eton, January 
 16-18, 1888. Small 8vo. 25. 
 
 PercivaL— SOME HELPS FOR SCHOOL LIFE. Sermons 
 
 preached at Clifton College, 1862-1879. By J. Percival, D.D., LL.D., 
 Lord Bishop of Hereford. New Edition, with New Preface. Crown 
 8vo. 3J. 6d. 
 
 PercivaL— THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Treated Theo- 
 logically and Historically. By HENRY R. Percival, M.A., D.D., 
 Author of 'A Digest of Theology,' 'The Doctrine of the Episcopal 
 Church,' etc. Crown 8vo. 5J-. 
 
 POCKET MANUAL OF PRAYERS FOR THE HOURS, 
 
 Etc. With the Collects from the Prayer Book, Royal op.mo. xs. 
 
 PoweU.— THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INCARNATION. 
 
 With especial Reference to the Relation between our Lord's Divine 
 Omniscience and His Human Consciousness. By the Rev. H. C. 
 Powell, M.A, of Oriel College, Oxford ; Rector of Wylye and Pre- 
 bendary of Salisbury Cathedral. 8vo. \6s. 
 
 PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS. By a Clergyman. With 
 Prefaces by H. P. Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., and the Lord Bishop of 
 Lincoln. Crown 8vo. 
 
 The Book of Genesis. 45. 6d. 
 The Psalms. 5^. 
 Isaiah. 4?. 6d. 
 
 The Minor Prophets. 4j. 6d. 
 The Holy Gospels. 4^. 6d. 
 Acts to Revelation. 6s. 
 
 PRIEST'S PRAYER BOOK (THE). Containing Private 
 Prayers and Intercessions ; Occasional, School, and Parochial Offices ; 
 Offices for the Visitation of the Sick, with Notes, Readings, Collects, 
 Hymns, Litanies, etc. With a brief Pontifical. By the late Rev. R. F. 
 LiTTLEDALE, LL.D., D.C.L., and Rev. J. Edward Vaux, M.A., 
 F.S.A. New Edition, Revised, loth Thousand. Post8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
i8 A SELECTION OF WORKS 
 
 Pullan.— LECTURES ON RELIGION. By the Rev. Leighton 
 
 PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College, Lecturer in Theology at 
 Oriel and Queen's Colleges, Oxford. Crowti 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Pusey.—SPIRITUAL LETTERS OF EDWARD BOUVERIE 
 PUSEY, D.D. Edited and prepared for publication by the Rev. J. O. 
 Johnston, M.A., Principal of the Theological College, Cuddesdon ; 
 and the Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St. 
 Paul's. Svo. I2S. 6d. 
 
 Randolph.— Works by B. W. Randolph, M.A., Principal of the 
 Theological College and Hon. Canon of Ely. 
 
 MEDITATIONS ON THE OLD TESTAMENT for Every Day in 
 the Year. Crow?i Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE THRESHOLD OF THE SANCTUARY : being Short Chapters 
 on the Inner Preparation for the Priesthood. Crown Svo. y. 6d. 
 
 THE LAW OF SINAI : being Devotional Addresses on the Ten Com- 
 mandments delivered to Ordinands. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. 
 
 Rede. — Works by Wyllys Rede, D.D., Rector of the Church 
 of the Incarnation, and Canon of the Cathedral, Atalanta, 
 Georgia. 
 
 STRIVING FOR THE MASTERY : Daily Lessons for Lent. Cr. Svo. 
 
 THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS : a Lost Link in the Chain of the 
 Church's Creed. With a Preface by Lord Halifax. Crown Svo. 
 3J. 6d. 
 
 Reynolds.— THE SUPERNATURAL IN NATURE: A Veri- 
 fication by Free Use of Science. By Joseph William Reynolds, 
 M.A., Late President of Sion College, and Prebendary of St. Paul's 
 Cathedral. New and Cheaper Edition, Revised. Crown Svo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 Sanday.— Works by W. Sanday, D.D., Margaret Professor of 
 Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. 
 
 THE CONCEPTION OF PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLY CHURCH 
 AND IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND : Four Sermons. 
 Crown Svo. 3^. 6d. 
 
 INSPIRATION : Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin o 
 the Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. Being the Bampton Lectures 
 for 1893. New and Cheaper Edition, with New Preface. Svo. js. 6d. 
 
 Scudamore.— STEPS TO THE ALTAR: a Manual of Devotion 
 for the Blessed Eucharist. By the Rev. W. E. Scudamore, M.A. 
 Royal ■^imo. is. 
 On toned paper, with red rubrics, 2s: The same, with Collects, Epistles, and 
 
 Gospels, 2S. 6d; Demy iSmo. cloth, is\ Demy iSmo. cloth, large type, xs. yl\ 
 
 Imperial ^2mo. limp cloth, 6d. 
 
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE, 19 
 
 Simpson— THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. By the Rev. 
 
 W. J. Sparrow Simpson, M.A. Vicar of St. Mark's, Regent's Park. 
 Crown 8vo. y. 6d. 
 MEMOIR OF THE REV. W. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D., Sub- 
 Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral. Compiled and Edited by W. J. 
 Sparrow Simpson. With Portrait and other Illustrations. Crown 
 Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 Strange.— INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVELATION OF 
 
 ST. JOHN THE DIVINE: Being an attempt to make this book 
 more intelligible to the ordinary reader and so to encourage the study 
 of it. By Rev. Cresswell Strange, M. A., Vicar of Edgbaston, and 
 Honorary Canon of Worcester. Crown Svo. 6s. 
 
 Strong.— CHRISTIAN ETHICS : being the Bampton Lectures 
 for 1895. By Thomas B. Strong, B.D., Student of Christ Church, 
 Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Durham. 
 New and Cheaper Edition. Svo. ys. 6d. 
 
 Tee.— THE SANCTUARY OF SUFFERING. By Eleanor 
 
 Tee, Author of 'This Everyday Life,' etc. With a Preface by the 
 Rev. J. P. F. Davidson, M.A., Vicar of St. Matthias', Earl's Court; 
 President of the ' Guild of All Souls.' Crown Svo. js. 6d. 
 
 Whishaw.— THE CHILDREN'S YEAR-BOOK OF PRAYER 
 
 AND PRAISE. By C. M. Whishaw, Compiler of ' Being and 
 Doing.' Crown Svo. y. 6d. 
 
 Williams. — Works by the Rev. Isaac Williams, B.D. 
 
 A DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL NARRA- 
 TIVE. Eight Vols. Crown Svo. 5^. each. 
 
 Our Lord's Ministry (Third Year). 
 The Holy Week. 
 Our Lord's Passion. 
 Our Lord's Resurrection. 
 FEMALE CHARACTERS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. A Series ot 
 
 Sermons. Crown Svo. ^s. 
 THE CHARACTERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Crown Svo. sj. 
 THE APOCALYPSE. With Notes and Reflections. Crown Svo. ks. 
 SERMONS ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS FOR THE SUN- 
 DAYS AND HOLY DAYS. Two Vols. Crown Svo. 5s. each. 
 PLAIN SERMONS ON CATECHISM. Two Vols. Cr. Svo. 5J. each. 
 
 Wilson.— THOUGHTS ON CONFIRMATION. By Rev. R. 
 
 J, Wilson, D.D., late Warden of Keble College. x6mo. zs. 6d. 
 
 Wirgman.— Works by A. Theodore Wirgman, B.D., D.C.L., 
 Vice-Provost of St. Mary's Collegiate Church, Port Eliza- 
 beth, South Africa. 
 THE DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION. Croivn Svo. -js. 6d. 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS IN THE 
 CATHOLIC CHURCH. Illustrated by the History and Canon Law 
 of the Undivided Church from the Apostolic Age to the Council of 
 Chalcedon, A.D. 451. Crown Svo, 6s. 
 
 Thoughts on the Study of the 
 
 Holy Gospels. 
 A Harmony of the Four Gospels. 
 Our Lord's Nativity. 
 Our Lord's Ministry (Second Year). 
 
20 A SELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 
 
 Wood.~THE STORY OF A SAINTLY BISHOP'S LIFE- 
 LANCELOT ANDREWES, Bishop of Winchester, 1555-1626. By 
 Lady Mary Wood. Crown 8vo. is. 6d. 
 
 Wordsworth.— Works by Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., 
 sometime Bishop of Lincoln. 
 THE HOLY BIBLE (the Old Testament). With Notes, Introductions, 
 and Index. Imperial 8vo. 
 
 Vol. I. The Pentateuch. 25J. Vol. II. Joshua to Samuel. 15^. 
 Vol. III. Kings to Esther. 15^. Vol. IV. Job to Song of 
 Solomon. 25s. Vol. V. Isaiah to Ezekiel. 25^. Vol. VI. 
 Daniel, Minor Prophets, and Index. 15s. 
 
 Also supplied in 12 Parts. Sold separately. 
 THE NEW TESTAMENT, in the Original Greek. With Notes, Intro- 
 ductions, and Indices. Imperial 8vo. 
 
 Vol. I. Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, zy. Vol. II. 
 Epistles, Apocalypse, and Indices. 375, 
 
 Also supplied in 4 Parts. Sold separately, 
 A CHURCH HISTORY TO A.D. 451. Four Vols. Crown Svo. 
 
 Vol. I. To the Council of NiCiEA, a.d. 325. 8^. 6d. Vol. II. 
 
 From the Council of Nic^a to that of Constantinople 
 
 6s. Vol. III. Continuation. 6s. Vol. IV. Conclusion, To 
 
 THE Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. 6s. 
 
 THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS: a Manual of Instruction on the 
 
 Church and the Anglican Branch of it. izmo. 2s. 6d. 
 ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION ON THE CHURCH. i6mo. 
 
 xs. cloth. 6d. sewed. 
 THE HOLY YEAR : Original Hymns. iStno. 2s.6d.and\s. Limp,6d. 
 ,, ,, With Music. Edited by W. H. Monk. Square Svo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 ON THE INTERMEDIATE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER 
 DEATH. 32mo. is. 
 
 Wordsworth.— Works by John Wordsworth, D.D., Lord 
 Bishop of Salisbury. 
 
 THE EPISCOPATE OF CHARLES WORDSWORTH, D.D., D.C.L., 
 Bishop of St. Andrews. With Two Portraits. Svo. i^s. 
 
 THE HOLY COMMUNION: Four Visitation Addresses. 1891. 
 Crown Svo. y. 6d. 
 
 THE ONE RELIGION : Truth, Holiness, and Peace desired by the 
 Nations, and revealed by Jesus Christ, Eight Lectures delivered before 
 the University of Oxford in 1881. Second Edition. Crown Svo. ^s. 6d. 
 
 UNIVERSITY SERMONS ON GOSPEL SUBJECTS. Sm. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 PRAYERS FOR USE IN COLLEGE. i6mo. xs. 
 
 5000/4/99. 
 
 Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty 
 at the Edinburgh University Press. 
 
Date Due 
 
 i?fW3HS^