50 where; and to secure the West, summoned Vigilius to Constantinople. While there, that bishop was induced to acknowledge the decree, and to condemn the Three Chapters in the Judicatum. Still, this even did not change the opinions of the West. Vigilius was himself subsequently shaken, refusing, after the Council at Constantinople of bishops from Africa and Illyrica, called to ratify more fully the decree, to sanction the Emperor's second edict. When Justinian undertook to punish him for his contumacy, he took refuge in a church, clinging so closely to the altar that it was almost pulled from its place by the imperial officer who endeavored to arrest him. The officer did not succeed in tearing him away. 51 To close these troubles the Emperor called the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which convened under the Patriarch Eutychius. Vigilius, when invited, positively refused to attend, and in the Constitutem ad imperatorem defended the Three Chapters. He acknowledged that there were certain heresies in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but affirmed that neither he nor his works could be anathematized, as he had departed from this world in full fellowship with the Church. Theodoret and Ibas, or their writings, could not be interfered with in any event, without at the same time condemning the Council of Chalcedon, by which they had been pronounced Orthodox. Justinian, in response to this, hinted to the Council that Vigilius had placed himself without the pale of the Church. The hint was taken, and the Roman Bishop was disfellowshipped. All the Emperor desired, also, was granted by the obsequious assembly, which anathematized afresh the Three Chapters. It certainly was not intended by Theodorus, the leading spirit at this Council, that Origenism should be brought before it, or in any way noticed. Nor is it at all certain that it was. Authorities are yet divided upon this point." 83 There appear 50 Epis. Just. ad Concil. Ecum. v. Mansi, ix. 181. 51 Ibid. ix. 537. Comp. xi. 151. 53 62 Mansi, ix. 61-106. 53 On the condemnation of Origenism by the Council Schol. E. H. Lib. iv. c. xxxvii; Basnage, Lib. x. c. vi. Huet. Origen, Lib. ii. c. 4. no particulars in its acts confirmatory of the condemnation of Origenism as such. The fifteen canons already referred to have been thought, from their title, to have there originated. But it is altogether likely, certainly by no means impossible, that this convention was, by some, subsequently confounded with the Home Synod held by Mennas. We strongly incline to this opinion, though, of course, unwilling to assume directly that the Fifth Ecumenical Council did not condemn Origenism, and so condemn Universalism. The statements in reference to the subject, in connection with this Council, make it appear that it was suddenly and very unexpectedly brought to the notice of the Emperor, on account of the Origenistic troubles in Palestine. He was waited upon by deputies from Jerusalem, under the abbot of S. Sabas. The deputation insisted upon attention being given to their complaints, and required the condemnation of Origenism. The whole affair was then left with Justinian. He, ready always to intermeddle with Church affairs, and already pledged against Origenism, and being also spurred on by emissaries of the Roman court, sent directions to the assembled Council to examine and brand the teachings of Origen. The Council did not hesitate to obey. It was composed almost wholly of Eastern ecclesiastics; and these in council or otherwise, nearly always proved servilely obedient to imperial behests-even in matters of religion. Theodorus of Ascidas, it is stated, attempted to stem the tide and evade the storm; but his efforts were in vain, and the anathema was uttered. Among the "heresies" mentioned was the doctrine of the final salvation of all human souls. At the same time, also, according to the accounts, were anathematized for their Origenistic views of Pre-existence and Universal Salvation, Didymus, the blind, of Alexandria, and Evagrius of Pontus, the Nitrian monk. S. M. §§ 14-16; Fleury, Lib. xxxiii. c. 40, 51; Cyril, Scytho. Vita S. Sabæ, c. 90. Contra, Dupin. Bib. Pat. Art. 5th Ecum. Coun. T. V.; Walch, Ketzerhist. vii. 660, viii. 280; M. Le Quien, Oriens Chris. iii. 210. Gieseler affirms that Origenism was not touched by this Council. Neander says nothing whatever upon either side, apparently thus agreeing with Gieseler. Mosheim speaks of its condemnation at this time. But his notes on the subject question it. The Council was convened and designed for another purpose than the condemnation of Origenism. Of this there can be no question. If it were obtained, it was from an afterthought. It is true that the anathema upon Universalism by this Council would be the anathema, in theory, of the entire Church. Its action, especially as years and centuries rolled on, would appear as the voice of Christendom, and thus with very many as the voice of God. The action, however, of even a General Council, did not, at the time, convince all, or convert all. In sober fact, this Council of A. D. 553 was by no means really Ecumenical. It was made up, almost wholly, from the Eastern clergy. The West had little voice and little interest in it. It was notoriously controlled by imperial influence. The Bishop of Rome was not present in any way, positively refusing to meet with it; so that the Council acted without his sanction, after breaking communion with him. Nor did its transactions for a long time receive anything like universal recognition. Vigilius withstood it long and earnestly, though he was subsequently, in order to gain his freedom from imperial power, induced to confirm its decisions." Pelagius I., the successor of Vigilius, adhered to the Council; but his conduct created serious trouble in the Western churches. He was, also, compelled to humble himself in an attempt to justify his course, confirming the condemnation of the Three Chapters, before Childebert of Germany." 55 If, then, we acknowledge the condemnation of Universalism by this Council, the conditions of its formation, its general characteristics, and the opposition it so long met, especially in the West, with the foreignness of its intention to touch Origenism, must deprive it of a large portion of the authority it might have otherwise possessed. Viewed thus, its condemnation can scarcely be accepted as genuinely œcumenical. On the other hand, if the subject of Origenism did not come before, and was not considered by this Council, but we are to find its real condemnation in the Synod under Mennas, — then, thus far, we have no anathemas of the Church Universal upon 55 Pelag. I. Eph. 16, ad Childeb. Reg. Mansi, ix. 728. 54 Mansi, ix. 413. the doctrine of the final Restoration of all souls. A Home Synod could not decide the faith of the Church. Granting that tradition is correct in ascribing the condemnation of Universalism to the Council of A. D. 553; granting, moreover, that that Council was really Ecumenical, we have, further, this remarkable fact: That it took the Church more than five centuries and a half, during all which time Universalism was so generally believed and taught, to discover that the doctrine was false, and worthy of the anathema. Even then, it will be borne in mind, the Church did not intend to condemn. But the necessity of doing so was sprung upon it by designing men and an unscrupulous and intermeddling Emperor. There was nothing in the necessity of the Church calling for such action, except that it was rapidly degenerating, and it needed the "light of life" should be eclipsed in order to allow the degeneration full scope, and to enable its earthly power to rise on the ruins of the "faith once delivered to the saints," and the spiritual power it imparted. After this Council, the Church rapidly passed under the clouds of the Dark Ages, and their gloom rested upon it for centuries. Nevertheless, Universalism, though branded again and again, was never lost from the world, or even the Church, but can be traced through all the darkness, shining steadily and benignly. ARTICLE XXIV. The Pre-existence of Jesus Christ. 1 BEFORE coming to the examination of those passages directly relating to the subject of this paper, we ought, perhaps, to give some attention to that title by which Jesus sometimes spoke of himself, and which was often applied to him by others, namely, "the Son of God;" especially in connection with the phrases"first-born," "only-begotten," etc. In the Jewish use, this expression was not so restricted in meaning as it has become with us. With Christians it is seldom used, except as a title of the Messiah; but a slight examination of the Old Testament shows that it is there used with a much greater latitude. The Jewish people, in their Egyptian bondage, are collectively called the son of God, "even the first-born." The last term and its equivalents, "only," "well-beloved" and "only-begotten," so often applied to Jesus, are terms of which we fail to appreciate the true force, because our manners and laws attach to the first-born no such importance as the Jews did, and out of which the special meaning of these terms grew. Beside the legal right to a double portion of the property of the family, with the hereditary honors and privileges of the house, there was a mystical sanctity attached to the first-born son, from the fact that he was consecrated to the Lord, and must be redeemed with a price. Hence he was regarded with peculiar tenderness, as the hope and promise of the house. If he were also an only son, these feelings would be so much the more intense, and his death would be deemed specially afflictive. The expression, therefore, came to be used as a term of endearment, much as we use the words "beloved," or darling," and must often be interpreted, not literally, but figuratively. 66 1 Ex. iv. 22. 2 Deut. xxi. 16, 17; 1 Chron. xxvi. 10; 2 Chron. xxi. 3. 3 Ex. xii. 2; xxii. 29; xxxiv. 20, 21; Num. iii. 12, 13, 41, 45; viii.17, 18; xviii. 15. 4 Jer. vi. 26; Amos viii. 10; Luke vii. 12; Heb. xi. 17. |