« PreviousContinue »
the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church and of the orthodox faith, deprives him of the Episcopal dignity and every sacerdotal ministry.”
In the fourth Session the question of the definition of faith came on again, and the Council got no further than this, that it received the definition of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but would not add to them. One hundred and sixty Bishops however subscribed the Tome of St. Leo.
In the fifth Session the question came on once more; a definition of faith was the result of the labours of the committee, and was accepted by the great majority of the Council. The Bishops cried out, “ We are all satisfied with the definition; it is the faith of the Fathers: anathema to him who thinks otherwise: drive out the Nestorians.” Objectors appeared, but Anatolius, the new Patriarch of Constantinople, asked, “Did not every one yesterday consent to the definition of faith?” The Bishops answered, “Every one consented; we do not believe otherwise; it is the Faith of the Fathers; let it be set down that Holy Mary is the Mother of God: let this be added to the Creed; put out the Nestorians."1 The objectors were the Pope's Legates, who were supported by some Orientals: those clearsighted, firm-minded Latins understood full well what and what alone was the true expression of orthodox doctrine under the emergency of the existing heresy. They had been instructed to induce the Council to pass a declaration to the effect, that Christ was not only “of,” but “in” two natures. However, they did not enter upon disputation on the point, but they used a more intelligible argument: “ If the Fathers did not consent to the letter of the blessed Bishop Leo," they would leave the Council and go home. The Imperial officers took the part of the Legates. The Council however persisted: “Every one approved the definition; let it be subscribed : he who refuses to subscribe it is a heretic.” They even proceeded to refer it to Divine inspiration. The officers asked if they received St. Leo's Tome; they answered that they had subscribed it, but that they would not introduce its contents into their definition of faith. “We are for no other definition,” they said ; “nothing is wanting in this.”
| Ibid. 20.
Notwithstanding, the Pope's Legates gained their point through the support of the Emperor Marcian, who had succeeded Theodosius. A fresh committee was obtained under the threat that, if they resisted, the Council should be transferred to the West. Some voices were raised against this measure; the cries were repeated against the Roman party, “ They are Nestorians; let them go to Rome.” The Imperial officers remonstrated, “Dioscorus said, “Of two natures;' Leo says, “Two natures:' which will you follow, Leo or Dioscorus ?” On their answering “Leo,” they continued, “Well then, add to the definition, according to the judgment of our most holy Leo." Nothing more was to be said. The committee immediately proceeded to their work, and in a short time returned to the assembly with such a definition as the Pope required. After reciting the Creed of Nicæa and Constantinople, it observes, “This Creed were sufficient for the perfect knowledge of religion, but the enemies of the truth have invented novel expressions;" and therefore it proceeds to state the faith more explicitly. When this was read through, the Bishops all exclaimed, “ This is the faith of the Fathers; we all follow it." And thus ended the controversy once for all.
The Council, after its termination, addressed a letter to St. Leo; in it the Fathers acknowledge him as “constituted interpreter of the voice of Blessed Peter,”1 with an allusion to St. Peter's Confession in Matthew xvi., and speak of him as
Conc. Hard. t. 2, p. 656.
“the very one commissioned with the guardianship of the Vine by the Saviour."
Such is the external aspect of those proceedings by which the Catholic faith has been established in Christendom against the Monophysites. That the definition passed at Chalcedon is the Apostolic Truth once delivered to the Saints is most firmly to be received, from faith in that overruling Providence which is by special promise extended over the acts of the Church; moreover, that it is in simple accordance with the faith of St. Athanasius, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and all the other Fathers, will be evident to the theological student in proportion as he becomes familiar with their works: but the historical account of the Council is this, that a doctrine which the Creed did not declare, which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its Bishops, and refused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council, not indeed as a Creed, yet, on the other hand, not for subscription merely, but for its acceptance as a definition of faith under the sanction of an anathema, forced on the Council by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power.
It cannot be supposed that such a transaction would approve itself to the Churches of Egypt, and the event showed it: they disowned the authority of the Council, and called its adherents Chalcedonians, and Synodites.2 Here was the West tyran
"I cannot find my reference for this fact ; the sketch is formed from notes made some years since, though I have now verified them. 2 Leont. de Sect. v. p. 512.
tianity has successful pole church, the ncarnate,' then, had both prom fathers that catest
nizing over the East, forcing it into agreement with itself, resolved to have one and one only form of words, rejecting the definition of faith which the East had drawn up in Council, bidding it and making it frame another, dealing peremptorily and sternly with the assembled Bishops, and casting contempt on the most sacred traditions of Egypt. What was Eutyches to them? He might be guilty or innocent; they gave him up: Dioscorus had given him up at Chalcedon;t they did not agree with him :2 he was an extreme man; they would not call themselves by human titles; they were not Eutychians; Eutyches was not their master, but Athanasius and Cyril were their doctors. The two great lights of their Church, the two greatest and most successful polemical Fathers that Christianity had seen, had both pronounced“ One Nature Incarnate," though allowing Two before the Incarnation; and though Leo and his Council had not gone so far as to deny this phrase, they had proceeded to say what was the contrary to it, to explain away, to overlay the truth, by defining that the Incarnate Saviour was “in Two Natures.” At Ephesus it had been declared that the Creed should not be touched; the Chalcedonian Fathers had, not literally, but virtually added to it: by subscribing Leo's Tome, and promulgating their definition of faith, they had added what might be called, “The Creed of Pope Leo,"
It is remarkable, as has been just stated, that Dioscorus, wicked man as he was in act, was of the moderate or middle school in doctrine, as the violent and able Severus after him; and from the first the great body of the protesting party disowned Eutyches, whose form of the heresy took refuge in Armenia, where it remains to this day. The Armenians alone were pure Eutychians, and 1 Concil. Hard. t. 2, p. 99, vid. also p. 418. 2 Renaud. Patr. Alex. p. 115. so zealously such that they innovated on the ancient and recognised custom of mixing water with the wine in the Holy Eucharist, and consecrated the wine by itself in token of the one nature, as they considered, of the Christ. Elsewhere both name and doctrine of Eutyches were abjured; the heretical bodies in Egypt and Syria took a title from their tenet, and formed the Monophysite communion. Their theology was at once simple and specious. They based it upon the illustration which is familiar to us in the Athanasian Creed, and which had been used by St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyril, St. Augustine, Vincent of Lerins, not to say St. Leo himself. They argued that as body and soul made up one man, so God and man made up but one, though one compound Nature, in Christ. It might have been charitably hoped that their difference from the Catholics had been a simple matter of words, as it is allowed by Vigilius of Thapsa really to have been in many cases; but their refusal to obey the voice of the Church was an omen of error in their faith, and its secret heterodoxy is proved by their connexion, in spite of themselves, with the extreme or ultra party whom they so vehemently disowned. It is very observable that, ingenious as is their theory and sometimes perplexing to a disputant, the Monophysites never could shake themselves free of the Eutychians; and though they could draw intelligible lines on paper between the two doctrines, yet in fact by a hidden fatality their partizans were ever running into or forming alliance with the anathematized extreme. Thus Peter the Fuller, the Theopaschite (Eutychian), is at one time in alliance with Peter the Stammerer, who advocated the Henoticon (Monophysite). The Acephali, though separating from the latter Peter for that advocacy, and accused by Leontius of being Gaianites? (Eutychians), are considered
3 Assem. B. 0. t. 2, pp. 133–137.