Chapter IV: Councils of Constantinople, Ephesus, and the General

COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

The legend on which the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary is founded professes to trace the tradition to Juvenal, Archbishop of Jerusalem, when he was sojourning in Constantinople for the purpose of attending the General Council of Chalcedon. To the Emperor and Empress, who presided at that council, Juvenal is said to have communicated the tradition, as received in Palestine, of the miraculous taking up of Mary's body into heaven. This circumstance seems, as we have already intimated, of itself, to require us to examine the records of that Council, with the view of ascertaining whether any traces may be found confirmatory of the tradition, or otherwise; and since that Council cannot be regarded as an insulated assembly, but as a continuation rather or resumption of the preceding minor Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus, we must briefly refer to the occasion and nature generally of that succession of Christian synods. I am not aware that in the previous Councils any thing had transpired {319} which could be brought as evidence on the subject of our inquiry. The questions which had disturbed the peace of Christendom, and which were agitated in these Councils, inseparable from a repeated mention of the Virgin Mary's name, afforded an opportunity at every turn for an expression of the sentiments of those who composed the Councils, and of all connected with them, including the Bishop of Rome himself, towards her. It would be altogether foreign from the purpose of this address to enter in any way at large upon the character and history of those or the preceding Councils, yet a few words seem necessary, to enable us to judge of the nature and weight of the evidence borne by them on the question immediately before us.

The source of all the disputes which then rent the Church of HIM who had bequeathed peace as his last and best gift to his followers, was the anxiety to define and explain the nature of the great Christian mystery, the Incarnation of the Son of God; a point on which it were well for all Christians to follow only so far as the Holy Scriptures lead them by the hand. All parties appealed to the Nicene Council; though there seems to have been, to say the least, much misunderstanding and unnecessary violence and party spirit on all sides. The celebrated Eutyches of Constantinople was charged with having espoused heterodox doctrine, by maintaining that in Christ was only one nature, the incarnate Word. On this charge he was accused before a Council held at Constantinople in A.D. 448. His doctrine was considered to involve a denial of the human nature of the Son of God. The Council condemned him of heresy, deposed, and excommunicated him. From this proceeding Eutyches appealed to a General Council. A council (the authority of which, however, {320} has been solemnly, but with what adequate reason we need not stop to examine, repudiated), was convened at Ephesus in the following year, by the Emperor Theodosius. The proceedings of this assembly were accompanied by lamentable unfairness and violence. Eutyches was acquitted, and restored by this council[122]; and his accusers were condemned and persecuted; Flavianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, who had summoned the preceding council, being even scourged and exiled. In his distress that patriarch sought the good offices of Leo, Bishop of Rome, who espoused his cause, but who failed nevertheless of inducing Theodosius to convene a General Council. His successor Marcian, however, consented; and in the year 451 the Council of Chalcedon was convened, first meeting at Nice, and by adjournment being removed to Chalcedon. In this council all the proceedings as well of the Council of Constantinople as of Ephesus, were rehearsed at length; and from a close examination of the proceedings of those three councils, only one inference seems deducible, namely, that the invocation and worship of saints and of the Virgin Mary had not then obtained that place in the Christian {321} Church, which the Church of Rome now assigns to it; a place, however, which the Church of England, among other branches of the Catholic Church, maintains that it has usurped, and cannot, without a sacrifice of the only sound principle of religious worship, be suffered to retain.

[Footnote 122: The sentiments of Eutyches, even as they are
recorded by the party who charged him with heresy, seem to imply
so much of soundness in his principles, and of moderation in his
maintenance of those principles, that one must feel sorrow on
finding such a man maintaining error at any time. The following
is among the records of transactions rehearsed at Chalcedon:
"He, Eutyches, professed that he followed the expositions of the
holy and blessed Fathers who formed the Councils of Nicæa and
Ephesus, and was ready to subscribe to them. But if any where it
might chance, as he said, that our fathers were deceived and led
astray, that as for himself he neither accepted nor accused
those things, but he only on such points investigated the divine
Scriptures as more to be depended upon [Greek: os
bebaioteras]."]

The grand question then agitated with too much asperity, and too little charity, was, whether by the incarnation our blessed Saviour became possessed of two natures, the divine and human. Subordinate to this, and necessary for its decision, was involved the question, What part of his nature, if any, Christ derived from the Virgin Mary? Again and again does this question bring the name, the office, the circumstances, and the nature of that holy and blessed mother of our Lord before these Councils. The name of Mary is continually in the mouth of the accusers, the accused, the judges, and the witnesses; and had Christian pastors then entertained the same feelings of devotion towards her; had they professed the same belief as to her assumption into heaven, and her influence and authority in directing the destinies of man, and in protecting the Church on earth; had they habitually appealed to her with the same prayers for her intercession and good offices, and placed the same confidence in her as we find now exhibited in the authorized services of the Roman Ritual, it is impossible to conceive that no signs, no intimation of such views and feelings, would, either directly or incidentally, have shown themselves, somewhere or other, among the manifold and protracted proceedings of these Councils. I have searched diligently, but I can find no expression as to her nature and office, or as to our feelings and conduct towards Mary, in which, as a {322} Catholic of the Anglican Church, I should not heartily acquiesce. I can find no sentiment implying invocation, or religious worship of any kind, or in any degree; I find no allusion to her Assumption.

Pope Leo, who is frequently in these documents [Vol. v. p. 1418.] called Archbishop of Rome, in a letter to Julianus, Bishop of Cos, speaks of Christ as born of "A Virgin," "The blessed Virgin," "The pure, undefiled Virgin;" and in a letter to the empress Pulcheria, he calls Mary simply "The Virgin Mary." In his celebrated letter to Flavianus, not one iota of which (according to the decree of the Roman council under Pope Gelasius) was to be questioned by any man on pain of incurring an anathema, Pope Leo says that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary his mother, who brought him forth with the same virgin purity as she had conceived him. Flavianus, Archbishop of Constantinople, in his Declaration of faith to the Emperor Theodosius, affirms, that Christ was born "of Mary, the Virgin--of the same substance with the Father according to his Godhead--of the same substance with his mother according to his manhood." [Vol. vi. p. 539.] He speaks of her afterwards as "The holy Virgin."

There is, indeed, one word used in a quotation from Cyril of Alexandria, and adopted in these transactions, which requires a few words of especial observation. The word is _theotocos_[123], which the Latins were accustomed {323} to transfer into their works, substituting only Roman instead of Greek characters, but which afterwards the authors of the Church of Rome translated by Deipara, and in more recent ages by Dei Mater, Dei Genetrix, Creatoris Genetrix, &c. employing those terms not in explanation of the twofold nature of Christ's person, as was the case in these Councils, but in exaltation of Mary, his Virgin mother. This word was adopted by Christians in much earlier times than the Council of Chalcedon; but it was employed only to express more strongly the Catholic belief in the union of the divine and human nature in Him who was Son both of God and man; and by no means for the purpose of raising Mary into an object of religious adoration. The sense in which it was used was explained in the seventh Act of the Council of Constantinople, (repeated at Chalcedon) as given by Cyril of Alexandria. "According to this sense of an unconfused union, we confess the holy Virgin to be theotocos, because that God the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very conception united with himself the temple received from her."

[Footnote 123: [Greek: Theotokos]. To those who would depend
upon this word _theotocos_ as a proof of the exalted honour in
which the early Christians held the Virgin, and not as
indicative of an anxiety to preserve whole and entire the
doctrine of the union of perfect God and perfect man in Christ,
deriving his manhood through her, I would suggest the necessity
of weighing well that argument with this fact before them; that
to the Apostle James, called in Scripture the Lord's brother,
was assigned the name of Adelphotheos, or God's brother. This
name was given to James, not to exalt him above his
fellow-apostles, but to declare the faith of those who gave it
him in the union of the divine and human nature of Christ.--See
Joan. Damascenus, Hom. ii. c. 18. In Dormit. Virg. vol. ii. p.
881. Le Quien, Paris, 1712. The Latin translation renders it
Domini frater.]

Nothing in our present inquiry turns upon the real {324} meaning of that word _theotocos_. Some who have been among the brightest ornaments of the Anglican Church have adopted the translation "mother of God," whilst many others among us believe that the original sense would be more correctly conveyed by the expression "mother of Him who was God."

I am induced here to lay side by side, with the second Article of our Anglican Church, the Confession of Faith from Cyril, first recited at Constantinople, then repeated at Ephesus, and afterwards again rehearsed at Chalcedon; in its last clause the expression occurs which gave rise to these remarks.

_Ancient Confession._

We confess that our Lord Jesus, the Christ, the only begotten
Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, from a reasonable soul
and body, begotten from everlasting of the Father according to
his Godhead, and in these last days, He the same for us and for
our salvation [was born] of Mary, the Virgin, according to his
manhood--of the same substance with the Father according to his
Godhead, of the same substance with us according to his manhood.
For of two natures there became an union. Wherefore we confess
one Christ, one Lord. According to this sense of the unconfused
union, we confess the holy Virgin to be theotocos, because that
God the Word was made flesh, and became man, and from that very
conception united with himself the temple received from her.

[Vol. vi. p. 736.]

_Second Article of Anglican Church._

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from
everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one
substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the
blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect
natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined
together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one
Christ, very God, and very man; who truly suffered, was
crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and
to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for
actual sins of men. {325}

But there are other points in the course of these important proceedings to which I would solicit your especial attention, with the view of comparing the sentiments of the Bishop of Rome at that day, and also the expressions employed by other Chief Pastors of Christ's flock, with the language of the appointed authorized services of the Roman Church now, and the sentiments of her reigning Pontiff, and of his accredited ministers.

The circumstances of the Church Catholic, as represented in Leo's letter in the fifth century, and the circumstances of the Church of Rome, as lamented by the present Pope in 1832[124], are in many respects very similar. The end desired by Leo and Flavianus, his brother pastor and contemporary, Bishop of Constantinople, and by Gregory, now Bishop of Rome, is one and the same, namely, the suppression of heresy, the prevalence of the truth, and the unity of the Christian Church. But how widely and how strikingly different are the foundations on which they respectively build their hopes for the attainment of that end!

[Footnote 124: "The encyclical letter of our most holy Father,
Pope Gregory, by divine providence, the sixteenth of that name,
to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops."]

The present Roman Pontiff's hopes, and desires, and exhortations are thus expressed[125]:--

[Footnote 125: This is the translation circulated in the Roman
Catholic Annual, p. 15, called, The Laity's Directory for the
year 1833; on the title page of which is this notice: "The
Directory for the Church Service, printed by Messrs. Keating and
Brown, is the only one which is published with the authority of
the Vicars Apostolic in England.--London, Nov. 12, 1829." Signed
"James, Bishop of Usula, Vic. Ap. Lond."]

"That all may have a successful and happy issue, let us raise our eyes to the most blessed Virgin Mary, {326} WHO ALONE DESTROYS HERESIES, who is our GREATEST HOPE, yea, the ENTIRE GROUND OF OUR HOPE[126]. May she exert her patronage to draw down an efficacious blessing on our desires, our plans, and proceedings in the present straitened condition of the Lord's flock. We will also implore, in humble prayer, from Peter, the prince of the Apostles, and from his fellow-Apostle Paul, that you may all stand as a wall to prevent any other foundation than what hath been laid; and supported by this cheering hope, we have confidence that the author and finisher of faith, Jesus Christ, will at last console us all in the tribulations which have found us exceedingly."

[Footnote 126: On this word there is a note of reference to S.
Bern. Serm. de Nat. B.M.V. 7.]

"To you, venerable brethren, and the flocks committed to your care, we most lovingly impart, as auspicious of celestial help, the Apostolic Benediction. Given at Rome from St. Mary Major's, August 15th, the Festival of the Assumption of the same blessed Virgin Mary, the year of our Lord 1832, of our Pontificate the Second."

How deplorable a change, how melancholy a degeneracy is here evinced from the faith, and hopes, and sentiments of Christian bishops in days of old! In the expressed hopes of Leo and Flavianus, you will seek in vain for any reference or allusion "to the blessed Virgin Mary, as the destroyer of heresies, the greatest hope, the entire ground of a Christian's hope;" you will in vain seek for any exhortation for the faithful "to raise their eyes to her in order to obtain a merciful and happy issue." Equally vain would be your search for any "imploring in humble prayer," of Peter and Paul, or any even distant allusion to help from them. {327} To God and God alone are the faithful exhorted to pray; on God and God alone do those Christians express that their hopes rely; God alone they regard as the destroyer of heresy, the restorer of peace, and the protector of the Church's unity. "Their greatest hope, yea, the entire ground of their hope," the Being to be "implored in humble prayer," is not Mary, nor Peter, nor Paul, but God alone, the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier of Mary, and of Peter, and of Paul.

Thus Flavian writing to Leo says, "Wherefore (in consequence of those errors, and heresies, and distractions, which he had deplored) we must be sober and watch unto prayer, and draw nigh to God." [Vol. v. 1330.] And again, "Thus will the heresy which has arisen, and the consequent commotion, be easily destroyed by your holy letters with the assistance of God." [Vol. v. 1355.] Thus Leo in his turn writing to Julian, Bishop of Cos, utters this truly Christian sentiment. "May the mercy of God, as we trust, grant that without the loss of any soul, against the darts of the devil the sound parts may be entirely preserved, and the wounded parts may be healed. May God preserve you safe and sound, most honoured brother!" [Vol. v. 1423.] Thus the same Bishop of Rome writing to Flavian, expresses his hopes in these words: "Confidently trusting that the help of God will be present, so that one who has been misled, condemning the vanity of his own thoughts, may be saved. May God preserve you in health and strength, most beloved brother!" [Vol. v. 1390.]

I will detain you by only one more reference to these most interesting documents. The whole Council of Chalcedon, at the conclusion of all, and when the {328} triumph was considered to have been secured over Eutyches, and their gratitude was expressed that the heresies had been destroyed--instead of referring to Mary as the "sole destroyer of heresies," shout, as if with the voice of one man, from every side, "It is God alone who hath done this!" [Vol. vii. p. 174.] Neither antecedently did their chief pastors exhort them to raise their eyes to Mary, and promise to "implore" the blessing they needed, "in humble prayer from Peter and Paul." Neither "in the straitened condition of the Lord's flock" did they invoke any other than God. And when truth prevailed, and the victory was won, whilst they were lavish of their grateful thanks to the emperor and his queen, who were present and had succoured them; of help from the invisible world they make no mention, save only of the Lord's; they had implored neither angel, nor saints, nor Virgin to be their protector and patron; no angel, nor saint, nor virgin, shared their praises;--God alone was exalted in that day.

And, let not the answer, ever at hand when reference is thus made to the prayers or professions of individuals, whether popes or canonized saints, seduce any now from a pursuit of the very truth. These, it is said, "are the prayers and professions of individuals, it is unfair then to make the Church responsible for them; we appeal from them to the Church." But in this case the words of the Sovereign Pontiff are in good faith the words of the Church of Rome; not because I at all would identify the words of a Pope with the Church, but because the prayers of the Church of Rome in her authorized solemn services and acts of worship justify {329} Pope Gregory in every sentiment he utters, and every expression he employs. Does Gregory bid the faithful lift up their eyes to Mary the sole destroyer of heresies? The Roman ritual in the Lesser Office of the holy Virgin thus addresses her, "Rejoice, O Mary Virgin; thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world:" And again: "Under thy protection we take refuge, holy parent of God; despise not thou our prayers in our necessities, but from all dangers ever deliver us, O glorious and blessed Virgin." Does Gregory assure the faithful that he will implore in humble prayer of Peter and Paul? in doing so he is only treading in the very footsteps of the Roman Church itself. In an address, which we have already quoted (see p. 262), Peter is thus invoked. "Now O good shepherd, merciful Peter, accept the prayers of us who supplicate, and loose the bands of our sins, by the power committed to thee, by which thou shuttest heaven against all by a word, and openest it."

These things are now; but from the beginning it was not so. {330}

* * * * *