Chapter V: Part 5

I think it fair to admit that the germ of something very like the present papal system, without, however, such a wonderful concentration and absorption of all power, is discernible in these words. I shall give further on, Bossuet's interpretation of their most remarkable expression. But it is also certain that such is not the view of the Church's government set before us by St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, St. Vincent of Lerins, and the Fathers generally, nor the one supported by the acts of the ancient Church. There is a very distinct tone in the teaching and acts of St. Leo, and the other Popes generally, from that of the contemporary Bishops and Fathers who had not succeeded to St. Peter's own see. It consists in dwelling on the Primacy so strongly, as quite to throw out of view the apostolic powers of other Bishops; whereas these latter dwell upon the apostolic powers of the episcopate generally; and, while they admit St. Peter's Primacy and that of the Roman see, place the government of the Church in the harmonious agreement of all. St. Leo's view, rigorously carried out, as it has been by the later Roman Church, substitutes St. Peter singly, for St. Peter and his brethren; and this usurpation, I repeat, we have to admit afresh, or else be accounted heretics and schismatics.

Now, as to the government of which St. Leo had the ideal before him, I must first remark that it was _new_. He says himself to the Bishop of Thessalonica: "The government of Churches in Illyricum, which we commit in our stead to your affection, following the example of Siricius of blessed memory, who to your predecessor Anysius of holy memory _then first committed with a certain charge_ the supporting of the Churches of that province, which he desired to be maintained in discipline."[73] That is, it was scarcely sixty years since Pope Siricius had selected the Bishop of the Metropolis to keep a watch over the maintenance of the canons. And now Pope Leo was already requiring the Metropolitans to consecrate no Bishop without first consulting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his vicar.

Secondly, this proceeding on the part of the Popes was not submitted to generally, even throughout the West. The "Codex Ecclesiae Africanae" is full of prohibitions against even appealing to "Bishops beyond the sea," _i.e._ the Pope. In St. Augustin's time, as we have seen, they positively forbad the Pope's interference with their internal government, and only submitted to it after they had been enfeebled by the irruption of the Vandals.

Thirdly, this power was set up very much indeed by help of the imperial authority. The process, in fact, of centralizing in the Church, ran completely parallel with that in the State. The law of Valentinian, above mentioned, is a strong proof of this. Of course the object of the emperors was to control the action of the Church through one Bishop made the chief. But it is somewhat remarkable that that Church which maintains a standing protest against the interference of the State with spiritual matters, (a protest for which she is worthy of all respect and admiration,) should owe to the support of the State, in different periods of her history, very much more of her power than any other Church. It may be that God rewards the fearless maintenance of spiritual rights by the grant of that very temporal power which threatens them with destruction.

Now as we have had St. Jerome in a noted place appealing to Rome, and acknowledging her primacy, let us take another passage of his which, I think, implicitly denies St. Leo's view. Arguing then against the pride of the Roman deacons, in which city, as they were only seven in number, the office was in higher estimation than even the priesthood, which was numerous, he observes, "Nor is the Church of the Roman city to be considered one, and that of the whole world another. Both the Gauls, and the Britains, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all barbarous nations, adore one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you require authority, _the world is greater than the city_. Wherever a bishop is, be it at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanae, he is of the same rank, the same priesthood. The power of riches, and the humility of poverty, make a bishop neither higher nor lower. But all are successors of the Apostles. But you say, how is it that at Rome a priest is ordained upon the testimony of a deacon? Why allege to me _the custom of a single city_? Why defend against the laws of the Church a fewness of number, which is the source of their pride?"[74] The very force of St. Leo's view lies in the exact contradictory of St. Jerome's words: viz. _the city is greater than the world_, and this alone justifies and bears out the present claim of the Roman see, and its attitude both to those within, and to those without, its pale.

But fourthly, had this government, as imaged out by St. Leo, been submitted to not only in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Illyricum, but throughout the West generally, all this would still be nothing for its catholicity, and therefore its binding effect, unless it had been allowed by the East. Now we have the strongest proof that it never was so allowed. This interference, and much more, the centralization pointed at, as it never would have been tolerated, so neither was it attempted, in the patriarchates of the East. There was far less danger of the patriarchal power becoming excessive, when it was possessed by five, who were a check to each other. St. Leo's influence and authority in the West were balanced by the exercise of like influence and authority in the East, originally by the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and at this and later times still more by that of Constantinople. And though throughout the East the Bishop of Rome was reckoned the first of these in rank, yet the Easterns were governed entirely by their own Patriarchs. So far from there being any authority delegated by Rome to the Eastern Patriarchs, there was no appeal from them to Rome, that is to say, in a matter belonging to their particular government; for as to the general faith of the Church, in any peculiar emergency or violation of the usual order of procedure, there was an appeal, if not lawful, at least exercised, to any of the Patriarchs. Thus Theodoret of Cyrus, unjustly deposed by Dioscorus of Alexandria in the Latrocinium of Ephesus, flies "to the Apostolic throne" of St. Leo; "for in all things it is becoming that you should have the primacy. For your throne is adorned with many advantages. It has the sepulchres of our common Fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul. These have made your throne exceedingly illustrious. This is the height of your blessings."[75] Though a supplicant, he addresses him only as first Bishop of the Church, not as monarch. It is a virtual denial of the present Papal authority, because a silence, where it would have been put forward, had it been known. So the heretic Eutyches, before the council of his own Patriarch, "when his deposition was read, appealed to the holy synod of the most holy Bishop of Rome, and Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and Thessalonica."[76] Thus St. Isidore of Spain, in the sixth century, says: "The order of Bishops is fourfold; that is, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Bishops. In Greek a Patriarch is called the first of the Fathers, because he holds the first, that is, the Apostolic place, and therefore, because he holds the highest rank, he has such an appellation, as the Roman, the Antiochene, and the Alexandrine."[77] Accordingly Gieseler says, "At the end of this period," (A.D. 451,) the four Patriarchs of the East "were held in their patriarchates for ecclesiastical centres, to which the other Bishops had to attach themselves for maintenance of ecclesiastical unity; and in conjunction with their patriarchal synod they formed the highest tribunal of appeal in all ecclesiastical matters of the patriarchate; whilst, on the other hand, they were treated as the highest representatives of the Church, who, through mutual communication with each other, were to maintain the unity of the universal Church, and without whose concurrence no decrees concerning the whole Church could be made."[78]

But no more certain proof of the independence of the Eastern Church can be given than the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Constantinople to the Pope and the Western Bishops. This was a Synod of purely Eastern Bishops, held in 381, which afterwards, by the consent of the Western Church, became Ecumenical. This Council "arranged, without any reference to the West, the affairs of the Oriental Church, and was even quite openly on the side of the party of Meletius, rejected by the Westerns; just so the interference attempted by the Italian Bishops in the matter of Maximus, the counter-Bishop of Constantinople, remained quite disregarded."[79] They write thus: "To our most honoured Lords and pious brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus," of Rome, "Ambrosius," of Milan, "Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius, and the other holy Bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy Synod of orthodox Bishops assembled in the great city of Constantinople greeting in the Lord."[80] Then after informing them what they had decreed concerning the highest matters of the faith, they go on--"But as to the management of particular matters in the Churches, both an ancient fundamental principle, ([Greek: thesmos],) as ye know, hath prevailed, and the rule of the holy Fathers at Nicea, that in each province those of the province," _i.e._ the Bishops, "and if they be willing, their neighbours also, should make the elections according as they judge meet. In accordance with which know ye both that the rest of the Churches are administered by us, and that Priests of the most distinguished Churches have been appointed. Whence in the, so to say, newly-founded Church of Constantinople, which by the mercy of God we have snatched as it were out of the jaws of the lion, from subjection to the blasphemy of the heretics, we have elected Bishop the most reverend and pious Nectarius, in an Ecumenical[81] Council, with common agreement, in the sight both of the most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the consent of all the Clergy and the whole city. And those," the Bishops, "both of the province and of the diocese[82] of the East, being canonically assembled, the whole accordant Church as with one voice honouring the man, have elected the most reverend and religious Bishop Flavian to the most ancient and truly apostolical Church of Antioch in Syria, where first the venerable name of Christian became known: which legitimate election the whole Synod hath received." (And this notwithstanding the Bishop Paulinus, who was received by Rome and the West, had survived St. Meletius, and was then alive. So that they would not, even when such an opportunity occurred, accept the Bishop in communion with Rome--a fact on the one side, which I suppose may weigh against those words of St. Jerome on the other, "I know not Vitalis; Meletius I reject; I am ignorant of Paulinus." Quoted, p. 26. It seems that though the test of communion with Rome satisfied St. Jerome, it did not satisfy an Ecumenical Council.) "But of the Church in Jerusalem, _the mother of all Churches_, we declare that the most reverend and religious Cyril is Bishop, both as long since canonically elected by those of his province, and as having struggled much against the Arians in different places. Whom, as being lawfully and canonically established by us, we invite your piety also to congratulate, through spiritual love, and the fear of the Lord, which represses all human affection, and accounts the edification of the Churches more precious than sympathy with, or favour of, individuals. For thus, by agreement in the word of faith, and by the establishment of Christian love in us, we shall cease to say what the Apostle has condemned--I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. For all being shown to be Christ's, who in us is not divided, by the help of God we shall keep the body of the Church unrent, and shall stand with confidence before the tribunal of the Lord."

Here is the whole East, in the year 381, long before the schism, announcing to the Bishops of Rome, Milan, Aquilea, and the West, the election of its Patriarchs, and exercising as an ancient incontestable right that liberty of self-government, according to the canons, for continuing to do which very thing, and for nothing else, the Latin Church accounts both the Greek and English Church schismatic. Now the Eastern Church, as its own rituals to this day declare, always acknowledged St. Peter's primacy, and that his primacy was inherited by the Bishop of Rome; but it is apparent at once that it never received, nay most strongly abhorred, that system of centralization of all power in Rome, which St. Leo seems to have had before his eyes. Its most holy and illustrious Fathers never submitted to this domination. St. Basil had already complained of the Western pride, ([Greek: dutike ophrus].)[83] St. Gregory of Nazianzum is that very Archbishop by whose voluntary cession and advice Nectarius is elected. St. Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter, brothers of St. Basil, are in this council, and so St. Cyril of Jerusalem. And yet Bellarmine will have it that Bishops who so wrote and so acted received their jurisdiction from Rome; and what is far more important, if they did not, the present Papal theory falls to the ground.

When Gieseler speaks of "the principle of the mutual independence of the Western and Eastern Church being firmly held in the East generally,"[84] of course it must be understood that there can be no independence, strictly so called, in the Church and Body of Christ. Independence annihilates membership and coherence. Accordingly, I am fully prepared to admit that the Primacy of the Roman See, even among the Patriarchs, was a real thing; not a mere title of honour. The power of the First See was really exerted in difficult conjunctures to keep the whole body together. I am quite aware that the Bishop of Rome could do, what the Bishop of Alexandria, or of Antioch, or of Constantinople, or of Jerusalem, could not do. Even merely as standing at the head of the whole West he counterbalanced all the four. But I accept _bona fide_ what Socrates and Sozomen tell us. I believe they had before them neither the Papal Empire of St. Gregory the Seventh, nor the maxims of the Reformation. They are unbiassed witnesses. Sozomen then tells us, that when St. Athanasius, unjustly deposed, fled to Rome for justice, together with Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, "the Bishop of the Romans, having inquired into the accusations against each, when he found them all agreeing with the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, admitted them to communion as agreeing with him. _And inasmuch as the care of all belonged to him on account of the rank of his See, he restored to each his Church_. And he wrote to the Bishops throughout the East, &c., which they took very ill;"[85] so ill, indeed, that they afterwards pronounced a sentence of deposition against the Pope himself. Again, Pope Julius "wrote to them, accusing them of secretly undermining the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, and that, contrary to the laws of the Church, they had not called him to their Council. _For that it was an hierarchical law to declare null what was done against the sentence of the Bishop of the Romans._"[86] That is, in matters concerning the state of the whole Church, as was this cause of Athanasius. So Socrates says, in reference to the same matter, that Pope Julius asserted to the Bishops of the East, that "they were breaking the Canons in not having called him to their Council, _the ecclesiastical Canon ordering that the Churches should not make Canons contrary to the sentence of the Bishop of Rome_."[87] These passages mark the prerogative of the First See: yet are they quite compatible with the general self-government of the Eastern Church. No doubt, when the Patriarchs of the East were at variance, all would look for support to him who was both the first of their number, and stood alone with the whole West to back him.

And thus again in St. Leo's time a very extraordinary emergency arose, which still further raised the credit of the Roman Patriarch. Dioscorus of Alexandria, supporting the heretic Eutyches, had, by help of the Emperor, deposed and murdered St. Flavian of Constantinople: Juvenal of Jerusalem was greatly involved in this transaction. Dioscorus had then consecrated Anatolius to be the successor of St. Flavian, and Anatolius had consecrated Maximus to Antioch, instead of Domnus, who, too, had been irregularly deposed after St. Flavian. Now, had Dioscorus been otherwise blameless, his consecrating Anatolius, of his own authority, to Constantinople, and Anatolius then consecrating Maximus to Antioch, without the participation of Rome, was an infringement of the just rights of the Primacy; as a Patriarch could not be deposed without the concurrence of the First See. Thus the whole East was in confusion. A heretic had been absolved; one Patriarch murdered, two deposed; and of the other two, one was chief agent, and the other not clear, in these transactions. No wonder that at the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome appeared at the head of the West, both to vindicate his own violated rights, for Dioscorus had even deposed him, and as the restorer of true doctrine, and the deliverer of the Church.

But I must now quote, at considerable length, the argument of Bossuet, and his statement as to where the sovereign power in the Church resides. We have already seen what he has said respecting the Council of Ephesus; and his observations on that of Chalcedon and the four succeeding Councils are equally important. His argument, which was intended for the justification of the Gallican Church, really reaches to that of the Greek and English Church also; and it is of the very utmost value, as it rests upon authorities which are sacrosanct in the eyes of every Catholic--the proceedings and decrees of Ecumenical Councils. Let it only be remembered, that I quote no German rationalist, no one who denies either the doctrine or hierarchy of the Church; but a Catholic prelate, the most strenuous defender of the faith, and one who, in the great assembly of his brethren, cried out, "If I forget thee, Church of Rome, may I forget myself; may my tongue dry, and remain motionless in my mouth, if thou art not always the first in my remembrance, if I place thee not at the beginning of all my songs of joy."[88]

The question then at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be the first of the Patriarchs, and first Bishop of the whole world, the head of the Apostolic college, and holding among them the place which Peter held, all which I freely acknowledge, as the testimony of antiquity; or whether he be, further, not only this, but the source of all jurisdiction, uniting in his single person all those powers which belonged to Peter and the Apostles collectively: an idea which, however extravagant, is actually maintained at present in the Church of Rome, is moreover absolutely necessary to justify its acts, and to condemn the position of the Greek and English Church. Bossuet, who fought for the Gallican liberties, fought for the Anglican likewise.

"Let[89] us now review the Acts of the General Council of Chalcedon. The previous facts were these. The two natures of Christ were confounded by Eutyches, an Archimandrite and Abbot of Constantinople, an old man no less obstinate than out of his senses. He then was condemned by his own Bishop, St. Flavian of Constantinople, and appealed to all the Patriarchs, but chiefly to the Roman Pontiff. Leo writes to Flavian, and 'orders everything to be laid before him.' Flavian answers and requests of Leo 'that, making his own the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches, he should, at the same time, decree that the condemnation of Eutyches was regularly passed, and by his own words should strengthen the faith of the Emperor.' He added, 'For the cause only needs your support and definition; and you should, by your own determination, bring it to peace.' This means, it is plain and clear, it has yet few followers, and those obscure, and of no great name. He ends, 'For so the heresy which has arisen will be most easily destroyed, by the cooperation of God, through your letters; and the Council, of which there are rumours, be given up, that the holy Churches be not disturbed.' This, too, is in accordance with discipline, for heresies to be immediately suppressed, first by the Bishop's care, then by that of the Apostolic See: nor is it forthwith necessary that an universal Council be assembled, and the peace of all Churches troubled.

"After the proceedings had been sent to Leo, he writes to Flavian, most fully and clearly setting forth the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, as he says himself, and as all Churches bear witness; at the same time he praises the acts of Flavian, and condemns Eutyches, yet with the grant of indulgence, should he make amends. This is that noble and divine letter which was afterwards so warmly celebrated through the whole Church, and which I wish to be understood so often as I name simply Leo's letter.

"And here the question might have been terminated, but for those incidents which induced the Emperor Theodosius the younger to call the Synod of Ephesus. He was the same who had appointed the First Council of Ephesus, under Coelestine and Cyril.

"Of this Synod St. Leo writes to Theodosius, at first, 'that the matter was so evident, that for reasonable causes the calling of a Synod should be abstained from.' And Flavian likewise seemed to have been against this. But after the Emperor, with good intentions, had convoked the Synod, Leo gives his consent, and sends the letter to the Synod, in which he praises the Emperor for being willing to hold an assembly of Bishops, 'that by a fuller judgment all error may be done away with.' He mentions that he had sent Legates, who, says he, 'in my stead shall be present at the sacred assembly of your Brotherhood, and determine, by a joint sentence with you, what shall please the Lord.'

"Here are three points: first, that in questions of faith it is not always necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be assembled. Secondly, that Leo, great Pontiff as he was, did not decline a judgment, if the cause required it, after the matter had been judged by himself. Thirdly, that, if a Synod were held, it behoved that all error should be done away with by a fuller judgment, and the question be terminated by the Apostolic See, by a joint sentence with the Bishops, in which he acknowledges that full force of consent, so often mentioned by me.

"But after Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, the protector of Eutyches, had done every thing with violence and crime, and not a Council, but an assembly of robbers downright, had been held at Ephesus, then, when the Episcopal order had been divided, and the whole Church thrown into confusion, under the name of the Second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, Leo himself admits that a new general Council must be held, which should either remove or mitigate all offences, so that there should no longer be either any doubt as to faith, or division in charity. Therefore he perceived that schisms, and such a fluctuation of minds respecting the faith itself, could not be sufficiently removed by his own judgment. And the Pontiff, no less wise and good than resolute, demanded a fuller, firmer, greater judgment, by the authority of a General Council, by which, that is, all doubt might be removed.

"But the Emperor Theodosius would not hear of a new Council, so long as he thought that due order had been preserved at Ephesus. 'For the matter was settled at Ephesus by the deposition of those who deserved it; and a decision having been once passed, nothing else can be determined after it.' Here the difference between the judgments of Roman Pontiffs and of General Councils is very evident; the judgment of the Roman Pontiff being reconsidered in a Council, whereas after a Council, so long as it is held a lawful one, nothing can be reconsidered, nothing heard.

"But as Theodosius shortly afterwards died, the Emperor Marcian, upon understanding that the Ephesine assembly had used violence, and acted otherwise against the Canons, and was therefore refused the name and authority of an Ecumenical Council by most Bishops, but chiefly by the Roman Pontiff, could not deny the calling of a new Council to Leo's request. So the Council of Chalcedon took place, and all admitted that there were certain dissensions on matter of faith so grave, that they can only be settled by the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

"All know that more than six hundred Bishops assembled at Chalcedon. The Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius presided over the holy Council in Leo's stead. Magistrates were assigned by the Emperor to direct the proceedings, and restrain disorder; but to leave the question of faith and all ecclesiastical matters to the power and judgment of the Council.

"But in this Council two things make for us: first, the deposition of Dioscorus; secondly, the sentence of the Council respecting the approval of Leo's letter.

"With Dioscorus they thus proceeded: when, upon being cited, he refused to present himself to judgment, and his crimes were notorious to all, Paschasinus, Legate of the Apostolic See, asks the Fathers,--'We desire to know what your Holiness determines:' the holy Synod replied, 'What the Canons order.' The Bishop Lucentius said, 'Certain proceedings took place in the holy Council of Ephesus by our most blessed Father Cyril; look into their form, and assign what form you determine on.' The Bishop Paschasinus said, 'Does your piety command us to use Ecclesiastical punishment? Do you consent?' The holy Council said, 'We all consent.' The Bishop Paschasinus said, 'Again I ask, what is the pleasure of your blessedness?' Maximus, Bishop of the great city of Antioch, said, 'We are conformable to whatever seems good to your Holiness.' Thus the initiative, and form, as it was called, was to be given by the Apostolic See. And so the Legates, after recounting the crimes of Dioscorus, thus pronounced: 'Wherefore, holy Leo, by us and this present Council, together with the most blessed Apostle Peter, who is the rock and ground of the Church, and the foundation of the right faith, hath declared him cut off from all sacerdotal power.' Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, said, 'As our most blessed Archbishop and Father Leo, so Anatolius.' The rest to the same effect: 'I agree; I am of the same mind; I agree to the condemnation made by the Council; I declare, I decree the same:' and the subscription, 'I, Paschasinus, declare and subscribe;' 'I, Anatolius, declare and subscribe;' and so the rest.

"Thus from Peter the head and source of Unity the sentence began, and then became of full force by common agreement of the Bishops, just as that first Council of the Apostles is always represented.

"By this is understood the letter of the Emperor Valentinian to the Emperor Theodosius: 'We ought to defend with all devotion, and preserve in our times uninjured, the dignity of the veneration due to the blessed Apostle Peter: so that the most blessed Bishop of the Roman city may have power to judge concerning the faith and Bishops.' Not, however, alone, but with the condition added by the Emperor, 'That the aforesaid Bishop,' at least, in those causes which touch the faith and the universal state of the Church, 'may give sentence after assembling the Priests from the whole world.' That is, by a common decree, as both Leo himself had demanded, and as we have seen done in the Council itself.

"With the same view, the Empress Pulcheria writes to Leo concerning assembling the Bishops, 'who,' she says, 'when the Council is made, shall decree, at your instance, concerning the Catholic confession, and concerning Bishops.'

"The Emperors Valentinian and Marcian write the same to Leo: that, 'by the Council to be held,' every thing should be done at his instance: first laying this down, that he 'possessed the first rank in the Episcopate, as to faith.'

"Hence it is very plainly evident, that, in the usual order, both the Pope should have the initiative, and the Bishops sitting with him should be judges; and that the force of an irreversible decree lies in agreement: the very thing to which the Empress Pulcheria bears witness, in her letter to Strategus the Consular, who was ordered to protect the Council from all violence: 'that the holy Council, holding its sittings with all discipline, what has been revealed by the Lord Christ should be confirmed in common by all, without any disturbance, and with agreement.'

"Meanwhile, it is evident that proceedings are at the instance of the Pontiff, yet so that the force of the decree lies, not in the sole authority of the Pontiff, which no one then imagined, but in the consent itself and approval of the Council: and that the Fathers and the Council decree together, judge together, and the sentence of the Council is the sentence of the Pope; which, when the consent of the Churches is added, is then held to be irreversible and final, which is all I demand.

"Another important point treated in the Council of Chalcedon, that is, the establishing of the faith, and the approval of Leo's letter, is as follows. Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by subscription that letter, before the Council took place; and in the Council itself the Fathers had often cried out, 'We believe, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth is sufficient for the faith: no other exposition may be made.' Things went so far, that they would hardly permit a definition to be made by the Council. But neither subscriptions privately made before the Council, nor these vehement cries of the Fathers in the Council, were thought sufficient to tranquillize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, for fear that a matter so important might seem determined rather by outcries than by fair and legitimate discussion. And the Clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, 'It is a few who cry out, not the whole Council which speaks.' So it was determined that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the Council, and a definition of faith be written by the Synod itself. So the acts of foregoing Councils being previously read, the magistrates proposed concerning Leo's letter, 'As the Gospels lie before you, let every one of the most reverend Bishops declare whether the exposition of the 318 Fathers, and, after that, of the 150 Fathers, agrees with the letter of holy Leo.'

"Since the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form, it will be worth while to weigh the sentences, and, as they are called, the votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much zeal; why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the Council. Anatolius first gives his sentence. 'The letter of the most holy Leo agrees with the Creed of the 318 and the 150 Fathers; as also with what was done at Ephesus under Coelestine and Cyril; therefore I agree and willingly subscribe to it.' These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not blindly subscribing out of mere obedience. The rest say to the same effect: 'It agrees, and I subscribe.' Many plainly and expressly, 'It agrees, and I therefore subscribe.' Some add, 'It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is correct.' Others, 'I am sure that it agrees.' Others, 'As it is concordant, and has the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe.' Others, 'This is the faith we have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we baptize.' Others, and a great part, 'As I see, as I feel, as I have proved, as I find that it agrees, I subscribe.' Others, 'As I am persuaded, instructed, informed, that all agrees, I subscribe.' Many set forth their difficulties, mostly arising from a foreign language; others from the subject matter, saying, that they had heard the letter, 'and in very many points were assured it was right: some few words stood in their way, which seemed to point at a certain division in the person of Christ.' They add, that they had been informed by Paschasinus and the Legates 'that there is no division, but one Christ; therefore,' they say, 'we agree and subscribe.' Others, after mentioning what Paschasinus and Lucentius had said, thus conclude: 'By this we have been satisfied, and, considering that it agrees in all things with the holy Fathers, we agree and subscribe.' Where the Illyrian Bishops, and others who before that examination had expressed their acclamations to the letter, again cry out, 'We all say the same thing, and agree with this.' So that, indeed, it is evident that, in the Council itself, and before it, their agreement is based on this, that, after weighing the matter, they considered, they judged, they were persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and perceived that the common faith of all and each had been set forth by Leo.

"This was done at Chalcedon; but likewise before that Council our Gallic Bishops, at a synod held in Gaul, wrote thus to Leo himself, concerning receiving his letter: 'Many in that letter of Leo to Flavian with joy and exultation have recognised what their faith was assured of, and are with reason delighted that, by tradition from their fathers, they have always held just what your Apostleship has set forth. Some rendered more careful, congratulate themselves every way on being instructed by receiving the admonition of your blessedness, and rejoice that an occasion is given them, in which they may speak out freely and confidently, and each one assert what he believes, supported by the authority of the Apostolic See.'

"The Italian (Bishops) agree, at the instance of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, 'for it was evident that that (letter of Leo to Flavian) had the full and vigorous simplicity of the faith; was illuminated likewise by statements from the Prophets, by authorities from the Gospels, and by testimonies of Apostolic teaching, and in every point agreed with what the holy Ambrose, moved by the Holy Spirit, put in his books concerning the mystery of the Lord's incarnation. And inasmuch as all the statements agree with the faith of our ancestors delivered down to us from antiquity, all determined that whoever hold impious opinions concerning the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, are to be visited with fitting condemnation, as they themselves agree, according to the sentence of your authority.'

"See here an authoritative sentence in the Roman Pontiff; and also the agreement of the Bishops to the instance of the Roman Pontiff, and that granted after inquiry into the truth. On these terms they gave their approval, and their subscription, and decreed that a letter, agreeing with the apprehensions of their common faith, and found and judged to be such by them, was of universal authority by the union of their sentences with the Apostolic See. Which wonderfully accords with what we have just read in the sentences of the Fathers of Chalcedon.

"This is that examination of Leo's letter, synodically made at Chalcedon, and placed among the acts; of which examination Leo himself thus writes to Theodoret: 'What God had before set forth by our ministry, He hath confirmed by the irreversible assent of the whole brotherhood, to show that what was first put forth in form by the First See of all, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, really proceeded from Himself (that in this too the members might agree with the Head.)'[90]

"He proceeds: 'For in order that the consent of other sees to that which the Lord appointed to preside over all the rest should not appear flattery, or any other adverse suspicion creep in, persons were found who doubted concerning our judgment.... The truth, likewise, itself is both more clearly conspicuous, and more strongly maintained, when after-examination confirms what previous faith had taught.' Here he speaks distinctly of examination, and that most free. 'In fine, the merit of the priestly office shines forth very brightly, when the authority of the highest is preserved, without the liberty of the lower seeming to be at all infringed. And the end of the examination profits to the greater glory of God, when it has confidence enough to exert itself so far as to prevail over the opposite opinion. So that what is in itself proved to be heterodox may not seem overcome, merely because it is passed over in silence,' Lastly, 'the letter of the Apostolic See, confirmed by the assent of the whole holy Council'[91] is proposed as a most certain and perfect rule of faith, not again to be reconsidered. Here is what Leo considered to be irrevocable, or rather not to be mended, which no one can be blamed for holding together with the world and the Fathers of Chalcedon: the form is set forth by the Apostolic See; yet it is to be examined, and that freely, and every Bishop, the highest and the lowest, to pronounce judgment in a body concerning decreeing it.

"They conceived no other way of removing all doubt; for after the conclusion of the synod, the emperor thus proclaims: 'Let then all profane contention cease, for he is indeed impious and sacrilegious, who, after the sentence of so many priests, leaves any thing for his own opinion to consider.' He then prohibits all discussion concerning religion; for, says he, 'he does an injury to the judgment of the most religious Council, who endeavours to open afresh, and publicly discuss what has been once judged, and rightly ordered.'

"Here in the condemnation of Eutyches is the order of Ecclesiastical judgments in questions of faith. He is judged by his proper Bishop Flavian: the cause is reheard, reconsidered by the Pope St. Leo;" (let it be remembered that Eutyches likewise appealed to Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica;) "it is decided by a declaration of the Apostolic See: after that declaration follows the examination, inquiry, judgment of the Fathers or Bishops, in a General Council: after the declaration has been approved by the judgment of the Fathers no place is any longer left for doubt or discussion.

"To the same effect Leo: 'For no longer is any refuge or excuse allowable to any, on plea of ignorance, or difficulty of understanding, inasmuch as for this very purpose the Council of about six hundred of our brethren and fellow-Bishops met together hath permitted no skill in reasoning, no flow of eloquence, to breathe against the faith built on a divine foundation. Since, through the endeavours of our brethren and representatives, by the help of God's grace, (their devotion in every procedure being most entire,) it hath been fully and evidently made manifest, not only to the priests of Christ, but to princes also, and Christian powers, and to all ranks of the clergy and people, that this is the truly Apostolic and Catholic faith, flowing from the fountain of Divine goodness, which we preach, and now with the agreement of the whole world defend pure and clean from all pollution of error.'[92]

"Thus at length supreme and infallible force is given to an Apostolic decree, after that it is strengthened by universal inquiry, examination, discussion, and thereupon consent and testimony."

[93]"We add a third point, important to our cause, respecting the restitution of Theodoret to his see. After, then, by order of the Bishops, he had openly anathematized Nestorius, 'the most illustrious magistrates said, all doubt respecting Theodoret is now removed; for he hath both anathematized Nestorius before you, and has been received by Leo, most holy Archbishop of old Rome, and has willingly accepted the definition of faith set forth by your piety, and moreover hath subscribed the epistle of the aforesaid most holy Archbishop Leo. It is fitting, therefore, that sentence be pronounced by your most acceptable holiness, that he may recover his Church, as the most holy Archbishop Leo has judged.' All the most reverend Bishops cried out, 'Theodoret is worthy of his See. Leo hath judged after God.' So then the judgment put forth by Leo concerning his restoration to his See would have profited Theodoret nothing, unless, after the matter had been brought before the Council, he had both approved his faith to the Council, and the judgment of Leo been confirmed by the same Council. This was done in the presence of the Legates of the Apostolic See, who afterwards pronounced that sentence on confirming Leo's judgment, which the whole Synod approved."

Let any one of candour consider these Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and then say, which of these two views agrees with them, viz. that St. Leo was first Bishop of the Church, looked up to with great reverence as the special successor of St. Peter, and representative of the whole West; or that he was beside this the only Vicar of Christ, the source and origin of the Episcopate, from whom his brethren received their jurisdiction, which is the Papal idea of the middle ages. For on the truth of this latter view depends the charge, that the Church of England is in schism.

What follows may perhaps assist our solution of the question. At this very Council of 630 Bishops, the largest ever held in ancient times, and where the credit of the Roman Pontiff was so great, a very celebrated Canon was enacted concerning the rank of the Bishop of Constantinople. The Pope's legates attempted, by absenting themselves, to prevent its being enacted, but that only led to its being confirmed the next day, in spite of their opposition. The circumstances were as follows, and they seem to deserve our most stedfast consideration, from their bearing upon the great subject we are considering, the Papal Supremacy.

"On the same day, being the last of October, the fifteenth session was held, at which neither the magistrates nor legates were present: for after the formula of faith had been agreed to, and the private business brought before the Council had been despatched, the Clergy of Constantinople asked the legates to join them in discussing an affair concerning their Church. This they refused, saying, that they had received no instructions about it. They made the same proposal to the magistrates, and these referred the matter to the Council. When the magistrates and legates therefore had retired, the rest of the Council made a Canon respecting the prerogatives of the Church of Constantinople."[94] To make the scope of this clear we must observe, that the See of Constantinople had been now for at least seventy years the chief See of the East: at the second Ecumenical Council, held in 381, at Constantinople, it is declared in the third canon, that "the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that Constantinople is New Rome." It seems that in the interval that Bishop had not only taken precedence of Alexandria and Antioch, and reduced under him the Exarchs of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia, but that his authority was very great throughout all the East. Theodoret says,[95] that St. Chrysostom governed twenty-eight provinces. Accordingly, in its famous 28th Canon, the Council of Chalcedon only confirmed an authority to the Bishop of Constantinople which he had long enjoyed and often exceeded. It ran thus: "We, following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon of the 150 most religious Bishops which has just been read, do also determine and decree the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the 150 most religious Bishops, being moved with the same intention, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with reason, that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in Ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her. And (we also decree) that the Metropolitans only of the Pontic, and Asian, and Thracian Dioceses, and, moreover, the Bishops of the aforesaid Dioceses who are amongst the Barbarians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; each Metropolitan of the aforesaid Dioceses ordaining the Bishops of the Province, as has been declared by the divine Canons; but the Metropolitans themselves of the said Dioceses shall, as has been said, be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the proper elections being made according to custom, and reported to him."

"The Legates,[96] being informed of what had passed, demanded that the Council should assemble again, and the magistrates be present. On the morrow, therefore, being Thursday, the 1st November, the twelfth sitting[97] was held. The magistrates were there with the Legates, and the Bishops of Illyria, and all the rest. After they had taken their seats, Paschasinus spoke, having asked permission of the magistrates, and said, that he was astonished that so many things had been done the day before in their absence, which were contrary to the Canons and the peace of the Church, for which the Emperor was labouring with so much application and zeal. He demanded the reading of what had passed the day before. And Aetius, (Archdeacon of Constantinople,) having said that it was the Legates themselves who had refused to be present at the deliberation, presented the Canon which had been drawn up with the signatures of the Bishops. After the signatures had been read, Lucentius said the Bishops had been surprised, and compelled to sign. This is what St. Leo repeated often in the letter which he wrote concerning this twenty-eighth Canon, accusing Anatolius of having extorted the signatures of the Bishops, or of having surprised them by his artifices. Nevertheless, upon the reproach of Lucentius, all the Bishops cried out that no one had been forced. They protested again afterwards, both all in common, and the principal by themselves, that they had signed it of their full consent. Anatolius also maintains to St. Leo, that the Bishops took this resolution of their own accord.

"The Legates continued to oppose the Canon, and showed that they had an express order of the Pope to do so. They alleged that the Canon was contrary to the Council of Nicea, of which they read the sixth Canon, with the celebrated heading--'The Roman Church has always had the primacy,' which is also found added in the ancient Roman code. The same Canon was afterwards read as it is in the original Greek, and the Canon of the second Ecumenical Council, to which the Legates answered nothing.

"The magistrates having next begged the Bishops who had not signed the day before, to give their opinion, Eusebius, of Ancyra, represented with much gentleness and modesty, that it was better for the Church that ordinations should be made upon the spot by the Council of the province. Thalassius then spoke a single word, but I know not his meaning."

Thereupon "the magistrates[98] said,--'It appears, from the depositions, first of all, that the primacy and precedency of honour ([Greek: ta proteia, kai ten exaireton timen]) should be preserved according to the Canons for the Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of Constantinople ought to enjoy the same privileges, ([Greek: ton auton presbeion tes times],) and that he has a right to ordain the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in the manner following. In each metropolis, the clergy, the proprietors of lands, and the gentry, with all the Bishops of the province, or the greater part of them, shall issue a decree for the election of one whom they shall deem worthy of being made a Bishop of the metropolis. They shall all make a report of it to the Archbishop of Constantinople, and it shall be at his option either to enjoin the Bishop elect to come thither for ordination, or to allow him to be ordained in the province. As to the Bishops of particular cities, they shall be ordained by all, or the greater part, of the comprovincial Bishops, under the authority of the Metropolitan, according to the Canons, the Archbishop of Constantinople taking no part in such ordination. These are our views, let the Council state theirs.' The Bishops shouted, 'This is a just proposal: we all say the same: we all assent to it, we pray you dismiss us:' with other similar acclamations. Lucentius, the Legate, said,--'The Apostolic See ought not to be degraded in our presence; we, therefore, desire that yesterday's proceedings, which violate the Canons, may be rescinded; otherwise let our opposition be inserted in the Acts, that we may know what we are to report to the Pope, and that he may declare his opinion of this contempt of his See, and subversion of the Canons.' The magistrates said,--'The whole Council approves of what we said.' Such was the last Session of the Council of Chalcedon."

The remarks of Tillemont on this Canon are significant, and worth transcribing.[99] "It seems," he says, "to recognise no particular authority in the Church of Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as the seat of the empire. And it attributes in plain words as much to Constantinople as to Rome, with the exception of the first place. _Nevertheless I do not observe that the Popes took up a thing so injurious to their dignity, and of so dangerous a consequence to the whole Church._ For what Lupus quotes of St. Leo's 78th (104th) letter, refers rather to Alexandria and to Antioch, than to Rome. St. Leo is contented to destroy the foundation on which they built the elevation of Constantinople, maintaining that a thing so entirely ecclesiastical as the Episcopate ought not to be regulated by the temporal dignity of cities, which, nevertheless, has been almost always followed in the establishment of the metropolis, according to the Council of Nicea.

"St. Leo also complains that the Council of Chalcedon broke the decrees of the Council of Nicea, the practice of antiquity, and the rights of Metropolitans. Certainly it was an odious innovation to see a Bishop made the chief, not of one department, but of three; for which no example could be found save in the authority which the Popes took over Illyricum, where, however, they did not claim the power to ordain any Bishop."