The
situation
was becoming intolerable.
Cambridge Medieval History - v1 - Christian Roman Empire and Teutonic Kingdoms
A tumultuous scene followed in Constantinople,
but John, rather than become a cause of bloodshed, withdrew under
protest.
But he did not go far from the city, and in three days he was
summoned back. Constantinople suffered at this time from a shock of
earthquake, which seems to have alarmed the Empress, and the dislike
of Egyptian interference stimulated the desire of the people of Constanti-
nople to recover their bishop. Arcadius sent a messenger to summon
John home. John at first prudently declined to come without the
resolution of a synod, but his scruples were overcome, and he was
reinstated in triumph.
But his return of good fortune was not of long duration. What the
Court had lightly given, it might lightly withdraw. The new cause of
offence was a remonstrance made by Chrysostom, who objected to the
noise and revellings consequent on the erection of a statue of the
Empress close to the church where he officiated. Eudoxia's blood
was up. Report said that the bishop had compared her to Herodias.
He had possibly compared his duty to that of John the Baptist, and his
hearers had pressed the analogy further. He had previously made a
quite pertinent comparison of her court clergy to the priests of Baal,
who "did eat at Jezebel's table," and the inference had seemed to be
that the Empress was a Jezebel. A synod was hastily convoked.
Theophilus did not appear this time, but John's opponents were
now sufficient. He was accused of violating a canon of the Council of
Antioch (341) in having returned without waiting for a synodical
decree. Insult was here added to injury. The canon had been passed
by an Arian council, the violation of it had been due to imperial
pressure. But there was no way of escape. Amid scenes of confusion
and bloodshed, John was conveyed to Cucusus, on the Armenian frontier,
and afterwards to Pityus, in Pontus.
His steadfastness under persecution, the letters by which he sought
to strengthen the hands of his friends and disciples, and the efforts of
his adherents, besides producing a great moral effect, seemed likely to
bring about a reversal of the sentence. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter of
CH. XVII.
## p. 494 (#524) ############################################
494
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
(
407-428
sympathy to Chrysostom and one of strong remonstrance to Theophilus,
to whom a formal deputation was sent. To the clergy and people of
Constantinople he wrote a vigorous protest against the legality of what
had been done, and asserted the need of a Council of East and West.
But for such a council he could only wait the opportunity in faith and
patience. He did all he could by laying the matter before the Emperor
Honorius at Ravenna. A deputation of clergy was sent from Emperor and
Pope to Constantinople. On the way, however, the messengers had their
despatches stolen from them, and they only returned from their bootless
errand after many dangers and insults. Meantime the fire was allowed
to burn itself out. The sufferings of Chrysostom were ended by his
death in exile in September 407. There were still adherents of his
in Constantinople, who refused to recognise his successor, as did also
many bishops in the West. The breach was healed when Atticus,
second bishop after Chrysostom, restored the name of his great pre-
decessor to the diptychs (or tablets, on which the names of lawful
bishops were inscribed).
It can hardly be said that this part of the controversy was ecclesiastical
in the strict sense of the word. It made no new departure in church
doctrine and discipline. But it revealed the more or less hidden forces
by which succeeding conflicts were to be decided.
II. In the second period the Alexandrian leader was Cyril, nephew
of Theophilus, who had succeeded him as bishop in 412. The Byzantine
bishop was Nestorius, who succeeded Sisinnius in 428. Both of these
prelates were more distinctly theological controversialists than were the
chiefs in the last encounter. But theology apart, they succeeded to all
the difficulties in Church and State that had beset their predecessors,
and neither of them was gifted with forbearance and tact. Cyril's
episcopate began with violent conflicts between Christians and Jews, in
which the ecclesiastical power came into collision with the civil.
The
story is well known how the bishop canonised a turbulent monk who
had met his end in the anti-Jewish brawls, how the praefect Orestes
opposed him in this and other high-handed acts, and fell a victim to
the Alexandrian mob. The murder of Hypatia in 415 is not, perhaps,
to be laid directly to Cyril's charge ; but it illustrates the attitude of
anti-pagan fanaticism towards the noblest representatives of Hellenic
culture. Perhaps we may see here the effects of the policy of Theophilus
when he stirred up the more ignorant of the monks to chase away or to
destroy those more capable of philosophic views.
The monks were indeed becoming a more and more uncontrollable
element in the situation. Cyril allied himself with a very powerful
person, the archimandrite Senuti, who plays a large part in the history
of Egyptian monasticism and also in the Monophysite schism. At
present he was orthodox, or rather his views were those that had not yet
been differentiated from orthodoxy, and his zeal was shewn chiefly in
## p. 495 (#525) ############################################
428]
Nestorius and the Imperial Family
495
organising raids on “idols,” temples and pagan priests, and in attacks,
less reprehensible perhaps, but no more respectful of private property,
on the goods of wealthy landowners who defrauded and oppressed the
poor.
Nestorius came from Isauria. His education had been in Antioch,
and the doctrines with which his name is associated are those of the
great Antiochene school carried to their logical and practical conclusions.
But this association has a pathetic and almost a grotesque interest.
Much labour has of recent years been devoted to the task of ascertaining
what Nestorius actually preached and wrote, and the result may be to
acquit him of many of the extravagances imputed to him by his
opponents. To put the case rather crudely: experts have contended
that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. He seems to have been a harsh
and unpleasant man, though capable of acquiring friends, intolerant
of doctrinal eccentricities other than his own. He made it his mission
to prevent men from assigning the attributes of humanity to the Deity,
and boldly took the consequences of his position. Like Chrysostom,
he suffered from the proximity and active ecclesiastical interest of the
imperial family. When Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople
in 428, the Emperor Theodosius II was in the twenty-seventh year
of his age and the twentieth of his reign. Though his character
and abilities offer in some respects a favourable comparison with
those of his father, he suffered, partly through his education, from
a too narrowly theological outlook on his empire and its duties.
fourteen years a leading part in all matters, especially ecclesiastical, had
been taken by his elder sister Pulcheria, who had superintended his
education and seems to have maintained a jealous regard for her own
influence. This influence was at times more or less thwarted by her
sister-in-law Eudocia, the clever Athenian lady, whom she had herself
induced Theodosius to take in marriage. Nestorius had somehow
incurred the enmity of Pulcheria. The cause is too deeply buried in
the dirt of court scandal to be disinterred. Eudocia, though she is
often in opposition to her sister-in-law, does not seem to have had any
leanings to the party of Nestorius, and in the end, as we shall see, she
took a much stronger line against it than did Pulcheria. But both
ladies, in addition to personal feelings, had decided theological leanings,
and to these the Alexandrians were able to appeal.
The theological principles of Cyril were those of the Alexandrian
school. To him it seemed that the doctrine of the Incarnation of the
Logos is impugned by any hesitation to assign the attributes of
humanity to the divine Christ. It was this theological principle which
was the cause, or at least the pretext, of his first attack on Nestorius.
The distinctions between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools
have their roots far back in the history of theological ideas. One
of the main differences lies in the preference by the Alexandrians for
CH. XVII.
## p. 496 (#526) ############################################
496
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
>
allegorical modes of interpreting Scripture, while the Antiochenes pre-
ferred-in the first instance, at least—a more literal method. This is
not unnatural, so far as Alexandria is concerned. That city had seen
the first attempt at amalgamation of Jewish and Hellenic conceptions,
by the solvent force of figure and symbolism, while underneath there
worked the mind of primeval Egypt. The speculations of Philo and
his successors, both Christian and Pagan, carried on the tradition into
orthodox theology. The Christology of Alexandria had produced the
ouoouotos, and now it regarded that term as needing further develop-
ment—as pointing to an entire union (évwors) of divine and human in
the nature of Christ, beyond any conjunction (ouvápela) which seemed
to admit a possible duality. On the other side, the Antiochene school
is well represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the friend of Chrysostom,
and the teacher, whether directly or indirectly, of Nestorius.
He was
a learned man and a great commentator, who insisted on the need of
historical and literary studies in elucidating Holy Scripture.
His
eminence in this respect is to be seen in the fact that we often find him
cited in quite recent commentaries. In his Christology, he held that the
union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus was moral rather
than physical or dynamical (κατ' ευδοκίαν rather than κατ' ουσίαν or
kat' évépyelav). He was, however, very careful to avoid the deduction
that the relation of divine and human was similar in kind though
different in degree, in Christ and in His followers. The actions and
qualities ascribed to Christ as man, and particularly His birth, sufferings
and death, were not to be attributed to the Deity without some
qualifying phrase.
This question might have seemed to be one of purely academic
interest, if it had not obtained an excellent catchword which appealed to
the popular mind: the title of EOTókos (Mother of God) as applied to
the Virgin Mary, vehemently asserted by the Alexandrians, rejected,
or accepted with many qualifications, by the Antiochenes. The fierce-
ness of the battle over this word suggests analogies and associations
which are easily exaggerated. In some sermons preached on behalf of
the Alexandrian view there are remarks which seem to foreshadow the
Virgin cult in medieval and modern times. And the great glory of
Cyril, as we find in superscriptions of his works, was that of being the
chief advocate of the OEOTÓKOS. Again, and this is a more important
point, and one that will meet us again, both the word and the conception
could be interpreted in harmony with one of the strongest elements
in revived paganism. The worship of a maternal deity, such as seems
to have prevailed widely in the earliest civilisation of Mediterranean
lands, had again come to the fore in the last conflict of Paganism with
Christianity. The mysteries of Isis and of Cybele were widespread.
Julian wrote a mystic treatise in honour of the Mother of the Gods ;
and as he blames the Christians for applying the term “Mother of God”
## p. 497 (#527) ############################################
428]
Character of Nestorianism
497
to the Virgin Mary, he seems here to be following his ordinary policy of
strengthening Hellenism on its devotional side by bringing in such
elements from Christianity as might be found compatible with it. The
reverse process, by which Christianity among both the educated and
the uneducated was assimilating pagan ideas, was of course going on
at the same time, consciously in some quarters, unconsciously in others.
But it would be a mistake to look on the Nestorian controversy as
chiefly, or even as greatly, connected with the honour of the Virgin.
Nestorius himself, in one of his sayings, probably uttered in a testy
mood, protested “anyhow, don't make the Virgin a Goddess"; but this
is, I believe, almost the only utterance of the kind during the
controversy.
Generally speaking, on its speculative side, the controversy was
Christological. The Nicene Fathers had finally pronounced on the
relation of the Father to the Divine Logos, but within the limits of
orthodoxy there was room for a difference as to the relation of the
Logos to the human Christ. Some-on the Antiochene side-dreaded
lest the idea of the humanity should be entirely merged in that of the
Logos. Others (leaning towards Alexandria) would avoid any contami-
nation of the Logos by the associations of humanity. Meantime the
unphilosophical minds that took part in the dispute imagined in a
vague way that it was possible for human beings to commit the crime of
literally confusing the nature of the Deity or of cutting Christ in pieces.
The position of Nestorius himself and of those who followed him
most closely is summarised in a saying of his that was often quoted and
oftener misquoted: “I cannot speak of God as being two or three
months old. ” He regarded it as impiety to attribute to a Person of the
Trinity the acts and accidents of human, still more of infant, life. The
Alexandrians, on the other hand, considered this view as virtually
implying the existence of two Christs, a divine and a human. Naturally
a
the opponents made no efforts to understand one another's position, and
if they had their efforts could hardly have been successful. During this
unhappy century, the mind of man had gone hopelessly astray as to its
limitations. Intellectual courage had survived intellectual contact with
facts, but that courage was often directed against chimaeras.
The Pope of Rome at this juncture was Celestine I (422-432). He
seems to have been a conscientious and active ruler, a strict disciplinarian,
yet averse to extreme rigour in dealing with delinquents. As we have
already said, in this conflict Rome is not on the side of Constantinople
and Antioch, but on that of Alexandria. Among the many reasons
that may be assigned for the change, two considerations are prominent :
first, that the relations between the sees of Rome and of Constantinople
had been somewhat strained through rival claims to ecclesiastical
supremacy in the regions of Illyria ; and secondly, that Celestine was
a devoted admirer of Augustine and anxious to put down the Pelagian
32
C. D. H. voL I. CH. XVII.
## p. 498 (#528) ############################################
498
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 429
heresy. Nestorius, we may safely say, was not himself a Pelagian. In
some, at least, of his extant discourses he strongly opposes that teaching.
But it is clear that the most eminent Antiochene theologians were not
so pronounced as was Augustine in their doctrine of original sin and of
predestination. Theodore of Mopsuestia was accused of the same
tendency, though he avoided the heretical deductions from his principles,
and Nestorius himself once wrote a sympathetic letter (though the
obscurity of the text makes it doubtful as evidence) to Coelestius the
notable follower of Pelagius. Again, a few years before our present date
(at the Council of Carthage, 426) a monk named Leporius of Marseilles
,
who has been called a “Nestorian before Nestorius," was condemned as
a Pelagian.
The Antiochene see was more definitely than it had previously been
on the side of Constantinople. It was now occupied by a certain John,
who plays an ambiguous part, but seems to have been favourable to
Nestorius. But the most eminent person on this side was Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrus, in the province of Euphratensis, a learned theologian,
a good fighter, and a man of generous impulses, though he did not keep
by his friend Nestorius to the bitter end. In these Eastern bishops we
see a growing jealousy of the overweening power of Alexandria. The
Church of Edessa, which had, generally speaking, lived a life apart, was
drawn into the controversy. The bishop Rabbulas, though not inclined
to urge the adoption of the disputed terms, took the anti-Nestorian side.
His successor however, Ibas (435), upheld the Nestorian position, and
retained for centuries the reverence of the Nestorian Christians of the
East.
To take up briefly the main events of the controversy: It was most
probably during the Christmas festival of the year 428, or else early in 429,
that Proclus, bishop of Cyzicus, but resident at Constantinople, preached
a sermon in which he used and expounded the term EOTÓKOS. Nestorius
replied to this discourse by another, in which he warned the people to
distinguish between the Divine Word and the temple in which the Deity
dwelt, and to avoid saying without qualifications, that God was born of
Mary. Nestorius seems to have been more guarded in his language than
some of his clergy, especially a priest called Anastasius, who condemned
the word OEOTókos altogether and even denounced as heretics those who
used it. It is extremely difficult to determine how widely the Antiochene
or Nestorian view prevailed, and whether it had yet reached Egypt, and
on this question depends the conviction or acquittal of Cyril in regard
to the charge of aggressive violence generally brought against him.
In the Easter of 429 he issued an encyclical to the Egyptian monks,
warning them against the dangers ahead. Men were teaching doctrines,
he said, which would bring Christ down to the level of ordinary
humanity.
Soon after, he wrote a long letter to the Emperor, “image of God on
## p. 499 (#529) ############################################
429]
Cyril, Celestine, Nestorius
499
was
earth,” against heresies in general and the new one-with which,
however, he does not couple the name of Nestorius—in particular.
He followed this up by two very long treatises to “the most pious
princesses” (Pulcheria and her sisters), in which he cites many Fathers
to justify the term fotókos, and makes out that the new heretics
would assert two Christs. The appeal to these ladies does not seem to
have pleased Theodosius, who resented Cyril's use of the discord in
the imperial family. Cyril, when once he had begun, spared no pains
to succeed. He had agents in Constantinople and adherents whom,
at much trouble and expense, he had attached to his cause. Especially
he had the support of a large following among the monks. We have
his letters written both to Nestorius himself and to Celestine, bishop of
Rome. In all of them he takes the ground of one having authority, of
one also who, in spite of personal affection for Nestorius as a man, is
bound to consider the supreme interests of the Truth. Nestorius in
return eulogises Christian TTLEÍKela, a grace in which he does not himself
seem to have excelled, but maintains an independent bearing. He
somewhat superfluously accuses Cyril of ignorance of the Nicene creed,
and reassures him as to the satisfactory state of the Church in
Constantinople. Nestorius meantime in correspondence with
Celestine on another matter. Certain bishops from the West, accused
of heresy, had come to Constantinople, How was he to deal with them?
He had to write a second time before a rather curt answer came; that
of course they were heretics and so was Nestorius himself : they are
known from other sources to have been Pelagians. Cyril had by this
time sent to Rome a Latin translation of the communications that had
passed between him and Nestorius with regard to the whole Christo-
logical question. A synod was consequently held at Rome which
approved of Cyril's action and position, and the Pope wrote to the clergy
of Constantinople, as well as to Cyril and to Nestorius himself. Ten
days were given to Nestorius to make a satisfactory explanation, after
which he and those holding with him were to be held excommunicated.
Letters announcing this decision were sent to the bishops of Antioch,
Jerusalem, Thessalonica and Philippi. To Cyril the Pope delegated
the power to take necessary action against Nestorius and his followers.
In a synod held at Alexandria, a series of propositions condemnatory
of the doctrine taught by Nestorius and insisting on that of the
physical union ” (@vwois Duo uń) were drawn up. In consequence of
these actions, Nestorius, urged by John of Antioch, Theodoret of Cyrus
and others, made certain explanations so as to tolerate the figurative use
of the word Beotókos? . But he stood his ground as to the main
principles, and issued, with the support of his adherents, a list of
counter-anathemas to those of Cyril.
1 I. e. in accordance with the union of the two natures in Christ, even during
mortal life.
CH. XVII.
32-2
## p. 500 (#530) ############################################
500
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 431
It may seem strange that local councils and leading bishops or
patriarchs should have gone so far without insisting on a General
Council. One person evidently took this view—the Emperor Theodosius
himself. The builder of the Theodosian Wall and the promulgator of
the Theodosian Code can hardly have been the mere weakling that some
historians would paint him. He seems to have been a man of some
energy and love of fair play, though he had not the strength to carry
out a policy to the end. Now, however, jointly with his cousin
Valentinian, he issued a writ summoning Eastern and Western bishops
to a Council to be held the following Whitsuntide (431) at Ephesus.
He did not attempt to go himself, but he sent as his emissary the
count Candidianus, to keep order, by military force if necessary, and
especially to prevent monks and laymen from intruding. Pope
Celestine sent two deputies, instructed to act along with Cyril
. Cyril
himself went largely accompanied. Among his monastic followers was
the wild ascetic Senuti of Panopolis, already mentioned, though the
stories of Senuti's conduct at the Council are not easily brought into
accordance with the facts we have. Nestorius and his Constantinopolitan
friends went there, but kept at a prudent distance from “the Egyptian. "
John of Antioch and forty Asiatic 'bishops came likewise, but at slow
pace. Their delay, whether accidental or designed, determined the
character and events of the Council. The weak point about the Council
of Ephesus was that the presiding judge and the principal prosecutor
were one and the same person, in an assembly which, though supposed to
be primarily legislative, had also to exercise judicial functions. From
the very first, Nestorius had no chance, and he declined to recognise
the authority of the Council till all its members were assembled. Cyril
was in no mind to allow this plea, and perhaps, in refusing to wait
for the Eastern bishops, he overreached himself, and brought sub-
sequent trouble on his own head. Celestine's delegates had not arrived,
but there was no reason to wait for them, as it was known that they had
been instructed to follow the Alexandrian lead. John of Antioch and
the other Eastern bishops were, of course, an essential part of the
Council, but a message of excuse which John had sent was tacitly
construed into acquiescence with what might be done before his arrival.
Accordingly, in spite of remonstrances from Nestorius, from a good
many Eastern bishops who had already arrived, and from the imperial
Commissioners, the Council was opened sixteen days after the appointed
time, without the Antiochenes or those who were in favour of any
kind
of compromise with Nestorius. Messengers were sent to Nestorius, who
refused to attend. It was the work of one day, the first session of the
Council, to condemn him and deprive him of his see. This was done on
the testimony of his letters, his reported speeches, and his rejection of
the messengers from the Council. One hundred and ninety-eight bishops
signed these decrees. The populace of Ephesus received the result with
## p. 501 (#531) ############################################
431]
End of the Council of Ephesus
501
wild enthusiasm, and gave the champions of the Theotokes an ovation
on their way to their lodgings. Perhaps it is not mere fanciful analogy
to recall the two-hours' shouting of an earlier city mob: “Great Artemis
of the Ephesians. "
Five days afterwards, John of Antioch arrived. He had with him
comparatively few bishops, and when he was joined by the Nestorians,
the number of his party only amounted to forty-three. There seems a
touch of irony in the assertion which he made afterwards that the
reason of his scanty numbers was to be found in his strict injunctions to
follow out the Emperor's directions. Similarly, when he justifies the
delay by the necessity that the bishops should officiate in their churches
on the First Sunday after Easter, we may seem to have a covert hit at
Cyril's large numbers who found no difficulty in absenting themselves
from their flocks.
From the first, John took his stand against the acts of Cyril. He
rejected the communications of the Council and joined forces with
Nestorius. The imperial officials afforded him protection and support.
In the “Conciliabulum,” as his assembly was contemptuously called,
Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus were in their turn deprived and excom-
municated. Meantime the original Council, now joined by delegates from
Rome, continued its sessions, deposed John and all his adherents, and con-
tinued to pass decrees against the Pelagians and other heretics. Whether
or no the precise articles anathematising Nestorius, which had been
drawn up at Alexandria, were passed by the Council is a disputed matter
and one of inferior importance. Their sense was certainly maintained,
and they were answered by counter-anathematisms on the other side.
The situation was becoming intolerable. Two rival assemblies of
bitterly hostile factions were sitting in conclave through the sultry days
of an Eastern summer, in a city always given to turbulence, and now
stirred up by long and eloquent discourses such as a Greek populace
ever loved to hear. Count Candidianus and the other imperial delegates
had a hard task. He had, after the first session, torn down the placards
declaring the deposition of Nestorius. He tried to prevent the
Egyptian party from preaching inflammatory sermons, and from com-
municating the fever of controversy to Constantinople. This, however,
he could not do, as Cyril found means of corresponding with the monks
of Constantinople.
The Emperor himself was hardly equal to the emergency. The
difficulty as to Nestorius was partly removed by the offer of Nestorius
himself to retire to a monastery. With regard to the other leaders,
Cyril and Memnon were for a time imprisoned. The Emperor received
embassies from both sides, and finally decided to maintain the decisions
of both councils. Maximian, a priest of Constantinople, was appointed
to the vacant see of that city. Then Cyril and Memnon were liberated
and restored to their sees, and the remaining members of the Council
CH, XVII.
## p. 502 (#532) ############################################
502
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [431–444
[
were bidden to return home, unless they could first find some means of
accommodation with the Orientals.
The means by which the Emperor's partial change of front and the
yet more clearly marked prevalence of anti-Nestorian feeling at Court
were brought about can only be brought to light by untangling a
most involved skein of ecclesiastical diplomacy. From a letter of one
of Cyril's agents, as well as from the recently published account of
Nestorius himself, there was a profuse distribution of gratuities among
notable persons, including the princesses themselves. But Cyril appealed
to zeal as well as to avarice. It would appear that a good many people
in Constantinople were favourable to Nestorius, but that the clergy and
the monks were generally against him. The union between Egyptians
and Orientals was brought to pass sooner than we might have expected.
It was based on an explanation not wholly unlike that urged on Nes-
torius by John of Antioch near the beginning of the difficulties, an
acknowledgment of two natures united into one (δύο φύσεων ένωσιν;
and μίαν τήν του Θεού φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην), with a recognition, in
virtue of the union, of the propriety of the term EOTókos. It was a
triumph for Cyril, but some of the most independent of his opponents
still held out. Especially Theodoret, the best theologian of the party,
and the most faithful—a slight distinction—to his friends, refused
to be included in an arrangement which did not restore all the sees of
the dispossessed bishops to their rightful occupants. It was only to a
special decree of the Emperor, enforcing ecclesiastical agreement in the
East, that he gave at last a qualified assent. But the indignant protest
widely raised against Alexandrian ambition was expressed in a playful
letter which he wrote after Cyril's death in 444, in which, along with
more charitable wishes that we might expect for the final judgment on
his soul, he recommends that a large stone be placed over the grave, to
,
keep quiet the disturber who had now gone to propagate strange
doctrines among the shades below. The last efforts of Cyril had been
towards the condemnation of the great commentator, the father of
Antiochene philosophy, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The reverence in
which the memory of Theodore was held caused the scheme to fail,
only to be renewed, with baneful consequences, by the Emperor
Justinian.
We may now narrate the end of Nestorius. For some years he
lived in peace in a monastery near Antioch, but his relations with its
bishop appear to have cooled. In 435, he was banished to Petra in
Arabia, but instead of going thither, he seems to have been sent to one
of the oases of Egypt. There a wandering horde of Libyans, the
Blemmyes, made him prisoner. Soon after he was released, and fled to
Panopolis in Egypt. Thence he wrote a pathetic letter to the Praeses
of the Thebaid, begging for protection “lest to all time the evil report
should be brought that it is better to be a captive of barbarians than a
## p. 503 (#533) ############################################
444]
Beginning of the Eutychian Controversy
503
later.
fugitive suppliant of the Roman Emperor. ” But Nestorius had fallen
into the very hotbed of fanatical monasticism. The Praeses caused
him to be removed by “barbarian" soldiers to Elephantine, on the
borders of the province. There is some evidence that the blow which
put an end to his sufferings was dealt by the hand of Senuti himself.
This was however some years
Nestorius was not a great leader of men, nor a very striking figure-
head for a great cause.
His whole story illustrates the perversity and
blind cruelty of his opponents, and it is only in comparison with them
that he sometimes appears in an almost dignified character. This
character is greatly emphasized by the lately discovered writings in
which Nestorius was employed shortly before his death. He seems to
have approved the final arrangement of Chalcedon, and even to have
acquiesced, with a magnanimity hardly to be expected, in the com-
promise by which his own name was left under the cloud while the
principles for which he had striven were in great measure confirmed.
III. The Monophysite or Eutychian Controversy may be regarded
as a continuation of the preceding one, yet as some of the leading parties
were different, as well as their objects and methods, it may be better to
take it apart.
The main difference as to character and issue of this conflict com-
pared with the last lies in the character of the champions of Rome
and of Alexandria respectively. Now there was a Pope of commanding
character and ability. Leo I stands out in history as a great ruler of
the Church, who crushed a premature movement towards Gallicanism ;
as a moral power in Rome itself in times of demoralising panic; and
as the shepherd of his people, who-in ways known and unknown-
stopped the Romeward march of Attila the Hun. Here we have to
deal with him as a firm and successful assertor of the claims of St Peter's
chair over all others, and as a great diplomatic theologian who could
mark out a permanent via media between opposite dogmatic tendencies.
Dioscorus, the champion of Alexandria, had succeeded Cyril in
A. D. 444. The fact that he was subsequently condemned as a here-
siarch whereas Cyril was canonised as a saint, has necessarily led to
differences of opinion as to the relations between the two. He may
be regarded, with respect to his dogmatic position, either as a deserter
of Cyril's position between the heresies of Monophysitism and Dyo-
physitism, or else as the real successor of Cyril in pressing the Alexandrian
Christology to its natural conclusions. Personally he seems to have
dissociated himself from Cyril by making foes of Cyril's family, although
according to one account, he was himself of Cyril's kin. The charges
made against his morals, both in public and in private life, may have
been well-founded, but in three respects, at least, he was a real follower
of Cyril-in his zeal for the prerogatives of the see of St Mark; in the
remarkable pertinacity and unscrupulousness with which he pursued his
CH. XVII.
## p. 504 (#534) ############################################
504
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[448
-
ends; and in his reliance on the monastic element among his followers,
particularly on the part of it that was most violent and fanatical.
Of Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, there is less to be said. He
enjoyed a reputation for piety, and seems to have acted with some indepen-
dence in his relations with the Emperor. But he does not shew enough
dignity and moderation in the early stages of the dispute to obtain the
sympathy which his cruel treatment at the end might seem to claim.
The premonitory symptoms of the controversy are to be seen in the
complaints made by Dioscorus against Theodoret of Cyrus, who, as we
have seen, had come into the general agreement without renouncing his
hostility to the “ Egyptians” and all their ways. On the promotion of
Dioscorus, he had written him a congratulatory and conciliatory letter.
Since Theodoret almost alone in his generation seems to have had a
sense of humour, we may suspect a grain of sarcasm in singling out for
commendation a virtue—that of humility-which the dearest friend of
Dioscorus could hardly claim for him. Dioscorus soon charged Theodoret
with having gone beyond justice in helping to restore an ex-Nestorian
bishop in Tyre, of having himself preached a Nestorian sermon in Antioch,
and of having, by appending his signature to a document issued by the
late patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledged too widespread a juris-
diction in that see. Dioscorus secured an imperial prohibition served on
Theodoret against departing from his diocese. Considering the events
which followed, he could hardly have conferred on him a greater benefit.
The central controversy, which broke out in 448, may have likewise
originated from Dioscorus. Another source assigned is a court intrigue.
The eunuch Chrysaphius is said to have found the Patriarch Flavian an
obstacle in his way. Flavian had incurred the ill-will of Theodosius by
breaking a custom of sending complimentary gifts, and also by refusing
or at least avoiding the task of forcing Pulcheria to retire into religious
seclusion. The figure-head in the controversy is a poor one. Eutyches,
an archimandrite (or abbot of some monastery) in or near Constantinople,
was an aged man, who according to his own statements, never left his
monastery. But he had been a strong opponent of Nestorius, and now
he was accused of disseminating errors of the opposite kind-of trying
to propagate the doctrine of the One Nature. His accuser, Bishop
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, induced Flavian, at first reluctant, to call him to
account. This was done at the half-yearly local council of the bishops
who chanced to be at Constantinople. The accusations were made, and
Eutyches was with difficulty brought from his seclusion to make his
defence. He did not shine as a theologian, and wished to fall back on
the decisions of Nicaea and of Ephesus. On being hard pressed, he
stated his belief in the words that he confessed Christ as being of two
natures, before the union in the Incarnation, of one nature afterwards,
being God Incarnate. On this point he refused to go back, and he was
accordingly condemned and degraded. He afterwards tried in vain to
## p. 505 (#535) ############################################
449]
Robber Council
505
as he
prove that the reports of the synod had been falsified. He appealed to
the Emperor, to Pope Leo, and to the monks of Constantinople. His
friends, especially Chrysaphius, stirred up Dioscorus on his behalf.
Suggestions were made of a larger council, to revise the decision recently
made at Constantinople, and the Emperor decided that such a council
should be held, and that Dioscorus should preside.
But if it was the opportunity of Alexandria, it was likewise the
opportunity of Rome. Leo had received the communication of Eutyches
with courtesy, and was at first somewhat irritated at Flavian's delay in
keeping him informed and asking his counsel. But as soon
had made inquiries into the whole affair, he became convinced that
Flavian was right and Eutyches wrong. He at once urged his views in
letters to Flavian, Theodosius, Pulcheria and others. There were three
principles which determined his action : first, that it was not a case for
a General Council at all. The Emperor however had decided otherwise.
Secondly, that if there were a Council, it ought to be called in the West.
Here again, he failed to secure his point. Thirdly, that it was for him,
as successor to St Peter, to draw up for the Church an authoritative
statement (or Tome) as to the points in controversy. Here he succeeded,
though only in part. When the Council was finally decided upon he
sent three delegates, a bishop, a priest, and a deacon, to represent him,
and to communicate his Tome to the fathers present.
The Council was summoned to meet at Ephesus on 1 August 449.
Dioscorus, as president, was to have as assessors Juvenal of Jerusalem
and Thalassius of Caesarea. Both in composition and in procedure,
to say nothing of state interference, it was exceedingly irregular.
Many conspicuous bishops, such as Theodoret, were absent. An
archimandrite, Barsumas, was allowed to come accompanied by a host
of wild Syrian monks. The authority of the Roman see was so far
neglected that Leo's Tome was not even allowed to be read, and by an
unblushing terrorism, the signatures of over one hundred and fifteen
bishops were obtained. Flavian who had condemned Eutyches, and
Eusebius who had accused him, were deposed. Eutyches himself was
reinstated and declared orthodox. Several bishops who had been more
or less friendly with Nestorius or who had some grudge against the
Alexandrian see, were condemned and deprived on the strength of
sayings attributed to them in public or private, and of many improbable
moral offences. Among the deprived were Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas
of Edessa. The papal legates were not present during the whole time
of the Council ; indeed with regard to two of them, the question of their
presence at all is doubtful. A single protest-Contradicitur—was made
by the Roman deacon Hilary, who escaped for his life and brought
tidings of what had been done to Rome. Many suffered severe
treatment. Flavian succumbed and died very soon after. The nominee
of Dioscorus, Anatolius, was appointed to succeed him.
CH, XVII.
## p. 506 (#536) ############################################
506
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 450
The violence of Dioscorus and his party may have been somewhat
exaggerated by those who afterwards brought him to account. Yet
there can be little doubt that the name given to the whole proceeding
by Leo, the Robber Council, which has clung to it all through the
course of history, was one that it richly deserved. It is difficult to
understand how Dioscorus could have so far overshot the mark. Either
he must have been an utterly vain and foolhardy man, who could not
appreciate the strength of his antagonists, or he must have relied on
the forces at his command, especially the monks and the Emperor. The
Egyptian and Syrian monks were certainly to be relied on, and
Theodosius upheld him and the decisions of his Council to the very end,
even after a court revolution in which Chrysaphius had been degraded.
(Eudocia had some years previously been obliged to leave the city. ) Leo
acted with decision and promptitude. He called a synod at Rome, and
endeavoured to secure a revision of the acts of the irregular Council by
one that should be full and legal. He refused to recognise Anatolius
till he should have given satisfaction as to orthodoxy. He wrote to
Pulcheria, asking again for her influence. He also used influence with
the Western Court, and induced the Emperor Valentinian, his mother
Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia—the cousin, the aunt and the daughter
respectively of Theodosius—to write to him and urge a new Council.
Before the death of Flavian was known, his restoration was also
demanded. The Council should be held in Italy. At first there was
no result.
But the whole aspect of affairs was changed when, in
July 450, Theodosius died from the effects of a fall from his horse.
Pulcheria, with the orthodox husband Marcian, whom ambition or stress
of circumstances led her to choose, ascended the imperial throne. She
had, as we have seen, disliked Nestorius, but she had no sympathy with
the extreme party on the other side. She had always greatly interested
herself in theological matters, and was quite ready to avail herself of the
opportunity now offered to give power and unity to the Church.
The change in governors necessitated with Leo a modification not of
strategy but of tactics. If no new Council was necessary, the calling of
,
one was not, from the Roman point of view, desirable. The memory of
Flavian must be rehabilitated, but Pulcheria was quite ready to order
the removal of the martyred bishop's bones. Dioscorus must be called
to order and his victims reinstated, and the rule of faith must be laid
down. But for these objects, again, a Council seemed superfluous,
since according to Leo's view of papal authority, which the sufferers,
especially Theodoret, were willing to acknowledge, he was competent
to revise their cases on appeal, and as to the faith, Leo's Tome
had been prepared with the express view of making a settlement.
Accordingly he wrote to Marcian against the project of a Council. As
was natural, Marcian and Pulcheria took a somewhat different view.
Some circumstances, it is true, would make them ready to receive Leo's
a
## p. 507 (#537) ############################################
451]
Beginning of Council of Chalcedon
507
suggestions. Piety apart, they would naturally desire peace and unity,
and also freedom from Alexandrian interference. Rumour said that
Dioscorus was plotting against them. This may be false, though the
friendly relations between the Monophysites and the exiled widow-
Empress Eudocia might render such a suggestion not improbable. But
on the other hand the Emperor and Empress were not likely to avoid
Scylla in order to fall into Charybdis—to liberate their ecclesiastical
policy from Alexandrian dictation merely to bow beneath the yoke of
Rome. With regard to the appointment of Anatolius, Leo had, by the
appointment of a patriarch of Constantinople, attacked the independence
of the Emperor as well as the dignity of the patriarch himself. A
Council must be called, Leo or his legate might preside, and his Tome
might serve as basis for a confession of faith. But the Council must be
held in the East, not, as Leo now vainly requested, in the West, and
measures must be taken in it to secure the prestige of the Byzantine see
against that of either St Mark or St Peter. This policy however was
not all to be declared at once.
The Council was summoned to assemble at Nicaea, the orthodox
associations of that place being of good omen.
It was to be larger
and more representative than any hitherto held, comprising as many as
six hundred and thirty-six bishops (twice as many as those at Nicaea),
though the Emperor and Empress took strong measures to exclude a
concourse of unauthorised persons, who might come to make a disturb-
ance. Seeing, however, that military and civil exigencies prevented
Marcian from attending meetings at a distance from his capital,
he adjourned the Council to Chalcedon. The wisdom of this step
soon became evident. Chalcedon was sufficiently near to Constantinople
to allow a committee of imperial Ministers, with some distinguished
members of the Byzantine Senate, to undertake the general control of
affairs, and the Emperor and Empress were able, at least once, to attend
in state, as well as to watch proceedings throughout.
When we consider the composition of the Council of Chalcedon
and the state of parties at the time, we are surprised less at its failure
to secure ecclesiastical unity than at its success in accomplishing any
business at all. It can hardly be said that any one wished for unity
except on conditions that some others would pronounce intolerable.
On the one hand were the ex-Nestorian bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus and
Ibas of Edessa, who, though they had repudiated Nestorius himself,
were strongly attached to the school from which he had sprung, and
had suffered on many occasions, but worst at the Robber Council, from
the injustice and violence of the Eutychian party. These, being dis-
possessed, could not of course take part in the proceedings till they had
been reinstated, but they had been summoned to the spot, and their very
presence was very likely to inflame the passions of their opponents. At
the opposite extreme was Dioscorus, supported but feebly by the bishops
a
CH. XVII.
## p. 508 (#538) ############################################
508
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[451
who had assisted him at Ephesus, or rather by such as had not already
submitted to Rome, yet backed up vigorously by a host of Syrian and
Egyptian monks, who had managed to secure admittance in the character
of petitioners. Between these parties stood the legates and the party
of Leo, determined on urging the Roman solution of the problem and
no other. In the church of St Euphemia, where the Council sat, the
central position was held by the imperial Commissioners. Immediately
on their left were the Roman delegates, who were regarded as the
ecclesiastical presidents: the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and
the priest Boniface; and near them the bishops of Antioch, Caesarea,
and Ephesus; then several from Pontus, Thrace, and some Eastern
Provinces. To the right of the Commissioners were the bishops of
Alexandria and Jerusalem, with those from Egypt, Illyria and Palestine.
These seem to have been the most conspicuous members of the Council,
and were ranged like government and opposition parties in parliament.
A certain number walked over from the Egyptian to the Roman side
in the course of the first session, and before the whole business was over,
the right must have been very much weakened. There were no restraints
set to the expression of agitated feelings, and cries of “turn him out,"
“ kill him," as an objectionable person came in sight were mixed with
groans of real or feigned penitence for past errors, and imprecations
against those who would either “divide” or “confuse” the Divine
Nature.
The first and third sessions were devoted to the case of Dioscorus,
the second, fourth and fifth, to the question of Belief, the others chiefly
to minor or personal matters. At the very first, the papal legates
refused to let Dioscorus take his seat, stating that Leo had forbidden
it. The first charge against him was that he had held a Council without
the consent of the Roman see. It is difficult to see how this could have
been maintained, since Leo had certainly sent his representatives to the
Second Council of Ephesus. But other charges were soon brought
forward by Eusebius of Dorylaeum as to his behaviour with regard to
Flavian and Eutyches. The acts of the Robber Council, as well as
those of the synod at Constantinople at which Flavian had condemned
Eutyches, were read, a lengthy process which lasted till after night had
fallen and candles had been brought in. Theodoret, amid cheers from
one side and groans from the other, was brought in to witness against
his enemy, now at bay. The bishops who had signed the decrees at
Ephesus told ugly stories of terrorism and begged for forgiveness.
Finally, the secular judges declared Dioscorus deposed. But a further
examination was made in the third session, from which, since the subjects
to be discussed were of technical theology, the imperial Commissioners
were absent. This fact gave Dioscorus an excuse for declining to obey
the summons sent him. Charges against his private life were made at
some length. After his third refusal to appear, the sentence of depriva-
## p. 509 (#539) ############################################
451]
The Tome of Leo approved
509
tion was passed. A similar decree was passed against Thalassius,
Juvenal, and others who had assisted him, but on due submission
these were not only pardoned but allowed to take part in the business
of the Council. A similar indulgence was extended to all who, by force
or guile, or possibly of their own will, had joined in the action which
they were now ready to condemn.
Yet Dioscorus was not wholly without a following. Perhaps the
demand made in the fourth session, by certain Egyptian bishops, that
according to usage, they might not be forced to consent to anything
important without the consent of the Alexandrian see may not have
shewn much loyalty to the late occupant of that see. But there can
be no doubt that the petition presented by a body of monks, chiefly
Eutychian, shewed serious disaffection. The request was for a truly
oecumenical council, such as this one could hardly be without the
presence of an Alexandrian patriarch. It is needless to say that the
petitioners were angrily repelled. Yet they alone, of all who had
been concerned in the Robber Council, had at least retained some-
thing of thieves' honour.
The discussions on the question of the Faith were long and stormy.
The practical problem might seem to be comparatively simple, if it
consisted in marking out safe ground between dyophysitism and mono-
physitism. Neither of these forms of belief had advocates in the
Council. For we have seen that Nestorius was not an uncompromising
dyophysite and Eutyches was not an entire monophysite. Even had it
been otherwise, Nestorianism had been trampled in the dust, and
Eutychianism might seem to have received its death-blow. Those who
said that further definitions were unnecessary, that the doctrines of
Cyril and of Leo were in full accord, had some show of reason on their
side. But the need for further definition was urged, and nearly led to
a collapse of the whole Council. A general agreement was obtained
without great difficulty. The creeds of Nicaea and of Constantinople,
the letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to John of Antioch, and finally the
Tome of Leo, were read and approved. It was this last document
that the Roman delegates regarded as sufficient to put a stop to all
further controversy. It has always remained a classical monument in
the history of Christology, and has been far more widely read and
studied than the declaration finally made at Chalcedon. Perhaps it
seemed insufficient to some because the word €OTókos was not contained
in it, though the idea implied in that word is set forth in unmistakable
terms.
but John, rather than become a cause of bloodshed, withdrew under
protest.
But he did not go far from the city, and in three days he was
summoned back. Constantinople suffered at this time from a shock of
earthquake, which seems to have alarmed the Empress, and the dislike
of Egyptian interference stimulated the desire of the people of Constanti-
nople to recover their bishop. Arcadius sent a messenger to summon
John home. John at first prudently declined to come without the
resolution of a synod, but his scruples were overcome, and he was
reinstated in triumph.
But his return of good fortune was not of long duration. What the
Court had lightly given, it might lightly withdraw. The new cause of
offence was a remonstrance made by Chrysostom, who objected to the
noise and revellings consequent on the erection of a statue of the
Empress close to the church where he officiated. Eudoxia's blood
was up. Report said that the bishop had compared her to Herodias.
He had possibly compared his duty to that of John the Baptist, and his
hearers had pressed the analogy further. He had previously made a
quite pertinent comparison of her court clergy to the priests of Baal,
who "did eat at Jezebel's table," and the inference had seemed to be
that the Empress was a Jezebel. A synod was hastily convoked.
Theophilus did not appear this time, but John's opponents were
now sufficient. He was accused of violating a canon of the Council of
Antioch (341) in having returned without waiting for a synodical
decree. Insult was here added to injury. The canon had been passed
by an Arian council, the violation of it had been due to imperial
pressure. But there was no way of escape. Amid scenes of confusion
and bloodshed, John was conveyed to Cucusus, on the Armenian frontier,
and afterwards to Pityus, in Pontus.
His steadfastness under persecution, the letters by which he sought
to strengthen the hands of his friends and disciples, and the efforts of
his adherents, besides producing a great moral effect, seemed likely to
bring about a reversal of the sentence. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter of
CH. XVII.
## p. 494 (#524) ############################################
494
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
(
407-428
sympathy to Chrysostom and one of strong remonstrance to Theophilus,
to whom a formal deputation was sent. To the clergy and people of
Constantinople he wrote a vigorous protest against the legality of what
had been done, and asserted the need of a Council of East and West.
But for such a council he could only wait the opportunity in faith and
patience. He did all he could by laying the matter before the Emperor
Honorius at Ravenna. A deputation of clergy was sent from Emperor and
Pope to Constantinople. On the way, however, the messengers had their
despatches stolen from them, and they only returned from their bootless
errand after many dangers and insults. Meantime the fire was allowed
to burn itself out. The sufferings of Chrysostom were ended by his
death in exile in September 407. There were still adherents of his
in Constantinople, who refused to recognise his successor, as did also
many bishops in the West. The breach was healed when Atticus,
second bishop after Chrysostom, restored the name of his great pre-
decessor to the diptychs (or tablets, on which the names of lawful
bishops were inscribed).
It can hardly be said that this part of the controversy was ecclesiastical
in the strict sense of the word. It made no new departure in church
doctrine and discipline. But it revealed the more or less hidden forces
by which succeeding conflicts were to be decided.
II. In the second period the Alexandrian leader was Cyril, nephew
of Theophilus, who had succeeded him as bishop in 412. The Byzantine
bishop was Nestorius, who succeeded Sisinnius in 428. Both of these
prelates were more distinctly theological controversialists than were the
chiefs in the last encounter. But theology apart, they succeeded to all
the difficulties in Church and State that had beset their predecessors,
and neither of them was gifted with forbearance and tact. Cyril's
episcopate began with violent conflicts between Christians and Jews, in
which the ecclesiastical power came into collision with the civil.
The
story is well known how the bishop canonised a turbulent monk who
had met his end in the anti-Jewish brawls, how the praefect Orestes
opposed him in this and other high-handed acts, and fell a victim to
the Alexandrian mob. The murder of Hypatia in 415 is not, perhaps,
to be laid directly to Cyril's charge ; but it illustrates the attitude of
anti-pagan fanaticism towards the noblest representatives of Hellenic
culture. Perhaps we may see here the effects of the policy of Theophilus
when he stirred up the more ignorant of the monks to chase away or to
destroy those more capable of philosophic views.
The monks were indeed becoming a more and more uncontrollable
element in the situation. Cyril allied himself with a very powerful
person, the archimandrite Senuti, who plays a large part in the history
of Egyptian monasticism and also in the Monophysite schism. At
present he was orthodox, or rather his views were those that had not yet
been differentiated from orthodoxy, and his zeal was shewn chiefly in
## p. 495 (#525) ############################################
428]
Nestorius and the Imperial Family
495
organising raids on “idols,” temples and pagan priests, and in attacks,
less reprehensible perhaps, but no more respectful of private property,
on the goods of wealthy landowners who defrauded and oppressed the
poor.
Nestorius came from Isauria. His education had been in Antioch,
and the doctrines with which his name is associated are those of the
great Antiochene school carried to their logical and practical conclusions.
But this association has a pathetic and almost a grotesque interest.
Much labour has of recent years been devoted to the task of ascertaining
what Nestorius actually preached and wrote, and the result may be to
acquit him of many of the extravagances imputed to him by his
opponents. To put the case rather crudely: experts have contended
that Nestorius was not a Nestorian. He seems to have been a harsh
and unpleasant man, though capable of acquiring friends, intolerant
of doctrinal eccentricities other than his own. He made it his mission
to prevent men from assigning the attributes of humanity to the Deity,
and boldly took the consequences of his position. Like Chrysostom,
he suffered from the proximity and active ecclesiastical interest of the
imperial family. When Nestorius became bishop of Constantinople
in 428, the Emperor Theodosius II was in the twenty-seventh year
of his age and the twentieth of his reign. Though his character
and abilities offer in some respects a favourable comparison with
those of his father, he suffered, partly through his education, from
a too narrowly theological outlook on his empire and its duties.
fourteen years a leading part in all matters, especially ecclesiastical, had
been taken by his elder sister Pulcheria, who had superintended his
education and seems to have maintained a jealous regard for her own
influence. This influence was at times more or less thwarted by her
sister-in-law Eudocia, the clever Athenian lady, whom she had herself
induced Theodosius to take in marriage. Nestorius had somehow
incurred the enmity of Pulcheria. The cause is too deeply buried in
the dirt of court scandal to be disinterred. Eudocia, though she is
often in opposition to her sister-in-law, does not seem to have had any
leanings to the party of Nestorius, and in the end, as we shall see, she
took a much stronger line against it than did Pulcheria. But both
ladies, in addition to personal feelings, had decided theological leanings,
and to these the Alexandrians were able to appeal.
The theological principles of Cyril were those of the Alexandrian
school. To him it seemed that the doctrine of the Incarnation of the
Logos is impugned by any hesitation to assign the attributes of
humanity to the divine Christ. It was this theological principle which
was the cause, or at least the pretext, of his first attack on Nestorius.
The distinctions between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools
have their roots far back in the history of theological ideas. One
of the main differences lies in the preference by the Alexandrians for
CH. XVII.
## p. 496 (#526) ############################################
496
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
>
allegorical modes of interpreting Scripture, while the Antiochenes pre-
ferred-in the first instance, at least—a more literal method. This is
not unnatural, so far as Alexandria is concerned. That city had seen
the first attempt at amalgamation of Jewish and Hellenic conceptions,
by the solvent force of figure and symbolism, while underneath there
worked the mind of primeval Egypt. The speculations of Philo and
his successors, both Christian and Pagan, carried on the tradition into
orthodox theology. The Christology of Alexandria had produced the
ouoouotos, and now it regarded that term as needing further develop-
ment—as pointing to an entire union (évwors) of divine and human in
the nature of Christ, beyond any conjunction (ouvápela) which seemed
to admit a possible duality. On the other side, the Antiochene school
is well represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the friend of Chrysostom,
and the teacher, whether directly or indirectly, of Nestorius.
He was
a learned man and a great commentator, who insisted on the need of
historical and literary studies in elucidating Holy Scripture.
His
eminence in this respect is to be seen in the fact that we often find him
cited in quite recent commentaries. In his Christology, he held that the
union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus was moral rather
than physical or dynamical (κατ' ευδοκίαν rather than κατ' ουσίαν or
kat' évépyelav). He was, however, very careful to avoid the deduction
that the relation of divine and human was similar in kind though
different in degree, in Christ and in His followers. The actions and
qualities ascribed to Christ as man, and particularly His birth, sufferings
and death, were not to be attributed to the Deity without some
qualifying phrase.
This question might have seemed to be one of purely academic
interest, if it had not obtained an excellent catchword which appealed to
the popular mind: the title of EOTókos (Mother of God) as applied to
the Virgin Mary, vehemently asserted by the Alexandrians, rejected,
or accepted with many qualifications, by the Antiochenes. The fierce-
ness of the battle over this word suggests analogies and associations
which are easily exaggerated. In some sermons preached on behalf of
the Alexandrian view there are remarks which seem to foreshadow the
Virgin cult in medieval and modern times. And the great glory of
Cyril, as we find in superscriptions of his works, was that of being the
chief advocate of the OEOTÓKOS. Again, and this is a more important
point, and one that will meet us again, both the word and the conception
could be interpreted in harmony with one of the strongest elements
in revived paganism. The worship of a maternal deity, such as seems
to have prevailed widely in the earliest civilisation of Mediterranean
lands, had again come to the fore in the last conflict of Paganism with
Christianity. The mysteries of Isis and of Cybele were widespread.
Julian wrote a mystic treatise in honour of the Mother of the Gods ;
and as he blames the Christians for applying the term “Mother of God”
## p. 497 (#527) ############################################
428]
Character of Nestorianism
497
to the Virgin Mary, he seems here to be following his ordinary policy of
strengthening Hellenism on its devotional side by bringing in such
elements from Christianity as might be found compatible with it. The
reverse process, by which Christianity among both the educated and
the uneducated was assimilating pagan ideas, was of course going on
at the same time, consciously in some quarters, unconsciously in others.
But it would be a mistake to look on the Nestorian controversy as
chiefly, or even as greatly, connected with the honour of the Virgin.
Nestorius himself, in one of his sayings, probably uttered in a testy
mood, protested “anyhow, don't make the Virgin a Goddess"; but this
is, I believe, almost the only utterance of the kind during the
controversy.
Generally speaking, on its speculative side, the controversy was
Christological. The Nicene Fathers had finally pronounced on the
relation of the Father to the Divine Logos, but within the limits of
orthodoxy there was room for a difference as to the relation of the
Logos to the human Christ. Some-on the Antiochene side-dreaded
lest the idea of the humanity should be entirely merged in that of the
Logos. Others (leaning towards Alexandria) would avoid any contami-
nation of the Logos by the associations of humanity. Meantime the
unphilosophical minds that took part in the dispute imagined in a
vague way that it was possible for human beings to commit the crime of
literally confusing the nature of the Deity or of cutting Christ in pieces.
The position of Nestorius himself and of those who followed him
most closely is summarised in a saying of his that was often quoted and
oftener misquoted: “I cannot speak of God as being two or three
months old. ” He regarded it as impiety to attribute to a Person of the
Trinity the acts and accidents of human, still more of infant, life. The
Alexandrians, on the other hand, considered this view as virtually
implying the existence of two Christs, a divine and a human. Naturally
a
the opponents made no efforts to understand one another's position, and
if they had their efforts could hardly have been successful. During this
unhappy century, the mind of man had gone hopelessly astray as to its
limitations. Intellectual courage had survived intellectual contact with
facts, but that courage was often directed against chimaeras.
The Pope of Rome at this juncture was Celestine I (422-432). He
seems to have been a conscientious and active ruler, a strict disciplinarian,
yet averse to extreme rigour in dealing with delinquents. As we have
already said, in this conflict Rome is not on the side of Constantinople
and Antioch, but on that of Alexandria. Among the many reasons
that may be assigned for the change, two considerations are prominent :
first, that the relations between the sees of Rome and of Constantinople
had been somewhat strained through rival claims to ecclesiastical
supremacy in the regions of Illyria ; and secondly, that Celestine was
a devoted admirer of Augustine and anxious to put down the Pelagian
32
C. D. H. voL I. CH. XVII.
## p. 498 (#528) ############################################
498
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 429
heresy. Nestorius, we may safely say, was not himself a Pelagian. In
some, at least, of his extant discourses he strongly opposes that teaching.
But it is clear that the most eminent Antiochene theologians were not
so pronounced as was Augustine in their doctrine of original sin and of
predestination. Theodore of Mopsuestia was accused of the same
tendency, though he avoided the heretical deductions from his principles,
and Nestorius himself once wrote a sympathetic letter (though the
obscurity of the text makes it doubtful as evidence) to Coelestius the
notable follower of Pelagius. Again, a few years before our present date
(at the Council of Carthage, 426) a monk named Leporius of Marseilles
,
who has been called a “Nestorian before Nestorius," was condemned as
a Pelagian.
The Antiochene see was more definitely than it had previously been
on the side of Constantinople. It was now occupied by a certain John,
who plays an ambiguous part, but seems to have been favourable to
Nestorius. But the most eminent person on this side was Theodoret,
bishop of Cyrus, in the province of Euphratensis, a learned theologian,
a good fighter, and a man of generous impulses, though he did not keep
by his friend Nestorius to the bitter end. In these Eastern bishops we
see a growing jealousy of the overweening power of Alexandria. The
Church of Edessa, which had, generally speaking, lived a life apart, was
drawn into the controversy. The bishop Rabbulas, though not inclined
to urge the adoption of the disputed terms, took the anti-Nestorian side.
His successor however, Ibas (435), upheld the Nestorian position, and
retained for centuries the reverence of the Nestorian Christians of the
East.
To take up briefly the main events of the controversy: It was most
probably during the Christmas festival of the year 428, or else early in 429,
that Proclus, bishop of Cyzicus, but resident at Constantinople, preached
a sermon in which he used and expounded the term EOTÓKOS. Nestorius
replied to this discourse by another, in which he warned the people to
distinguish between the Divine Word and the temple in which the Deity
dwelt, and to avoid saying without qualifications, that God was born of
Mary. Nestorius seems to have been more guarded in his language than
some of his clergy, especially a priest called Anastasius, who condemned
the word OEOTókos altogether and even denounced as heretics those who
used it. It is extremely difficult to determine how widely the Antiochene
or Nestorian view prevailed, and whether it had yet reached Egypt, and
on this question depends the conviction or acquittal of Cyril in regard
to the charge of aggressive violence generally brought against him.
In the Easter of 429 he issued an encyclical to the Egyptian monks,
warning them against the dangers ahead. Men were teaching doctrines,
he said, which would bring Christ down to the level of ordinary
humanity.
Soon after, he wrote a long letter to the Emperor, “image of God on
## p. 499 (#529) ############################################
429]
Cyril, Celestine, Nestorius
499
was
earth,” against heresies in general and the new one-with which,
however, he does not couple the name of Nestorius—in particular.
He followed this up by two very long treatises to “the most pious
princesses” (Pulcheria and her sisters), in which he cites many Fathers
to justify the term fotókos, and makes out that the new heretics
would assert two Christs. The appeal to these ladies does not seem to
have pleased Theodosius, who resented Cyril's use of the discord in
the imperial family. Cyril, when once he had begun, spared no pains
to succeed. He had agents in Constantinople and adherents whom,
at much trouble and expense, he had attached to his cause. Especially
he had the support of a large following among the monks. We have
his letters written both to Nestorius himself and to Celestine, bishop of
Rome. In all of them he takes the ground of one having authority, of
one also who, in spite of personal affection for Nestorius as a man, is
bound to consider the supreme interests of the Truth. Nestorius in
return eulogises Christian TTLEÍKela, a grace in which he does not himself
seem to have excelled, but maintains an independent bearing. He
somewhat superfluously accuses Cyril of ignorance of the Nicene creed,
and reassures him as to the satisfactory state of the Church in
Constantinople. Nestorius meantime in correspondence with
Celestine on another matter. Certain bishops from the West, accused
of heresy, had come to Constantinople, How was he to deal with them?
He had to write a second time before a rather curt answer came; that
of course they were heretics and so was Nestorius himself : they are
known from other sources to have been Pelagians. Cyril had by this
time sent to Rome a Latin translation of the communications that had
passed between him and Nestorius with regard to the whole Christo-
logical question. A synod was consequently held at Rome which
approved of Cyril's action and position, and the Pope wrote to the clergy
of Constantinople, as well as to Cyril and to Nestorius himself. Ten
days were given to Nestorius to make a satisfactory explanation, after
which he and those holding with him were to be held excommunicated.
Letters announcing this decision were sent to the bishops of Antioch,
Jerusalem, Thessalonica and Philippi. To Cyril the Pope delegated
the power to take necessary action against Nestorius and his followers.
In a synod held at Alexandria, a series of propositions condemnatory
of the doctrine taught by Nestorius and insisting on that of the
physical union ” (@vwois Duo uń) were drawn up. In consequence of
these actions, Nestorius, urged by John of Antioch, Theodoret of Cyrus
and others, made certain explanations so as to tolerate the figurative use
of the word Beotókos? . But he stood his ground as to the main
principles, and issued, with the support of his adherents, a list of
counter-anathemas to those of Cyril.
1 I. e. in accordance with the union of the two natures in Christ, even during
mortal life.
CH. XVII.
32-2
## p. 500 (#530) ############################################
500
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 431
It may seem strange that local councils and leading bishops or
patriarchs should have gone so far without insisting on a General
Council. One person evidently took this view—the Emperor Theodosius
himself. The builder of the Theodosian Wall and the promulgator of
the Theodosian Code can hardly have been the mere weakling that some
historians would paint him. He seems to have been a man of some
energy and love of fair play, though he had not the strength to carry
out a policy to the end. Now, however, jointly with his cousin
Valentinian, he issued a writ summoning Eastern and Western bishops
to a Council to be held the following Whitsuntide (431) at Ephesus.
He did not attempt to go himself, but he sent as his emissary the
count Candidianus, to keep order, by military force if necessary, and
especially to prevent monks and laymen from intruding. Pope
Celestine sent two deputies, instructed to act along with Cyril
. Cyril
himself went largely accompanied. Among his monastic followers was
the wild ascetic Senuti of Panopolis, already mentioned, though the
stories of Senuti's conduct at the Council are not easily brought into
accordance with the facts we have. Nestorius and his Constantinopolitan
friends went there, but kept at a prudent distance from “the Egyptian. "
John of Antioch and forty Asiatic 'bishops came likewise, but at slow
pace. Their delay, whether accidental or designed, determined the
character and events of the Council. The weak point about the Council
of Ephesus was that the presiding judge and the principal prosecutor
were one and the same person, in an assembly which, though supposed to
be primarily legislative, had also to exercise judicial functions. From
the very first, Nestorius had no chance, and he declined to recognise
the authority of the Council till all its members were assembled. Cyril
was in no mind to allow this plea, and perhaps, in refusing to wait
for the Eastern bishops, he overreached himself, and brought sub-
sequent trouble on his own head. Celestine's delegates had not arrived,
but there was no reason to wait for them, as it was known that they had
been instructed to follow the Alexandrian lead. John of Antioch and
the other Eastern bishops were, of course, an essential part of the
Council, but a message of excuse which John had sent was tacitly
construed into acquiescence with what might be done before his arrival.
Accordingly, in spite of remonstrances from Nestorius, from a good
many Eastern bishops who had already arrived, and from the imperial
Commissioners, the Council was opened sixteen days after the appointed
time, without the Antiochenes or those who were in favour of any
kind
of compromise with Nestorius. Messengers were sent to Nestorius, who
refused to attend. It was the work of one day, the first session of the
Council, to condemn him and deprive him of his see. This was done on
the testimony of his letters, his reported speeches, and his rejection of
the messengers from the Council. One hundred and ninety-eight bishops
signed these decrees. The populace of Ephesus received the result with
## p. 501 (#531) ############################################
431]
End of the Council of Ephesus
501
wild enthusiasm, and gave the champions of the Theotokes an ovation
on their way to their lodgings. Perhaps it is not mere fanciful analogy
to recall the two-hours' shouting of an earlier city mob: “Great Artemis
of the Ephesians. "
Five days afterwards, John of Antioch arrived. He had with him
comparatively few bishops, and when he was joined by the Nestorians,
the number of his party only amounted to forty-three. There seems a
touch of irony in the assertion which he made afterwards that the
reason of his scanty numbers was to be found in his strict injunctions to
follow out the Emperor's directions. Similarly, when he justifies the
delay by the necessity that the bishops should officiate in their churches
on the First Sunday after Easter, we may seem to have a covert hit at
Cyril's large numbers who found no difficulty in absenting themselves
from their flocks.
From the first, John took his stand against the acts of Cyril. He
rejected the communications of the Council and joined forces with
Nestorius. The imperial officials afforded him protection and support.
In the “Conciliabulum,” as his assembly was contemptuously called,
Cyril and Memnon of Ephesus were in their turn deprived and excom-
municated. Meantime the original Council, now joined by delegates from
Rome, continued its sessions, deposed John and all his adherents, and con-
tinued to pass decrees against the Pelagians and other heretics. Whether
or no the precise articles anathematising Nestorius, which had been
drawn up at Alexandria, were passed by the Council is a disputed matter
and one of inferior importance. Their sense was certainly maintained,
and they were answered by counter-anathematisms on the other side.
The situation was becoming intolerable. Two rival assemblies of
bitterly hostile factions were sitting in conclave through the sultry days
of an Eastern summer, in a city always given to turbulence, and now
stirred up by long and eloquent discourses such as a Greek populace
ever loved to hear. Count Candidianus and the other imperial delegates
had a hard task. He had, after the first session, torn down the placards
declaring the deposition of Nestorius. He tried to prevent the
Egyptian party from preaching inflammatory sermons, and from com-
municating the fever of controversy to Constantinople. This, however,
he could not do, as Cyril found means of corresponding with the monks
of Constantinople.
The Emperor himself was hardly equal to the emergency. The
difficulty as to Nestorius was partly removed by the offer of Nestorius
himself to retire to a monastery. With regard to the other leaders,
Cyril and Memnon were for a time imprisoned. The Emperor received
embassies from both sides, and finally decided to maintain the decisions
of both councils. Maximian, a priest of Constantinople, was appointed
to the vacant see of that city. Then Cyril and Memnon were liberated
and restored to their sees, and the remaining members of the Council
CH, XVII.
## p. 502 (#532) ############################################
502
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [431–444
[
were bidden to return home, unless they could first find some means of
accommodation with the Orientals.
The means by which the Emperor's partial change of front and the
yet more clearly marked prevalence of anti-Nestorian feeling at Court
were brought about can only be brought to light by untangling a
most involved skein of ecclesiastical diplomacy. From a letter of one
of Cyril's agents, as well as from the recently published account of
Nestorius himself, there was a profuse distribution of gratuities among
notable persons, including the princesses themselves. But Cyril appealed
to zeal as well as to avarice. It would appear that a good many people
in Constantinople were favourable to Nestorius, but that the clergy and
the monks were generally against him. The union between Egyptians
and Orientals was brought to pass sooner than we might have expected.
It was based on an explanation not wholly unlike that urged on Nes-
torius by John of Antioch near the beginning of the difficulties, an
acknowledgment of two natures united into one (δύο φύσεων ένωσιν;
and μίαν τήν του Θεού φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην), with a recognition, in
virtue of the union, of the propriety of the term EOTókos. It was a
triumph for Cyril, but some of the most independent of his opponents
still held out. Especially Theodoret, the best theologian of the party,
and the most faithful—a slight distinction—to his friends, refused
to be included in an arrangement which did not restore all the sees of
the dispossessed bishops to their rightful occupants. It was only to a
special decree of the Emperor, enforcing ecclesiastical agreement in the
East, that he gave at last a qualified assent. But the indignant protest
widely raised against Alexandrian ambition was expressed in a playful
letter which he wrote after Cyril's death in 444, in which, along with
more charitable wishes that we might expect for the final judgment on
his soul, he recommends that a large stone be placed over the grave, to
,
keep quiet the disturber who had now gone to propagate strange
doctrines among the shades below. The last efforts of Cyril had been
towards the condemnation of the great commentator, the father of
Antiochene philosophy, Theodore of Mopsuestia. The reverence in
which the memory of Theodore was held caused the scheme to fail,
only to be renewed, with baneful consequences, by the Emperor
Justinian.
We may now narrate the end of Nestorius. For some years he
lived in peace in a monastery near Antioch, but his relations with its
bishop appear to have cooled. In 435, he was banished to Petra in
Arabia, but instead of going thither, he seems to have been sent to one
of the oases of Egypt. There a wandering horde of Libyans, the
Blemmyes, made him prisoner. Soon after he was released, and fled to
Panopolis in Egypt. Thence he wrote a pathetic letter to the Praeses
of the Thebaid, begging for protection “lest to all time the evil report
should be brought that it is better to be a captive of barbarians than a
## p. 503 (#533) ############################################
444]
Beginning of the Eutychian Controversy
503
later.
fugitive suppliant of the Roman Emperor. ” But Nestorius had fallen
into the very hotbed of fanatical monasticism. The Praeses caused
him to be removed by “barbarian" soldiers to Elephantine, on the
borders of the province. There is some evidence that the blow which
put an end to his sufferings was dealt by the hand of Senuti himself.
This was however some years
Nestorius was not a great leader of men, nor a very striking figure-
head for a great cause.
His whole story illustrates the perversity and
blind cruelty of his opponents, and it is only in comparison with them
that he sometimes appears in an almost dignified character. This
character is greatly emphasized by the lately discovered writings in
which Nestorius was employed shortly before his death. He seems to
have approved the final arrangement of Chalcedon, and even to have
acquiesced, with a magnanimity hardly to be expected, in the com-
promise by which his own name was left under the cloud while the
principles for which he had striven were in great measure confirmed.
III. The Monophysite or Eutychian Controversy may be regarded
as a continuation of the preceding one, yet as some of the leading parties
were different, as well as their objects and methods, it may be better to
take it apart.
The main difference as to character and issue of this conflict com-
pared with the last lies in the character of the champions of Rome
and of Alexandria respectively. Now there was a Pope of commanding
character and ability. Leo I stands out in history as a great ruler of
the Church, who crushed a premature movement towards Gallicanism ;
as a moral power in Rome itself in times of demoralising panic; and
as the shepherd of his people, who-in ways known and unknown-
stopped the Romeward march of Attila the Hun. Here we have to
deal with him as a firm and successful assertor of the claims of St Peter's
chair over all others, and as a great diplomatic theologian who could
mark out a permanent via media between opposite dogmatic tendencies.
Dioscorus, the champion of Alexandria, had succeeded Cyril in
A. D. 444. The fact that he was subsequently condemned as a here-
siarch whereas Cyril was canonised as a saint, has necessarily led to
differences of opinion as to the relations between the two. He may
be regarded, with respect to his dogmatic position, either as a deserter
of Cyril's position between the heresies of Monophysitism and Dyo-
physitism, or else as the real successor of Cyril in pressing the Alexandrian
Christology to its natural conclusions. Personally he seems to have
dissociated himself from Cyril by making foes of Cyril's family, although
according to one account, he was himself of Cyril's kin. The charges
made against his morals, both in public and in private life, may have
been well-founded, but in three respects, at least, he was a real follower
of Cyril-in his zeal for the prerogatives of the see of St Mark; in the
remarkable pertinacity and unscrupulousness with which he pursued his
CH. XVII.
## p. 504 (#534) ############################################
504
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[448
-
ends; and in his reliance on the monastic element among his followers,
particularly on the part of it that was most violent and fanatical.
Of Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, there is less to be said. He
enjoyed a reputation for piety, and seems to have acted with some indepen-
dence in his relations with the Emperor. But he does not shew enough
dignity and moderation in the early stages of the dispute to obtain the
sympathy which his cruel treatment at the end might seem to claim.
The premonitory symptoms of the controversy are to be seen in the
complaints made by Dioscorus against Theodoret of Cyrus, who, as we
have seen, had come into the general agreement without renouncing his
hostility to the “ Egyptians” and all their ways. On the promotion of
Dioscorus, he had written him a congratulatory and conciliatory letter.
Since Theodoret almost alone in his generation seems to have had a
sense of humour, we may suspect a grain of sarcasm in singling out for
commendation a virtue—that of humility-which the dearest friend of
Dioscorus could hardly claim for him. Dioscorus soon charged Theodoret
with having gone beyond justice in helping to restore an ex-Nestorian
bishop in Tyre, of having himself preached a Nestorian sermon in Antioch,
and of having, by appending his signature to a document issued by the
late patriarch of Constantinople, acknowledged too widespread a juris-
diction in that see. Dioscorus secured an imperial prohibition served on
Theodoret against departing from his diocese. Considering the events
which followed, he could hardly have conferred on him a greater benefit.
The central controversy, which broke out in 448, may have likewise
originated from Dioscorus. Another source assigned is a court intrigue.
The eunuch Chrysaphius is said to have found the Patriarch Flavian an
obstacle in his way. Flavian had incurred the ill-will of Theodosius by
breaking a custom of sending complimentary gifts, and also by refusing
or at least avoiding the task of forcing Pulcheria to retire into religious
seclusion. The figure-head in the controversy is a poor one. Eutyches,
an archimandrite (or abbot of some monastery) in or near Constantinople,
was an aged man, who according to his own statements, never left his
monastery. But he had been a strong opponent of Nestorius, and now
he was accused of disseminating errors of the opposite kind-of trying
to propagate the doctrine of the One Nature. His accuser, Bishop
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, induced Flavian, at first reluctant, to call him to
account. This was done at the half-yearly local council of the bishops
who chanced to be at Constantinople. The accusations were made, and
Eutyches was with difficulty brought from his seclusion to make his
defence. He did not shine as a theologian, and wished to fall back on
the decisions of Nicaea and of Ephesus. On being hard pressed, he
stated his belief in the words that he confessed Christ as being of two
natures, before the union in the Incarnation, of one nature afterwards,
being God Incarnate. On this point he refused to go back, and he was
accordingly condemned and degraded. He afterwards tried in vain to
## p. 505 (#535) ############################################
449]
Robber Council
505
as he
prove that the reports of the synod had been falsified. He appealed to
the Emperor, to Pope Leo, and to the monks of Constantinople. His
friends, especially Chrysaphius, stirred up Dioscorus on his behalf.
Suggestions were made of a larger council, to revise the decision recently
made at Constantinople, and the Emperor decided that such a council
should be held, and that Dioscorus should preside.
But if it was the opportunity of Alexandria, it was likewise the
opportunity of Rome. Leo had received the communication of Eutyches
with courtesy, and was at first somewhat irritated at Flavian's delay in
keeping him informed and asking his counsel. But as soon
had made inquiries into the whole affair, he became convinced that
Flavian was right and Eutyches wrong. He at once urged his views in
letters to Flavian, Theodosius, Pulcheria and others. There were three
principles which determined his action : first, that it was not a case for
a General Council at all. The Emperor however had decided otherwise.
Secondly, that if there were a Council, it ought to be called in the West.
Here again, he failed to secure his point. Thirdly, that it was for him,
as successor to St Peter, to draw up for the Church an authoritative
statement (or Tome) as to the points in controversy. Here he succeeded,
though only in part. When the Council was finally decided upon he
sent three delegates, a bishop, a priest, and a deacon, to represent him,
and to communicate his Tome to the fathers present.
The Council was summoned to meet at Ephesus on 1 August 449.
Dioscorus, as president, was to have as assessors Juvenal of Jerusalem
and Thalassius of Caesarea. Both in composition and in procedure,
to say nothing of state interference, it was exceedingly irregular.
Many conspicuous bishops, such as Theodoret, were absent. An
archimandrite, Barsumas, was allowed to come accompanied by a host
of wild Syrian monks. The authority of the Roman see was so far
neglected that Leo's Tome was not even allowed to be read, and by an
unblushing terrorism, the signatures of over one hundred and fifteen
bishops were obtained. Flavian who had condemned Eutyches, and
Eusebius who had accused him, were deposed. Eutyches himself was
reinstated and declared orthodox. Several bishops who had been more
or less friendly with Nestorius or who had some grudge against the
Alexandrian see, were condemned and deprived on the strength of
sayings attributed to them in public or private, and of many improbable
moral offences. Among the deprived were Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas
of Edessa. The papal legates were not present during the whole time
of the Council ; indeed with regard to two of them, the question of their
presence at all is doubtful. A single protest-Contradicitur—was made
by the Roman deacon Hilary, who escaped for his life and brought
tidings of what had been done to Rome. Many suffered severe
treatment. Flavian succumbed and died very soon after. The nominee
of Dioscorus, Anatolius, was appointed to succeed him.
CH, XVII.
## p. 506 (#536) ############################################
506
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[ 450
The violence of Dioscorus and his party may have been somewhat
exaggerated by those who afterwards brought him to account. Yet
there can be little doubt that the name given to the whole proceeding
by Leo, the Robber Council, which has clung to it all through the
course of history, was one that it richly deserved. It is difficult to
understand how Dioscorus could have so far overshot the mark. Either
he must have been an utterly vain and foolhardy man, who could not
appreciate the strength of his antagonists, or he must have relied on
the forces at his command, especially the monks and the Emperor. The
Egyptian and Syrian monks were certainly to be relied on, and
Theodosius upheld him and the decisions of his Council to the very end,
even after a court revolution in which Chrysaphius had been degraded.
(Eudocia had some years previously been obliged to leave the city. ) Leo
acted with decision and promptitude. He called a synod at Rome, and
endeavoured to secure a revision of the acts of the irregular Council by
one that should be full and legal. He refused to recognise Anatolius
till he should have given satisfaction as to orthodoxy. He wrote to
Pulcheria, asking again for her influence. He also used influence with
the Western Court, and induced the Emperor Valentinian, his mother
Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia—the cousin, the aunt and the daughter
respectively of Theodosius—to write to him and urge a new Council.
Before the death of Flavian was known, his restoration was also
demanded. The Council should be held in Italy. At first there was
no result.
But the whole aspect of affairs was changed when, in
July 450, Theodosius died from the effects of a fall from his horse.
Pulcheria, with the orthodox husband Marcian, whom ambition or stress
of circumstances led her to choose, ascended the imperial throne. She
had, as we have seen, disliked Nestorius, but she had no sympathy with
the extreme party on the other side. She had always greatly interested
herself in theological matters, and was quite ready to avail herself of the
opportunity now offered to give power and unity to the Church.
The change in governors necessitated with Leo a modification not of
strategy but of tactics. If no new Council was necessary, the calling of
,
one was not, from the Roman point of view, desirable. The memory of
Flavian must be rehabilitated, but Pulcheria was quite ready to order
the removal of the martyred bishop's bones. Dioscorus must be called
to order and his victims reinstated, and the rule of faith must be laid
down. But for these objects, again, a Council seemed superfluous,
since according to Leo's view of papal authority, which the sufferers,
especially Theodoret, were willing to acknowledge, he was competent
to revise their cases on appeal, and as to the faith, Leo's Tome
had been prepared with the express view of making a settlement.
Accordingly he wrote to Marcian against the project of a Council. As
was natural, Marcian and Pulcheria took a somewhat different view.
Some circumstances, it is true, would make them ready to receive Leo's
a
## p. 507 (#537) ############################################
451]
Beginning of Council of Chalcedon
507
suggestions. Piety apart, they would naturally desire peace and unity,
and also freedom from Alexandrian interference. Rumour said that
Dioscorus was plotting against them. This may be false, though the
friendly relations between the Monophysites and the exiled widow-
Empress Eudocia might render such a suggestion not improbable. But
on the other hand the Emperor and Empress were not likely to avoid
Scylla in order to fall into Charybdis—to liberate their ecclesiastical
policy from Alexandrian dictation merely to bow beneath the yoke of
Rome. With regard to the appointment of Anatolius, Leo had, by the
appointment of a patriarch of Constantinople, attacked the independence
of the Emperor as well as the dignity of the patriarch himself. A
Council must be called, Leo or his legate might preside, and his Tome
might serve as basis for a confession of faith. But the Council must be
held in the East, not, as Leo now vainly requested, in the West, and
measures must be taken in it to secure the prestige of the Byzantine see
against that of either St Mark or St Peter. This policy however was
not all to be declared at once.
The Council was summoned to assemble at Nicaea, the orthodox
associations of that place being of good omen.
It was to be larger
and more representative than any hitherto held, comprising as many as
six hundred and thirty-six bishops (twice as many as those at Nicaea),
though the Emperor and Empress took strong measures to exclude a
concourse of unauthorised persons, who might come to make a disturb-
ance. Seeing, however, that military and civil exigencies prevented
Marcian from attending meetings at a distance from his capital,
he adjourned the Council to Chalcedon. The wisdom of this step
soon became evident. Chalcedon was sufficiently near to Constantinople
to allow a committee of imperial Ministers, with some distinguished
members of the Byzantine Senate, to undertake the general control of
affairs, and the Emperor and Empress were able, at least once, to attend
in state, as well as to watch proceedings throughout.
When we consider the composition of the Council of Chalcedon
and the state of parties at the time, we are surprised less at its failure
to secure ecclesiastical unity than at its success in accomplishing any
business at all. It can hardly be said that any one wished for unity
except on conditions that some others would pronounce intolerable.
On the one hand were the ex-Nestorian bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus and
Ibas of Edessa, who, though they had repudiated Nestorius himself,
were strongly attached to the school from which he had sprung, and
had suffered on many occasions, but worst at the Robber Council, from
the injustice and violence of the Eutychian party. These, being dis-
possessed, could not of course take part in the proceedings till they had
been reinstated, but they had been summoned to the spot, and their very
presence was very likely to inflame the passions of their opponents. At
the opposite extreme was Dioscorus, supported but feebly by the bishops
a
CH. XVII.
## p. 508 (#538) ############################################
508
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[451
who had assisted him at Ephesus, or rather by such as had not already
submitted to Rome, yet backed up vigorously by a host of Syrian and
Egyptian monks, who had managed to secure admittance in the character
of petitioners. Between these parties stood the legates and the party
of Leo, determined on urging the Roman solution of the problem and
no other. In the church of St Euphemia, where the Council sat, the
central position was held by the imperial Commissioners. Immediately
on their left were the Roman delegates, who were regarded as the
ecclesiastical presidents: the bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and
the priest Boniface; and near them the bishops of Antioch, Caesarea,
and Ephesus; then several from Pontus, Thrace, and some Eastern
Provinces. To the right of the Commissioners were the bishops of
Alexandria and Jerusalem, with those from Egypt, Illyria and Palestine.
These seem to have been the most conspicuous members of the Council,
and were ranged like government and opposition parties in parliament.
A certain number walked over from the Egyptian to the Roman side
in the course of the first session, and before the whole business was over,
the right must have been very much weakened. There were no restraints
set to the expression of agitated feelings, and cries of “turn him out,"
“ kill him," as an objectionable person came in sight were mixed with
groans of real or feigned penitence for past errors, and imprecations
against those who would either “divide” or “confuse” the Divine
Nature.
The first and third sessions were devoted to the case of Dioscorus,
the second, fourth and fifth, to the question of Belief, the others chiefly
to minor or personal matters. At the very first, the papal legates
refused to let Dioscorus take his seat, stating that Leo had forbidden
it. The first charge against him was that he had held a Council without
the consent of the Roman see. It is difficult to see how this could have
been maintained, since Leo had certainly sent his representatives to the
Second Council of Ephesus. But other charges were soon brought
forward by Eusebius of Dorylaeum as to his behaviour with regard to
Flavian and Eutyches. The acts of the Robber Council, as well as
those of the synod at Constantinople at which Flavian had condemned
Eutyches, were read, a lengthy process which lasted till after night had
fallen and candles had been brought in. Theodoret, amid cheers from
one side and groans from the other, was brought in to witness against
his enemy, now at bay. The bishops who had signed the decrees at
Ephesus told ugly stories of terrorism and begged for forgiveness.
Finally, the secular judges declared Dioscorus deposed. But a further
examination was made in the third session, from which, since the subjects
to be discussed were of technical theology, the imperial Commissioners
were absent. This fact gave Dioscorus an excuse for declining to obey
the summons sent him. Charges against his private life were made at
some length. After his third refusal to appear, the sentence of depriva-
## p. 509 (#539) ############################################
451]
The Tome of Leo approved
509
tion was passed. A similar decree was passed against Thalassius,
Juvenal, and others who had assisted him, but on due submission
these were not only pardoned but allowed to take part in the business
of the Council. A similar indulgence was extended to all who, by force
or guile, or possibly of their own will, had joined in the action which
they were now ready to condemn.
Yet Dioscorus was not wholly without a following. Perhaps the
demand made in the fourth session, by certain Egyptian bishops, that
according to usage, they might not be forced to consent to anything
important without the consent of the Alexandrian see may not have
shewn much loyalty to the late occupant of that see. But there can
be no doubt that the petition presented by a body of monks, chiefly
Eutychian, shewed serious disaffection. The request was for a truly
oecumenical council, such as this one could hardly be without the
presence of an Alexandrian patriarch. It is needless to say that the
petitioners were angrily repelled. Yet they alone, of all who had
been concerned in the Robber Council, had at least retained some-
thing of thieves' honour.
The discussions on the question of the Faith were long and stormy.
The practical problem might seem to be comparatively simple, if it
consisted in marking out safe ground between dyophysitism and mono-
physitism. Neither of these forms of belief had advocates in the
Council. For we have seen that Nestorius was not an uncompromising
dyophysite and Eutyches was not an entire monophysite. Even had it
been otherwise, Nestorianism had been trampled in the dust, and
Eutychianism might seem to have received its death-blow. Those who
said that further definitions were unnecessary, that the doctrines of
Cyril and of Leo were in full accord, had some show of reason on their
side. But the need for further definition was urged, and nearly led to
a collapse of the whole Council. A general agreement was obtained
without great difficulty. The creeds of Nicaea and of Constantinople,
the letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to John of Antioch, and finally the
Tome of Leo, were read and approved. It was this last document
that the Roman delegates regarded as sufficient to put a stop to all
further controversy. It has always remained a classical monument in
the history of Christology, and has been far more widely read and
studied than the declaration finally made at Chalcedon. Perhaps it
seemed insufficient to some because the word €OTókos was not contained
in it, though the idea implied in that word is set forth in unmistakable
terms.
