Leo
supported
the
action of his delegates, or rather, they had rightly gauged his mind.
action of his delegates, or rather, they had rightly gauged his mind.
Cambridge Medieval History - v1 - Christian Roman Empire and Teutonic Kingdoms
” 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. And again, though very many present had subscribed to the
Tome, it was not unnatural that in many quarters there should be a re-
luctance to accept as possessing peculiar authority a document emanating
from a Western source. Anatolius and certain other bishops accordingly
drew up a formula which was presented to the Council. But this only
roused fierce opposition from the Roman legates, and even to a threat
CH. XVII.
## p. 510 (#540) ############################################
510
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
that they would withdraw altogether, and cause a new Council to be
assembled in Italy.
The obnoxious creed has not come down to us, but we gather that
it contained the expression : Christ is of two natures (ex dúo púoewv)
instead of the phrase in two natures (év dúo púbeo. v). Those who
would regard the theological difference as rooted in philosophical
distinction may suggest a rational apprehension in the minds of Leo
and his supporters, that whatever might be the principle of union or
separation in divine and human nature, it could not, as Eutyches
supposed, be dependent on a merely temporal relation.
It would, of course, have been fatal to the policy of the Emperor and
Empress if Rome had seceded at this juncture. As a compromise,
Anatolius and a chosen representative committee of bishops were bidden
to retire into the oratory of St Euphemia and prepare a new creed.
The document, when produced, proved to be based on that of Leo. But
it contained on the one side the word cotókos, and on the other—there
can hardly be any doubt, in spite of what seem to be clerical errors-the
phrase έν δύο φύσεσιν.
After the question of the Faith had been settled, the Emperor came
himself to the Council and congratulated the bishops on the success of
their labours in the cause of unity and truth. Sundry matters of local
yet not unimportant interest were transacted in the last sessions. Thus
Ibas and Theodoret were reinstated in their sees. In the case of
Theodoret, a natural reluctance to anathematise the memory of his
quondam friend Nestorius was overcome by threats. The only con-
ceivable excuse is that the anathema may have been drifting into a
mere façon de parler, and that, as shewn above, Nestorius had himself
generously expressed a wish that his own reputation might not be
preferred to the cause of truth.
Finally, a list of canons, thirty in number, were drawn up, mostly on
points of less burning interest, and the imperial authorities undertook
to add the force of the secular arm to the decrees of the Council. But
before the members dispersed, a stormy discussion arose which might
seem to give the lie to the Emperor's pious hopes, especially as it was
but the beginning of a fresh breach. This was the dispute as to
Canon xxvIII. It is certain, from the remonstrance made by the Roman
delegates, that neither they nor the imperial Commissioners had been
present when the one in question was put to the vote; also that a com-
paratively small number of bishops had subscribed it. The canon is so
important that it had better be given in fulla:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers and
acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the One Hundred
and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the Imperial city
of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor
1 Nearly Dr Percival's translation, ap. The Seven Oecumenical Councils.
## p. 511 (#541) ############################################
Objections to Canon XXVIII
511
Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same
things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constanti-
nople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges
to the throne of Old Rome, because it was the imperial city. And the
One Hundred and Fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same
consideration, gave equal privileges (ioa mpeo Beia) to the most holy
throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with
the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old
imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as
she is, and rank next after her; so that in the Pontic, the Asian, and the
Thracian Dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the
Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by
the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constanti-
nople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the
bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has
been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the
metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the arch-
bishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held
according to custom and have been reported to him. ”
It is hardly necessary to say that all the earlier or theoretical part of
this document clashed entirely with Leo's views as to the supremacy of
Rome and the relations of Church and State, while the latter or practical
part seemed to give dangerously wide powers to the see of New Rome.
When the Roman delegates objected, they were allowed a hearing, but
reminded that it was their own fault that they had not been present
when the canon was passed. They lodged a formal protest, supported
by a phrase which had been interpolated into the Nicene canons. The
result was nugatory. The canon was maintained.
Leo supported the
action of his delegates, or rather, they had rightly gauged his mind.
A long and stormy correspondence which he kept up with Marcian,
Pulcheria and Anatolius, led to no final settlement. Leo acknowledged
the validity of what had been done at Chalcedon with regard to the
Faith, but held out tenaciously against the claims of the Byzantine see.
There seems a touch of unconscious irony in his championship of the
ancient rights of Alexandria and of Antioch, as well as in his incul-
cations on Anatolius to practise the virtue of humility. He only
became reconciled to Anatolius three years later, after receiving from
him a very apologetic letter, laying the blame on the Byzantine clergy,
and stating that the whole case had been reserved for Leo's decision.
But Anatolius could not bind the Eastern churches. Canon XXVIII
continued to be accepted by the East, though unrecognised by the West.
We may ask which cause, or which party, profited by the Council
of Chalcedon. The Papacy had put forth great claims, and in part
had realised them, yet it seemed at the last to have been overreached
by the East. A certain uniformity of belief had been imposed on a
CH. XVII.
## p. 512 (#542) ############################################
512
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
great part of the Christian world, but this belief was not supposed to
add anything to the authoritative declarations of former councils, and so
far as it wore any semblance of novelty, it served only to embitter
party strife in the regions that most required pacification. The most
active and ambitious disturber of the peace had been got rid of, but only
with the result that his see had become the prey of hostile factions.
There was some gain to the far East, in the restoration of learned and
comparatively moderate men, like Theodoret and Ibas; but they had
still to encounter active opposition. Perhaps the Emperor was the chief
gainer; but he had overstrained his authority. The best that can be
said for the Council is that things might have been worse if no council
had met.
We may take briefly, as Epilogue to the Council of Chalcedon, the
disturbances and insurrections consequent on the attempts to enforce its
decisions: (a) in Palestine; (6) in Egypt; (c) in Provinces further to the
East.
(a) Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, had played a sorry part in the
whole business. It is not surprising that when he returned, pardoned
and rehabilitated, to his bishopric, his flock was not unanimous in
welcoming him back. His opponents, the most vigorous of whom came
from the monastic bodies, set up in opposition to him a certain
Theodosius, a monk who had been at Chalcedon and who had re-
turned full of wrath and of determination to resist the new decisions.
Juvenal fled back to Constantinople, while Theodosius acted as patriarch,
appointing bishops of Monophysite views, and bidding defiance to im-
perial as well as to conciliar authority. The recalcitrant monks had the
sympathy, if not the active assistance, of the ex-Empress Eudocia, who
was still residing in Palestine. Pope Leo, it need scarcely be said, was
vigorous with his pen on the other side. Marcian determined on armed
intervention. Forces were sent under the count Dorotheus, and Juvenal
was reinstated. Theodosius was brought prisoner to Constantinople,
.
and liberated during the next reign. The undercurrent of Mono-
physitism was, however, only covered for a time, not permanently
checked.
(6) In Alexandria, as might be expected, the resistance was more
prolonged and more serious. Whatever the faults of Dioscorus, he still
had partisans among the monks and the common people. His successor
Proterius was chosen, we are told, by the nobiles civitatis, and aristocratic
management did not always succeed in Alexandria. Here again recourse
was had to military force. Proterius had not the art of making himself
popular; and when Dioscorus died at Gangra, his place of banishment,
à clever schemer came to the fore. This was Timothy, a Teuton whose
tribal name, the Herul, was appropriately twisted into Aelurus, the Cat.
He is said to have gone by night to the bedsides of those whom he
wished to persuade and to have told them, as they lay between sleep and
## p. 513 (#543) ############################################
Effects in Egypt and Syria
513
his see.
waking, that he was an angel, sent to bid them provide themselves with
a bishop and, in particular, to choose Timothy. On the death of
Marcian, he obtained his desire and was chosen bishop by the people,
and consecrated in the great church of the Caesarium, once the scene of
the murder of Hypatia. A fate very much like that of Hypatia befel
the bishop Proterius, whose mangled body was dragged through the
streets and then committed to the flames. How far the actual murder
was instigated by Timothy it is impossible to say. The Emperor Leo,
who had succeeded Marcian in 457, could not, of course, sanction the
result of such proceedings. One scheme which suggested itself was the
calling of a new Council. Any notion of the kind was, however, frustrated
by Leo of Rome, who probably thought that an assembly held in the
East at that juncture might prove even more antagonistic to Roman
authority than the Council of Chalcedon. Accordingly, by his advice,
the Emperor sent round circular letters to a large number of bishops
and ascetics (Simeon Stylites had a copy) asking for their opinion and
advice. The result was a general condemnation of Timothy Aelurus,
and a confirmation of the Chalcedonian decrees. One bishop declared
against Chalcedon, but even he was opposed to Timothy. Aelurus was
accordingly driven out and succeeded by another Timothy, called
Salophaciolus. But Aelurus maintained his influence, and on the wave
of Monophysite reaction under the pretender Basiliscus he returned to
From about this time we may date the practical nullity of the
orthodox Alexandrian patriarchate and the rise of the Coptic Church.
But, as is seen by the whole course of events from the days of Theophilus
and earlier, the causes of disruption were not entirely due to the
difference between en and év. Alexandria itself might be Greek and
cosmopolitan, but Egypt had a peculiar and national character, which
was chiefly evident in its language and its institutions, particularly its
monasticism. If it seems surprising that violent ecclesiastical rivalries
and the turbulence of the most unrestrained city mob to be found in all
history should have led to the growth of a church which, with all its
faults, has maintained itself ever since in the affections of the common
people, the clue is to be found in the separation of Greek and Egyptian
elements, which were incapable of a satisfactory and wholesome com-
bination. But the separation naturally led in time to the fall of the
Roman power in the chief seat of Hellenic civilisation in the East.
(c) In the East, on the other hand, in Syria and Mesopotamia,
there was less opposition to the Chalcedonian settlement, but a few years
later a latent discontent broke into revolt. Domnus, bishop of Antioch,
had played an undignified and unhappy part in the controversy. Though
a friend of Theodoret and of Ibas, and an Antiochene in theology, he
had been forced to subscribe the decisions of the Robber Council, and
even after that humiliation had been deprived of his see.
therefore pardoned at Chalcedon, but he was pensioned, not restored
33
a
He was
C. IED. B. v0L. I. CH. XVII.
## p. 514 (#544) ############################################
514
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [435–461
to office. His successor Maximus had been practically appointed by
Anatolius of Constantinople. Leo thought best to confirm the appoint-
ment, and Maximus justified the hopes placed in him by proclaiming
the decrees of Chalcedon on his return. But a few years after,
for some unknown reason, he was deposed. In 461 a violent Mono-
physite, Peter the Fuller, succeeded in intruding into the see. His
contribution to the Monophysite cause was of the kind always more
effectual than argument in winning popular sympathy—a change in
ritual. He introduced into the Trisagion “Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord God of Hosts” the phrase: “who was crucified for us. ” The
imputation of suffering to one of the Trinity seemed to go further in the
doctrine of One Nature than even the ascription to the Deity of birth
in time. The catch-phrase excited the more passion because of the
opportunity it afforded for rival singing or shouting in the church
services. Peter was twice expelled from Antioch, but returned in
triumph, and took an active part in the Henoticon scheme, to which we
shall come directly.
Meantime, Ibas had returned to Edessa. The part taken by this
city in the next period of the conflict is so interesting and important
that it may seem desirable to notice here the circumstances which had
made it theologically prominent. Edessa was the capital of the border-
province of Osrhoene, belonging to the Empire, but close to the Persian
frontier. According to tradition, it had received Christianity at a very
early period, and there is no doubt that the people of those regions,
speaking a Syrian tongue, and but little acquainted with Greek
philosophy, held a theology different in many respects from that of the
Catholics or of Greek-speaking heretics of the fourth and early fifth
centuries. All this, however, came to be changed by two events : the
foundation of a school, chiefly for theological studies, at Edessa (circ.
A. D. 363) and the active efforts of Bishop Rabbula (d. A. D. 435) to
bring the church of Edessa into line with those of the Empire. These
two forces, on the present occasion, acted in contrary directions. The
school, which had been founded soon after the abandonment of Nisibis
to the Persians (363), had become a nursery of Antiochene thought.
For some time Ibas had presided over it, and laboured hard at the
translation and promulgation of the theology and exegesis of Theodore
of Mopsuestia, the real founder (as is sometimes stated) of Nes-
torianism. Rabbula the bishop was an uncompromising Cyrillian.
On his death Ibas was raised to the bishopric, and thence exerted
his influence in the same direction as formerly, supported by a faithful
and singularly able pupil, Barsumas or Barsauma, who shared his
fortunes and returned with him to Edessa after the Council of Chal-
cedon. On the death of Ibas, however, there came a Monophysite
reaction. Nonnus, who had held the see while Ibas was under a cloud,
reascended the episcopal throne (457). In his anxiety to purge the city
## p. 515 (#545) ############################################
471–475]
Issue of the Henoticon
515
an
of Nestorianism (though Ibas had anathematised Nestorius more than
once), he made an attack on the school, and banished a large number of
“Persian” teachers, i. e. of the orientals who had kept by Ibas. Bar-
sumas came to Nisibis, now under Persian rule, and there devoted himself
to the task of freeing the Syrian Church from the Western yoke, and
of combating Monophysite doctrine. It will shortly appear how
unexpected turn of events greatly assisted him in both these objects.
What has chiefly to be noticed here is that a few years after the Council
of Chalcedon, Nestorians and Eutychians, or those to whom their adver-
saries would respectively apply these names, were in unstable equilibrium
in various parts of the East.
IV. We now come to the fourth stage in the controversy, or series
of controversies, which both manifest and also enhance the religious dis-
union of this century: the attempt of the Emperor Zeno, along with
the bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria, to bring about a com-
promise. A few words about the character and position of each of the
three parties in this attempt may fitly precede our examination of their
policy and the reason of its failure.
Zeno the Isaurian (history has forgotten his original name—Tarasico-
dissa the son of Rusumbladestus) was son-in-law of Leo I, and succeeded
his own infant son Leo II in 474. As to the part of his policy which
concerns us here, we have Gibbon's often-quoted remark that “it is in
ecclesiastical story that Zeno appears least contemptible. ” We shall see
directly that this opinion is open to controversy. But there is no doubt
that Zeno found himself in a very difficult position. Scarcely was he seated
on his throne when Basiliscus, brother of the Empress-dowager, raised
an insurrection against him (475), and he went into exile. Basiliscus
appealed to the Monophysite subjects of the Empire, anathematised the
Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, and recalled the disaffected
bishops, including Timothy the Cat and Peter the Fuller. The circular
letter in which he stated this decision is a remarkable assertion of the
secular power over the Church. It was, however, of no lasting effect. .
The storm it aroused forced Basiliscus to countermand it. After about
two years of banishment, Zeno fought or bought his way back. The
bishops who had assented to the Encyclical of Basiliscus made very
humble apology, and for a time it seemed as if the Chalcedonian settle-
ment would prevail. The fact that it did not, is to be attributed mainly
to the bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria, Acacius and Peter.
Acacius who had succeeded Gennadius (third after Anatolius) on the
episcopal throne of Constantinople in 471, was a man of supple character,
forced by circumstances to appear as a champion of theological causes
rather than in the more congenial character of a diplomatist. He seems
to have been drawn into opposition to Basiliscus, to whose measures he
had at first assented, then to have headed the opposition to them and to
have earned the credit of the Anti-encyclical and of the final surrender
CH. XVII.
33--2
## p. 516 (#546) ############################################
516
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[482
of the usurper. In this crisis, Acacius had found his hand forced by the
monks of the capital. The monastic element is very strong in all the
controversies of the period, but it is not always on one side. In Egypt,
as we have seen, the monks were Monophysite. In Constantinople, the
,
great order of the Acoemetae (sleepless—so called from the perpetual
psalmody kept up in their churches) was fanatically Chalcedonian.
Possibly the recent foundation (under the patriarch Gennadius) of their
great monastery of Studium by a Roman, may partly account for their
devotion to the Tome of Leo. In any case, they formed the most vigorous
resisting body to all efforts against the settlement of Chalcedon. The
policy of Acacius seems to have been determined by the influence acquired
over him by Peter Mongus of Alexandria, although, in his earlier days
of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, he had regarded Peter as an arch-heretic.
Peter Mongus, or the Stammerer, had been implicated in many of
the violent acts of Dioscorus, and had been archdeacon to Timothy the
Cat. On the death of Timothy, he was, under circumstances somewhat
diversely related, chosen as his successor, though the other Timothy
(Salophaciolus) was still alive. On the death of Salophaciolus, a mild and
moderate man, there was a hotly disputed succession, and Zeno obtained
the recognition of Peter as patriarch of Alexandria (A. D. 482). Peter
had already sketched out a line of policy with Acacius, which was
shortly embodied in the document well known as the Henoticon or
Union Scheme of Zeno.
The object of the Henoticon was stated as the restoration of peace
and unity to the Church. The means by which such unity was to be
obtained were, however, unlikely to satisfy more than one party. We
have seen that Gibbon eulogises it, and more recent historians have
followed his opinion. But since a theological eirenicon drawn up by
men of shifty character and no scruples must be judged by the measure
of its success, we may hesitate to congratulate the originators of a
document which, though approved by the patriarchs of the East, was
certainly not so by all their clergy and people, and therefore caused a
schism of thirty-five years between Rome and Constantinople, and forced
-
the Church of the far East into counter-organisation under the aegis of
the Great King. Like the Emperor Constantius before him, who sought
to settle the Arian difficulty by abolishing the ówooúolov, and the
Emperor Constans after him, who wished to allay the bad feelings of
the Monotheletes and their opponents, by disallowing their distinctive
terminology, Zeno tried the autocratic short cut out of controversy
by the prohibition of technical terms. Like the other would be
pacifiers, he aroused a great storm.
The Henoticon is in the form of a letter from the Emperor to the
bishops and clergy, monks and laity, of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis. It begins by setting forth the sufficiency of the faith as
declared at Nicaea and at Constantinople, and goes on to regret the
## p. 517 (#547) ############################################
Opposition to the Henoticon
517
а
number of those who, owing to the late discords, had died without
baptism or communion, and the shedding of blood which had defiled the
earth and even the air. Therefore, the above-mentioned symbols which
had also been confirmed at Ephesus are to be regarded as entirely adequate.
Nestorius and Eutyches are anathematised and the “twelve chapters" or
anathemas of Cyril approved. It declares that Christ is “consubstantial
with the Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial with our-
selves as respects the manhood; that He, having descended and become
incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God,
is one and not two. . . for we do in no degree admit those who make
either a division or a confusion or introduce a phantom. ” It goes on to
say that this is no new form of faith, and that if anyone had taught any
contrary doctrine, whether at Chalcedon or elsewhere, he was to be
anathematised. Finally, all men are exhorted to return into the com-
munion of the Church.
On its face, the document may seem reasonable enough. If all men
could be brought to an agreement on the basis of the creeds of 325 and
381, the less said about Chalcedon the better. But the very mention of
Chalcedon in the document, with the suggestion that it might have
erred, destroys the semblance of perfect impartiality. As might naturally
be expected, the Alexandrians and Egyptians generally were ready to
adopt it, though there was an exception in the "headless” party
(acephali), the right wing of the anti-Chalcedonians, who were not
satisfied because it did not directly condemn the Tome of Leo. But
these people were extreme. In general, the apparent intention of
leaving the authority of Chalcedon an open question was interpreted
as giving full liberty to repudiate that authority. This was certainly
the view taken by Peter Mongus, and in all probability by Acacius
likewise. Certain letters purporting to be from these prelates shew a
more compromising spirit, but in a lately discovered correspondence
handed down from Armenian sources, we find Peter denouncing the
“infamous Leo,” and exhorting Acacius, as he celebrates mass, to sub-
stitute mentally for the names of Marcian, Pulcheria, and others whom
he is bound outwardly to commemorate, those of Dioscorus, Eudocia,
and other faithful persons.
As might naturally be expected, the Henoticon policy received
strenuous opposition in Rome, where Simplicius, the next pope but
one after Leo the Great, was determined to lose none of the ground
gained by his predecessors. After a very bitter and unsatisfactory
correspondence with Acacius, and two nugatory embassies to Con-
stantinople, Simplicius solemnly excommunicated the Patriarch of
Constantinople, as favourer of heretics, at a synod in Rome. An
Acoemete monk took charge of the notification and fastened it to the
mantle of Acacius during service. A similar sentence was passed on
Mongus and on Zeno himself.
CH. XVII.
## p. 518 (#548) ############################################
518
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [491–518
During the long period of the schism, a good many efforts were made
for the restoration of peace, which proved abortive by reason on the one
hand of the high demands of the Roman see, which always required the
erasure of the name of Acacius from the diptychs, and on the other, the
growth in power and assurance of Eastern Monophysitism. Anastasius,
Zeno's successor (491-518), generally bore a character for piety and
moderation, but towards the end of his life, when he was very aged,
appears to have been committed to a Monophysite policy. He seems at
least to have been regarded by the Monophysites of later days as friendly
to their party. He was influenced in this direction by a refugee of great
force of intellect and will, Severus the Pisidian, formerly a pagan and
a lawyer, later an uncompromising Monophysite, and head of the once
“headless party" to whom the Henoticon seemed not to go far enough.
Under his influence, the people of Constantinople were agitated by the
singing in church of the Trisagion with addition, while their rivals
shouted Peter's Theopaschite in its original form. Anastasius shewed
some firmness in withstanding the Roman demands, but he was un-
fortunate in his dealings with his own patriarchs. The first of these,
Euphemius, who was eager for peace with Rome, he degraded from
office, only to replace him by another advocate (Macedonius) of the same
cause, and after Macedonius in turn had been degraded, a patriarch was
appointed (Timotheus) who gave no confidence to either party. With
a large section of the people, Anastasius, in spite of his conscientious
devotion to duty, made himself intensely unpopular. He made a last
attempt to come to an agreement with Pope Hormisdas, but it failed in
the same way as previous efforts. The task of making terms with Rome
was left to his successor Justin, who became emperor in 518. A solemn
ceremony was held in rehabilitation of the Council of Chalcedon. Shortly
after, legates arrived from the Pope, and union was restored on the
condition, formerly refused, of the erasure of Acacius' name from the
diptychs. Strange to say the two patriarchs whom Anastasius had
displaced for their Romeward inclinations, were, in virtue of their
schismatic appointment, struck off likewise. Zeno and Anastasius
received a kind of post-mortem excommunication. All the leading
members of Monophysite and other heretical sects were anathematised.
The end of the schism can hardly be regarded as terminating the
series of controversies which are the subject of this chapter. East and
West were never again to be reunited with any cordiality. But now,
for a time, the outward dissension ceases, and in the struggle not far
distant with Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy, the Empire repre-
sents the side of the Catholic Faith against either persecuting or tolerant
Arianism.
Meantime, in the East, the Henoticon and the semi-Monophysite
policy of the Emperors had far-reaching results. Mention has already
been made of the school of Edessa, once presided over by Ibas,
## p. 519 (#549) ############################################
489–578]
Nestorianism and Monophysitism in the East
519
and of the reaction in Osrhoene, after Ibas' death, in a Monophysite
direction. In 489 Zeno, regarding Edessa as still a hotbed of Nes-
torianism, closed the school there. The result was that a good many
scholars migrated across the Persian frontier to Nisibis where, as already
stated, Barsumas was bishop. In this city a very flourishing school was
founded, in which the works of the great Antiochene doctors, Diodorus
of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, might be studied in peace, and
where even the memory of Nestorius himself was honoured. The
great episcopal see of the Persian Church had since 410 been fixed at
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and the bishop (catholicos) of that see was fairly
independent of those who, from his point of view, were regarded as the
“ western fathers” of the Syrian churches. Christians in Persia enjoyed
peace and patronage, with intermittent persecutions, under the great
kings of the Sassanid dynasty. It seems to have been part of the
Nestorian policy of Barsumas to convince the king that Monophysitism
meant inclination to side with the Empire whenever war broke out,
while Nestorianism was consistent with loyalty to Persia. Under these
circumstances, the Nestorian Church in Persia grew and flourished.
Beside its school at Nisibis, it had, in course of time, one at Seleucia.
Its character was greatly determined by its monastic institutions. Its
missionary zeal made itself felt in India and even in China. Altogether,
though the time of its greatness was not of very long duration, it
acquired, by its intellectual and religious activity, a very respectable
place among the Churches which the dissensions of the fifth century
alienated from Catholic Christendom.
While Christianity in Persia was becoming Nestorian, Syria was
becoming Monophysite. The whole story of the process does not
fall within our present limits, but it may be remarked that the
great organiser of the Monophysite communities, both in Egypt
and Syria, was Severus the Pisidian who held the see of Antioch from
512 till his deposition in 519, and whose active and productive life
ended about 540. The reorganiser of the Monophysite Church after
the persecution which followed the reunion of Rome and Constantinople
was Jacobus Baradaeus, who died about 578, and from whom the
Syrian Monophysites are sometimes called Jacobites. His history,
however, does not concern us here.
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. And again, though very many present had subscribed to the
Tome, it was not unnatural that in many quarters there should be a re-
luctance to accept as possessing peculiar authority a document emanating
from a Western source. Anatolius and certain other bishops accordingly
drew up a formula which was presented to the Council. But this only
roused fierce opposition from the Roman legates, and even to a threat
CH. XVII.
## p. 510 (#540) ############################################
510
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
that they would withdraw altogether, and cause a new Council to be
assembled in Italy.
The obnoxious creed has not come down to us, but we gather that
it contained the expression : Christ is of two natures (ex dúo púoewv)
instead of the phrase in two natures (év dúo púbeo. v). Those who
would regard the theological difference as rooted in philosophical
distinction may suggest a rational apprehension in the minds of Leo
and his supporters, that whatever might be the principle of union or
separation in divine and human nature, it could not, as Eutyches
supposed, be dependent on a merely temporal relation.
It would, of course, have been fatal to the policy of the Emperor and
Empress if Rome had seceded at this juncture. As a compromise,
Anatolius and a chosen representative committee of bishops were bidden
to retire into the oratory of St Euphemia and prepare a new creed.
The document, when produced, proved to be based on that of Leo. But
it contained on the one side the word cotókos, and on the other—there
can hardly be any doubt, in spite of what seem to be clerical errors-the
phrase έν δύο φύσεσιν.
After the question of the Faith had been settled, the Emperor came
himself to the Council and congratulated the bishops on the success of
their labours in the cause of unity and truth. Sundry matters of local
yet not unimportant interest were transacted in the last sessions. Thus
Ibas and Theodoret were reinstated in their sees. In the case of
Theodoret, a natural reluctance to anathematise the memory of his
quondam friend Nestorius was overcome by threats. The only con-
ceivable excuse is that the anathema may have been drifting into a
mere façon de parler, and that, as shewn above, Nestorius had himself
generously expressed a wish that his own reputation might not be
preferred to the cause of truth.
Finally, a list of canons, thirty in number, were drawn up, mostly on
points of less burning interest, and the imperial authorities undertook
to add the force of the secular arm to the decrees of the Council. But
before the members dispersed, a stormy discussion arose which might
seem to give the lie to the Emperor's pious hopes, especially as it was
but the beginning of a fresh breach. This was the dispute as to
Canon xxvIII. It is certain, from the remonstrance made by the Roman
delegates, that neither they nor the imperial Commissioners had been
present when the one in question was put to the vote; also that a com-
paratively small number of bishops had subscribed it. The canon is so
important that it had better be given in fulla:
“Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers and
acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the One Hundred
and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the Imperial city
of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor
1 Nearly Dr Percival's translation, ap. The Seven Oecumenical Councils.
## p. 511 (#541) ############################################
Objections to Canon XXVIII
511
Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same
things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constanti-
nople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges
to the throne of Old Rome, because it was the imperial city. And the
One Hundred and Fifty most religious bishops, actuated by the same
consideration, gave equal privileges (ioa mpeo Beia) to the most holy
throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with
the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old
imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as
she is, and rank next after her; so that in the Pontic, the Asian, and the
Thracian Dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the
Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by
the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constanti-
nople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the
bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has
been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the
metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the arch-
bishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held
according to custom and have been reported to him. ”
It is hardly necessary to say that all the earlier or theoretical part of
this document clashed entirely with Leo's views as to the supremacy of
Rome and the relations of Church and State, while the latter or practical
part seemed to give dangerously wide powers to the see of New Rome.
When the Roman delegates objected, they were allowed a hearing, but
reminded that it was their own fault that they had not been present
when the canon was passed. They lodged a formal protest, supported
by a phrase which had been interpolated into the Nicene canons. The
result was nugatory. The canon was maintained.
Leo supported the
action of his delegates, or rather, they had rightly gauged his mind.
A long and stormy correspondence which he kept up with Marcian,
Pulcheria and Anatolius, led to no final settlement. Leo acknowledged
the validity of what had been done at Chalcedon with regard to the
Faith, but held out tenaciously against the claims of the Byzantine see.
There seems a touch of unconscious irony in his championship of the
ancient rights of Alexandria and of Antioch, as well as in his incul-
cations on Anatolius to practise the virtue of humility. He only
became reconciled to Anatolius three years later, after receiving from
him a very apologetic letter, laying the blame on the Byzantine clergy,
and stating that the whole case had been reserved for Leo's decision.
But Anatolius could not bind the Eastern churches. Canon XXVIII
continued to be accepted by the East, though unrecognised by the West.
We may ask which cause, or which party, profited by the Council
of Chalcedon. The Papacy had put forth great claims, and in part
had realised them, yet it seemed at the last to have been overreached
by the East. A certain uniformity of belief had been imposed on a
CH. XVII.
## p. 512 (#542) ############################################
512
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
great part of the Christian world, but this belief was not supposed to
add anything to the authoritative declarations of former councils, and so
far as it wore any semblance of novelty, it served only to embitter
party strife in the regions that most required pacification. The most
active and ambitious disturber of the peace had been got rid of, but only
with the result that his see had become the prey of hostile factions.
There was some gain to the far East, in the restoration of learned and
comparatively moderate men, like Theodoret and Ibas; but they had
still to encounter active opposition. Perhaps the Emperor was the chief
gainer; but he had overstrained his authority. The best that can be
said for the Council is that things might have been worse if no council
had met.
We may take briefly, as Epilogue to the Council of Chalcedon, the
disturbances and insurrections consequent on the attempts to enforce its
decisions: (a) in Palestine; (6) in Egypt; (c) in Provinces further to the
East.
(a) Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, had played a sorry part in the
whole business. It is not surprising that when he returned, pardoned
and rehabilitated, to his bishopric, his flock was not unanimous in
welcoming him back. His opponents, the most vigorous of whom came
from the monastic bodies, set up in opposition to him a certain
Theodosius, a monk who had been at Chalcedon and who had re-
turned full of wrath and of determination to resist the new decisions.
Juvenal fled back to Constantinople, while Theodosius acted as patriarch,
appointing bishops of Monophysite views, and bidding defiance to im-
perial as well as to conciliar authority. The recalcitrant monks had the
sympathy, if not the active assistance, of the ex-Empress Eudocia, who
was still residing in Palestine. Pope Leo, it need scarcely be said, was
vigorous with his pen on the other side. Marcian determined on armed
intervention. Forces were sent under the count Dorotheus, and Juvenal
was reinstated. Theodosius was brought prisoner to Constantinople,
.
and liberated during the next reign. The undercurrent of Mono-
physitism was, however, only covered for a time, not permanently
checked.
(6) In Alexandria, as might be expected, the resistance was more
prolonged and more serious. Whatever the faults of Dioscorus, he still
had partisans among the monks and the common people. His successor
Proterius was chosen, we are told, by the nobiles civitatis, and aristocratic
management did not always succeed in Alexandria. Here again recourse
was had to military force. Proterius had not the art of making himself
popular; and when Dioscorus died at Gangra, his place of banishment,
à clever schemer came to the fore. This was Timothy, a Teuton whose
tribal name, the Herul, was appropriately twisted into Aelurus, the Cat.
He is said to have gone by night to the bedsides of those whom he
wished to persuade and to have told them, as they lay between sleep and
## p. 513 (#543) ############################################
Effects in Egypt and Syria
513
his see.
waking, that he was an angel, sent to bid them provide themselves with
a bishop and, in particular, to choose Timothy. On the death of
Marcian, he obtained his desire and was chosen bishop by the people,
and consecrated in the great church of the Caesarium, once the scene of
the murder of Hypatia. A fate very much like that of Hypatia befel
the bishop Proterius, whose mangled body was dragged through the
streets and then committed to the flames. How far the actual murder
was instigated by Timothy it is impossible to say. The Emperor Leo,
who had succeeded Marcian in 457, could not, of course, sanction the
result of such proceedings. One scheme which suggested itself was the
calling of a new Council. Any notion of the kind was, however, frustrated
by Leo of Rome, who probably thought that an assembly held in the
East at that juncture might prove even more antagonistic to Roman
authority than the Council of Chalcedon. Accordingly, by his advice,
the Emperor sent round circular letters to a large number of bishops
and ascetics (Simeon Stylites had a copy) asking for their opinion and
advice. The result was a general condemnation of Timothy Aelurus,
and a confirmation of the Chalcedonian decrees. One bishop declared
against Chalcedon, but even he was opposed to Timothy. Aelurus was
accordingly driven out and succeeded by another Timothy, called
Salophaciolus. But Aelurus maintained his influence, and on the wave
of Monophysite reaction under the pretender Basiliscus he returned to
From about this time we may date the practical nullity of the
orthodox Alexandrian patriarchate and the rise of the Coptic Church.
But, as is seen by the whole course of events from the days of Theophilus
and earlier, the causes of disruption were not entirely due to the
difference between en and év. Alexandria itself might be Greek and
cosmopolitan, but Egypt had a peculiar and national character, which
was chiefly evident in its language and its institutions, particularly its
monasticism. If it seems surprising that violent ecclesiastical rivalries
and the turbulence of the most unrestrained city mob to be found in all
history should have led to the growth of a church which, with all its
faults, has maintained itself ever since in the affections of the common
people, the clue is to be found in the separation of Greek and Egyptian
elements, which were incapable of a satisfactory and wholesome com-
bination. But the separation naturally led in time to the fall of the
Roman power in the chief seat of Hellenic civilisation in the East.
(c) In the East, on the other hand, in Syria and Mesopotamia,
there was less opposition to the Chalcedonian settlement, but a few years
later a latent discontent broke into revolt. Domnus, bishop of Antioch,
had played an undignified and unhappy part in the controversy. Though
a friend of Theodoret and of Ibas, and an Antiochene in theology, he
had been forced to subscribe the decisions of the Robber Council, and
even after that humiliation had been deprived of his see.
therefore pardoned at Chalcedon, but he was pensioned, not restored
33
a
He was
C. IED. B. v0L. I. CH. XVII.
## p. 514 (#544) ############################################
514
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [435–461
to office. His successor Maximus had been practically appointed by
Anatolius of Constantinople. Leo thought best to confirm the appoint-
ment, and Maximus justified the hopes placed in him by proclaiming
the decrees of Chalcedon on his return. But a few years after,
for some unknown reason, he was deposed. In 461 a violent Mono-
physite, Peter the Fuller, succeeded in intruding into the see. His
contribution to the Monophysite cause was of the kind always more
effectual than argument in winning popular sympathy—a change in
ritual. He introduced into the Trisagion “Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord God of Hosts” the phrase: “who was crucified for us. ” The
imputation of suffering to one of the Trinity seemed to go further in the
doctrine of One Nature than even the ascription to the Deity of birth
in time. The catch-phrase excited the more passion because of the
opportunity it afforded for rival singing or shouting in the church
services. Peter was twice expelled from Antioch, but returned in
triumph, and took an active part in the Henoticon scheme, to which we
shall come directly.
Meantime, Ibas had returned to Edessa. The part taken by this
city in the next period of the conflict is so interesting and important
that it may seem desirable to notice here the circumstances which had
made it theologically prominent. Edessa was the capital of the border-
province of Osrhoene, belonging to the Empire, but close to the Persian
frontier. According to tradition, it had received Christianity at a very
early period, and there is no doubt that the people of those regions,
speaking a Syrian tongue, and but little acquainted with Greek
philosophy, held a theology different in many respects from that of the
Catholics or of Greek-speaking heretics of the fourth and early fifth
centuries. All this, however, came to be changed by two events : the
foundation of a school, chiefly for theological studies, at Edessa (circ.
A. D. 363) and the active efforts of Bishop Rabbula (d. A. D. 435) to
bring the church of Edessa into line with those of the Empire. These
two forces, on the present occasion, acted in contrary directions. The
school, which had been founded soon after the abandonment of Nisibis
to the Persians (363), had become a nursery of Antiochene thought.
For some time Ibas had presided over it, and laboured hard at the
translation and promulgation of the theology and exegesis of Theodore
of Mopsuestia, the real founder (as is sometimes stated) of Nes-
torianism. Rabbula the bishop was an uncompromising Cyrillian.
On his death Ibas was raised to the bishopric, and thence exerted
his influence in the same direction as formerly, supported by a faithful
and singularly able pupil, Barsumas or Barsauma, who shared his
fortunes and returned with him to Edessa after the Council of Chal-
cedon. On the death of Ibas, however, there came a Monophysite
reaction. Nonnus, who had held the see while Ibas was under a cloud,
reascended the episcopal throne (457). In his anxiety to purge the city
## p. 515 (#545) ############################################
471–475]
Issue of the Henoticon
515
an
of Nestorianism (though Ibas had anathematised Nestorius more than
once), he made an attack on the school, and banished a large number of
“Persian” teachers, i. e. of the orientals who had kept by Ibas. Bar-
sumas came to Nisibis, now under Persian rule, and there devoted himself
to the task of freeing the Syrian Church from the Western yoke, and
of combating Monophysite doctrine. It will shortly appear how
unexpected turn of events greatly assisted him in both these objects.
What has chiefly to be noticed here is that a few years after the Council
of Chalcedon, Nestorians and Eutychians, or those to whom their adver-
saries would respectively apply these names, were in unstable equilibrium
in various parts of the East.
IV. We now come to the fourth stage in the controversy, or series
of controversies, which both manifest and also enhance the religious dis-
union of this century: the attempt of the Emperor Zeno, along with
the bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria, to bring about a com-
promise. A few words about the character and position of each of the
three parties in this attempt may fitly precede our examination of their
policy and the reason of its failure.
Zeno the Isaurian (history has forgotten his original name—Tarasico-
dissa the son of Rusumbladestus) was son-in-law of Leo I, and succeeded
his own infant son Leo II in 474. As to the part of his policy which
concerns us here, we have Gibbon's often-quoted remark that “it is in
ecclesiastical story that Zeno appears least contemptible. ” We shall see
directly that this opinion is open to controversy. But there is no doubt
that Zeno found himself in a very difficult position. Scarcely was he seated
on his throne when Basiliscus, brother of the Empress-dowager, raised
an insurrection against him (475), and he went into exile. Basiliscus
appealed to the Monophysite subjects of the Empire, anathematised the
Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, and recalled the disaffected
bishops, including Timothy the Cat and Peter the Fuller. The circular
letter in which he stated this decision is a remarkable assertion of the
secular power over the Church. It was, however, of no lasting effect. .
The storm it aroused forced Basiliscus to countermand it. After about
two years of banishment, Zeno fought or bought his way back. The
bishops who had assented to the Encyclical of Basiliscus made very
humble apology, and for a time it seemed as if the Chalcedonian settle-
ment would prevail. The fact that it did not, is to be attributed mainly
to the bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria, Acacius and Peter.
Acacius who had succeeded Gennadius (third after Anatolius) on the
episcopal throne of Constantinople in 471, was a man of supple character,
forced by circumstances to appear as a champion of theological causes
rather than in the more congenial character of a diplomatist. He seems
to have been drawn into opposition to Basiliscus, to whose measures he
had at first assented, then to have headed the opposition to them and to
have earned the credit of the Anti-encyclical and of the final surrender
CH. XVII.
33--2
## p. 516 (#546) ############################################
516
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century
[482
of the usurper. In this crisis, Acacius had found his hand forced by the
monks of the capital. The monastic element is very strong in all the
controversies of the period, but it is not always on one side. In Egypt,
as we have seen, the monks were Monophysite. In Constantinople, the
,
great order of the Acoemetae (sleepless—so called from the perpetual
psalmody kept up in their churches) was fanatically Chalcedonian.
Possibly the recent foundation (under the patriarch Gennadius) of their
great monastery of Studium by a Roman, may partly account for their
devotion to the Tome of Leo. In any case, they formed the most vigorous
resisting body to all efforts against the settlement of Chalcedon. The
policy of Acacius seems to have been determined by the influence acquired
over him by Peter Mongus of Alexandria, although, in his earlier days
of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, he had regarded Peter as an arch-heretic.
Peter Mongus, or the Stammerer, had been implicated in many of
the violent acts of Dioscorus, and had been archdeacon to Timothy the
Cat. On the death of Timothy, he was, under circumstances somewhat
diversely related, chosen as his successor, though the other Timothy
(Salophaciolus) was still alive. On the death of Salophaciolus, a mild and
moderate man, there was a hotly disputed succession, and Zeno obtained
the recognition of Peter as patriarch of Alexandria (A. D. 482). Peter
had already sketched out a line of policy with Acacius, which was
shortly embodied in the document well known as the Henoticon or
Union Scheme of Zeno.
The object of the Henoticon was stated as the restoration of peace
and unity to the Church. The means by which such unity was to be
obtained were, however, unlikely to satisfy more than one party. We
have seen that Gibbon eulogises it, and more recent historians have
followed his opinion. But since a theological eirenicon drawn up by
men of shifty character and no scruples must be judged by the measure
of its success, we may hesitate to congratulate the originators of a
document which, though approved by the patriarchs of the East, was
certainly not so by all their clergy and people, and therefore caused a
schism of thirty-five years between Rome and Constantinople, and forced
-
the Church of the far East into counter-organisation under the aegis of
the Great King. Like the Emperor Constantius before him, who sought
to settle the Arian difficulty by abolishing the ówooúolov, and the
Emperor Constans after him, who wished to allay the bad feelings of
the Monotheletes and their opponents, by disallowing their distinctive
terminology, Zeno tried the autocratic short cut out of controversy
by the prohibition of technical terms. Like the other would be
pacifiers, he aroused a great storm.
The Henoticon is in the form of a letter from the Emperor to the
bishops and clergy, monks and laity, of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis. It begins by setting forth the sufficiency of the faith as
declared at Nicaea and at Constantinople, and goes on to regret the
## p. 517 (#547) ############################################
Opposition to the Henoticon
517
а
number of those who, owing to the late discords, had died without
baptism or communion, and the shedding of blood which had defiled the
earth and even the air. Therefore, the above-mentioned symbols which
had also been confirmed at Ephesus are to be regarded as entirely adequate.
Nestorius and Eutyches are anathematised and the “twelve chapters" or
anathemas of Cyril approved. It declares that Christ is “consubstantial
with the Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial with our-
selves as respects the manhood; that He, having descended and become
incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God,
is one and not two. . . for we do in no degree admit those who make
either a division or a confusion or introduce a phantom. ” It goes on to
say that this is no new form of faith, and that if anyone had taught any
contrary doctrine, whether at Chalcedon or elsewhere, he was to be
anathematised. Finally, all men are exhorted to return into the com-
munion of the Church.
On its face, the document may seem reasonable enough. If all men
could be brought to an agreement on the basis of the creeds of 325 and
381, the less said about Chalcedon the better. But the very mention of
Chalcedon in the document, with the suggestion that it might have
erred, destroys the semblance of perfect impartiality. As might naturally
be expected, the Alexandrians and Egyptians generally were ready to
adopt it, though there was an exception in the "headless” party
(acephali), the right wing of the anti-Chalcedonians, who were not
satisfied because it did not directly condemn the Tome of Leo. But
these people were extreme. In general, the apparent intention of
leaving the authority of Chalcedon an open question was interpreted
as giving full liberty to repudiate that authority. This was certainly
the view taken by Peter Mongus, and in all probability by Acacius
likewise. Certain letters purporting to be from these prelates shew a
more compromising spirit, but in a lately discovered correspondence
handed down from Armenian sources, we find Peter denouncing the
“infamous Leo,” and exhorting Acacius, as he celebrates mass, to sub-
stitute mentally for the names of Marcian, Pulcheria, and others whom
he is bound outwardly to commemorate, those of Dioscorus, Eudocia,
and other faithful persons.
As might naturally be expected, the Henoticon policy received
strenuous opposition in Rome, where Simplicius, the next pope but
one after Leo the Great, was determined to lose none of the ground
gained by his predecessors. After a very bitter and unsatisfactory
correspondence with Acacius, and two nugatory embassies to Con-
stantinople, Simplicius solemnly excommunicated the Patriarch of
Constantinople, as favourer of heretics, at a synod in Rome. An
Acoemete monk took charge of the notification and fastened it to the
mantle of Acacius during service. A similar sentence was passed on
Mongus and on Zeno himself.
CH. XVII.
## p. 518 (#548) ############################################
518
Religious Disunion in the Fifth Century [491–518
During the long period of the schism, a good many efforts were made
for the restoration of peace, which proved abortive by reason on the one
hand of the high demands of the Roman see, which always required the
erasure of the name of Acacius from the diptychs, and on the other, the
growth in power and assurance of Eastern Monophysitism. Anastasius,
Zeno's successor (491-518), generally bore a character for piety and
moderation, but towards the end of his life, when he was very aged,
appears to have been committed to a Monophysite policy. He seems at
least to have been regarded by the Monophysites of later days as friendly
to their party. He was influenced in this direction by a refugee of great
force of intellect and will, Severus the Pisidian, formerly a pagan and
a lawyer, later an uncompromising Monophysite, and head of the once
“headless party" to whom the Henoticon seemed not to go far enough.
Under his influence, the people of Constantinople were agitated by the
singing in church of the Trisagion with addition, while their rivals
shouted Peter's Theopaschite in its original form. Anastasius shewed
some firmness in withstanding the Roman demands, but he was un-
fortunate in his dealings with his own patriarchs. The first of these,
Euphemius, who was eager for peace with Rome, he degraded from
office, only to replace him by another advocate (Macedonius) of the same
cause, and after Macedonius in turn had been degraded, a patriarch was
appointed (Timotheus) who gave no confidence to either party. With
a large section of the people, Anastasius, in spite of his conscientious
devotion to duty, made himself intensely unpopular. He made a last
attempt to come to an agreement with Pope Hormisdas, but it failed in
the same way as previous efforts. The task of making terms with Rome
was left to his successor Justin, who became emperor in 518. A solemn
ceremony was held in rehabilitation of the Council of Chalcedon. Shortly
after, legates arrived from the Pope, and union was restored on the
condition, formerly refused, of the erasure of Acacius' name from the
diptychs. Strange to say the two patriarchs whom Anastasius had
displaced for their Romeward inclinations, were, in virtue of their
schismatic appointment, struck off likewise. Zeno and Anastasius
received a kind of post-mortem excommunication. All the leading
members of Monophysite and other heretical sects were anathematised.
The end of the schism can hardly be regarded as terminating the
series of controversies which are the subject of this chapter. East and
West were never again to be reunited with any cordiality. But now,
for a time, the outward dissension ceases, and in the struggle not far
distant with Vandals in Africa and Goths in Italy, the Empire repre-
sents the side of the Catholic Faith against either persecuting or tolerant
Arianism.
Meantime, in the East, the Henoticon and the semi-Monophysite
policy of the Emperors had far-reaching results. Mention has already
been made of the school of Edessa, once presided over by Ibas,
## p. 519 (#549) ############################################
489–578]
Nestorianism and Monophysitism in the East
519
and of the reaction in Osrhoene, after Ibas' death, in a Monophysite
direction. In 489 Zeno, regarding Edessa as still a hotbed of Nes-
torianism, closed the school there. The result was that a good many
scholars migrated across the Persian frontier to Nisibis where, as already
stated, Barsumas was bishop. In this city a very flourishing school was
founded, in which the works of the great Antiochene doctors, Diodorus
of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, might be studied in peace, and
where even the memory of Nestorius himself was honoured. The
great episcopal see of the Persian Church had since 410 been fixed at
Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and the bishop (catholicos) of that see was fairly
independent of those who, from his point of view, were regarded as the
“ western fathers” of the Syrian churches. Christians in Persia enjoyed
peace and patronage, with intermittent persecutions, under the great
kings of the Sassanid dynasty. It seems to have been part of the
Nestorian policy of Barsumas to convince the king that Monophysitism
meant inclination to side with the Empire whenever war broke out,
while Nestorianism was consistent with loyalty to Persia. Under these
circumstances, the Nestorian Church in Persia grew and flourished.
Beside its school at Nisibis, it had, in course of time, one at Seleucia.
Its character was greatly determined by its monastic institutions. Its
missionary zeal made itself felt in India and even in China. Altogether,
though the time of its greatness was not of very long duration, it
acquired, by its intellectual and religious activity, a very respectable
place among the Churches which the dissensions of the fifth century
alienated from Catholic Christendom.
While Christianity in Persia was becoming Nestorian, Syria was
becoming Monophysite. The whole story of the process does not
fall within our present limits, but it may be remarked that the
great organiser of the Monophysite communities, both in Egypt
and Syria, was Severus the Pisidian who held the see of Antioch from
512 till his deposition in 519, and whose active and productive life
ended about 540. The reorganiser of the Monophysite Church after
the persecution which followed the reunion of Rome and Constantinople
was Jacobus Baradaeus, who died about 578, and from whom the
Syrian Monophysites are sometimes called Jacobites. His history,
however, does not concern us here.
