Where the Illyrian Bishops, and others who before that examination had expressed their acclamations to the letter, again cry out, "We all say the same thing, and agree with this." So that, indeed, it is evident that, in the Council itself, and before it, their agreement is based on this, that, after weighing the matter, they considered, they judged, they were persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and perceived that the common faith of all and each had been set forth by Leo.
"This was done at Chalcedon; but likewise before that Council our Gallic Bishops, at a synod held in Gaul, wrote thus to Leo himself, concerning receiving his letter: "Many in that letter of Leo to Flavian with joy and exultation have recognised what their faith was a.s.sured of, and are with reason delighted that, by tradition from their fathers, they have always held just what your Apostleship has set forth. Some rendered more careful, congratulate themselves every way on being instructed by receiving the admonition of your blessedness, and rejoice that an occasion is given them, in which they may speak out freely and confidently, and each one a.s.sert what he believes, supported by the authority of the Apostolic See."
"The Italian (Bishops) agree, at the instance of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan, "for it was evident that that (letter of Leo to Flavian) had the full and vigorous simplicity of the faith; was illuminated likewise by statements from the Prophets, by authorities from the Gospels, and by testimonies of Apostolic teaching, and in every point agreed with what the holy Ambrose, moved by the Holy Spirit, put in his books concerning the mystery of the Lord"s incarnation. And inasmuch as all the statements agree with the faith of our ancestors delivered down to us from antiquity, all determined that whoever hold impious opinions concerning the mystery of the Lord"s incarnation, are to be visited with fitting condemnation, as they themselves agree, according to the sentence of your authority."
"See here an authoritative sentence in the Roman Pontiff; and also the agreement of the Bishops to the instance of the Roman Pontiff, and that granted after inquiry into the truth. On these terms they gave their approval, and their subscription, and decreed that a letter, agreeing with the apprehensions of their common faith, and found and judged to be such by them, was of universal authority by the union of their sentences with the Apostolic See. Which wonderfully accords with what we have just read in the sentences of the Fathers of Chalcedon.
"This is that examination of Leo"s letter, synodically made at Chalcedon, and placed among the acts; of which examination Leo himself thus writes to Theodoret: "What G.o.d had before set forth by our ministry, He hath confirmed by the irreversible a.s.sent of the whole brotherhood, to show that what was first put forth in form by the First See of all, and then received by the judgment of the whole Christian world, really proceeded from Himself (that in this too the members might agree with the Head.)"[90]
"He proceeds: "For in order that the consent of other sees to that which the Lord appointed to preside over all the rest should not appear flattery, or any other adverse suspicion creep in, persons were found who doubted concerning our judgment.... The truth, likewise, itself is both more clearly conspicuous, and more strongly maintained, when after-examination confirms what previous faith had taught." Here he speaks distinctly of examination, and that most free. "In fine, the merit of the priestly office shines forth very brightly, when the authority of the highest is preserved, without the liberty of the lower seeming to be at all infringed. And the end of the examination profits to the greater glory of G.o.d, when it has confidence enough to exert itself so far as to prevail over the opposite opinion. So that what is in itself proved to be heterodox may not seem overcome, merely because it is pa.s.sed over in silence," Lastly, "the letter of the Apostolic See, confirmed by the a.s.sent of the whole holy Council"[91] is proposed as a most certain and perfect rule of faith, not again to be reconsidered. Here is what Leo considered to be irrevocable, or rather not to be mended, which no one can be blamed for holding together with the world and the Fathers of Chalcedon: the form is set forth by the Apostolic See; yet it is to be examined, and that freely, and every Bishop, the highest and the lowest, to p.r.o.nounce judgment in a body concerning decreeing it.
"They conceived no other way of removing all doubt; for after the conclusion of the synod, the emperor thus proclaims: "Let then all profane contention cease, for he is indeed impious and sacrilegious, who, after the sentence of so many priests, leaves any thing for his own opinion to consider." He then prohibits all discussion concerning religion; for, says he, "he does an injury to the judgment of the most religious Council, who endeavours to open afresh, and publicly discuss what has been once judged, and rightly ordered."
"Here in the condemnation of Eutyches is the order of Ecclesiastical judgments in questions of faith. He is judged by his proper Bishop Flavian: the cause is reheard, reconsidered by the Pope St. Leo;" (let it be remembered that Eutyches likewise appealed to Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica;) "it is decided by a declaration of the Apostolic See: after that declaration follows the examination, inquiry, judgment of the Fathers or Bishops, in a General Council: after the declaration has been approved by the judgment of the Fathers no place is any longer left for doubt or discussion.
"To the same effect Leo: "For no longer is any refuge or excuse allowable to any, on plea of ignorance, or difficulty of understanding, inasmuch as for this very purpose the Council of about six hundred of our brethren and fellow-Bishops met together hath permitted no skill in reasoning, no flow of eloquence, to breathe against the faith built on a divine foundation.
Since, through the endeavours of our brethren and representatives, by the help of G.o.d"s grace, (their devotion in every procedure being most entire,) it hath been fully and evidently made manifest, not only to the priests of Christ, but to princes also, and Christian powers, and to all ranks of the clergy and people, that this is the truly Apostolic and Catholic faith, flowing from the fountain of Divine goodness, which we preach, and now with the agreement of the whole world defend pure and clean from all pollution of error."[92]
"Thus at length supreme and infallible force is given to an Apostolic decree, after that it is strengthened by universal inquiry, examination, discussion, and thereupon consent and testimony."
[93]"We add a third point, important to our cause, respecting the rest.i.tution of Theodoret to his see. After, then, by order of the Bishops, he had openly anathematized Nestorius, "the most ill.u.s.trious magistrates said, all doubt respecting Theodoret is now removed; for he hath both anathematized Nestorius before you, and has been received by Leo, most holy Archbishop of old Rome, and has willingly accepted the definition of faith set forth by your piety, and moreover hath subscribed the epistle of the aforesaid most holy Archbishop Leo. It is fitting, therefore, that sentence be p.r.o.nounced by your most acceptable holiness, that he may recover his Church, as the most holy Archbishop Leo has judged." All the most reverend Bishops cried out, "Theodoret is worthy of his See. Leo hath judged after G.o.d." So then the judgment put forth by Leo concerning his restoration to his See would have profited Theodoret nothing, unless, after the matter had been brought before the Council, he had both approved his faith to the Council, and the judgment of Leo been confirmed by the same Council. This was done in the presence of the Legates of the Apostolic See, who afterwards p.r.o.nounced that sentence on confirming Leo"s judgment, which the whole Synod approved."
Let any one of candour consider these Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and then say, which of these two views agrees with them, viz. that St. Leo was first Bishop of the Church, looked up to with great reverence as the special successor of St. Peter, and representative of the whole West; or that he was beside this the only Vicar of Christ, the source and origin of the Episcopate, from whom his brethren received their jurisdiction, which is the Papal idea of the middle ages. For on the truth of this latter view depends the charge, that the Church of England is in schism.
What follows may perhaps a.s.sist our solution of the question. At this very Council of 630 Bishops, the largest ever held in ancient times, and where the credit of the Roman Pontiff was so great, a very celebrated Canon was enacted concerning the rank of the Bishop of Constantinople. The Pope"s legates attempted, by absenting themselves, to prevent its being enacted, but that only led to its being confirmed the next day, in spite of their opposition. The circ.u.mstances were as follows, and they seem to deserve our most stedfast consideration, from their bearing upon the great subject we are considering, the Papal Supremacy.
"On the same day, being the last of October, the fifteenth session was held, at which neither the magistrates nor legates were present: for after the formula of faith had been agreed to, and the private business brought before the Council had been despatched, the Clergy of Constantinople asked the legates to join them in discussing an affair concerning their Church.
This they refused, saying, that they had received no instructions about it.
They made the same proposal to the magistrates, and these referred the matter to the Council. When the magistrates and legates therefore had retired, the rest of the Council made a Canon respecting the prerogatives of the Church of Constantinople."[94] To make the scope of this clear we must observe, that the See of Constantinople had been now for at least seventy years the chief See of the East: at the second Ec.u.menical Council, held in 381, at Constantinople, it is declared in the third canon, that "the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that Constantinople is New Rome." It seems that in the interval that Bishop had not only taken precedence of Alexandria and Antioch, and reduced under him the Exarchs of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia, but that his authority was very great throughout all the East. Theodoret says,[95] that St. Chrysostom governed twenty-eight provinces. Accordingly, in its famous 28th Canon, the Council of Chalcedon only confirmed an authority to the Bishop of Constantinople which he had long enjoyed and often exceeded. It ran thus: "We, following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon of the 150 most religious Bishops which has just been read, do also determine and decree the same things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople, New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the 150 most religious Bishops, being moved with the same intention, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with reason, that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in Ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her. And (we also decree) that the Metropolitans only of the Pontic, and Asian, and Thracian Dioceses, and, moreover, the Bishops of the aforesaid Dioceses who are amongst the Barbarians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; each Metropolitan of the aforesaid Dioceses ordaining the Bishops of the Province, as has been declared by the divine Canons; but the Metropolitans themselves of the said Dioceses shall, as has been said, be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the proper elections being made according to custom, and reported to him."
"The Legates,[96] being informed of what had pa.s.sed, demanded that the Council should a.s.semble again, and the magistrates be present. On the morrow, therefore, being Thursday, the 1st November, the twelfth sitting[97] was held. The magistrates were there with the Legates, and the Bishops of Illyria, and all the rest. After they had taken their seats, Paschasinus spoke, having asked permission of the magistrates, and said, that he was astonished that so many things had been done the day before in their absence, which were contrary to the Canons and the peace of the Church, for which the Emperor was labouring with so much application and zeal. He demanded the reading of what had pa.s.sed the day before. And Aetius, (Archdeacon of Constantinople,) having said that it was the Legates themselves who had refused to be present at the deliberation, presented the Canon which had been drawn up with the signatures of the Bishops. After the signatures had been read, Lucentius said the Bishops had been surprised, and compelled to sign. This is what St. Leo repeated often in the letter which he wrote concerning this twenty-eighth Canon, accusing Anatolius of having extorted the signatures of the Bishops, or of having surprised them by his artifices. Nevertheless, upon the reproach of Lucentius, all the Bishops cried out that no one had been forced. They protested again afterwards, both all in common, and the princ.i.p.al by themselves, that they had signed it of their full consent. Anatolius also maintains to St. Leo, that the Bishops took this resolution of their own accord.
"The Legates continued to oppose the Canon, and showed that they had an express order of the Pope to do so. They alleged that the Canon was contrary to the Council of Nicea, of which they read the sixth Canon, with the celebrated heading--"The Roman Church has always had the primacy,"
which is also found added in the ancient Roman code. The same Canon was afterwards read as it is in the original Greek, and the Canon of the second Ec.u.menical Council, to which the Legates answered nothing.
"The magistrates having next begged the Bishops who had not signed the day before, to give their opinion, Eusebius, of Ancyra, represented with much gentleness and modesty, that it was better for the Church that ordinations should be made upon the spot by the Council of the province. Thala.s.sius then spoke a single word, but I know not his meaning."
Thereupon "the magistrates[98] said,--"It appears, from the depositions, first of all, that the primacy and precedency of honour ([Greek: ta proteia, kai ten exaireton timen]) should be preserved according to the Canons for the Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of Constantinople ought to enjoy the same privileges, ([Greek: ton auton presbeion tes times],) and that he has a right to ordain the Metropolitans of the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in the manner following. In each metropolis, the clergy, the proprietors of lands, and the gentry, with all the Bishops of the province, or the greater part of them, shall issue a decree for the election of one whom they shall deem worthy of being made a Bishop of the metropolis. They shall all make a report of it to the Archbishop of Constantinople, and it shall be at his option either to enjoin the Bishop elect to come thither for ordination, or to allow him to be ordained in the province. As to the Bishops of particular cities, they shall be ordained by all, or the greater part, of the comprovincial Bishops, under the authority of the Metropolitan, according to the Canons, the Archbishop of Constantinople taking no part in such ordination. These are our views, let the Council state theirs." The Bishops shouted, "This is a just proposal: we all say the same: we all a.s.sent to it, we pray you dismiss us:" with other similar acclamations. Lucentius, the Legate, said,--"The Apostolic See ought not to be degraded in our presence; we, therefore, desire that yesterday"s proceedings, which violate the Canons, may be rescinded; otherwise let our opposition be inserted in the Acts, that we may know what we are to report to the Pope, and that he may declare his opinion of this contempt of his See, and subversion of the Canons." The magistrates said,--"The whole Council approves of what we said." Such was the last Session of the Council of Chalcedon."
The remarks of Tillemont on this Canon are significant, and worth transcribing.[99] "It seems," he says, "to recognise no particular authority in the Church of Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as the seat of the empire. And it attributes in plain words as much to Constantinople as to Rome, with the exception of the first place.
_Nevertheless I do not observe that the Popes took up a thing so injurious to their dignity, and of so dangerous a consequence to the whole Church._ For what Lupus quotes of St. Leo"s 78th (104th) letter, refers rather to Alexandria and to Antioch, than to Rome. St. Leo is contented to destroy the foundation on which they built the elevation of Constantinople, maintaining that a thing so entirely ecclesiastical as the Episcopate ought not to be regulated by the temporal dignity of cities, which, nevertheless, has been almost always followed in the establishment of the metropolis, according to the Council of Nicea.
"St. Leo also complains that the Council of Chalcedon broke the decrees of the Council of Nicea, the practice of antiquity, and the rights of Metropolitans. Certainly it was an odious innovation to see a Bishop made the chief, not of one department, but of three; for which no example could be found save in the authority which the Popes took over Illyric.u.m, where, however, they did not claim the power to ordain any Bishop."
Now I suppose any Roman Catholic would observe that this Canon is entirely opposed to the present Papal theory: he would say that St. Leo and the West for that very reason refused to receive it. The opposition, beyond all question, is such, that it is quite impossible to reconcile them. Let any one, then, read through the 104th letter of St. Leo to the Emperor Mauricius, the 105th to the Empress Pulcheria, and the 106th to Anatolius himself, and he will see that St. Leo bases his opposition to it throughout on its being a violation of the Nicene Canons: there is not a word in all the three letters about any violation of the rights of St. Peter. May we not quote, alas! St. Leo"s words, in these letters, to St. Leo"s successor.
"He[100] loses his own, who l.u.s.ts after what is not his due.... For the privileges of the Churches, inst.i.tuted by the Canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the venerable Nicene Synod, cannot be plucked up by any wickedness, or changed by any innovation. In the faithful execution of which work, by the help of Christ, I am bound to show persevering service; since the dispensation has been entrusted to me, and it tends to my guilt, if the rules of the Fathers" sanctions, which were made in the Nicene Council for the government of the whole Church, by the teaching of G.o.d"s Spirit, be violated, which G.o.d forbid, by my connivance; and if the desire of one brother be of more weight with me than the common good of the whole house of the Lord." This to the Emperor. To the Empress, thus:--"Since no one is allowed to attempt[101] anything against the statutes of the Fathers" Canons, which many years ago were based on spiritual decrees in the city of Nicea; so that if any one desires to decree anything against them, he will rather lessen himself than injure them. _And if these are kept uninjured, as it behoves, by all Pontiffs, there will be tranquil peace and firm concord through all the Churches.
There will be no dissensions concerning the degree of honours; no contests about ordinations; no doubts about privileges; no conflicts about the usurpation of another"s right; but under the equal law of charity, both men"s minds and duties will be kept in the due order_; and he will be truly great, who shall be alien from all ambition, according to the Lord"s words, "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, &c."" But to Anatolius, thus:--"Those[102] holy and venerable Fathers, who in the Nicene city established laws of ecclesiastical Canons, _which are to last to the end of the world_, when the sacrilegious Arius with his impiety was condemned, live both with us and in the whole world by their const.i.tutions; and if anything anywhere is presumed upon contrary to what they appointed, it is without delay annulled, &c."
But _what_ the violation was he likewise states: it is not any wrong done to his own see personally. He says to the Empress: "But[103] what doth the prelate of the Church of Constantinople desire more than he hath obtained?
Or what will satisfy him, if the magnificence and glory of so great a city satisfy him not? It is too proud and immoderate to go beyond one"s own limits, and, trampling on antiquity, to wish to seize on another"s right.
And, in order to increase the dignity of one, to impugn the primacy of so many Metropolitans; and to carry a new war of disturbance into quiet provinces, settled long ago by the moderation of the holy Nicene Council,"
&c.
To Anatolius himself he says: "I grieve--that you attempt to infringe the most sacred const.i.tutions of the Nicene Canons; as if this were a favourable opportunity presented to you, when the See of Alexandria may lose the privilege of the second rank, and the Church of Antioch its possession of the third dignity; so that when these places have been brought under your jurisdiction, all Metropolitan Bishops may be deprived of their proper honour."[104] "I oppose you, that with wiser purpose you may refrain from throwing into confusion the whole Church. Let not the rights of provincial Primacies be torn away, nor Metropolitan Bishops be deprived of their privileges in force from old time. Let no part of that dignity perish to the See of Alexandria, which it was thought worthy to obtain through the holy Evangelist Mark, the disciple of blessed Peter; nor, though Dioscorus falls through the obstinacy of his own impiety, let the splendour of so great a Church be obscured by another"s disgrace. Let also the Church of Antioch, in which first, at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter, the name of Christian arose, remain in the order of its hereditary degree, and being placed in the third rank never sink below itself."
So then it was not St. Peter"s Primacy, nor his own proper authority in the Church, which St. Leo conceived to be attacked by this Canon; but he refused to be a party to "treading under foot the const.i.tution of the Fathers"--to disturbing "the state of the universal Church, protected of old by a most wholesome and upright administration."[105] So the Emperor Marcian, Anatolius, Julian of Cos, beseech Leo to grant this, without so much as imagining that they are injuring _his_ rank by asking it. I see not how it is possible to avoid the conclusion, that the power of the First See, even as its most zealous occupant viewed it, was quite different from that power which was set up in the middle ages. This is only one of a vast number of proofs which distinguish the Primacy from the present Supremacy.
And it is the more valuable, because St. Leo certainly carries his notion of his own rights as universal Primate further than any Father of his time.
I shall have occasion to make a like remark presently in the matter of St.
Gregory"s protest.
But, indeed, such a Canon as this being pa.s.sed in the most numerous Ec.u.menical Synod, in spite of the opposition of the Pope"s Legates, speaks for itself. I am well aware that St. Leo refused to receive it, that, "by the authority of the blessed Peter, he annulled it by a general declaration, as contrary to the holy Canons of Nicea."[106] Accordingly it was not received in the West; but it nevertheless always prevailed in the East, and the Popes ultimately conceded the point it enacted. And[107] from the hour it was enacted to this, it has remained the law of the Eastern Church; and the Patriarchal power, which in the Western Church has developed into the Papal, has remained attached to the throne of Constantinople in the other great division of Christ"s kingdom.
The ninth Canon of Chalcedon also says:--"If a Clergyman has any matter against his own Bishop or another, let him plead his cause before the Council of the province. But if either a Bishop or Clergyman have a controversy against the Metropolitan of the same province, let him have recourse either to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the imperial city of Constantinople, and plead his cause before it." I remark this, because it is a far greater power of hearing appeals granted to the Bishop of Constantinople, than was granted to the Bishop of Rome a hundred years before at the Council of Sardica.
Now, let us be fair and even-handed. If the great influence and authority exercised at the Council of Chalcedon by St. Leo is to be acknowledged as witnessing the Roman Primacy, let us also grant, that unless the Acts and the Canons of the first four Ec.u.menical Councils are to be swept away as waste paper before the omnipotence of Papal prerogative, then the ancient decrees of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, offer an insurmountable barrier to the present claims of Rome. But concerning the Canons of Nicea, St. Leo, at least, says:--"I hold all ecclesiastical rules to be dissolved, if any part of that sacrosanct const.i.tution of the Fathers be violated."[108] St. Gregory repeats:--"I receive the four Councils of the holy universal Church as the four books of the Holy Gospel."[109] Mr.
Newman says, "that the definition pa.s.sed at Chalcedon is the Apostolic Truth once delivered to the Saints, is most firmly to be received from faith in that overruling Providence, which is by special promise extended over the Acts of the Church."[110] Does it not equally follow that the Church government recognised as immemorial, and enforced at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, _and the doctrine which is involved therein_, are likewise to be maintained, and that none who appeal to them with truth, as practised by themselves, whatever else they may fall into, can be guilty of schism?
The hundred and thirty years between the death of St. Leo and the accession of St. Gregory, were years of trouble, confusion, and disaster: "the stars fell from heaven, and the powers of the heavens were shaken." The Western empire was overthrown; barbarians and heretics obtained the mastery in Italy, and generally in the West; there was but one fixed and central authority to which the eyes of churchmen could turn with hope and confidence in the whole West, that of the Roman Pontiff.
I select the following points as bearing on our subject:--
In the year 536 we have one of those rare instances in which the Primacy of Rome is seen acting on the Eastern Church, but in perfect accordance with the Canons and the Patriarchal system. The Pope Agapetus had been compelled by Theodatus, king of the Goths, to proceed to Constantinople, in order that he might, if possible, prevail upon Justinian not to attempt the recovery of Italy. Not having wherewith to pay the expenses of his journey, he had been compelled to borrow money on the sacred vessels of St. Peter"s Church. On arriving at Constantinople he refused to see the new Patriarch Anthimus, or to receive him to his communion, both because he was suspected of heresy, and had been translated from the See of Trebisond. Anthimus refused to appear in the Council that the Pope held at Constantinople to judge him; so he was deposed, and returned his pallium to the Emperor.
Mennas was elected in his stead by the Emperor, with the approbation of all the Clergy and the people, and the Pope consecrated him in the church of St. Mary. "Pope Agapetus wrote a synodal letter to Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to acquaint him with what he had done in this Council. "When we arrived," said he, "at the court of the Emperor, we found the See of Constantinople usurped, contrary to the Canons, by Anthimus Bishop of Trebisond. He even refused to quit the error of Eutyches. Therefore, after having waited for his repentance, we declare him unworthy of the name of Catholic and Bishop, until he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers.
You ought likewise to reject the rest whom the Holy See has condemned. We are astonished that you approved this injury done to the See of Constantinople, instead of informing us of it; and we have repaired it by the ordination of Mennas, who is the first of the Eastern Church ordained by the hands of our See.""[111] I find this Pope presently called by the Easterns, "Father of fathers," "Archbishop of ancient Rome," "Ec.u.menical Patriarch." This latter t.i.tle is also given to Mennas. I shall have more to say about it hereafter; but it is remarkable that it was first given, so far as we have any record, to Dioscorus,[112] by a Bishop in some complaint made to him at the Latrocinium of Ephesus; but Justinian gives to the Patriarch of Constantinople the t.i.tle, "to the most holy and blessed Archbishop of this royal city, and Ec.u.menical Patriarch."[113]
The Pope shortly after dies at Constantinople, and a Council is held, at which the Patriarch Mennas presides, the Bishops who had accompanied the defunct Pope taking rank after him. He writes to the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem, and informs him of the acts of this Council. Peter a.s.sembles his Council at Jerusalem: the procedure which took place at Constantinople was there found canonical, and the deposition of Anthimus was confirmed. Here the same facts which prove the Pope"s Primacy refute his Supremacy: and this is not an isolated incident, but one link in a vast and uninterrupted chain of evidence.
I find in the laws of the Emperor Justinian just at the same time, looking at them merely as facts, a full confirmation and recognition of the Episcopal and Patriarchal const.i.tution of the Church. In 538, the Emperor, in an edict, addressing the Patriarch Mennas, says, "Wherefore we exhort you to a.s.semble all the Bishops who are in this imperial city ... and oblige them all to anathematize by writing the impious Origen ... that your Blessedness send copies of what you do on this subject to all the other Bishops, and to all the superiors of monasteries.... We have written as much to Pope Vigilius and the other Patriarchs".... "The Patriarch Mennas, and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, subscribed to this: it was then sent to Pope Vigilius, to Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Ephrem of Antioch, and to Peter of Jerusalem, who all subscribed to it".... "There are three great laws of the year 511, of which the first regulates ordinations:" those of the Bishops were still in the hands of the several clergy, laity, and Metropolitans.... "The second law of the 18th March enacts, that the four General Councils shall have the force of law, that the Pope of Rome is the first of all the Bishops, and after him the Bishop of Constantinople."--"Bishops cannot be called to appear against their will before secular judges for any cause whatsoever. If Bishops of the same province have a difference together, they shall be judged by the Metropolitan, accompanied by the other Bishops of the province, _and may appeal to the Patriarch, but not beyond_. Likewise if an individual, clerk or lay, has a matter against his Bishop. The Metropolitan can only be tried before the Patriarch."--"Simony is forbidden ... still it is allowed to give for consecrations, according to ancient customs, in the following proportion. The Pope and the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, may give to the Bishops and the Clergy according to custom, provided that it exceed not twenty pounds of gold. The Metropolitans and the other Bishops may give a hundred gold solidi for their enthronement," &c.[114]
So, again: "Therefore let the most holy Patriarchs of each Diocese propose these things to the most holy Churches under them, and make known to the Metropolitans, most beloved of G.o.d, what we have ratified. Let these again set it forth in the most holy Metropolitan Church, and notify it to the Bishops under them. But let each of these propose it in his own Church, that no one in our commonwealth be ignorant of it."[115]
"We charge the most blessed Archbishops and Patriarchs, that is, of elder Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Theopolis and Jerusalem."[116]
But Pope Pelagius I. himself says: "As often as any doubt ariseth to any concerning an Universal Council, in order to receive account of what they do not understand--let them recur to the Apostolical Sees.--Whosoever then is divided from the Apostolical Sees, there is no doubt that he is in schism."[117]
St. Augustin had said long before, "What hath the See of the Roman Church done to thee, in which Peter sat, in which Anastasius sitteth now: or of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat, and where now John sitteth: with which we are joined in Catholic unity, and from which ye in impious fury have separated."[118]
We now come to the dark and sad history of Pope Vigilius. And here I am glad that another can speak for me. Bossuet says: "The acts of the Second Council of Constantinople, the fifth general, under Pope Vigilius and the Emperor Justinian, will prove that the decrees of the third and fourth Councils were understood in the same sense by the fifth as we have understood them. And this Council received the account of them near at hand, and transmitted it to us."[119]
"The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret"s writings against Cyril, and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. The question was whether that letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was admitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius, had been received by the Council. Some contended that his person only was spared; others that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was made at the fifth Council how writings on the faith were wont to be approved in former Councils. The acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo, were set forth. Then the holy Council declared--"It is plain, from what has been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is brought before them. For, great as was the dignity of those holy men who wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or without inquiry, nor without taking cognisance that they were in all things agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which they were compared." But the acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly, that that letter had not been approved. So, then, it is certain, from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it, that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils not simply, nor without inquiry."
Pope Vigilius afterwards, when consenting to this Council, "acknowledges that the letter of St. Leo was not approved at the Council of Chalcedon until it had been examined and found conformable to the faith of the three preceding Councils; and this avowal is the more important in the mouth of a Pope."[120]
"Again, in the same fifth Council the acts against the letter of Nestorius are read, in which the Fathers of Ephesus plainly p.r.o.nounce, "that the letter of Nestorius is in no respect agreeable to the faith which was set forth at Nicea." So this letter also was rejected, not simply, but, as was equitable, after examination; and Ibas condemned, who stated that Nestorius had been rejected by the Council of Ephesus without examination and inquiry.
"The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas" letter. They compare the letters with the acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The holy Council declared--"The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the definition of the right faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.
All the Bishops cried out, "We all say this; the letter is heretical."
Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council that our holy Fathers in Ec.u.menical Councils p.r.o.nounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, to be orthodox or heretical, according to the same procedure, after legitimate cognisance, the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.