Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the catholics with the same violence which the latter had employed against them and other heretics, and harassed and persecuted in various ways such as professed their adherence to the Nicene doctrines. The Vandals who reigned in Africa, surpassed all the other savage nations in barbarity and injustice toward the catholics. The kings of this fierce people, particularly Genseric and Huneric his son, pulled down the churches of those Christians who acknowledged the divinity of Christ, sent their bishops into exile, and maimed and tormented such as were nobly firm and inflexible in the profession of their faith. They however declared, that in using these severe and violent methods, they were authorised by the example of the emperors, who had enacted laws of the same rigorous nature against the Donatists, the Arians, and other sects who differed in opinion from the Christians of Constantinople.b

We must not here omit mentioning the stupendous miracle, which is said to have been wrought during these persecutions in Africa, and by which the Supreme Being

See Victor Vitens. lib. iii. de Persequutione Vandalicâ, which Theod. Ruinart published at Paris in 1694, with his own history of the same persecution.

is supposed to have declared his displeasure against the Arians, and his favour towards their adversaries. This miracle consisted in enabling those catholics whose tongues had been cut out by the Arian tyrant Huneric, to speak distinctly, and to proclaim aloud the divine majesty of the Saviour of the world. This remarkable fact can scarcely be denied, since it is supported by the testimony of the most credible and respectable witnesses; but whether it is to be attributed to a supernatural and miraculous power, is a point which admits dispute.

V. A new sect, which was the source of most fatal and deplorable divisions in the Christian church, was formed by Nestorius, a Syrian bishop of Constantinople, a disciple of the celebrated Theodore of Mopsuestia, and a man remarkable for his learning and eloquence, which were, however, accompanied with much levity, and with intolerable arrogance. Before we enter into particular account of the doctrine of this sectary, it is proper to observe, that though, by the decrees of former councils, it had been clearly and peremptorily determined, that Christ was, at vent their preaching a discountenanced doctrine. To deny the miracle in question, we must maintain, that it is as easy to speak without a tongue, as with it. See Mr. Dodwell's Free Answer to Dr. Middleton's b See the edict of Huneric, in the history of Victor, lib. iv. cap. ii. p. 64. Free Inquiry, p. 96. These witnesses, who had themselves ocular demonstration of Mr. Toll, who defended Middleton's hypothesis, has proposed an obthe fact, were Victor of Utica, Eneas of Gaza (who examined thejection, à priori, as it may be justly called, to the truth of this miracle. mouths of the persons in question, and found that their tongues were en- He observes, that the occasion on which it was wrought was not of suftirely rooted out,) Procopius, Marcellinus the count, and the emperor ficient consequence or necessity to require a divine interposition; for it Justinian. Upon the authority of such respectable testimonies, the was not wrought to convert infidels to Christianity, but to bring over the learned Abl adie formed a laboured and dexterous defence of the miracu- followers of Arius to the Athanasian faith; it was wrought, in a word, lous nature of this extraordinary fact, in his work entitled, La Triomphe for the explication of a doctrine, which both sides allowed to be founded de la Provi tence, vol. iii. p. 255, where all the fire of his zeal, and all the in the New Testament. Now, as the Scriptures are a revelation of the subtlety of his logic, seem to have been exhausted. Dr. Berriman, in his will of God, "it seems (says Mr. Toll) to cast a reflection on his wisHistorical Account of the Trinitarian Controversy, as also in his ser- dom, as if he did things by halves, to suppose it necessary for him to mons preached at Lady Moyer's Lectures, in 1725, and Dr. Chapman, work miracles in order to ascertain the sense of those Scriptures. This in his Miscellaneous Tracts, have maintained the same hypothesis. To (continues he) would be multiplying miracles to an infinite degree:the former, an answer was published by an anonymous writer, under the besides, it would destroy the universal truth of that proposition from following title: "An Inquiry into the Miracle said to have been wrought which we cannot depart, namely, That the Scriptures are sufficiently in the fifth century, upon some orthodox Christians, in favour of the plain in all things necessary to salvation." Sec Mr. Toll's Defence of Doctrine of the Trinity, &c. in a Letter to a Friend." We may ven- Dr. Middleton's Free Inquiry, against Mr. Dodwell's Free Answer. To ture to say, that this answer is utterly unsatisfactory. The author of it, this specious objection Mr. Dodwell replies, that on the doctrine in disafter having laboured to invalidate the testimony alleged in favour of pute between the Arians and the orthodox, the true notion, as well as the the fact, seems himself scarcely convinced by his own arguments; for he importance and reality of our salvation, may be said to depend; that the acknowledges at last the possibility of the event, but persists in denying doctrines, duties, and motives of Christianity, are exalted or debased, as the miracle, and supposes, that the cruel operation was so imperfectly we embrace one or the other of those systems; that, on the divinity of performed upon these confessors, as to leave in some of them such a Christ, the meritoriousness of the propitiation offered by him must enshare of the tongue, as was sufficient for the use of speech. Dr. Mid- tirely rest; and that therefore, no occasion of greater consequence can be dleton (to whom some have attributed the above-mentioned Answer) assigned on which a miracle might be expected. He adds, that the dismaintains the same hypothesis, in his Free Inquiry into the Miracu- putes which men have raised about certain doctrines, are no proof that lous Powers, &c. supposing, that the tongues of the persons in question these doctrines are not plainly revealed in Scripture, since this would were not entirely rooted out, which he corroborates by the following con- prove that no truth is there sufficiently revealed, because, at one time or sideration, that two of the sufferers are said to have utterly lost the facul- other, they have been all disputed; and he observes judiciously, that the ty of speaking; for though this might be ascribed to a peculiar judg- expediency of interposing by miracles, is what we always are not ment of God, punishing the immoralities of which they were afterwards competent judges of, since God alone knows the times, seasons, and ocguilty, yet this appears to be a forced and improbable solution of the casions, in which it is proper to alter the usual course of nature, in order matter, in the opinion of the doctor, who imagines that he solves it better, to maintain the truth, to support the oppressed, and to carry on the great by supposing, that they had not been deprived of their entire tongues. purposes of his gospel kingdom. It is enough, that the present interpoHe goes yet farther, and produces two cases from the Memoirs of the sition be not incredible, to remove Mr. Toll's objection, without consiAcademy of Sciences at Paris, which prove, in his opinion, "That this dering its particular use, and the unexceptionable manner in which it pretended miracle owed its whole credit to our ignorance of the powers is attested. See Mr. Dodwell's Full and final Reply to Mr. Toll's Deof nature." The first is that of "a girl born without a tongue, who yet fence, p. 270. talked as easily and distinctly, as if she had enjoyed the full benefit of that organ;" and the second, that of "a boy, who, at the age of eight or nine years, lost his tongue by a gangrene, or ulcer, and yet retained the faculty of speaking." See Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 183, 184.

This reasoning of the sceptical doctor of divinity appeared superficial and unsatisfactory to the judicious Mr. Dodwell, who (saying nothing about the case of the two Trinitarians who remained dumb, after their tongues were cut out, and whose dumbness is but indifferently accounted for by their immorality, since gifts have been often possessed without grace) confines himself to the consideration of the two parallel facts drawn from the Academical Memoirs already mentioned. To show that these facts prove little or nothing against the miracle in question, he justly observes, that though, in one or two particular cases, a mouth may be so singularly formed as to utter articulate sounds, without the usual instrument of speech (some excrescence probably supplying the defect,) yet it cannot be any thing less than miraculous, that this should happen to a considerable number of persons, whose tongues were cut out to pre

We must observe here that the latter objection and answer are merely hypothetical, i. e. they draw their force only from the different opinions, which the ingenious Mr. Toll and his learned antagonist entertain concerning the importance of the doctrine, in favour of which this pretended miracle is said to have been wrought. The grand question, whose decision alone can finish this controversy, is, whether the tongues of these African confessors were entirely rooted out, or not. The case of the two who remained dumb furnishes a shrewd presumption, that the cruel operation was not equally performed upon all. The immorality of these two, and the judgment of God, suspending with respect to them the influence of the miracle, do not solve this difficulty entirely, since (as we observed above) many have possessed supernatural gifts without grace; and Christ tells us, that many have cast out devils in his name, whom at the last day he will not acknowledge as his faithful

servants.

d See Ruinarti Histor. Persequut. Vandal. part ii. cap. vii. p. 482. See Bibliotheque Britannique, tom. iii. part ii. p. 339. tom. v. part i. p. 171,

the same time, true God and true man, yet no council had hitherto decreed any thing concerning the manner and effect of this union of the two natures in the divine Saviour, nor had this point yet become a topic of inquiry or dispute among Christians. The consequence of this was, that the Christian doctors expressed themselves differently on the subject of this mystery. Some used such forms of expression as seemed to widen the difference between the Son of God and the son of man, and thus to divide the nature of Christ into two distinct persons. Others, on the contrary, seemed to confound too much the Son of God with the son of man, and to suppose the nature of Christ composed of his divinity and humanity blended into one.

The heresy of Apollinaris had given occasion to these different ways of speaking; for he maintained that the man Christ was not endowed with a human soul, but with the divine nature, which was substituted in its place, and performed its functions; and this doctrine manifestly supposed a confusion of the two natures in the Messiah. The Syrian doctors, therefore, that they might avoid the errors of Apollinaris, and exclude his followers from the communion of the church, were careful in establishing an accurate distinction between the divine and the human nature in the Son of God; and for this purpose they used such forms of expression as seemed to favour the notion of Christ's being composed of two distinct persons. The manner of speaking adopted by the Alexandrians and Egyptians, had a different tendency, and seemed to countenance the doctrine of Apollinaris, and, by a confusion of the two natures, to blend them into one. Nestorius, who was a Syrian, and had adopted the sentiments of the divines of his nation, was a violent enemy to all the sects, but to none so much as to the Apollinarian faction, at whose ruin he aimed with an ardent and inextinguishable zeal. He therefore discoursed of the two natures in Christ after the Syrian manner, and commanded his disciples to distinguish carefully between the actions and perceptions of the Son of God, and those of the son of man."

VI. The occasion of this disagreeable controversy was furnished by the presbyter Anastasius, a friend of Nestorius. This ecclesiastic, in a public discourse, delivered in 428, declaimed warmly against the title of soróxos, or mother of God, which was now more frequently attributed to the Virgin Mary, in the controversy against the Arians, than it had formerly been, and was a favourite term with the followers of Apollinaris. He, at the same time, gave it as his opinion, that the Holy Virgin was rather to be called xeroxos, i. e. mother of Christ, since the Deity can neither be born nor die, and of consequence, the son of man alone could derive his birth from an earthly parent. Nestorius applauded these sentiments, and explained and defended them in several discourses. But both he and his friend Anastasius were keenly opposed by

The original word perpessio, which signifies properly suffering or passion, we have here translated by the general term, perception, because suffering or passion cannot be, in any sense, attributed to the divine nature.

b The Jesuit Doucin published at Paris, in 1716, a History of Nestorianism; but it is such a history as might be expected from a writer, who was obliged, by his profession, to place the arrogant Cyril among the saints, and Nestorius among the heretics. The ancient writers, on both sides of the controversy, are mentioned by Jo. Franc. Buddeus, in his Isagoge in Theologiam, tom. ii. The accounts given of this dispute by the oriental writers, are collected by Renaudot, in his Historia Patriarch. Alexandrin. and by Jos. Sim. Assemanus, in his Biblioth. Orient. Vatican.

[ocr errors]

certain monks of Constantinople, who maintained that the son of Mary was God incarnate, and excited the zeal and fury of the populace to maintain this doctrine against Nestorius. Notwithstanding all this, the discourses of the latter were extremely well received in many places, and had the majority on their side. The Egyptian monks had no sooner perused them, than they were persuaded, by the weight of the arguments they contained, to embrace the opinions of Nestorius, and accordingly ceased to call the Blessed Virgin the mother of God.

VII. The prelate who then ruled the see of Alexandria, was Cyril, a man of a haughty, turbulent, and imperious temper, and painfully jealous of the rising power and authority of the bishop of Constantinople. As soon as this controversy came to his knowledge, he censured the Egyptian monks and Nestorius; and, finding the latter little disposed to submit to his censure, he proceeded to violent measures; took counsel with Celestine, bishop of Rome, whom he had engaged on his side; assembled a council at Alexandria in 430; and hurled twelve anathemas at the head of Nestorius. The thunderstricken prelate did not sink under this violent shock; but, seeing himself unjustly accused of derogating from the majesty of Christ, he retorted the same accusation upon his adversary, charged him with the Apollinarian heresy, with confounding the two natures in Christ, and loaded Cyril with as many anathemas as he had received from him. This unhappy contest between prelates of the first order, proceeded rather from corrupt motives of jealousy and ambition, than from a sincere and disinterested zeal for the truth, and was the source of unnumbered evils and calamities.

VIII. When the spirits were so exasperated on both sides, by reciprocal excommunications and polemic writings, that there was no prospect of an amicable issue to this unintelligible controversy, Theodosius the younger called a council at Ephesus, in 431, which was the third general council in the annals of the church. In this council Cyril presided, though he was the party concerned, and the avowed enemy of Nestorius; and he proposed examining and determining the matter in debate before John of Antioch and the other eastern bishops arrived. Nestorius objected to this proceeding, as irregular and unjust; but, his remonstrances being without effect, he refused to comply with the summons which called him to appear before the council. Cyril, on the other hand, pushing on matters with a lawless violence, Nestorius was judged without being heard; and, during the absence of a great number of those bishops who belonged to the council, he was compared with the traitor Judas, charged with blasphemy against the divine majesty, deprived of his episcopal dignity, and sent into exile, where he finished his days. The transactions of this council will appear to the candid and equitable reader in the most unfavorable light, as full of

d

• See Harduini Concilia, tom. i.; and the Biblioth. Orient. Vat. tom. iii. d Those who desire a more ample account of this council, may consult the Variorum Patrum Epistolæ ad Concilium Ephesinum pertinentes, published at Louvain in 1682, from some Vatican and other manuscripts, by Christian Lupus. Nestorius, in consequence of the sentence pronounced against him in this council, was banished to Petra in Arabia, and afterwards to Oasis, a solitary place in the deserts of Egypt, where he died in 435. The accounts given of his tragical death by Evagrius, in his Eccl. Hist. lib. i. cap. vii. and by Theodorus the Reader, Hist. Eccl. lib. ii. p. 565, are entirely fabulous. Dr. Mosheim's account of the time of Nestorius' death is perhaps inexact; for it appears that Nestorius was at Oasis, when Socrates wrote, that is, in 439. See Socrat. lib. vii. cap. xxxiv.

low artifice, contrary to all the rules of justice, and even destitute of the least air of common decency. The doctrine, however, that was established in it concerning Christ, was that which has heen always acknowledged and adopted by the majority of Christians, viz. "That Christ was one divine person, in whom two natures were most closely and intimately united, but without being mixed or confounded." IX. Nestorius, among accusations of less moment, was charged with dividing the nature of Christ into two distinct persons, and with having maintained, that the divine nature was superadded to the human nature of Jesus, after it was formed, and was no more than an auxiliary support to the man Christ, through the whole of his life. Nestorius denied this charge even to the last, and solemnly professed his entire disapprobation of this doctrine. Nor indeed was this opinion ever proposed by him in any of his writings: it was only charged upon him by his iniquitous adversaries as a consequence drawn from some incautious and ambiguous terms he used, and particularly from his refusing to call the Virgin Mary the mother of God. Hence many, and indeed the majority of writers, both ancient and modern, after a thorough examination of this matter, have positively concluded, that the opinions of Nestorius, and of the council which condemned them, were the same in effect; that their difference was in words only, and that the whole blame of this unhappy controversy was to be charged upon the turbulent spirit of Cyril, and his aversion to Nestorius.

d

C

arose a new and obstinate dissension between Cyril and the Orientals, with the bishop of Antioch at their head. This flame indeed abated in 433, after Cyril had received the articles of faith drawn up by John, and abandoned certain phrases and expressions, of which the litigious might make a pernicious use. But the commotions, which arose from this fatal controversy, were more durable in the east. Nothing could oppose the progress of Nestorianism in those parts. in those parts. The disciples and friends of the persecu. ted prelate carried his doctrine through all the Oriental provinces, and erected every where congregations which professed an invincible opposition to the decrees of the council of Ephesus. The Persians, among others, opposed Cyril in the most vigorous manner, maintained that Nestorius had been unjustly condemned at Ephesus, and charged Cyril with removing that distinction which subsists between the two natures in Christ. But nothing tended so much to propagate with rapidity the doctrine of Nestorius, as its being received in the famous school which had for a long time flourished at Edessa. For the doctors of this renowned academy not only instructed the youth in the Nestorian tenets, but translated from the Greek into the Syriac language the books of Nestorius, of his master Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and the writings also of Diodo rus of Tarsus, and spread them abroad throughout Assyria and Persia.

XI. Of all the promoters of the Nestorian cause, there was not one to whom it has such weighty obligations as This judgment may be just upon the whole; but it is, to the famous Barsumas, who was removed from his place however, true, that Nestorius committed two faults in the in the school of Edessa, and created bishop of Nisibis in course of this controversy. The first was, his giving offence 435. This zealous prelate laboured with incredible assiduto many Christians by abrogating a trite and innocentity and dexterity, from the year 440 to 485, to procure, for term; and the second, his presumptuously attempting to explain, by uncouth comparisons and improper expressions, a mystery which infinitely surpasses the extent of our imperfect reason. If to these defects we add the despotic spirit and the excessive warmth of this persecuted prelate, it will be difficult to decide who is most to be blamed, as the principal fomenter of this violent contest, Cyril or Nes

torius.e

X. The council of Ephesus, instead of healing these divisions, only inflamed them more and more, and almost destroyed all hope of restoring concord and tranquillity in the church. John of Antioch, and the other eastern bishops, for whose arrival Cyril had refused to wait, met at Ephesus, and pronounced against him and Memnon, the bishop of that city, who was his creature, as severe a sentence as they had thundered against Nestorius. Hence

a See Garnier's edition of the works of Marius Mercator, tom. ii. p. 286. See also the fragments of some letters from Nestorius, which are to be found in the Biblioth. Oriental. Vatican. tom. ii.

It is remarkable, that Cyril would not hear the explanations which Nestorius offered to give of his doctrine. The latter even offered to grant the title of Mother of God to the Virgin Mary, provided that nothing else was thereby meant, but that the man born of her was united to the divinity. See Socrat. lib. vii. cap. xxxiv.

Luther was the first of the modern writers who thought thus; and he inveighed against Cyril with the greatest bitterness, in his book de Conciliis, tom. viii. op. Altenb. p. 265, 266, 273. See also Bayle's Dictionary, at the articles Nestorius and Rodon.-Christ. August. Salig, de Eutychianismo ante Eutychem, p. 200.-Otto Fred. Schutzius, de Vitâ Chytræi, lib. ii. cap. xxix. p. 190, 191.-Jo. Voigt Biblioth. Historia Hæresiologica, tom. i. part. iii. p. 457-Paul. Ernest. Jablonsky, Exerc. de Nestorianismo.-Thesaur. Epistolic. Crozianus, tom. i. p. 184, tom. iii. p. 175.-La Vie de la Croze, par Jordan, p. 231, and many others. As to the faults that have been laid to the charge of Nestorius, they are collected by Asseman in his Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. iii. part ii. p. 210. d The title of Mother of God, applied to the Virgin Mary, is not

the Nestorians, a solid and permanent settlement in Persia; and he was vigorously seconded in this undertaking by Maanes, bishop of Ardascira. So remarkable was the success which crowned the labours of Barsumas, that his fame extended throughout the east; and those Nestorians who still remain in Chaldea, Persia, Assyria, and the adjacent countries, consider him alone, and not without reason, as their parent and founder. This indefatigable ecclesiastic not only persuaded Firouz, the Persian monarch, to expel from his dominions such Christians as had adopted the opinions of the Greeks, and to admit the Nestorians in their place, but he even engaged him to put the latter in possession of the principal seat of ecclesiastical authority in Persia, the see of Seleucia, which the Patriarch, or Catholic of the Nestorians, has always filled even down to our time.h

The zeal and activity of Barsumas did not

perhaps so innocent as Dr. Mosheim takes it to be. To the judicious and learned it can'present no idea at all; and to the ignorant and unwary it may present the most absurd and monstrous notions. The invention and use of such mysterious terms, as have no place in Scripture, are undoubtedly pernicious to true religion.

There is no difficulty at all in deciding this question. Nestorius, though possessed of an arrogant and persecuting spirit in general, yet does not seem to deserve, in this particular case, the reproaches that are due to Cyril. Anastasius, not Nestorius, was the first who kindled the flame; and Nestorius, was the suffering and persecuted party from the beginning of the controversy to his death. His offers of accommodation were refused, his explanations were not read, his submission was rejected, and he was condemned unheard.

See Christ. Aug. Salig, de Eutychianismo ante Eutychem, p. 243. See Assemani Biblioth. tom. i. p. 351: tom. iii. part ii. p. 69. This learned author may be advantageously used to correct what Renaudot has said (in the second tome of his Liturgia Orientales, p. 99,) concerning the rise of the Nestorian doctrine in the eastern provinces. See also the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus the Reader, book ii. p. 558. The bishop of Seleucia was, by the twenty-third canon of the

end here: he erected a famous school at Nisibis, whence issued those Nestorian doctors, who, in this and the following century, spread abroad their tenets through Egypt, Syria, Arabia, India, Tartary, and China.

b

XII. The Nestorians, before their affairs were thus aappily settled, had been divided among themselves with respect to the method of explaining their doctrine. Some maintained, that the manner in which the two natures were united in Christ, was absolutely unknown; others, that the union of the divine nature with the man Jesus was only an union of will, operation, and dignity. This dissension, however, entirely ceased, when the Nestorians were gathered into one religious community, and lived in tranquillity under their own ecclesiastical government and laws. Their doctrine, as it was then determined in several councils assembled at Seleucia, amounts to what follows: "That in the Saviour of the world, there were two persons, or vosάTes; of which one was divine, even the eternal word; and the other, which was human, was the man Jesus; that these two persons had only one aspect; that the union between the Son of God and the son of man, was formed in the moment of the Virgin's conception, and was never to be dissolved; that it was not, however, an union of nature, or of person, but only of will and affection; that Christ was, therefore, to be carefully distinguished from God, who dwelt in him as in his temple; and that Mary was to be called the mother of Christ, and not the mother of God."

The abettors of this doctrine hold Nestorius in the highest veneration, as a man of singular and eminent sanctity, and worthy to be had in perpetual remembrance; but they maintain, at the same time, that the doctrine he taught was much older than himself, and had been handed down from the earliest times of the Christian church; and for this reason they absolutely refused the title of Nestorians; and, indeed, if we examine the matter attentively, we shall find, that Barsumas and his followers, instead of teaching their disciples precisely the doctrine of Nestorius, rather polished and improved his uncouth system to their own taste, and added to it several tenets of which the good man never dreamed.

XIII. A violent aversion to the Nestorian errors led many into the opposite extreme. This was the case with the famous Eutyches, an abbot at Constantinople, and founder of a sect, which was in direct opposition to that of Nestorius, yet equally prejudicial to the interests of the Christian church, by the pestilential discords and animosities it produced. The opinions of this new faction shot like lightning through the east; and it acquired such council of Nice, honoured with peculiar marks of distinction, and among others with the title of Catholic. He was invested with the power of ordaining archbishops (a privilege which belonged to the patriarchs alone,) exalted above all the Grecian bishops, honoured as a patriarch, and, in the cecumenical councils, was the sixth in rank after the bishop of Jerusalem. See Acta Concilii Nicæni Arab. Alphons. Pisan. lib. iii. cap. xxiii. xxxiv.

[ocr errors]

See, for an ample account of this matter, Assem. Bib. t. iii. pt. ii. p. 77. Leontius Byzant. adversus Nestorian. et Eutychian. p. 537, tom. i. Lection. Antiquar. Henr. Canisii.-Jac. Basnage, Prolegomen. ad Canisium, tom. i. cap. ii. p. 19.

This is the only way I know of translating the word barsopa which was the term used by Nestorius and which the Greeks render by the term "ρówоv. The word person would have done better in this unintelligible phrase, had it not been used immediately before in a different sense from that which Nestorius would convey by the obscure term aspect. d That Cyril expressed himself in this manner, and appealed, for his justification in so doing, to the authority of Athanasius, is evident beyond all possibility of contradiction. But it is uncertain whether this

strength in its progress, as to create much uneasiness, both to the Greeks and Nestorians, whose most vigorous efforts were not sufficient to prevent its rising to a high degree of credit and splendour. Eutyches began these troubles in 448, when he was far advanced in years; and to exert his utmost force and vehemence in opposing the progress of the Nestorian doctrine, he expressed his sentiments concerning the person of Christ, in the very terms which the Egyptians made use of for that purpose, and taught, that in Christ there was only one nature, namely, that of the incarnate word. Hence he was thought to deny the existence of the human nature in Christ, and was accused of this, by Eusebius of Dorylæum, in the council that was assembled by Flavianus at Constantinople, probably in this same year. By a decree of this council he was ordered to renounce the above-mentioned opinion, which he obstinately refused to do, and was, on this account, excommunicated and deposed; unwilling, however, to acquiesce in this sentence, he appealed to the decision of a general council.

XIV. In consequence of this appeal, the emperor Theodosius assembled an oecumenical council at Ephesus in 449, at the head of which he placed Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, the successor of Cyril, the faithful imitator of his arrogance and fury, and a declared enemy to the bishop of Constantinople. Accordingly, by the influence and caballing of this turbulent man, matters were carried on in this assembly with the same want of equity and of decency that had dishonoured a former Ephesian council, and characterized the proceedings of Cyril against Nestorius. Dioscorus, in whose church a doctrine, almost the same with that of the Eutychians, was constantly taught, confounded matters with such artifice and dexterity, that the doctrine of one incarnate nature triumphed, and Eutyches was acquitted of the charge of error that had been brought against him. Flavianus, on the other hand, was, by the order of this unrighteous council, publicly scourged in the most barbarous manner, and banished to Epipas, a city of Lydia, where he soon after ended his days. The Greeks called this Ephesian council a band or assembly of robbers, σύνοδον ληστρικήν, to signify that every thing was carried in it by fraud or violence; and many councils, indeed, both in this and the following ages, are equally entitled to the same dishonourable appellation.

XV. Affairs soon changed, and assumed an aspect utterly unfavourable to that party which the Ephesian council had rendered triumphant. Flavianus and his followers not only engaged Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, in their interests, (for the Roman pontiff was the ordinary refuge of manner of expression was adopted by Athanasius or not, since many are of opinion, that the book in which it is found, has been falsely attributed to him. See Mich. Le Quien, Dissert. ii. in Damascenum; and Christ. Aug. Salig, de Eutychianismo ante Eutychem, p. 112. It appears by what we read in the Biblioth. Orient., that the Syrians expressed themselves in this manner before Eutyches, without intending thereby to broach any new doctrine, but rather without well knowing what they said. We are yet in want of a solid and accurate history of the Eutychian troubles, notwithstanding the labours of the learned Salig upon that subject.

See the Concilia Jo. Harduini, tom. i. p. 82.-Liberati Breviarium, cap. xii. p. 76.-Leonis M. Epist. xciii.-Nicephori Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. xiv. cap. lxvii. Though Flavianus died soon after the council of Ephesus, of the bruises he had received from Dioscorus, and the other bishops of his party in that horrid assembly, yet, before his death, he had appealed to Leo; and this appeal, pursued by the pontiff, occasioned the council; in which Eutyches was condemned, and the sanguinary Dioscorus deposed.

the oppressed and conquered party in this century,) but also remonstrated to the emperor, that a matter of such an arduous and important nature required, in order to its decision, a council composed out of the church universal. Leo seconded the latter request, and demanded of Theodosius a general council, which no entreaties could persuade this emperor to grant. Upon his death, however, his successor Marcian consented to Leo's demand, and called, in 451, the council of Chalcedon, which is reckoned the fourth general or œcumenical council. The legates of Leo, who, in his famous letter to Flavianus, had already condemned the Eutychian doctrine, presided in this grand and crowded assembly. Dioscorus was condemned, deposed, and banished into Paphlagonia; the acts of the council of Ephesus were annulled; the epistle of Leo was received as a rule of faith; Eutyches, who had been already sent into banishment, and deprived of his sacerdotal dignity by the emperor, was now condemned, though absent; and the following doctrine, which is at this time almost generally received, was inculcated upon Christians as an object of faith, viz. "That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, without any change, mixture or confusion."

XVI. The remedy applied by this council, to heal the wounds of a torn and divided church, proved really worse than the disease; for a great number of Oriental and Egyptian doctors, though of various characters and different opinions in other respects, united in opposing, with the utmost vehemence, the council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo, which that assembly had adopted as a rule of faith, and were unanimous in maintaining an unity of nature, as well as of person, in Jesus Christ. Hence arose deplorable discords and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried to the most excessive and incredible lengths. On the death of the emperor Marcian, the populace assembled tumultuously in Egypt, massacred Proterius, the successor of Dioscorus, and substituted in his place Timotheus Elurus, who was a zealous defender of the Eutychian doctrine of one incarnate nature in Christ. This latter, indeed, was deposed and banished by the emperor Leo; but, upon his death, was restored by Basilicus both to his liberty and episcopal dignity. After the death of Elurus, the defenders of the council of Chalcedon chose, as his successor, Timotheus, surnamed Salophaciolus, while the partisans of the Eutychian doctrine elected schismatically Peter Moggus to the same dignity. An edict of the emperor Zeno obliged the latter to yield. The triumph, however, of the Chalcedonians, on this occasion, was but transitory; for, on the death of Timotheus, John Talaia, whom they had chosen in his place, was removed by the

This council was first assembled at Nice, but afterwards removed to Chalcedon, that the emperor, who on account of the irruption of the Huns into Illyricum, was unwilling to go far from Constantinople, might assist at it in person.

This was the letter which Leo had written to Flavianus, after having been informed by him of what had passed in the council of Constantinople. In this epistle, Leo approves the decisions of that council, declares the doctrine of Eutyches heretical and impious, and explains with great appearance of perspicuity, the doctrine of the catholic church upon this perplexed subject; so that this letter was esteemed a masterpiece, both of logic and eloquence, and was constantly read, during the Advent, in the western churches.

See Liberati Breviarium, cap. xvi. xvii. xviii.-Evagr. Hist. Eccles. Jib. ii. cap. viii. lib. iii. cap. iii. Le Quien, Oriens Christ. tom. ii. p.410. The Barsumas, here mentioned, was he who assisted the bishop of Alexandria (Dioscorus) and the soldiers, in beating Flavianus to death in the council of Ephesus, and to shun whose fury, the orthodox

[ocr errors]

same emperor; and Moggus, or Mongus, by an imperial edict, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, was, in 482, raised to the see of Alexandria.

XVII. The abbot Barsumas (whom the reader must be careful not to confound with Barsumas of Nisibis, the famous promoter of the Nestorian doctrines,) having been condemned by the council of Chalcedon, propagated the Eutychian opinions in Syria, and, by the ministry of his disciple Samuel, spread them amongst the Armenians about the year 460. This doctrine, however, as it was commonly explained, had something so harsh and shocking in it, that the Syrians were easily engaged to abandon it by the exhortations of Xenaias, otherwise called Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, and the famous Peter Fullo. These doctors rejected the opinion, attributed to Eutyches, that the human nature of Christ was absorbed by the divine, and modified matters so as to form the following hypothesis: "That in the Son of God there was one nature, which notwithstanding its unity, was double and compounded." This notion was not less repugnant to the decisions of the council of Chalcedon than the Eutychian doctrine, and was therefore strongly opposed by those who acknowledged the authority of that council.

e

XVIII. Peter, surnamed Fullo, from the trade of a fuller, which he exercised in his monastic state, had usurped the see of Antioch, and after having been several times deposed and condemned on account of the bitterness of his opposition to the council of Chalcedon, was at last fixed in it, in 482, by the authority of the emperor Zeno, and the favour of Acacius, bishop of Constantinople. This troublesome and contentious man excited new discords in the church, and seemed ambitious of forming a new sect under the name of Theopaschites; for, to the words, 'O God most holy,' &c. in the famous hymn which the Greeks called Tris-agium, he ordered the following phrase to be added in the eastern churches, 'who hast suffered for us upon the cross.' His design in this was manifestly to raise a new sect, and also to fix more deeply, in the minds of the people, the doctrine of one nature in Christ, to which he was zealously attached. His adversaries, and especially Felix the Roman pontiff, interpreted this addition to the above-mentioned hymn in a quite different manner, and charged him with maintaining, that all the three persons of the Godhead were crucified; and hence those who approved his addition were called Theopaschites. The consequence of this dispute was, that the western Christians rejected the addition inserted by Fullo, which they judged relative to the whole Trinity, while the Orientals used it constantly after this period, without giving the least offence, because they applied it to Christ alone.

bishops were forced to creep into holes, and hide themselves under benches, in that pious assembly. Eutyches never affirmed what is here attributed to him; he maintained simply, that the two natures, which existed in Christ before his incarnation, became one after it, by the hypostatical union. This miserable dispute about words was nourished by the contending parties having no clear ideas of the terms person and nature, as also by an invincible ignorance of the subject.

f Assemani Biblioth. Orient. Vat. tom. ii.; and the Dissertation of the same author, de Monophysitis.

Valesii Dissertatio de Pet. Fullone, et de Synodis adversus eum collectis, which is added to the 3d vol. of the Scriptor. Hist. Ecclesiast.

This word expresses the enormous error of those frantic doctors, who imagined that the Godhead suffered in and with Christ. iSee Norris, Lib. de uno ex Trinitate carne passo, tom. iii. op. diss. i. cap. iii. 782.-Asseman. Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. tom. i. p. 518; tom. ii. p. 36, 180.

« AnteriorContinuar »