THE NESTORIAN AGE, OR FIFTH CENTURY. CHAPTER IX. THE FOURTH GENERAL COUNCIL HELD AT CHALCEDON, A. D. 451. THERE were twenty-two Synods convened on Church affairs between the Great Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but as they resembled the minor ones that preceded them, so far as regarded their Rules of local discipline; we may at once enter on the subject, which will lead us to the consideration of the FOURTH GENERAL COUNCIL assembled at Chalcedon. The Athanasian Creed desires, that we worship the Triune Deity; "neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance." The reason is evident; for, if we "confound the Persons," there will be in fact no Son, nor Holy Spirit distinct from the Father:-and if we "divide the substance," we break the Unity, as we run the risk of having it said, that we acknowledge three Omnipotents; three Eternals; three Gods; three Lords. The UNITY of the Deity, therefore, is the proper clue to the Faith of the Orthodox Christian, as it leaves him nothing more to contend for, than such an Unity of Essence and Attributes, as shall secure a perfect consonance, and harmony to all the operations of the Deity. This will appear from a consideration of the Athanasian Creed, containing, as it does, nothing more than what is to be found in the Apostles', and Nicene Creeds. It was called by the ancient Church a PANOPLY:-a complete suit of armour against all opponents; and by Luther it was regarded as the Bulwark of the Apostles' Creed;-Propugnaculum Symboli Apostolici.-For, it is admitted, that whatever might have been the innovations of the Roman Pontiffs, on the one hand; or their loose explanations on the other; in point of doctrine, the Western Church was pure in the first ages of Christianity. This celebrated Formulary applies to many existing heresies of the present day, as it will, no doubt, to such as may start up from time to time hereafter, under new names; while it is calculated to guard us against concessions adverse to the true Catholic Faith, and consequently, contrary to Scripture. Athanasius is not generally deemed the author of this Creed, although his writings are thought to have furnished the materials of which it is * composed. The prevailing opinion, however, is, that Vigilius, an African Bishop of the sixth century framed it; although Doctor Waterland ascribes its authorship to Hilary, Bishop of Arles, A. D. 450. But whoever the author may have been, it was originally written in Latin, and not in Greek. The Church of Rome incorporated it in its Offices in the year 930, and at the time of the Reformation, we received it into our Liturgy. A Creed of such antiquity is entitled to the reverence and respect of the faithful. Having premised thus much, we have now to consider in what Articles the Orthodox Faith was violated by Nestorius and Eutyches. Nestorius, as we have seen, divided the substance, while Eutyches, whose Heresy the Council of Chalcedon was designed to suppress, confounded the Persons of the Godhead, and thus ran into the contrary extreme. The aberrations of both from the truth, may be traced through Arius to that source of all the troubles, that ever afflicted God's household, the Heresy of Cerinthus. Eutyches a Byzantine Monk, broached and propagated the monophysite doctrine, or the doctrine of one incarnate nature. By asserting, that the human and divine nature of Christ are * See CHAPTER ii. pp. 10, 11. but one, like the * Patripassians of the preceding century; he held, that the Eternal Father endured the sufferings of the Cross! Notwithstanding this glaring departure from the Christian Faith, the orthodox party bore it with uncommon patience. But as the Heresy was advancing at a rapid rate, the Emperor Theodosius deemed it expedient to hold a Synod at Constantinople, for the purpose of investigating the charges preferred against its propagator. Being called on to meet his accusers face to face, there was no possible contrivance or excuse, to which Eutyches had not recourse in order to evade it; but all to no purpose. In vain, also, did he make his appeal to Rome for protection, and profess his willingness to subscribe to the Articles of the Nicene Creed. As he refused either to appear, or to plead, he was condemned: his contumacy would, at all events, have occasioned his downfall, had the Fathers no other grounds for pronouncing sentence of condemnation against him. At a Synod subsequently held in † Ephesus, A. D. 449, Eutyches overcame his scruples, and obeyed the summons, which demanded his attendance at it. Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, having been appointed President by the Empe *The followers of both Noetus and Sabellius were called Patripassians in the Fourth Century. 1 SEE page 83, for the character of this Synod. ror, heard his defence with great attention, no less than the recriminatory charges, which he urged against Flavian, the Bishop of Constantinople, and Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylæum; and declared him absolved from the sentence, which had been passed on him at the last-named Synod of Constantinople. He even went farther by the formal condemnation of these two Bishops-a step, that led to the murder of Flavian, after he had passed through the ordeal of a fiery persecution excited against him by Dioscorus in person, and Chrysaphius, the godson of Eutyches, and reigning Eunuch of the Palace. The account of this transaction was conveyed to the Bishop of Rome by one of his Legates, who, after much personal ill-usage, with difficulty escaped with his life. Leo, as might be expected, incensed at the slight paid his authority, and the indignity he received in the person of one of his representatives, laid his complaint before Theodosius, and conjured him to assemble a general council; alleging, that as an Appeal had been lodged, the cause, on which judgment was passed, should, agreeably to the Sardican Canons, be re-examined. The Emperor felt disposed to accede to his proposal, but before he could do so, his death occurred;-a circumstance, which no less than the veneration entertained for the See of Rome by his sister |