Chap. XI.] sion of Jerusalem, and indulged in the most violent excesses; and the Catholic successor of Dioscorus, after a contention of five years with his Alexandrian subjects, was at length sacrificed to their religious fury. Presently afterwards, in the year 482, the Henoticon of Zeno. Emperor Zeno made a fruitless but memorable attempt to extinguish all religious dissension, by the publication of an Edict of Union, called the Henoticon. In this proclamation he confirmed the established doctrines, and anathematized alike the Arians, Phantastics, Nestorians, and Eutychians; but out of tenderness to the feelings of the last, he avoided any particular mention of the CounThe more moderate men, both among the Cathocil of Chalcedon. lics and Monohpysites*, (still the two prevailing parties) subscribed this decree; but the fruits of their moderation were not such as, by their principles and example, they deserved, and perhaps expected. Among the latter a violent schism arose, and this speedily gave birth to numerous other schisms which divided into several sects the followers of Eutyches; while among the Catholics very great and general indignation was excited, by the omission of the name of Chalcedon, against all who had signed so imperfect a declaration of orthodoxy. And thus, to the disgrace of the disputants, and almost to the scandal of human nature, it proved that an attempt, judiciously conceived by a benevolent Prince, to compose the religious differences of his subjects, produced no other effect than to inflame the character and multiply the grounds of dissension. And that unhappy result was not in this case attributable to the infliction of any civil penalties in the arbitrary enforcement of the decree, but solely to the vehemence of the passions engaged on both sides, which had hardened the greater number against any representations of wisdom or reason, and even against the ordinary influence of their human feelings. The Monothelites. However, time effected much towards the healing of these animosities, and they were diverted during the reign of Justinian into other channels. After the lapse of nearly two hundred years the agitations of the tempest had seemingly subsided, and the differences, and even the malevolence, which may still have existed, no longer broke out into open outrage. The vain curiosity of the Emperor Heraclius threatened the revival of those evils. On his return from the Persian war in the year 629, that Prince proposed to his Bishops the unprofitable question- Whether Christ, of one person but two natures, was actuated by a single or a double will ?' The Greeks in general favoured the former opinion, but not with their usual impetuosity; indeed they seem at length to have been so far exhausted by such fruitless contests, as to have considered the question trifling and superfluous. And it was not until the year 680, that, through the angry opposition of the Latins to this dogma, the Sixth General Council was assembled at Constantinople, which formally pronounced that two Such is still the doctrine wills were harmonized in the person of Christ. both of the Greek and Latin Churches; and with the establishment of that doctrine the controversy respecting the incarnation, after an interrupted duration of about three hundred years, expiredt. The Eutychians, or Monophysites, are also known in history by the appellation of Jacobites, from the name of one of their teachers, James Baradæus. + Accurately speaking, the Monothelite Controversy was rather a consequence, than a part, of that respecting the Incarnation, since those who adopted the doctrine of one will, did not in consequence reject the decisions either of Ephesus or Chalcedon, but adhered, on the contrary, to both, —so as to unite (in profession at least, if not in reason) the strictest The heretics who advocated the one will were called Monothelites, and by this name the dispute is generally known. It lasted about fifty years; and it is a painful but necessary reflection, that during its continuance, while the attention of Christendom was in some degree engaged by it, the Mahometans had found time to convert Arabia and to complete the conquest of Persia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt: the three patriarchal thrones, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, had fallen into their hands; and Carthage itself was already on the point of undergoing the same fate. Having treated the conduct of the parties engaged in these dissensions with unrestrained freedom, we shall conclude with some considerations not unfavourable to them, and not less just than our censure. 1. None of the disputants at any time relapsed into any heresy respecting the Trinity-the doctrine which had been established by the first and second General Councils was followed with equal fidelity by those who deviated from the Church respecting the Incarnation, and by those who adhered to it. 2. As the manner, in which this controversy was conducted, exhibited the earnest devotion of all parties to their respective opinions, so the origin of all those opinions may be traced to an anxiety (oftentimes indeed a very injudicious anxiety) to acquire accurate notions respecting the Redeemer, so as neither to exaggerate nor disparage his dignity. It may be traced to an excess of the religious feeling, even to a tendency to superstitious enthusiasm, but at least it was free from the infection of that cold, indifferent apathy, which sometimes shelters itself under the name of philosophy, but which, in fact, is not far removed from scepticism. 3. The very individuals who, under the excitement of religious dissension and the bustle of public councils, heated too by the various passions which the mere spirit of resistance will create in the calmest temperament, ran loose into scandalous excesses, might very consistently be endued with the purest piety, and habituated, in the private exercise of their sacerdotal functions, to the fervent discharge of every Christian duty. It argues a very slight or a very partial view of human nature to infer, from the occasional extravagance of public feeling, the general destitution of moral principle or the absence of virtuous habits; and we must be careful not to be misled by those historians who bid us judge the general character of the Eastern Clergy by their conduct at the Councils of Ephesus. Lastly, Whatever may have been the original policy of convoking General Councils for the suppression of religious difference, it cannot be asserted that such Councils were wholly useless for besides the particular doctrine which they were called upon to settle, and which on some occasions was fundamentally important, they also published numerous canons and ordinances for the regulation and reform of the Church. These were disseminated and received through every part of Christendom, and very often proved of the highest utility; and even as to the doctrines on such occasions established, we should observe, that after the first tumult of opposition had subsided, they met with general acquiescence; that they were almost universally adopted in succeeding ages, and still constitute the creed of the great majority of Christians*. orthodoxy respecting the nature and person of Christ with their perverse opinion respecting his will. The Controversy, which we have described, branched out into various theories respecting the manner of the union of the two natures, which amused the refined imaginations of the Greeks. But it was reserved for the grosser absurdity of a German to originate the following offensive speculation :-- Eodem tempore aliud ex Germania certamen in Gallias inferebatur de modo quo Sanctissimus Servator ex utero Matris in lucem prodiit. Germani quidam Jesum Christum non communi reliquorum hominum lege, sed singulari et extraordinaria, utero Matris exiisse statuebant. Qua sententia in Galliam delata, Ratram Controversy on VI. We proceed to the contest respecting the Worship of Images, which claims our careful attention, partly from the extreme agitation which it excited throughout Christendom during the eighth and ninth centuries-partly, because it occasioned (should we not rather say accelerated?) the separation of the Roman States from the Greek Empire. Among the various superstitions which had gradually grown up in the Church, and of which the vestiges may, in some cases, be traced to its earliest ages, none had obtained such general influence and firm footing among the lower orders (especially in the East) as Image-worship. It was an idle distinction to uphold a respect for images, as means and not as objects of devotion, when they were presented to the uninstructed and undiscriminating vulgar. When the understanding has never been enlightened, when the heart has never been informed with the genuine feelings of religion, the devotee will surely address his prayer to the Deity which is placed before his eyes, and turn, in the darkness of his intellect, to that which is perceptible by his mere senses. And it was therefore the greatest among the crimes of the ancient directors of the Church, and that which appears more peculiarly to have brought down upon it the chastisement from Arabia, that they filled the temples with their detested idols, and obtruded them upon the eyes and into the hands of the most ignorant. Nor can their advocates plead the necessity of this conduct; for the example of the Mahometan faith alone has proved, that a people may be barbarous without being idolatrous, when idolatry is discouraged by the ministers of religion. And if any excuse be furnished by the general and deeplyrooted influence of the ancient superstition, it is at least none for those who exerted their power and their talents to extend and perpetuate it. Unhappily, those exertions were attended by too easy success; before the year 600, idolatry was firmly established in the Eastern Church, and during the following century it made a gradual and very general progress in the West, where it had previously gained some footing. It was not till the year 726 that any vigorous attempt was made to disturb its sway, and then the minds of men were be come weakened by long acquiescence in superstitious Leo the Isaurian. maxims, even so far as to regard with submissive reverence the sins and follies of their ancestors. Nevertheless, the Emperor Leo, surnamed the Isaurian, a prince of sense and energy, had the boldness to undertake*, in the face of so many difficulties, the purification of the Church; and he began his pious enterprise by an attack on its most flagrant corruption. It is disputed, whether the first measure of Leo was prudently confined to the abolition of idolatrous worship, and the removal of its objects to higher and more distant situations in the Churches, wherein they were suspended; or whether, without any indulgence to prejudice, he entirely concealed them from view, and even destroyed them. The effect of the edict would rather lead us to the latter nus eam oppugnabat, atque Christum per naturæ januam in mundum ingressum esse tuebatur. Germanis subveniebat Paschasius Radbertus, libro singulari, &c. &c. Jortin, vol. iv., p. 489. This occurred about the year 840, and it is worthy of notice, if it were only that we find the great patron of Transubstantiation, Paschasius Radbertus, advo cating such extravagant and impious nonsense. * Roman Catholic historians attribute Leo's resolution to the sudden appearance of a new island in the Archipelago, from volcanic causes. This phenomenon the superstitious Emperor ascribed to the Divine wrath, excited by the idolatrous impiety of his subjects. He is also supposed to have derived his prejudice from the Mahometan religion, to which his attachment is more than insinuated. conclusion-for it immediately occasioned a civil war, both in the East and in the West. In the East, the islands of the Archipelago, and even a part of Asia, broke out into a tumultuous insurrection, which however was speedily suppressed; but in the West, the more deliberate resistance of the Bishop of Rome (Gregory II.) encouraged the rebellion of the Italian provinces (in 730), and led to the defeat of the Imperial troops before Ravenna; the tribute paid to the Eastern Emperor was then withdrawn, and his authority was never afterwards acknowledged in the Ecclesiastical States. This reverse did not abate the zeal of Leo, who proceeded at least to enforce his resolutions, so far as his power extended; and as he found the strongest opposition to proceed from the monastic orders, he extended his scheme of reformation to them. And in spite of various tumults, excited partly by their influence and partly through a popular prejudice in favour of superstition, he persisted in his project, with uncompromising perseverance, and even with some prospect of success, until his death. In the year 741 he was succeeded by his son Constantine, surnamed Copronymus, who faithfully followed his footsteps. Thirteen years afterwards that Prince assembled a synod in the suburbs of Constantinople, at which three hundred and thirty-eight Bishops attended. They decreed the destruction of images, and the decision, which has sometimes been attributed to their loyalty, may with equal justice be ascribed to their sense and their piety. They were called Iconoclasts, or image-breakers; and the execution of their decrees occasioned many calumnies against the Emperor's character, and many tumults, which disturbed the peace and even endangered the security of his reign. Nevertheless, that reign lasted thirty-four years; and the whole space was perseveringly employed in contention with idols, with the monks who protected them, and with the pernicious influence of Rome, which was active and constant in the support of both. Leo, who succeeded, was guided by the principles of Constantine; but he died soon after his accession, and the education of Seventh Gene- his son, a boy of ten years old, as well as the direction ral Council. of public affairs, was entrusted to the Empress Irene. Immediately the religious policy of the palace was changed; and as fifty years of vigorous opposition had not availed to extirpate corruptions which were the gradual growth of four centuries, the change was hailed with delight by a large proportion of the people. In the year 787, a General Council was assembled at Nice, by which the images were reinstated in their former honours †, through the united exertions of the monks and the mob, and the Pope and the Empress. This Council, the second of Nice, is accounted in the East as the seventh and last General Council, and its decisions completed the body of doctrine and discipline which constitutes the system of the Greek Church. * Some of the arguments seriously advanced on this occasion by the Iconoclasts seem intended to surpass the absurdity of their adversaries; according to them, even the painter is convicted of several and even the most opposite heresies. They may be found in Fleury, liv. xliii., sect. 7. The following is a part of the Confession of Faith published with the authority of this Council:- We receive, besides the figure of the cross, the relics of saints, and their images; we embrace them according to the ancient tradition of our fathers, who have placed them in all the Churches of God, and all the places where he is served. We honour and adore them, viz, that of Jesus Christ, of his holy Mother, of the angels,-for though they are incorporeal, they have revealed themselves in a human form; those of the apostles, the prophets, the martyrs, and other saints; because those paintings recall to us the memory of the originals and make us participate in their sanctity. Fleury, liv. xliv. sect. 34. It may be proper, in this place, very briefly, to remind our readers of the particular objects for which these seven celebrated councils were severally summoned; not merely as matters of barren recollection, but because we perceive in them, if we are not greatly in error, an indication of the gradual departure of the Church, first from scriptural simplicity, and then from truth. Between the first and the last of them the space of 462 years intervened, an interval full of important, and for the most part, pernicious changes in the ecclesiastical constitution; but most of these were imperceptibly introduced, especially into the Western Church, without the authority or cognizance of any general assembly, and they involved many circumstances of power, property, or discipline, to which we do not here intend any reference. The professed purpose for which the general councils were in every instance convoked, was to compose the controversy of the day, and to pronounce a final decision upon the doctrine which happened to be disputed; and thus, in the history of those councils, we follow the track of theological investigation, and observe it gradually receding from soberness and sense. (1.) The object for which the two first were assembled was to ascertain and promulgate the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity; and a more important inquiry, and one more worthy of the deliberate consideration of the directors of Christendom, was not ever propounded to any religious assembly: and their decisions respecting this doctrine were in accordance with the sense of Scripture, as it has been interpreted by the great majority of Christians in every following age. (2.) The questions proposed for the investigation of the third and fourth Councils were of less importance to truth, and, in the same proportion precisely, more difficult to comprehend and determine,-the nature of Christ's existence on earth. The manner in which they were argued was not calculated to diminish this difficulty; and the violence with which even the more decorous* of these meetings was disgraced was such as would naturally result from eager disputation on a matter of mysterious and almost impenetrable abstruseness. The subject of the labours of the Sixth Council grew out of that which occupied the third and fourth; and while it surpassed the other in metaphysical intricacy, it presented even less prospect of any practical advantage from its decision. (3.) The matters which employed the Fifth Council were derived from the individual opinions of Origen; and if these should be thought by some not to have merited by their importance the cognizance of so solemn a tribunal, they had at least a far greater claim on general attention than the foolish speculation of the Monothelites. (4.) The seventh and last† established idolatry as the law of the Christian *We might refer to the whole account of the sessions of the Council of Chalcedon, even as it is given by Fleury (lib. xx. 8.). One short passage may serve as a specimen. The assembly was divided into two parties; the Bishops of Egypt, Illyrium, and Palestine formed one; those of the East-of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace-the other. Theodoret was obnoxious to the former party, as being suspected of the Nestorian heresy. Nevertheless, he was allowed a seat in the Council by the Emperor. When he took his place the Orien tals cried out, 'He is worthy of it.' The Egyptians exclaimed, Call him not Bishop-he is no Bishop; expel the enemy of God-expel the Jew!' The Orientals cried, Expel the seditious-drive out the murderers!' And they continued for some time to vent such exclamations on both sides. At length the magistrates interfered: "These popular cries are unworthy of the episcopal character, and are of no use to either party-allow the paper to be read to you.' The Egyptians exclaimed, 'Expel that one man only, and we will all listen; our voice is raised for the Catholic faith,' &c. It would seem very strange, were we not accustomed to such phenomena, that the last public act of the united Greek and Latin Communions, the last which was, in truth, bind |