but on a more lofty site, Chalcedon was pre-eminently a city for those who have eyes. Like Scutari to modern travellers, they who preferred seeing the "Golden Horn" to being enclosed within its walls found it the spot where the eyesight might best be regaled. Let me quote Evagrius, who adorns his account of the Fourth Council by a rhetorical portrait of its advantages; and you must let me quote it in full, as evidence of that delight in landscape which the Gospel has incidentally done so much to develop, among all Christian people. The church of St. Euphemia, in the suburbs, was the appointed place of the council, and thus speaks the historian: 1

"Directly opposite is Constantinople, and the charms of the sacred precinct are heightened by the view of so great a city. The site of the church is a beautiful spot, of easy access to those who climb, and so far concealed that before they are prepared for it they find themselves in the holy enclosure. Here are three vast fabrics, one open to the sky, a spacious court, adorned with colonnades, that surround it. From this one enters a similar area, embellished in like manner, but covered by a roof. To the north of this, and facing the east, is the martyr's sepulchre, under a dome surmounting its circular walls and decorative columns. They who have mounted to this site survey the level meads beneath them, green with herbage or undulating harvests, and adorned with trees. in great variety. The range of their view takes in as well the wooded mountains, towering in cliffs, or swelling uplands that approach them. They survey the sea besides ; here, sheltered from the breezes, the quiet waters with their dark blue tint softly courting the beach and breaking

1 Eccl. Hist., Book II. cap. 3.

upon it with gentle crispings; or there, fiercely swelling under the winds, and with refluent waves throwing back the petty scallops and the sea-weed that line the shore. The place of meeting was this sacred precinct of Euphemia."

22. EUTYCHES.

Former councils had set forth the faith of ages in the Great Symbol, and had cleared it from the ambiguous interpretations of Nestorius. It had now become necessary to protect it from the reactionary interpretations of Eutyches, who acknowledged only a single nature in the Incarnate God, so that he was of a mixed nature, and not "perfect God and perfect man." A scandalous assembly, which has always been known as “a rabble of robbers," 1 had elevated the teaching of Eutyches into a public scandal; hence this Fourth Council had become a necessity.

23. LEO, PATRIARCH OF OLD ROME.

Leo, the Bishop of Rome, had wished it might be called in Italy, but the traditional East was adhered to, in place and in language. He then tried to delay the meeting, and with good show of reason, for Attila and his terrible Huns had invaded Gaul, and was ravaging the fair seats of the Gallican Church: the Western bishops, obviously, could not be expected to attend. But Marcian, "with pious zeal," would not brook delay. Leo had a just position as against Eutyches, and he was now made the rather popular and more hon

1 Latrocinium.

ourable, because Dioscorus of Alexandria had rashly excommunicated him. Though he did not appear personally, he sent presbyters to represent him, as good Sylvester and other predecessors had done. In the earliest instance, the age and infirmities of the Roman bishop had justified this course; that the precedent was followed in order to draw councils to the West, is a surmise which Leo's conduct tends to make highly probable.

Out of sympathy, no doubt, Leo's desire that he might virtually preside in the Council was complied with. With others, his envoys sat as copresidents. It seemed but just, and balanced the account with Dioscorus, who had excommunicated him after presiding over the Latrocinium. The “Fourth Ecumenical Synod" condemned Eutyches and closed the grand series of the Four Synods, which correspond with the Four Gospels. But we are chiefly to note its spirit in these two particulars: (1.) By enthroning the Gospels, as at Ephesus, we find its testimony to the supremacy of the Scriptures maintained as from the beginning, with unalterable fidelity, in the noon of the fifth century. (2.) It reiterated, and in spite of all Leo's efforts, in spite of his genius and his orthodoxy, forever fixed the relations of the Roman see to Catholic Christendom, in unambiguous and conclusive words, as follows:

"We, following in all things the decisions of the holy fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the one hundred and fifty bishops which has just been read, do also determine and decree the same things, touching the privileges

1 See Note P'.

of the most sacred city of Constantinople, the New Rome. For the fathers justly gave the primacy to the elder Rome, because that was the Imperial city; and the (150) bishops, moved with the same purpose gave equal privileges to the most sacred throne of the New Rome: judging, with reason, that the city which was honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the elder princely Rome, should be also magnified, like her, in ecclesiastical matters, and be second after her."

24 IMMUTABLE CATHOLICITY.

Nothing could be more clear. If ever there was a moment when the Catholic Church was tempted to create a Papacy, it was this. Great and good was Leo, though censurable in his ambition; the crisis was grave; the Western churches were threatened with extinction. But no! The Church knew nothing about St. Peter's supremacy; nothing about any succession even to his primacy. The primacy was one of honour purely, and granted absolutely to both cities on civil grounds alone. Leo's envoys themselves made no claim to any divine primacy, much less to any supremacy; they only made a feeble appeal to the sixth canon of Nicæa, of which they produced an interpolated copy. This forgery aimed to neutralize the synodical gift of the primacy to Rome, and made it a recognition of aboriginal institution. A bishop refuted them by producing the genuine canon, "Let the ancient customs prevail," etc. They were silenced with ignominy. Another affirmed, that when at Rome he had read the genuine text to Leo himself, and

that Leo approved it. He must not be blamed, therefore, for the act of his envoys. After inquiry whether the additional canon was unanimous, there was an outcry, "We all adhere to this decision." The Roman envoys yet pressed their remonstrance; they were answered, "What we have said. has been approved by the whole Council." With this truly Roman reply, Quod scripsi scripsi, the Catholic Church was adjudged to have no supreme bishop, and not even an honorary primacy, except by a synodical concession yielded on purely civil considerations. These considerations are now obsolete, and hence the primacy itself might be awarded to Jerusalem or to Antioch, most wisely, should a restoration of Catholic unity be granted by the Holy Ghost, before the return of the Son of God to complete His triumph over the Evil One and the present evil world.

25. TWO SUPPLEMENTARY COUNCILS.

Our review of the Synodical Period is not completed until the two supplementary Councils, the Fifth and Sixth, are at least briefly noted. They are of a purely interpretative character, expounding and limiting the work of the Third and Fourth Councils. In the Fifth Council (A. D. 553), under the Emperor Justinian, the "Monophysite" aggressions of a century received a partial settlement. It assembled in Constantinople in the month of May, and, as it confirmed the preceding Councils, it is an important witness to the universality of their reception, in spite of a hundred years of agitations,