have already shewn, it is to be accounted an irrefragable, unalterable rule, which cannot be disputed without heresy, and for which, as the Egyptian synod wrote, "we should be ready even to lay down our lives."

The authentic monuments of this council are the ereed", twenty canons ", and the synodal epistle °.

SECTION II.

THE FIRST SYNOD OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

a

The second œcumenical synod of 150 oriental bishops was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius " the elder, in 381, to appease the troubles of the east. Timothy of Alexandria, and others, successively presided and no one was present on the part of Damasus bishop of Rome and the other western bishops.

The heresy of Macedonius, who blasphemously taught that the Holy Ghost was a creature, as Arius and Eunomius had blasphemed the Son of God, had been condemned, and the orthodox doctrine of the consubstantial Trinity had been taught in the synods of Alexandria 362, Illyricum 367, Rome 367', and Rome 381 or 382. The synod of Constantinople

m

Routh, Opuscula, p. 351. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. i. 8.

"Routh, Opuscula, p. 354, &c. Beveregii Pandect. Justelli Bibl. Jur. Can.

Socrates, i. 9. Theodoret, i. 6. a Natalis Alexander proves that it was assembled without consulting Pope Damasus. Hist. Eccl. Sæcul. iv. Dissert. xxxvi. Richerius treats of this synod, Hist. Conc. General. lib. i. c. 5. Natalis Alexander, ibid. Art.

II.

Theodoret, Heretic. Fabular. lib. iv. c. 5; Epiphanius, adv.

VOL. II.

now anathematized the Macedonians or Pneumatomachi, as well as the Eunomians and other sects of Arians, the Sabellians, and other heresies" and in opposition to the Apollinarians, and the Macedonians, enlarged the Nicene creed by some passages concerning the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation, and of the real divinity of the Holy Ghost. Six canons also were made concerning discipline.

The synod addressed an epistle to the Emperor Theodosius informing him of their decrees, and requesting him to authorize them; and he accordingly published an edict commanding all churches to be delivered to bishops who held the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity'. Thus the decree of the synod of Constantinople could not fail to be known to the whole church, and from the date of its publication, the Macedonians were always regarded as heretics; and the divinity of the Holy Ghost, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, was universally acknowledged. It is not clear, however, that the synod of Constantinople was immediately acknowledged everywhere as equal in authority to that of Nice. The Egyptian

In

churches seem not to have accounted it as such. the synodal epistle of the council of Alexandria to Nestorius, the synod of Nice only is spoken ofTM: and the Nicene creed alone was approved by the third œcumenical synod of Ephesus in 431": but the greater

part of the church seem to have accounted the synod of Constantinople œcumenical then, or shortly after. Flavianus of Constantinople, in his profession of faith, acknowledged the three synods of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Eusebius of Dorylæum in his profession of faith made at Rome in presence of Pope Leo received the same P. Socrates and Sozomen also speak of this synod as they do of the synod of Nice, and in fine the ecumenical synod of Chalcedon in 451, consisting of 630 bishops, approved the Constantinopolitan creed, which it caused to be read after that of Nice. From this time the council of Constantinople was acknowledged by all churches to be oecumenical; as appears by the answers of the bishops of the whole world to the encyclical letters of the Emperor Leo, in 458, in which they universally received the four œcumenical synods'. The Constantinopolitan creed was even received by all churches into their Liturgies and other offices, in preference to that of Nice. It was only rejected by the Eutychians because it expressed more fully the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation. Hence, this creed, having been received and approved by all churches, and never disputed for a moment by any catholic, cannot teach any error in faith, but must be irrefragably true, and binding on all churches, even to the end of the world,

The authentic records of the council of Constantinople are, its seven canons, creed, and synodal epistle to the Emperor Theodosius ".

• Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 33. Harduin. Concil. t. ii. p. 7.

Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 49, 9 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 8. Sozomen, 6, 7.

Synod. Chalced. Definitio Fidei, Harduin. ii. 451, 452,

s Harduin. Concil. ii. 691768.

See Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. ut supra.

"See the creed and canons in Routh's Opuscula, p. 372, &c.

SECTION III.

THE SYNOD OF EPHESUS.

The third oecumenical synod of 200 bishops, was assembled by the Emperor Theodosius the younger ', to determine the controversy raised by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who declaimed against the title of Theotokos, which the church had long applied to the Virgin Mary as the mother of Him who was both God and Man; and taught that the Son of man and God the Word were different persons, connected only by a moral or apparent union; contrary to the scripture, which declared, that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us," and that God "purchased the church with his own blood." (Acts xx. 28.) When the people of Constantinople and all the east, together with Cyril of Alexandria, Celestine of Rome, and many other great bishops, declared their alarm and disapprobation at this doctrine, Nestorius endeavoured to defend himself by charging his opponents with errors which they did not maintain, and by offering to employ the term Theotokos in a sense which afforded no security for the orthodox doctrine. The councils of Alexandria under S. Cyril, and of Rome under Celestinus, condemned the doctrine of Nestorius in 430, and the œcumenical synod of Ephesus also condemned it in 431. The judgment of this synod was at once approved by the whole western church, and by far the greater part of the East; it was subsequently con

firmed by the œcumenical synod of Chalcedon of 630 bishops, and ever afterwards acknowledged to be legitimate by the whole catholic church. Hence it is not to be supposed that the council of Ephesus unjustly condemned Nestorius; though his ambiguous expressions, and his attempts to palliate his original doctrine, for a short time deceived John patriarch of Antioch, and several bishops of that patriarchate, into a belief that he was in reality orthodox. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, for many years maintained the orthodoxy of Nestorius, but was obliged by the oecumenical synod of Chalcedon to anathematize him as a heretic ". John of Antioch and the eastern bishops very soon agreed with the synod of Ephesus'.

The want of regularity, which is alleged against the proceedings of this synod, cannot throw any doubt on the case of Nestorius, because it is not credible that there should have been any real injustice in a decree which the universal church deliberately ratified and approved. And if the synod, consisting of two hundred bishops, after waiting sixteen days in vain for the arrival of John of Antioch and his bishops (about twenty-five in number), proceeded without them to judge the cause for which they were assembled, shall it be said, that so great a synod was not competent to do so? Many bishops had arrived from a much greater distance at the time appointed. Nestorius, it is said, was condemned unheard; but the council summoned him three

f Definitio Fidei, Routh Opus- some modern writers. cula.

* See Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. v. Sæc. Dissert. vi. where Nestorius is convicted of heresy, in opposition to the pretences of

n Concil. Chalced. Act. VIII. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xxviii.

s. 24.

i

Fleury, liv. xxvi. s. 21.