had erred. Nestorius had the decision of Cyril answered by Photius, to which Cyril replied, and now the contest was violent.

Acacius, Bishop of Berea, and John, Patriarch of Antioch, condemned Nestorius, but were of opinion that Cyril was too violent. Cyril and Nestorius had both written to Pope Celestin, who held a provincial council at Rome, in which Nestorianism was condemned, as it was also in a provincial council held by Cyril in Egypt. Nestorius retorted its own anathemas upon the synod of Alexandria, and appealed to a general council. This general council was held at Ephesus in 431, and Nestorius was condemned there; after which, the more strongly to mark their faith, the Catholics took every occasion of using the very phrases which Nestorius strove to abolish-"Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death," etc. Nestorius, having been deposed, retired to a monastery, but did not embrace the true faith. The Emperor Theodosius the younger prohibited the assemblies of the Nestorians, and banished numbers of them, who went principally to Persia and Syria.

This same Theodosius had the relics of St. John Chrysostom brought with great pomp from the East to Constantinople, in the time of Proclus, the successor of Nestorius. Flavian succeeded Proclus, and in his time another heresy originated in this city. Eutyches, the archimandrite or abbot of a monastery near Constantinople, was its author.

The rage of opposition to Nestorianism was such amongst this speculative and hot-headed people, that it was easy to lead them to the other extreme. Nothing was wanted but a leader, and Eutyches was fitted for that post. Austere and mortified, his appearance of sanctity, together with the situation which he held, gave him weight with the multitude, who were greatly taken with the vehemence of his declamations against Nestorianism. He was more headstrong and obstinate than intelligent or well informed, and he was held in some estimation at court. His spirit had also

something of a disposition to persecute, and he is looked upon as a promoter of the severities inflicted upon the Nestorians.

Eutyches inveighed against the impiety of those who dared to say that in Jesus Christ there were two persons, when there were not even two natures; for although the Son of God assumed our nature, in Him it was destroyed. It was no longer human nature after the personal union; Jesus Christ had then but one person and one nature. The Nestorian denied that Christ was one person possessing two natures. Eutyches denied that Christ had two natures in one person. The The Catholic Church has always taught that in Christ there are two natures, the divine and human, united in one person. The errors of Eutyches were spread through several monasteries, and found their found their way into Egypt and the East. Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylea, who had been one of the earliest opponents of Nestorius, was also one of the first to detect the error of Eutyches. Finding his remonstrances with the archimandrite unavailing, he presented a formal complaint for heresy, without specifying the tenets against him, to Flavian, who then presided in a synod at Constantinople, which was held to regulate a dispute between the metropolitan of Lydia and two of his suffragans.

The abbot was summoned to attend, but feigned several excuses, and had it privately whispered through the monasteries that Flavian was a tyrant, who would not admit him to communion unless he signed a paper which he did not understand. Being obliged to appear before the synod, he was convicted; but availing himself of his credit at court, he obtained through the emperor an order for a council at Ephesus. Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, assumed the presidency. Together with a small party which was attached to Eutyches, he disregarded the authority of the papal legates who came to preside, deposed Flavian and those who had suspended and condemned the archmandrite. Him they restored, and then finding the majority of bishops to be

opposed to their acts, Dioscorus introduced the army, which was at his command. The orthodox bishops protested against this violence, but the opposite party cried out to put down their opponents. Flavian was trodden to such a state as soon produced his death, and others with difficulty escaped. None of the acts of this horrid assembly have been received by the Church. Pope St. Leo condemned this synod, and did all he could to prevail on Theodosius to suffer a proper council to assemble, but he would not consent. The Pope saw it would be useless to convoke it in opposition to the wishes of the emperor; but Theodosius soon dying, Marcian, his successor, afforded every facility, and a general council was held at Chalcedon, in which Eutyches was condemned, in the year 451. This was the fourth general council. Dioscorus was deposed and banished.

Anatolius contrived to get into the See of Constantinople, after the death of Flavian; and his ambition urged him in the Council of Chalcedon to attempt elevating the rank of Constantinople. Favored by the court and a considerable number of the bishops, a resolution was obtained in one of the sessions, after the regular business had been disposed of, by which resolution it was agreed, "That since the Church of Constantinople has the honor equally with Rome of being an imperial city and the seat of a senate, it ought to enjoy equal privilege and dignity with the Church of Rome, and therefore the provinces of Pontus and Asia and Thrace ought to belong to its jurisdiction, and be subject to the Bishop of Constantinople, and that their metropolitans should thenceforward be consecrated at Constantinople."

But when this was read in presence of the legates they immediately rejected and condemned it, stating that their instructions from the Pope upon the subject were clear and definite.

The Fathers who had agreed to it were further prevailed upon to write to the Pope, requesting he would

confirm what his legates had refused to sanction, and their own words will exhibit the influence which was employed. After stating their condemnation of Eutyches in conformity with the wishes of the Pope, and concurring with his legates, they continue: "We have thought fit to regulate some points of discipline, for the peace and welfare of the Church, in giving to the Bishop of Constantinople the next rank after Rome, but your legates have opposed it-though we have only in this confirmed the judgment of the one hundred and fifty bishops assembled in Constantinople in the reign of Theodosius the Great, which bishops decreed also that the Bishop of Constantinople should have privilege next after your Holy See. In opposing it, we suppose your legates were only moved by the desire of leaving to you the honor of doing personally this act, which is to insure the peace of the Church. In our decree we have been influenced by the wish of the emperor, the desire of the senate, and the request of the whole imperial city. By your confirmation you will insure the everlasting gratitude and strict adherence of the See of Constantinople. And as the credit of the good actions of children redound to the glory of their father, we pray you to honor our decrees by your judgment; and as we, your children, have joined in your judgment of faith, so you, our head, may in return. concur in the regulation which we have originated as productive of great good. By so doing, you will also highly gratify the emperor and the imperial city."

St. Leo refused his sanction, and wrote to the emperor and to his religious empress and to the Archbishop of Constantinople, expostulating with them and giving the reasons for his refusal, stating, amongst others, that the civil dignity of a city was no ground for its ecclesiastical preeminence. It may also be remarked, that in this council there was no Patriarch of Alexandria to make opposition, for in the very first session Dioscorus had been deposed. Juvenal of Jerusalem held but an honorary distinction void

of jurisdiction, and Maximus of Antioch did not appear to interest himself; for by giving Pontus and Asia proper to Constantinople, together with Thrace, there was no encroachment upon his jurisdiction, as it did not extend north of Mount Taurus and the river Tigris. But the bishops of the province of Ephesus strongly opposed it. Another emark which should be made here is, that even at this period Greece proper, which is the ancient Peloponnesus and Achaia, together with Macedonia, Epirus, and Illyricum, were not in the patriarchate formed or intended to be formed for Constantinople, but were in the western patriarchate, of which Thrace was originally a portion.

Though the canons by which it was hitherto attempted to raise Constantinople were thus rendered invalid, still they were not inoperative. The ambition of the emperors and their courtiers, and sometimes the ambition and sometimes the weakness of the archbishops of the new imperial city, joined to the submission of the bishops of the new division, gave virtually an efficacy to the regulation. Anatolius exercised the power by the consent sometimes of those over whom he claimed jurisdiction, and at other times aided by the civil power he compelled submission. This introduction of the civil power to cause the execution of ecclesiastical decrees has been the ruin of Church discipline, and has laid the foundation of the intermeddling of kings and emperors with Church concerns, and has been productive, upon the whole, of incalculable mischief.

After the death of Anatolius, Gennadius, a good and pious bishop, governed the Church of Constantinople during a few years, and upon his death, in 471, Acacius, a bishop of a very different character, occupied his place.

The Emperor Marcian died in 457, and was succeeded by Leo Marcelles, who reigned until 474, when he was succeeded by Zeno the Isaurian, who filled the throne until 491, with the exception of the period that Basiliscus tyrannized in Constantinople, during the temporary abdication of Zeno and his flight into Isauria.