followed the Latin instead of the Greek text, which was read and approved by the Fathers. There is another version, as follows: We have sent Arcadius, &c., who will be present, and will confirm afresh with their vote the things which are 'constituted by you. And we doubt not that your Holiness 'will admit them to the common harmony, and the giving of 'the sentence. And whatever ye shall determine, let that, for 'the sake of the tranquillity of all the Churches, be settled and 'defined.' Richerius argues at some length, that this is the genuine reading. The fact of its existence should have been mentioned, and the Greek text ought to have been followed. Nor should it have been concealed that the main work of the Council was done, and the sentence pronounced, before that letter of S. Celestine arrived.

Next, for the Council of Chalcedon :

:

When we come to the Council itself, the four following things appear distinctly 1st. The Council yields submission to the Pope, in regard to orders which he had previously given to his legates. 2ndly. The Council applies to the Pope to confirm its decisions, and that which is not confirmed by him falls to the ground. 3rdly. It rests the deference paid to the Pope on his claim to represent S. Peter. 4thly. It attributes to the Pope a peculiar personal dignity, so that those who assault him are supposed in an especial manner to assault the Church.'-P. 188.

History asserts the very reverse of all these four propositions. The first is founded on three occurrences: (1.) the deposition of Dioscorus; (2.) the treatment of Leo's letter to Flavian; (3.) the restoration of Theodoret. These are the very three occurrences which Bossuet brings forward to prove the exact contrary of Mr. Wilberforce's statement, and by which he does prove it triumphantly. For a full refutation of Mr. Wilberforce we must refer our readers to Bossuet's Defence of the Gallican Clergy,' book vii. chap. 15, 17. A translation of his arguments will be found in Mr. Allies' book, The Church of England cleared from the Charge of Schism,' p. 279. We cannot be sufficiently amazed that Mr. Wilberforce should have so ventured to peril his good name (if he was kept back by no other motive) as he has done by his reckless statements with regard to the Council of Chalcedon. His account of the deposition of Dioscorus is as follows:

At its first meeting, Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had presided at Ephesus two years before, took his place without hesitation as a Bishop. But Paschasinus, the reverend Bishop and vicar of the Apostolic See, said," We have the order of the blessed and apostolical Bishop of the city of Rome, the head of all the Churches, in which he has thought meet to order that Dioscorus should not sit in the Synod, but if he attempts to

have read, seems to be decreed, &c. Hard. i. p. 1472. There is evidently something corrupt.

1 Rich. Hist. Conc. Gen. p. 155.

do so should be ejected. To this order we must keep." The reason is given by the other legate: Lucentius, the reverend Bishop who represented the Apostolical See, said, "He must give an account of his own judgment; for he presumed to judge when he had no right, and ventured to hold a Synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, which has never been done, nor ought to be done." Such was the language of the two Bishops who represented the see of Rome in the largest Council which has ever been held, wherein, however, among 520 Bishops, but two Western were present besides themselves. And Dioscorus, though possessing the third Patriarchal See, was obliged to submit without opposition, and to abandon his place among the Bishops.-P. 188.

We must ask our readers to look back again to the passage which we have quoted. They will see there a fact stated, and a lesson drawn from it. The fact is the immediate dismissal of Dioscorus, the lesson the overpowering influence of Rome. Now we will place before them the very words to which Mr. Wilberforce refers for his fact and lesson. The first sentence is correct; we will not therefore repeat it, but merely observe that the 'we' who are 'ordered' means the Legates, not the Council.

"This order we must keep; if therefore it seems good to your magnificence" (the magistrates) "let him go out or we will go out." The glorious magistrates and most illustrious senators said "Why, what special charge is brought against the most pious Bishop Dioscorus?" The most pious Bishop Paschasinus, the legate of the Apostolic Throne, said "It was necessary that he should be objected to on his entrance." The most noble magistrates and most illustrious senators said,—“ As we have already said, a special crime of which he is guilty must be exhibited.” The pious Bishop Lucentius, who held the place of the Apostolic Chair, said, "Let him give account of the judgment which he passed himself, for he grasped the character of judge when he had not obtained it, and he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic Throne, which never has occurred, nor ought to occur.' The most pious Bishop Paschasinus, legate of the Apostolic Throne, said, "We (the legates) cannot go against the commands of the most blessed and Apostolic Bishop, who rules the Apostolic Throne, nor against the ecclesiastical canons and the traditions of the Fathers." The most glorious magistrates and most illustrious senators said—“It is fitting that you exhibit what special crime he has been guilty of." The most pious Bishop Lucentius, legate of the Apostolic Throne, said, "It is not endurable that such an insult should be offered to us and to you, as that he should sit here when he is brought forward to be judged." The most noble magistrates and most illustrious senators said—“If you hold the character of a judge, you ought not to plead like an accuser." And Dioscorus, the most pious Bishop of Alexandria, by the command of the most glorious magistrates and of the sacred senate, remained sitting amongst the others; and the most pious Ronan Bishops sat down in their places and kept quiet; and Eusebius, the most pious Bishop of Dorylæum, came forward and said, "Command my petition to be read, as has seemed good to the most pious Emperor. I am wronged by Dioscorus; the faith is wronged. Bishop Flavian has been murdered. He and I were unjustly condemned by him. Command my petition to be read." The most glorious magistrates and the magnificent senate said, "Let his petition be read." And Eusebius, by the desire of every one, sat down, and Veronician, the sacred secretary of the divine Consistory, took his petition and read it.'—Harduin, ii, 67.

Thus, the statement that 'Dioscorus was obliged to submit without opposition, and to abandon his place among the Bishops,' is wholly untrue; and instead of any deference being paid to the Archbishop of Rome, his demand is coolly and contemptuously put aside, and his representatives have to sit down and hold their tongues, after they had threatened to leave the Council if their request was not complied with. The same contemptuous disregard is shown impartially towards the Roman legates when they demand the dismissal of Dioscorus, and towards the Egyptian Bishops when they demand the dismissal of Theodoret. In both cases the magistrates overrule the objectors' petition. So far from true is it, that Dioscorus had 'to submit without opposition, and abandon his place,' that he sat throughout the whole of the Action, the account of which occupies from p. 67 to p. 274 in Harduin's closely-printed folio edition of the Councils: he took an active part in the debates: the acts of the Latrocinium and Flavian's Constantinopolitan Council were read: he was accused, and he defended himself. And at length the magistrates passed sentence on him thus:

"Since it has been shown, by our inquiry into what was done and determined, and by the confession of the leaders of the late Synod (the Latrocinium), who acknowledge themselves to have been in error, and to have deprived those who all the time were orthodox, that Flavian of pious memory, and the most pious Bishop Eusebius, have been unjustly deposed, it seems to us, according to God's good pleasure, that it is just (if so it seem well to our most divine and pious Lord) that Dioscorus, the most religious Bishop of Alexandria, Juvenal, &c., who held authority, and were leaders in that Synod, should fall under the same punishment that they then inflicted, and should be deprived of their Episcopal dignity, by the sacred Synod, according to the canons, care being taken that everything which occurs is made known to our divine head (the Emperor)." The Easterns and the most pious Bishops with them said, "That is a just judgment!" The Illyrians and the most pious Bishops with them said, We have all made a mistake! Let us all obtain pardon!' The Easterns and the most pious Bishops with them said, "Long life to the senate! God holy, holy and strong, holy and immortal, have mercy upon us! Long life to the Emperor! The impious man is ever put to flight! Christ has put down Dioscorus! God has put down the murderer! This is a just sentence! this is a just Synod! the senate is just! God hath avenged his martyrs!"'—Harduin, ii. 271

66

It was after this sentence, and not till after this sentence, that Dioscorus abandoned his place among the Bishops.'

The second Action was occupied with the discussion of the Faith. At the third the magistrates were not present, and the attention of the Council was again called to Dioscorus. Other enormities were charged against him. He was thrice summoned, and refused to appear; and then, one after the other, the Bishops declared their sentence against him. The Pope's legates of course spoke, or pronounced sentence' (p. 129), first, because they were presiding; then all the other Bishops; and afterwards

6

they severally subscribed. Mr. Wilberforce quotes the latter part of the legates' sentence, but he omits the concluding words. They are as follows:- Therefore this most holy and great Synod will pronounce sentence upon the afore-mentioned Dioscorus, in accordance with the canons.' And immediately Anatolius rises and says, I am in all things of the same mind with the Apostolic Throne, and I give my vote too for the deposition of Dioscorus, who has shown himself incapable of all priestly ministry, because he has disobeyed the canons of the holy Fathers in everything, and has refused to obey when thrice 'canonically summoned.' Each of the other Bishops gives his reasons for his vote; and it is remarkable, that not one of these expresses any deference towards Pope Leo of Rome, without in the same breath expressing the same deference to Pope Anatolius of Constantinople. That the sentence was founded' in any special manner on the celebrated letter which Leo had addressed to Flavianus' (p. 189), is again wholly untrue. That letter has not in it, and could not have in it, a single word directly referring to Dioscorus, or the causes of his deposition. It was written before the Latrocinium was held, and was to have been read at the Latrocinium; and it contained an exposition of the Faith against Eutychianism, which was not laid to the charge of Dioscorus at Chalcedon. We believe that every sentence in this and the following pages of Mr. Wilberforce's book contains a misstatement. We have not space to point them all out. For ample and incontrovertible proof that this celebrated letter was submitted to the judgment of the Council, as superior in authority to the writer, and that it was approved only because it was found on examination to be in accordance with the Councils of Nicæa, Constantinople, and Ephesus, we must refer our readers to the above-named works of Bossuet and Mr.. Allies, and to 'Papal Supremacy,' &c. p. 21, or better still, to Harduin, ii. 386.

Again, that Dioscorus was sentenced on the very ground 'that, with the aid of the Council over which he presided, he 'had ventured to pass judgment on the Pope' (p. 189), is in several ways incorrect. It was not Leo, but Flavian of Constantinople, and Eusebius of Dorylæum, on whom Dioscorus passed judgment at the Latrocinium. And this, as we have seen, was the reason which the magistrates gave for his own deposition. Other aggravating causes are added afterwards by the Roman legates and by the Synod, in a letter to the Emperors and to Leo, and amongst them, and placed upon the same level with his disobedience to the summons of the Council, is an attempt at excommunicating Leo; but this cannot be what Mr. Wilberforce refers to, as he did not do this by aid of the

Council over which he presided' at Ephesus, which is clearly the Council referred to, nor by the aid of any Council at all. Baronius, it is true, says that he excommunicated Leo in Alexandria, at a Council of ten Bishops, (a magnificent body to preside over,') in the year 449; but Pagi has shown this to be a mistake. It was in the year 451 that he issued the excommunication, holding no Council about it at all, but getting ten Bishops, friendly to himself, to sign the sentence; and the place at which he issued it was Nicæa, where the General Council was originally gathered, before it was transferred to Chalcedon.'

The case of Theodoret again teaches the very contrary lesson to that for which it is advanced. Although received to communion by Leo, he was brought forward in the Council, and required to anathematize Nestorius. On his hesitating to do so, he was denounced as a heretic: on his doing it, and not till then, he was restored to his Church by the decree of the Council. So, then,' says Bossuet, the judgment put forth by Leo concerning his restoration to his see, would have pro'fited Theodoret nothing, unless after the matter had been brought before the Council, he had both approved his faith 'to the Council, and the judgment of Leo had been confirmed by the same Council. If the power of acting in the interim, on which the ordinary government of the Church depends, is 'shown to be left to the Bishop of Rome' (p. 189), by his having been the first to acknowledge the orthodoxy of Theodoret, how much greater power is shown to be vested in the Bishop of Alexandria, by the measures by which S. Athanasius restored peace to Christendom after the Arian troubles?

The statement, then, that the Council of Chalcedon yields submission to the Pope, in regard to orders which he had previously given to his legates, in the case of Dioscorus, in respect to Leo's letter, or in the case of Theodoret, is not true.

2dly. The Council applies to the Pope to confirm its deci'sion, and that which is not confirmed by him falls to the ground.' Not only is this not founded in fact, but it is contrary to fact. The famous 28th Canon, granting to Constantinople coequal and coordinate rights and dignities with Rome, was passed, and 'failed to obtain Leo's confirmation,' but it did not fall to the ground.' On the contrary, ever since that time, Constantinople has ranked above Alexandria and Antioch, and next to Rome. The canon was again renewed in the Council in Trullo, as follows:-Canon xxxvi. 'Renewing the decrees of the hundred ' and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this heaven-protected royal Baronius ad an. 449, vol. viii. p. 47. Pagi ad an. 449, No. 23. Mansi, p. 510. 2 Hard. ii. p. 499. 3 Boss. Def. Cler. Gall. vii. 13.