a

CHAP. out effect, and the timid or vehement Catholics condemned XLVII. even the semblance of a retreat in the

presence

of a subtle and audacious enemy. The orthodox (the prevailing) party devised new modes of speech, and argument, and interpretation: to either nature of Christ, they speciously applied a proper and distinct energy; but the difference was no longer visible when they allowed that the human and the divine will were invariably the same.103 The disease was attended with the customary symptoms; but the Greek clergy, as if satiate with the endless controversy of the incarnation, instilled a healing council into the ear of the prince and people. They declared themselves MONOTHELITES (asserters of the unity of will,) but they treated the words as new, the questions as superfluous; and recommended a religious

silence as the most agreeable to the prudence and charity of The ecthe- the gospel. This law of silence was successively imposed sis of Heraclius, by the ecthesis or exposition of Heraclius, the type or model A. D. 639. of his grandson Constans:103 and the Imperial edicts were Theompe subscribed with alacrity or reluctance by the four patriarchs of Con

of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. But A. D. 648,

the bishop and monks of Jerusalem sounded the alarm: in the language, or even in the silence, of the Greeks, the Latin churches detected a latent heresy: and the obedience of pope Honorius to the commands of his sovereign was retracted and censured by the bolder ignorance of his successors. They condemned the execrable and abominable heresy of the Monothelites, who revived the errors of Manes, Appollinaris, Eutyches, &c.; they signed the sen

stans,

rians, had been observed by La Croze (Christianisme des Indes, tom. i. p. 19, 20.) and is more fully exposed by Abulpharagius (Bibliot. Orient. tom. ii. p. 292. Hist. Dynast. p. 91. vers. Latin. Pocock) and Asseman himself (tom. iv. p. 218). They seem ignorant that they might alledge the positive authority of the ecthesis. O μιαρος Νεσoριος καιπες διαιρων την θειαν τ8 Κυρια ενανθρωπησιν, και δυο εισαγων νιες (the common reproach of the Monophosites),

δυο θεληματα τουτων ειπεν εκ ετολμησε, ταναντιον δε ταυτο Βελιαν των • • • δυο προσωπον εδοξασε (Concil. tom. vii.

P. 205). 102 See the orthodox faith in Petavius (Dogmata Theolog. tom. v. 1. ix. c. 6...10 p. 433...447.) all the depths of this controversy are founded in the Greek dialogue between Maximus and Pyrrhus (ad calcem tom. viii. Annal. Baron. p.755...794.) which relates a real conference, and produced as a short. lived conversion.

103 Impiissimam ecthesim : . . scelerosum typum (Concil. tom. vii. p. 366.) diabolicæ operationis genimina (fors. germina, or else the Greek paveHate. in the original. Concil. p. 363, 364.) are the expressions of the xviiith anathema. The epistle of Pope Martin to Amandus, a Gallican bishop, stig. matises the Monothelices and their heresy with equal virulence (p. 392).

tence of excommunication on the tomb of St. Peter; the CHAP. ink was mingled with the sacramental wine, the blood of Christ; and no ceremony was omitted that could fill the superstitious mind with horror and affright. As the representative of the western church, pope Martin and his Lateran synod anathematised the perfidious and guilty silence of the Greeks: one hundred and five bishops of Italy, for the most part the subjects of Constans, presumed to reprobate his wicked type and the impious ecthesis of his grandfather, and to confound the authors and their adherents with the twenty-one notorious heretics, the apostates from the church, and the organs of the devil. Such an insult under the tamest reign could not pass with impunity. Pope Martin ended his days on the inhospitable shore of the Tauric Chersonesus, and his oracle, the abbot Maximus, was inhumanly chastised by the amputationof histongue and his right hand.104 But the same invincible spirit survived in their successors, and the triumph of the Latins avenged their recent defeat, and obliterated the disgrace of the three chapters. The synods of Rome were confirmed Vith geby the sixth general council of Constantinople, in the

council : palace and in the presence of a new Constantine, a descen- IId of

Constanti. dant of Heraclius. The royal convert converted the By

nople, zantine pontiff and a majority of the bishops;105 the dissen- A. D. 680, ters, with their chief, Macarius of Antioch, were con- A. D. 681,

Nov. 7.... demned to the spiritual and temporal pains of heresy; the Sept. 16. East condescended to accept the lessons of the West; and the creed was finally settled, which teaches the Catholics of every age, that two wills or energies are harmonised in the person of Christ. The majesty of the pope and the Roman synod was represented by two priests, one deacon, and three bishops; but these obscure Latins had neither arms to compel, nor treasures to bribe, nor language to persuade; and I am ignorant by what arts they could deter

neral

104 The sufferings of Martin and Maximus are described with pathetic simplicity in the original letters and acts (Concil. tom. vii. p. 63...78. Baron. Annal. Éccles. A. D. 656, No. 2. et annos subsequent. Yet the chastisement of their disobedience, εξορια and σωματος σικισμος, had been previously announced in the Type of Constans (Concil. tom. vii. p. 240).

105 Eutychius (Annal. tom.ii. p. 368.) most erroneously supposes that the
124 bishops of the Roman synod transported themselves to Constantinople ;
and by adding them to the 168 Greeks, thus composes the sixth council of
292 fathers.
VOL. VI.

H

CHAP. mine the lofty emperor of the Greeks to abjure the catechism XLVII. of his infancy, and to persecute the religion of his fathers.

Perhaps the monks and people of Constantinople 106 were favourable to the Lateran creed, which is indeed the least favourable of the two: and the suspicion is countenanced by the unnatural moderation of the Greek clergy, who appear in this quarrel to be conscious of their weakness. While the synod debated, a fanatic proposed a more summary decision, by raising a dead man to life: the prelates assisted at the trial, but the acknowledged failure may serve to indicate, that the passions and prejudices of the multitude were not enlisted on the side of the Monothelites. In the next generation, when the son of Constantine was deposed and slain by the disciple of Macarius, they tasted the feast of revenge and dominion: the image or monument of the sixth council was defaced, and the original acts were committed to the flames. But in the second year, their patron

, was cast headlong from the throne, the bishops of the East were released from their occasional conformity, the Roman faith was more firmly replanted by the orthodox successors of Bardanes, and the fine problems of the incarnation were forgotten in the more popular and visible quarrel of the

worship of images. 107 Union of Before the end of the seventh century, the creed of the the Greek incarnation, which had been defined at Rome and Constanand Latin churches. tinople, was uniformly preached in the remote islands of

Britain and Ireland:108 the same ideas were entertained, or

106 The Monothelite Constans was hated by all dice toi TAUTEC (says The. ophanes, Chron. p. 292.. Eucr.cfm opodea augue Turtwy. When the Mo. nothelite monk failed in his miracle, the people shouted, ó acos alteßonce (Concil. tom. vii. p. 1032). But this was a natural and transient emotion ; and ì much fear that the latter is an anticipation of orthodoxy in the good people of Constantinople.

107 The history of Monothelitism may be found in the acts of the Synods of Rome (tom. vii. p. 77...395.601...608.) and Constantinople (p. 609...1429). Baronius extracted some original documents from the Vatican library; and his chronology is rectified by the diligence of Pagi. Even Dupin (Bibliotheque Eccles. tom. vi. p. 57...71.) and Basnage (Hist. de l'Eglise, tom. i. p. 541... 555.) afford a tolerable abridgment.

108 In the Lateran synod of 679, Wilfrid, an Anglo-Saxon bishop, subscribed pro omni Aquilonati parte Britanniæ et Hiberniæ, quæ ab Angloruin et Brittonum, necnon Scotorum et Pictorum gentibus colebantur (Eddius, in Vit. St. Wilfrid. c.31. apud Pagi, Critica, tom.ii. p. 88). Theodore (magnæ insulæ Britanniæ archiepiscopus et philosophus) was long expected at Rome (Concil. tom. vii. p. 714); but he contented himself with holding (A. D. 680) his provincial synod of Hatfield, in which he received the decrees of pope Mar. tin and the first Lateran council against the Monothelites (Concil. tom. vii.p.

rather the same words were repeated, by all the Christians CHAP.

. whose liturgy was performed in the Greek or the Latin XLVII. tongue. Their numbers, and visible splendour, bestowed an imperfect claim to the appellation of Catholics: but in the East, they were marked with the less honourable name of Melchites or Royalists; 109 of men, whose faith, instead of resting on the basis of scripture, reason, or tradition, had been established, and was still maintained, by the arbitrary power of a temporal monarch. Their adversaries might allege the words of the fathers of Constantinople, who profess themselves the slaves of the king; and they might relate, with malicious joy, how the decrees of Chalcedon had been inspired and reformed by the emperor Marcian and his virgin bride. The prevailing faction will naturally inculcate the duty of submission, nor is it less natural that dissenters should feel and assert the principles of freedom. Under the rod of persecution, the Nestorians and Monophysites de. generated into rebels and fugitives; and the most ancient and useful allies of Rome were taught to consider the emperor not as the chief, but as the enemy, of the Christians. Language, the leading principle which unites or separates the tribes of mankind, soon discriminated the sectaries of the East, by a peculiar and perpetual badge, which abolished the means of intercourse and the hope of reconciliation. The long dominion of the Greeks, their colonies, and, above Perpetual all, their eloquence, had propagated a language doubtless the separation

of the Ori. most perfect that has been contrived by the art of man. Yet ental sects. the body of the people, both in Syria and Egypt, still persevered in the use of their national idioms; with this differ,

597, &c.). Theodore, a monk of Tarsus in Cilicia, had been named to the primacy of Britain by pope Vitalian (A. D. 668. See Baronius and Pagi), whose esteem for his learning and piety was tainted by some distrust of his national character..ne quid contrarium veritati fidei, Græcorum more, in ecclesiam cui præesset introduceret. The Cicilian was sent from Roine to Canterbury under the tuition of an African guide (Bedæ Hist. Eccles. Anglorum,l.iy.c.1). He adhered to the Roman doctrine; and the same creed of the incarnation has been uniformly transmitted from Theodore to the modern primates, whose sound understanding is perhaps seldom engaged with that abstruse mystery.

109 This name, unknown till the tenth century, appears to be of Syriac origin. It was invented by the Jacobites, and eagerly adopted by the Nestorians and Mahometans; but it was accepted without shame by the Catholics, and is frequently used in the Annals of Eutychius (Asseman. Bibliot Orient. tom. ii p. 507, &c. tom. iii. p. 355. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexandrin, p. 119). Hμεις δελοι το Βασιλεως, was the acclamation of the fathers of Constantinople (Concil. tom. vii. p. 765).

CHAP. ente however, that the Coptic was confined to the rude and XLVII. illiterate peasants of the Nile, while the Syriac," from the

mountains of Assyria to the Red Sea, was adapted to the higher topics of poetry and argument. Armenia and Abyssinia were infected by the speech or learning of the Greeks; and their Barbaric tongues, which have been revived in the studies of modern Europe, were unintelligible to the inhabitants of the Roman empire. The Syriac and the Coptic, the Armenian and the Æthiopic, are consecrated in the service of their respective churches; and their theology is enriched by domestic versions 111 both of the scriptures and of the most popular fathers. After a period of thirteen hundred and sixty years, the spark of controversy, first kindled by a sermon of Nestorius, still burns in the bosom of the East; and the hostile communions still maintain the faith and dis. cipline of their founders. In the most abject state of igno. rance, poverty, and servitude, the Nestorians and Mono. physites reject the spiritual supremacy of Rome, and cherish the toleration of their Turkish masters, which allows them to anathematise, on one hand, St. Cyril and the synod of Ephesus; on the other, pope Leo and the council of Chalcedon. The weight which they cast into the downfall of the Eastern empire demands our notice, and the reader may be amused with the various prospect of, I. The Nestorians. II. The Jacobites.'2 III. The Maronites. IV. The Armenians, V. The Copts; and, VI. The Abyssinians. To the three

112