IN imitation of the notable council of the church mentioned in the Acts, as to whether the Gentiles should be compelled to be circumcised and to keep the law—when the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter, and at which, after much discussion, a godly judgment was arrived at—so much so, indeed, that the apostles could write "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us"—in imitation of this meeting, it became common in the early church, when disputes arose, to call for a council of the church, and it is well to see what weight is attached to these early councils.
There were some called (Ecumenical or general councils, while there were others that could have no sort of claim to be called general, and thus became merely synods or gatherings of the bishops of certain districts, more or less large, and could have no claim upon other districts, especially after the Roman empire was divided into eastern and western. Then when heresies began to appear and were held by those in authority in the church, synods were sometimes called by those who maintained the heresy, and others by those who opposed it; and thus many were in every sense unworthy to be called councils of the church.
The councils considered to be "general," during the first five centuries, are:—
1. The council of Nice, convoked by Constantine the Great, on the question of Arianism, A.D. 825. Three hundred and eighty bishops were present.
2. The council of Constantinople, convoked by Theodosius the Great, on the same subject, A.D. 381. A hundred and fifty bishops attended.
These we have already glanced at; we will now look at the third.
3. In A.D. 431, the third general council was held at Ephesus. It was called by the emperors Theodosius the Younger and Valentinian, on account of Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, who, in condemning the expression "the mother of God" as applied to Mary, which was then common in the church, had concluded that in our Lord there were two persons as well as two natures. This chews the danger of being wise above what is written touching the deep mystery of the Person of Christ, which it is not possible for anyone to fathom; and, as we have seen, all fall into error who will try to grasp and put into words what is infinite and known to God only. Nestorius was condemned, 198 subscribing to his condemnation.
In this council the Nicene creed was again formally confirmed; and with decisions as to the powers of a bishop being confined to his own province, the council closed, and a measure of peace was again restored.
What led to the fourth general council may be thus briefly stated:—
In A.D. 448 a synod was held at Constantinople to settle some disputes between certain bishops, when Eusebius of Dorylæum unexpectedly brought an accusation against Eutyches which raised a serious discussion.
Eutyches had for seventy years lived a monastic life, and for thirty years had presided over some three hundred monks. He had hitherto been supposed to be orthodox, and the accusation took his friends quite by surprise. Eutyches had strongly opposed Nestorius, but now he was said to be in error himself, and this, too, touching the Person of our Lord.
Two messengers were dispatched to Eutyches to ask him to attend the synod. But he said he had vowed not to leave the cloister. He said he held with the Nicene Creed, but they discovered that he had his own way of explaining his belief. He believed that Christ, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was very God and very man, but His body was not of like substance with ours. This was no sooner repeated to the synod than Eusebius exclaimed, "This is quite enough to enable us to take action against Eutyches; but let him be summoned a second time.”
Again two messengers were sent to him; but he declared that nothing but death should make him leave the monastery: they might do what they pleased, At length Eutyches sent some of his friends to the council, including Abraham, the head of a neighboring monastery. Abraham assured Flavian, who presided, that Eutyches was unwell. Flavian replied in a friendly manner, saying, "Let him remember that he is not coming among strangers, but among men who would receive him with fatherly and brotherly affection.... surely if he could leave his retirement when the error of Nestorius imperiled the faith, he should do as much when his own orthodoxy is in question!" But he added, "You know the zeal of the accuser of Eutyches. Fire itself seems to him cold in comparison with his burning zeal for religion. God knows I have besought him to desist; but as he persisted, what could I do?”
Eventually Eutyches promised to appear. In the meantime it had been ascertained that he had been sending round a paper asking for signatures, and this Eusebius also urged against him.
At length he appeared at the synod, bringing a letter from the emperor, who had sent a representative to be present. The discussion then took place. Eutyches stated his belief, but he was questioned again and again as to how he defined the Person of Christ. At length he said he believed our Lord, before the union of the Godhead and manhood, had two natures; but after the union only one. He was condemned. The sentence ran, "Eutyches, formerly priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself affected by the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and hath refused, in spite of our admonition, to accept the true faith. Therefore we, lamenting his perverseness, have decreed, through our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed by him, that he be excluded from all priestly functions, from our communion, and from his primacy in his monastery." It was signed by about thirty bishops and twenty-three archimandrites.
Eutyches left the council-chamber muttering that he would appeal to Rome, and this he did, as we shall see. The monks rallied round Eutyches, but Flavian spread abroad the decree and demanded obedience—the whole resulting in a great scandal in the church. Eutyches was a friend of the chief eunuch at court, Chrysaphius, and eventually the emperor called a council to reconsider the matter.
It met at Ephesus, A.D. 449, but was what would be called a packed synod. The emperor directed Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, to bring ten metropolitans and ten other bishops, distinguished for their learning and orthodoxy, but no more. Others were specially invited. Theodoret of Cyrus (Kars) was not to come unless the council called him. Leo was summoned from Rome, who sent three representatives. Altogether there were 128 bishops present. Eutyches made a confession of his faith, and complained of his being condemned by Flavian. Petitions were also presented by the monks of Eutyches that Flavian should be deposed. The council decided in favor of Eutyches, and deposed both Eusebius of Dorylæum, and Flavian of Constantinople, with a few others. The council is said to have been intimidated by the presence of soldiers and monks. Eusebius and Flavian were both given into custody, and Flavian died from the treatment he received in prison.
It will readily be conceived that things would not be allowed to rest with this decision. The emperor Theodosius II passed away, and Marcian was elected, and he called another council "to settle some questions respecting the orthodox faith." It was to have met at Nice, but the emperor, fearing a tumult, removed it. It met at Chalcedon in A.D. 451.
4. This is called the fourth general council of the church. The first act was to condemn the late council at Ephesus (now called the "robbers' meeting") which had condemned Eusebius and Flavian. It was declared that Dioscorus, as president of that council, and five others deserved to be deposed. At their third meeting, fresh charges were brought against Dioscorus, some by Eusebius of Dorylæum, and others by two of the deacons. He was twice summoned, but not appearing, he was deposed.
Efforts were afterward made to restore Dioscorus, but without success, and the great thing remaining was to state distinctly what was the creed of the church respecting the. Person of our Lord. It was discovered that some slight additions had been made to the Nicene creed at Constantinople, so the creeds of both Nice and Constantinople were put forth with synodical letters of Cyril to Nestorius and of Leo to Flavian. To this was added the statement, that no further explanation was needed, nor was any other creed to be taught under pain of excommunication.
This decision was solemnly attested in the presence of the emperor. Marcian and the empress Pulcheria, the emperor telling them that he had come, like Constantine, to confirm what had been done, not to display his power. He would punish any who did not obey the decisions of the council.
At the same council, monks were made more dependent upon the bishops. Bishops were not to engage in secular callings, and they were not to leave the churches to which they were attached.
We have gone thus a little into detail as to these councils, in order to get some idea of their true value. As we have seen, it was very easy for an emperor to gather a number of bishops together to carry out his views and favor the party he had most at heart—all to be condemned and set aside by another emperor or by another council.
It is well to see that when the council of the church, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, was held, all the scriptures had not been written. Now that we have the whole, we do not find any instructions for calling councils, and, indeed, a general council would now be impracticable. The apostle Paul, knowing that after his decease, evil persons would be found in the church, introducing "perverse things," commended the elders of Ephesus to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build us up, and give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. (Acts 20)
That the councils and synods held in the early ages of the church were in no sense worthy to be compared with the council of the church recorded in the Acts is abundantly proved, though right decisions may have been come to, especially at the earlier ones. Ammianus Marcellinus, the historian, speaks of the disputes of the bishops (which he considered the emperor ought to have crushed by his power), and the highways being covered with groups of bishops, galloping from every side to the assemblies called synods, and while they labored to bring each other to their opinions, the public establishment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.
Gregory of Nazianzus declared of the councils in his day (A.D. 379-389), "If I must speak the truth this is my resolution, to avoid all councils of the bishops, for I have not seen any good end answered by any synod whatsoever; for their love of contention and their lust of power are too great even for words to express.”
So that for the simple Christian all these gatherings of bishops in the early church have neither weight nor authority, except as they agree with scripture. It is quite true that there were raised up by God from time to time noble champions for the truth, who contended manfully for it at some of the councils; but the professing church as a whole was gradually becoming more and more corrupt, and its councils and decisions can in no way be relied on. Happily we do not need such. We have the word of God in our hands, and the Holy Spirit as our teacher; happy are they who have their teaching by these means, and who by grace are led to obey.