WE must now glance at the Western church during the fifth century, and will look a little at the history of Leo called the Great, bishop of Rome. The Western church does not appear to have been so distracted with heresies as was the Eastern, though it could not wholly escape the contamination, nor keep aloof from what was going on in the East; indeed, the bishop of Rome was again and again appealed to by those who were condemned, and it is not to be wondered at if Rome did not always side with the right.
Leo became bishop of Rome in peculiar times. The dignity of the imperial name may be said to have died with Theodosius the Great, though others succeeded him, and the barbarous hordes were only waiting their time to make fresh attacks upon the empire. If the succeeding emperors were weak and incompetent, now, at least, a man of energy succeeded to the bishopric in A.D. 440, and had to take part in saving the city of Rome from the barbarians, as well as the church from the heretics. Augustine had passed away (A.D. 430), and Cyril was soon to follow (A.D. 444). Leo has been held up by some as a successful champion for the truth.
In A.D. 452, Attila, after pillaging Lombardy, approached the city of Rome. The emperor Valentinian had shown his cowardice by fleeing, and there seemed no hope for Rome. Leo, however, with two others undertook the perilous task of going forth to meet the barbarian, to see if they could come to terms. It has been thought that Attila was glad of the opportunity to treat, for his army was being enfeebled, and a force was on its march to oppose him; and besides that he was probably fearful to attack such a "holy" city, for Alaric did not long survive a similar act. At any rate the embassy was successful; Attila retired beyond the Danube, but threatened that he would make Italy suffer more if the princess Honoria, who had offered herself in marriage to the king of the Huns, were not given up to him with her rich dowry.
Again, in A.D. 455, the dreadful Genseric approached the gates of Rome, and there was really no ruler or general to oppose him. Was the city of wealth and luxury to be given up to the fury and lusts of the wild barbarians, without any effort made to stem the torrent? No; Leo again stepped forward and with his clergy went forth to meet the invader. He could not prevent the sack of the city, but he succeeded in getting promises that some restraint should be put upon the acts of the rude conquerors. Leo was thereupon hailed as "savior of his country.”
He was also often called upon to defend the truth. Manichæism had found shelter in the church in Africa; but on Genseric capturing Carthage in A.D. 439, many fled for safety to Rome, and there concealed themselves while passing as good Christians: they are described as moving about "with pale faces, in mean apparel, fasting, and making distinctions of meats." Leo, in A.D. 444, had a diligent search made for these heretics, and a large number were found, including some bishops. The aid of the civil authorities was sought, and a combined tribunal formed for their examination. Gross immoralities in their secret meetings were confessed by them, and these the state could deal with, while the bishops condemned their doctrines. Those who remained impenitent were banished from Rome, and an edict of Valentinian, dated June 19, 445, revived the laws against them. Leo warned bishops in other places against the sect.
He was next called upon for advice against the Priscillianists who were exercising a very damaging influence in Spain, and, under his advice, synods were held in two or three places to condemn them.
As we have seen, Leo was also consulted upon the questions concerning Eutyches. This man had himself appealed to Rome, and agreed to abide by its decision. But Leo did not commit himself to him, and eventually took the side of Flavian. He wrote the famous letter, already alluded to, called the "Tome." It was addressed, in a sense, to all the world, on the solemn subject of the Person of our Lord. It was presented at the synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, but his legates could not get it adopted.
When Leo heard of the sad way in which that synod had been managed, and its results, his anger was aroused. He declared it no synod at all, but a den of robbers; its acts were null and void; it cut to the root of the Christian faith. A synod of the West was sitting at Rome, and Leo, in his own name and in that of the synod, at once wrote letters protesting against the whole proceeding. He wrote to the emperor and to the empress Pulcheria, to Flavian, (and then having heard of his death) to the church at Constantinople, and to many others.
Later on, Valentinian, emperor of the West, was at Rome with his wife and mother; Leo got them also to write letters, begging that a more numerous synod might be held in the East to set matters right. But Theodosius, in his reply, seemed disposed to do nothing more; for he was satisfied with what had taken place.
In the meantime Anatolius had been chosen to succeed Flavian in the chair of Constantinople, and this caused Leo anxiety, for Anatolius had been the representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople: Leo was very anxious to gain influence in the East as well as the West, and here was one appointed without his "sanction." So he wrote to the emperor almost demanding that the orthodoxy of Anatolius should be substantiated. But he learned that Dioscorus had had the audacity to excommunicate him—the bishop of Rome! and that the emperor was against him; so all looked dark. But before Leo's messengers reached Constantinople, Theodosius II had passed away, and the empress Pulcheria was Leo's friend. Mercian was associated with her, and he also was on Leo's side; so now all was changed. Mercian wrote to Leo, promising that a council should be held, and wished it to be under his influence. In the meantime Anatolius had signed the "Tome," with "all the church of Constantinople, and other bishops" and all the metropolitans. Those who had been banished for agreeing with Flavian were recalled, and Eutyches himself was sent into exile.
Strange to say, Leo now is not anxious for a general council. He has issued his "Tome," and it has been signed everywhere: the thing is settled; what need of a council? If it is held, it must merely express a judgment already arrived at: not judge it afresh. Rome has spoken—was not that enough?
Leo had, however, to give way to the emperor, and the council was held, as we have seen, at Chalcedon, in the year 451. Eutyches was fully condemned, and Dioscorus deposed: this was all well, and delighted Leo. He exclaimed, "The divine mystery of the incarnation has been restored to the age;" "it is the world's second festivity since the advent of the Lord," &c.
But though the above acts of the council gave great pleasure to Leo, one of its acts gave him great offense. The council deemed it right to confirm the status of the bishop of Constantinople as primate of the Eastern Church, whereas Leo wished him to be only a subordinate to Rome. When this came on for debate the legates of Rome left the council, declaring they had no instructions. The canon is important as proving that the claims of Rome, which had gradually become bolder and more aggressive, were not at that day conceded. "The fathers," it was said, "gave with reason the primacy to the chair of old Rome, because that was the royal city, and, with the same object in view, the 180 pious bishops gave equal primacy to the chair of new Rome," that is, Constantinople, but still adding, "next after old Rome." The see of Constantinople could appoint the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, and certain other bishops.
Leo wrote to the emperor complaining of this, and would "confirm" only the acts of the council touching articles of faith: he could not sanction the canon touching the place given to the archbishop of Constantinople. Well, it did not much signify; the archbishop went on exercising his prerogative without such sanction! The bishop of Rome was not yet to be acknowledged as "universal bishop.”
To be thus styled was the ambition of Rome, and it was not simply in the East that the bishop claimed it as urgently as was prudent, but also elsewhere—in Gaul, for instance. Hilary was bishop of Arles, and was looked upon as the Metropolitan of Gaul. We find him presiding at the councils of Riez and Orange in A.D. 439 and 442.
Hilary was in advance of many in that day. He had been a monk, and when he was seized and made bishop he continued to live sparingly.
He would even till the ground with his own hands, to help to raise money for redeeming captive Christians. Much of his time he spent in prayer and study, and his preaching was with power over his hearers, though he has been described by some as favoring semi-pelagianism.
As metropolitan, Hilary visited the cities of Gaul, and found a bishop (Chelidonius) who had married a widow before he was made bishop; he also had been a magistrate and pronounced death on a culprit. These acts were held by Hilary as sufficient to prevent a man becoming a bishop, according to the canons of the church. Hilary called a synod at Vienne (A.D. 444) and Chelidonius was deposed.
He at once appealed to Rome, and Leo took up his case, being only too glad of an opportunity to assert his authority in Gaul as well as in the East. Hilary crossed the Alps, though it was winter, and appeared at Rome to try and convince Leo that the canons of the church had been respected.
Leo called together a synod, and Hilary, in a conciliatory spirit, consented to be present. He then stated the case, and defended his conduct; but Leo actually had him put under guard, proceeded with the case, and declared the marriage with a widow was not proven. He reinstated Chelidonius, and then proceeded to declare that Hilary was no longer to be metropolitan of Gaul, and conferred the honor on the bishop of Vienne.
In the meantime Hilary had escaped and returned to Gaul; but Leo followed up his acts by obtaining from the emperor an edict (A.D. 445) against Hilary, as one who was injuring the peace of the church and rebelling against the majesty of the emperor.
Leo also charged Hilary with taking armed men with him when he traversed Gaul, and with consecrating a new bishop in the room of Projectus before the latter was dead. The whole case between Leo and Hilary has been frequently discussed by historians; but however faulty Hilary may have been (he is said to have taken the soldiers on account of the disturbed state of the country) nothing can justify the language of Leo in saying Hilary wished to cause the death of the sick bishop! The edict of A.D. 445 clearly chews that Leo's aim was "supremacy.”
Hilary did not own the pretensions of Rome, but went on discharging his duties till the day of his death (A.D. 449). Leo, later on, styled Hilary a man "of holy memory.”
Leo was held to be a great champion for the truth as far as he knew it, and was indefatigable in his appeals to emperors and bishops to stem the current of evil doctrine, we may say, all over the world. While doing this he was also very anxious that any questions he had decided should not be discussed over again as open questions. If councils were held, they must be, he contended, to confirm what had been decided, not to call them in question. This, of course, whenever it was listened to, tended the more to exalt the see of Rome, and paved the way for his being called "universal bishop.”
One is anxious to see how far such a champion for truth, as he has been called, presented the gospel to his hearers. A great many of his sermons dwelt upon the Person of Christ, and dilated either upon His being truly God, or on His being really a man. As to the atonement, he had the erroneous thought, that man being a slave of Satan, the atonement was made really to the devil in order to free man from his authority—an idea not uncommon in those days.
Though he speaks of the merits and death of Christ as alone the source of salvation, yet he, strangely to our ears, held that the merits of the saints could work wonders and give aid to the church on earth. He mentions St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Laurence (but never mentions the Virgin Mary) as helping in this way; but does not make direct appeal to them.
As to the way of salvation, it was sadly enshrouded by such statements as these: "By prayer, the mercy of God is sought; by fasting, the lusts of the flesh are extinguished; by almsgiving, our sins are atoned for [redimentur]." "He who has cleansed himself by almsgiving need not doubt that even after many sins the splendor of the new birth will be restored to him." Alas! that anyone could be called the champion of the truth who could put forth such errors as these!
Leo died A.D. 461. Felix III was the next patriarch of note (483-492). We shall see how he also took a prominent part in the questions which agitated the East, and was the cause of an open rupture between the Eastern and Western divisions of the church.