IN our previous sketches of the history of the church, we saw that at the close of the fifth century, there was an open rupture between the eastern and western portions of the church. The patriarch of Constantinople and the patriarch of Rome had excommunicated each other as heretics—and this breach had borne much bitter fruit. The West was mostly styled orthodox, because of maintaining the divinity of Christ; and the East was declared to be in error as touching the Person of our Lord.
Anastasius was emperor in the East. He had opposed the orthodox faith; but in A.D. 517, John of Cappadocia was elected patriarch, though he held orthodox views, and was not molested by Anastasius, who only survived a few months. Justin, the commander of the imperial guards, by a popular confession of faith was supported by the clergy, and was hailed as emperor. Thus Constantinople was now blessed by having emperor, clergy, senate, and many of the people, all professing one faith—that which was considered orthodox.
All now agreed to condemn Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus of Antioch, and all, 'living or dead,' who held communion with them. The canons of the general councils—especially that of Chalcedon, which had been so much disputed—were adopted and canonised afresh.
The next step was to re-instate the names of Macedonius, Euphemius, and Leo the Great of Rome, on the sacred tablets of the church. This is said to have been done by acclamation—so glad were the people in the prospect of peace being restored in the church. The establishment of orthodoxy at the capital was followed by its adoption nearly all over the East.
All this was on one side only. It was the East undoing what had been done there in shielding and supporting the heresy that had made and widened the breach. All were now anxious to know if Rome would be equally willing for reconciliation. The emperor wrote to the patriarch, or pope, as we suppose he must now be called—Hormisdas—in a flattering and reverential tone. John also sent letters, containing his confession of faith, in the terms laid down by Leo the Great. All prayed that Hormisdas would send accredited legates to ratify the union of the two churches.
But Rome stood erect in its dignity. Before anything could be done, the names of Acacius, former patriarch of Constantinople, and Peter Mongus of Alexandria, must be struck out of the list of the faithful, and consigned to oblivion. And then the covenant of peace must be from Rome, not from Constantinople. Legates, bearing the "libellus" or covenant, were despatched to the East, with strict orders to hold no communication with any of the clergy or laity until they had presented the covenant to the emperor, and to request he would give his subscription at once, without any discussion, and make it public that he had done so. As soon as he and the patriarch had signed the covenant, and had erased the hateful names, the legates were at liberty to receive into the orthodox church. " You have renounced heresy," wrote the pontiff; " you have taken upon you the faith of the blessed Peter, knowing that in that faith alone you have salvation: therefore now set your hands to the written covenant herewith sent you for your subscription, that thereby we may be united in one holy communion with each other."
The progress of the legates was a march of triumph. Bishops signed the covenant without waiting for Constantinople. At the metropolis there was no hesitation—no discussion. All were anxious for peace, and everything that Rome required was acceded to, and peace was restored after a rupture of some thirty-five years.
Still the church was not one. Rome was anxious that the East should succumb to the West by subscribing to what Rome had written this was far from what the East intended; and all that was done was to restore peace between two churches, the East and the West. The patriarch of Constantinople was head of the eastern church, and the pontiff head of the western church. It is important to notice this, because in after times—and in our own times, indeed—the church of Rome (as a mark of being the true church) claims to be the universal church. This is not true of it now, and never was true. The eastern church never acknowledged the pontiff of Rome as the Lead of the eastern church. As we shall see, Rome strove to claim and to enforce this; but it was always refused. John of Constantinople accepted the title of "œcumenical patriarch"—a title which shewed plainly his independence of Rome.
Neither of them were actuated by the truth of the "one body," as revealed in scripture; nor were they "endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit." It was Rome striving for supremacy everywhere; and the East, without acknowledging that supremacy, desirous of peace between the two churches. As to how far either the one or the other was justified in calling itself the church of God, will appear as we proceed.