The Church and the Barbarians | Page 8

very eminent authority has regarded the action of the
Council in his case as "not quite equitable." [4] But the grounds of the
condemnation were such statements of his as that "God the Word is not
incarnate," "we do not acknowledge an hypostatic union," and his
description of S. Cyril as impius, impugnator Christi, novus haereticus,
with a denial of the communicatio idiomatum, which left little if any
doubt as to his own position.[5] When the letter of Ibas came to be
considered, it was plainly shown that its statements were directly
contrary to the affirmations of Chalcedon. It denied the Incarnation of
the Word, refused the title of Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin, and

condemned the doctrines of Cyril. The Council had no hesitation in
saying anathema.
Here its work was ended. It had safeguarded the faith by definitely
exposing the logical consequences of statements which indirectly
impugned the Divine and Human Natures of the Incarnate Son.
[Sidenote: The need for its decisions.]
So long as human progress is based upon intellectual principles as well
as on material growth, a teaching body which professes to guard and
interpret a Divine Revelation must speak {19} without hesitation when
its "deposit" is attacked. The Church has clung, with an inspired
sagacity, to the reality of the Incarnation: and thus it has preserved to
humanity a real Saviour and a real Exemplar. The subtle brains which
during these centuries searched for one joint in the Catholic armour
wherein to insert a deadly dart, were foiled by a subtlety as acute, and
by deductions and definitions that were logical, rational, and necessary.
If the Councils had not defined the faith which had been once for all
delivered to the saints, it would have been dissolved little by little by
sentimental concessions and shallow inconsistencies of interpretation.
It was the work of the Councils to develope and apply the principles
furnished by the sacred Scriptures. New questions arose, and it was
necessary to meet them: it was clear, then, that there was a real division
between those who accepted Christianity in the full logical meaning of
the Scriptures, in the full confidence of the Church, and those who
doubted, hesitated, denied; and it is clear now that the whole future of
Christendom depended upon the acceptance by the Christian nations of
a single rational and logically tenable Creed. This involved the
rejection of the Three Chapters, as it involved equally the
condemnation of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. From the point of
view of theology or philosophy the value of the work of the Church in
this age is equally great. The heresies which were condemned in the
sixth century (as in the seventh) were such as would have utterly
destroyed the logical and rational conception of the Person of the
Incarnate Son, as the Church had received it by divine inspiration.
Some Christian historians may seem for a moment to yield a half {20}

assent to the shallow opinions of those who would refuse to go beyond
what is sometimes strangely called the "primitive simplicity of the
Gospel." But it is impossible in this obscurantist fashion to check the
free inquiry of the human intellect. The truths of the Gospel must be
studied and pondered over, and set in their proper relation to each other.
There must be logical inferences from them, and reasonable
conclusions. It is this which explains that struggle for the Catholic Faith
of which historians are sometimes impatient, and justifies a high
estimate of the services which the Church of Constantinople rendered
to the Church Universal.
It is in this light that the work of the Fifth General Council, to be truly
estimated, must be regarded. It will be convenient here to summarise
the steps by which the Fifth General Council won recognition in the
Church.
In the first place, the emperor, according to custom, confirmed what the
Council had decreed; and throughout the greater part of the East the
decision of Church and State alike was accepted. In 553 there was a
formal confirmation by a synod of bishops at Jerusalem; but for the
most part there was no need of such pronouncement. African bishops
and Syrian monks here and there refused obedience; but the Church as
a whole was agreed.
[Sidenote: Pope Vigilius.]
Pope Vigilius, it would seem, was in exile for six months on an island
in the Sea of Marmora. On December 8, 553, he formally
anathematised the Three Chapters. On February 23, 554, in a
Constitution, he announced to the Western bishops his adhesion to the
decisions {21} of the General Council. Before the end of 557 he was
succeeded, on his death, by Pelagius, well known in Constantinople. He,
like Vigilius, had once refused but now accepted the Council.
When Rome and Constantinople were agreed, the adhesion