Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 5 (1897).djvu/164

142 THE DECLINE AND FALL same invincible spirit survived in their successors, and the triumph of the Latins avenged their recent defeat and vith genera! obliterated the disgrace of the three chapters. The synods of [mdf of°on- Rome were confirmed by the sixth general council of Constan- aT68o,nov. tinople, in the palace and the presence of a new Constantine, s7p1;"i6**^' a descendant of Heraclius. The royal convert converted the Byzantine pontiff and a majority of the bishops ; ^'>' the dis- senters, with their chief, Macarius of Antioch, were condemned to the spiritual and temporal pains of heresy ; ^'"^ the East con- descended to accept the lessons of the West ; and the creed was finally settled which teaches the Catholics of every age tliat two wills or energies are harmonized 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 determine the lofty emperor of the Greeks to abjure the catechism of his infancy and to persecute the religion of his fathers. Perhaps the monks and people of Constantinople ^"'•' 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 Cireek clergy, who appear in this quarrel to be conscious of their weakness. While the synod debated, a fanatic pro- in their original letters and acts (Concil. torn. vii. p. 63-78 ; Baron. Annal. Eccles. A.D. 656, No. 2, at annos subsequent.). Yet the chastisement of their disobedience, efopia and o-ui/taTos at<cio-^ds, had been previously announced in the Type of Constans (Concil. torn. vii. p. 240). 1"'^ Eutychius (. nal. torn. ii. p. 368 [Ay. 348]) most erroneously supposes that the 124 bishops of the Roman synod transported themselves to Constantinople ; and, by adding them to the t68 Greeks, thus composes the sixth council of 292 fathers. los [Pope Honorius and the Patriarch Sergius were also condemned. The con- demnation of such eminent and saintly men, as Gelzer observes, does not redound to the credit of the council. The position of Honorius is notoriously awkward for the modern doctrine of Papal infallibility.] ■ 1*' The Monothelite Constans was hated by all «ia toi raira (says Theophanes, Chron. p. 292 [..M. 6160]) Fina-qfiri rT4,6&pii [/eg. iT<l>oF,p,:,';] napa-n-ivToif. When the Monothelite monk failed in his miracle, the people shouted i Aobs ave^oria-e (Concil. torn. vii. p. 1032). But this was a natural and transient emotion ; and I much fear that the latter is an anticipation of orthodoxy in the good people of Constantinople. [Gel7er has well pointed out two reasons for the policy of Constantine. (i) " The monophysile provinces were definitely lost ; why then maintain the hated edict of unification, when there was nothing to unite ? '" (2) Pope Vitalian had loyally supported the Imperial throne against Italian usurpers; the influence of the Roman curia was paramount in the West ; and, to keep Roman Italy, it was expedient for the theology of the Byzantine court to submit to that of Rome. (Krumbacher's Gesch. der byz. Litt., p. 955-6.)]