Antiochene patriarchate and a considerable minority of those in Asia Minor opposed it also; and one of the two national Churches outside the empire (the Armenian) repudiated it as soon as it had opportunity to speak. Only Rome and what we call "the West" were heartily for it, and that mainly because it was the only œcumenical council where the Pope played a prominent and worthy part.
At first the Emperor, of course, felt bound to maintain its decision; for the gibing name of "melkite,"[1] given to its adherents in Syria, had this much of truth in it to give it a sting—that the Council of Chalcedon was at least as much under royal influence as it is good for a "general council " to be. As time passed, however, certain facts came out, and were impressed on that imperial consciousness that never seems to die with its possessor.
Any emperor who held Constantinople, held Asia Minor up to the Taurus range: held, that is, the Pontic and Asian themes, and could keep them tolerably quiet and obedient. On the other hand, no "Chalcedonian" could make loyal subjects of the inhabitants of Egypt, Palestine and "Syria,"[2] and no "anti-Chalcedonian" could do so with Rome and the West. The empire, in fact, was parting asunder like a ship on rocks. Nothing could keep its eastern and western extremities, the bow and stern of the figure, from tearing themselves off by their own weight; but when once they had gone, the strongly knit midship section, left on the rocks on which the ship had splintered,
K
