œcumenicity is not its representative character or its numbers, but its after-acceptance by the Church. Nor in the ancient and undivided Church was there any idea that to be oecumenical a council must be convoked or presided over by the Bishop of Rome. The Second Ecumenical Council was convoked by the Emperor; it was presided over, first by S. Meletius of Antioch, secondly by S. Gregory Nazianzene, and thirdly by Nectarius of Constantinople; none of these was in any sense whatever the representative of Rome, and the first of them, S. Meletius, was actually at the time out of communion with the Roman see. If ever there was a man canonised by popular acclamation it was the 'blessed Saint' who presided over the Second Ecumenical Council, and who died, still out of communion with Rome, whilst the Council was sitting. Even Rome afterwards acknowledged his saintship, and as Father Puller says, "though the Pope repudiated him and allowed him to be insulted as an Arian during his life, the Roman Church invokes him as a saint now he is dead.'1 So much for the modern Roman contention that oecumenical councils cannot be summoned without the Pope's authority or at the least his acquiescence; so much

1 Puller, The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, pp. 175, 176 (pp. 165, 166, ed. 3); see also pp. 238-253 (pp. 241-353, ed. 3).

for the Roman contention that saintship is impossible outside her communion.1

With the doings of the Council of Constantinople we are not concerned except in so far as our immediate subject is affected. Great matters came before it, but its acceptance as oecumenical was the result of its affirmation of the full truth of our LORD's Manhood, its ratification of the work of the Council of Nicæa, and its recension of the Nicene Creed. In this affirmation the Council gave its answer-perhaps we should say its contribution to the answer-to the question, 'What think ye of CHRIST?' Its answer was given by its condemnation of Apollinarianism, and by its emphasis on the perfect Manhood of the LORD by its insertion into the Creed of the words of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary' after the word 'incarnate,' and of the words was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate.' It also, as against the Macedonian heresy which denied the GODHEAD of the Holy Ghost, declared Him to be the LORD and Life-Giver,' and added to the Creed almost all that follows the words 'I believe in the Holy Ghost.'2

6

1 For an account of the 'Antiochene Schism,' which was the cause of the division between S. Meletius and the West, see Note E at the end of this volume.

2 For a comparison of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan recensions of the Creed, see Note F at the end of this volume.

So, first at Nicæa and then at Constantinople, the Church affirmed the truth as to our LORD's Person on the two sides on which it had been

attacked first, He is Very God; second, He is perfect Man. In the history of the heresies which follow and of the way in which they were met we shall see how, given those two statements, they are to be reconciled with the third which the Catholic Church holds with equal tenacity—

'Who although He be GoD and Man· yet He is not two but One CHRIST'

CHAPTER VIII

THE GRADUAL FORMULATION OF THE

DOCTRINE

c. At the Council of Ephesus.

When Thou tookest upon Thee to deliver man : Thou didst not abhor the Virgin's Womb.-Te Deum. Who although He be GoD and Man: yet He is not Two but One CHRIST.-Ath. Creed.

WE have seen how the first two Ecumenical Councils made answer to the question, 'What think ye of CHRIST?" Nicæa declared Him to be very GoD, Constantinople declared Him to be perfect Man. In the history of the heresies which follow, and of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon at which they were condemned, we shall see how, given these two statements, they are to be reconciled with the third which the Catholic Church has ever held with equal tenacity, 'Who although He be GoD and Man : yet He is not two but One CHRIST."

The union of GODHEAD and Manhood in the One

Person of our LORD must ever be a great mystery: it is a union which is perfectly unique, and as such it must be beyond our comprehension. It is unique, because, though it is true to say that God dwells in the Saints as in a tabernacle, yet the indwelling of the Eternal Son in Man is something more than such indwelling, it is personal union of the closest kind. The Church believes and teaches that the Eternal Son took up into Himself a perfect human nature so as to redeem not merely a man but Man. And if so it follows that He did not take a human personality, for had He done so there would have been two Persons-the Person of the Eternal Word and the Person of the Son of Mary-allied together but not indivisibly united. The Eternal Son took human nature, perfect in all that makes human nature, without taking a human personality.

Let us ask ourselves two questions:

First, What is personality? It is that which I share with no one else; it is that which individualises me; it is that in which my own being centres and no one else's; it is that which makes me a person and separates me off from the race.

1. And that a higher gift than grace

Should flesh and blood refine,

GOD's Presence and His Very Self

And Essence all-Divine.'

Newman, Dream of Gerontius.