hen most of
the prelates had left the council, a few, who were chiefly of the
diocese of Constantinople, passed, among other canons, one to the effect
that the supremacy of the Roman see was not in right of its descent from
St. Peter, but because it was the bishopric of an imperial city. It
assigned, therefore, to the Bishop of Constantinople equal civil dignity
and ecclesiastical authority. Rome ever refused to recognize the
validity of this canon.

[Sidenote: Rivalries of the three great bishops.]

In these contests of Rome, Constantinople, and Alexandria for
supremacy--for, after all, they were nothing more than the rivalries of
ambitious placemen for power--the Roman bishop uniformly came forth the
gainer. And it is to be remarked that he deserved to be so; his course
was always dignified, often noble; theirs exhibited a reckless scramble
for influence, an unscrupulous resort to bribery, court intrigue,
murder.

[Sidenote: Nature of ecclesiastical councils.]

Thus the want of a criterion of truth, and a determination to arrest a
spirit of inquiry that had become troublesome, led to the introduction
of councils, by which, in an authoritative manner, theological questions
might be settled. But it is to be observed that these councils did not
accredit themselves by the coincidence of their decisions on successive
occasions, since they often contradicted one another; nor did they
sustain those decisions only with a moral influence arising from the
understanding of man, enlightened by their investigations and
conclusions. Their human character is clearly shown by the necessity
under which they laboured of enforcing their arbitrary conclusions by
the support of the civil power. The same necessity which, in the
monarchical East, led thus to the republican form of a council, led in
the democratic West to the development of the autocratic papal power:
but in both it was found that the final authority thus appealed to had
no innate or divinely derived energy. It was altogether helpless except
by the aid of military or civil compulsion against any one disposed to
resist it.

No other opinion could be entertained of the character of these
assemblages by men of practical ability who had been concerned in their
transactions. Gregory of Nazianzen, one of the most pious and able men
of his age, and one who, during a part of its sittings, was president of
the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381, refused subsequently to attend