pension, however, does not appear to have been lasting, akhoui^h the fact has been taken bold ol' by controver- sial writers as a stretch of jurisdiction in the see of Kome. Quesnel published a dissertation upon this con- troversy in his edition of the works of Leo (Paris, 1675). The total defeat and severe punishment of the Galilean bishop tilled his supporters with terror, and the edict of Yalentinian served as a sort of charter, hi virtue of winch the IJoman bishops exercised for centuries un- disputed jurisdiction over France, Spain, Germany, and Britain. In tlie East the struggle was much more com- plicated and the result much less satisfactory. The ar- chimandrite Eutyches (q. v.), in his vehement denunci- ation of Nestorius, having been betrayed into errors, very different, indeed, but considered equally dangerous, was anathematized, deposed, and excommmiicated, in A.D. 448, by the synod of Constantinople. Against this sen- tence he sought redress by solicitmg the interference of the bishops of Alexandria and Kome. His cause was eagerly espoused by the former. As for Leo, he wrote to the patriarch Flavianus (q. v.), telling him that " he had been informed of the disturbances which had taken ]]lace in the Church of Constantinople by the emperor, and was surprised that Flavianus had not at once writ- ten to him about it, and informed him thereof before the subject had been disclosed to any one else." Leo also informed Flavianus that he had received a letter from Eutyches complaining that his excommunication had been without just cause, and that his appeal to Kome had not been considered. Flavianus was to send to Kome a competent envoy, with fuU information of all the particulars of the case, to render final judgment in the matter. In a case like the present, says Leo, in his conclusion, the first thing of all to be attended to is " ut sine strepitu concertationum et custodiatur caritas et Veritas defendatur.'" In a letter of the same date to the emperor, Leo rejoices that Theodosius has not only a royal, but also a priestly heart, and carefuUy guarded against schism, for " the state also is in the best con- dition when the holy Trmity is worshipped in unity." Meanwhile a general council was summoned to be held on the 1st of August, 44'J, at Ephesus, and thither the ambassadors of Leo repaired, for the purpose of reading publicly the above letter to Flavianus. But a great majority of the congregated fathers, acting under con- trol of the president, Dioscurus of Alexandria, refused to listen to the document, passed tumultuously a series of resolutions favorable to Eutyches, excommunicated the most zealous of his opponents, and not only treated the Koman envo}-s with indignity, but even offered vio- lence to their persons. Hence this assembly, whose acts were all subsequently annulled, is known in eccle- siastical liistory as the tSynodus Latrocinalis. The ve- hement complaints addressed to Theodosius by the or- thodox leaders proved fruitless, and the triumph of their opjionents was for a time complete, when the sudden death of the emperor, in 450, again awakened the hopes and called forth the exertions of Leo. In consequence of the pressing representations of his envoys, Anatolius, the successor of Flavianus, together with all the clergy of Constantinople, was induced to subscribe the Con- fession of Faith contained in the Epistle to Fla\-ianus, and to transmit it for signature to all the dioceses of the East. Encouraged by this success, Leo solicited the new monarch, JIarcian, to summon a grand council for the final adjustment of the question concerning the natiu-e of Christ, which still proved a source of discord, and straineil every nerve to have it held in Italy, where his own adherents would necessarily have preponderated. In this, however, he failed, as the council was held at Chalcedon in October, 451. Although the Koman leg- ates, whose language was of the most imperious de- scription, did not fail broadly to assert the pretensions put forth by the representative of St. Peter, at first all went smoothlv. The Epistle to Flavianus was ad- mitted as a rule of faith for the guidance of the uni- versal Church, and no protest was entered against the
spirit of arrogant assumption in which it was conceived. But when the wliole of the special business was cou- cludetl, at tlie very last sitting, a formal resolution was proposed and passed, to the effect that Avhile the Koman see was, in virtue of its antiquity, entitled to take for- mal precedence of every other, the see of Constantino] le was to stand next in rank, was to be regarded as inde- pendent from every other, and to exercise full juristiic- tion over the churches of Asia, Thrace, and Pontus. The resistance of Leo was all in vain. The obnoxious canons were fully contirmed, and thus one half of the sovereignty at which he aimed -was lost forever, at the very moment when victory seemed no longer doubtful. Leo made another and last effort on the '22d of May, 452, when he wrote to Mareian and to Pulcheria, threat- ' enmg, but in vain, to excommunicate Anatolius. In 457, after the death of Mareian, the party of Eutyches made a last effort, and besought the ne\v emperor to assemble a council to condemn the decrees of that of Chalcti'.on, but the emperor refused to yield to this request.