Eutyches, formerly presbyter and archimandrite, has been shown, by what has taken place and by his own confession, to be infected with the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and to follow stubbornly their blasphemies, and rejecting our arguments and teaching, is unwilling to consent to true doctrines. Therefore, weeping and mourning his complete perversity, we have decreed through our Lord Jesus Christ, who has been blasphemed by him, that he be deprived of every sacerdotal office, that he be put out of our communion, and deprived of his position over a monastery. All who hereafter speak with him or a.s.sociate with him, are to know that they also are fallen into the same penalty of excommunication.

(_b_) Leo the Great, _Epistola Dogmatica_ or the _Tome_. Hahn, 176.

(MSL, 54:763.)

This letter was written to Flavian on the subject which had been raised by the condemnation of Eutyches in 448. It is of the first importance, not merely in the history of the Church, but also in the history of doctrine. Yet it cannot be said that Leo advanced beyond the traditional formul of the West, or struck out new thoughts [_cf._ Augustine, _Ep._ 187, text and translation of most important part in Norris, _Rudiments of Theology_, 1894, pp.

262-266]. It was to be read at the Council of Ephesus, 449 A. D., but was not. It soon became widely known, however, and was approved at the endemic Council of Constantinople, A. D. 450, and when read at Chalcedon, the Fathers of the council cried out: Peter has spoken by the mouth of Leo.

It may be found translated in PNF, ser II, vol. XII, p. 38, and again vol. XIV, p. 254. The best critical text is given in Hahn, 224. A translation with valuable notes may be found in Wm. Bright, _op. cit._ Hefele, 176, gives a paraphrase and text with useful notes. The most significant pa.s.sages, which are here translated, may be found in Denziger, nn. 143 _f._

Ch. 3. Without detracting from the properties of either nature and substance, which came together in one person, majesty took on humility; strength, weakness; eternity, mortality; and to pay off the debt of our condition inviolable nature was united to pa.s.sible nature, so that as proper remedy for us, one and the same mediator between G.o.d and man, the man Jesus Christ, could both die with the one and not die with the other.

Thus in the whole and perfect nature of true man was true G.o.d born, complete in what was His and complete in what was ours.

Ch. 4. There enters, therefore, these lower parts of the world the Son of G.o.d, descending from His heavenly seat, and not quitting the glory of His Father, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order: because He who was invisible in His own nature, was made visible in ours; He who was incomprehensible [could not be contained], became comprehensible in ours; remaining before all times, He began to be in time; the Lord of all, He took upon Him the form of a servant, having obscured His immeasurable majesty. He who was G.o.d, incapable of suffering, did not disdain to be man, capable of suffering, and the immortal to subject Himself to the laws of death. Born by a new nativity: because the inviolate virginity knew not concupiscence, it ministered the material of the flesh. The nature of the Lord was a.s.sumed from the mother, not sin; and in the Lord Jesus Christ, born of the womb of the Virgin, because His nativity is wonderful, yet is His nature not dissimilar to ours. For He who is true G.o.d, is likewise true man, and there is no fraud(186) since both the humility of the man and the loftiness of G.o.d meet.(187) For as G.o.d is not changed by the manifestation of pity, so the man is not consumed [absorbed] by the dignity. For each form [_i.e._, nature] does in communion with the other what is proper to it [_agit enim utraque forma c.u.m alterius communione quod proprium est_]; namely, by the action of the Word what is of the Word, and by the flesh carrying out what is of the flesh. One of these is brilliant with miracles, the other succ.u.mbs to injuries. And as the Word does not depart from equality with the paternal glory, so the flesh does not forsake the nature of our race.(188)

(_c_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Definition_. Mansi, VII, 107.

The definition of Chalcedon lays down the fundamental principles upon which rests the doctrine of the incarnation, both in Eastern and Western theology. It is the necessary complement and result of the discussion that led to the definition of Nica, and is theologically second only to that in importance. At Nica the true and eternal deity of the Son who became incarnate was defined; at Chalcedon the true, complete, and abiding humanity of manhood of the incarnate Son of G.o.d. In this way two natures were a.s.serted to be in the incarnate Logos. According to Chalcedon, which came after the Nestorian and the Eutychian controversies, these natures are neither to be confused so that the divine nature suffers or the human nature is lost in the divine, nor to be separated so as to const.i.tute two persons. The definition was, however, not preceded by any clear understanding of what was to be understood by nature in relation to hypostasis. This was left for later discussion. There was even then left open the question as to the relation of the will to the nature, and this gave rise to the Monothelete controversy (see 110). But the definition of Chalcedon is important not merely for the history of doctrine but also for the general history of the Church. The course of Christianity in the East depends upon the great controversies, and in Monophysitism the Church of the East was split into permanent divisions. The divisions of the Eastern Church prepared the way for the Moslem conquests. The attempts made to set aside the definition of Chalcedon as a political move led to a temporary schism between the East and the West.

In this definition, it should be noted, the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, for the first time takes its place alongside of Nica and Ephesus, A. D. 431, and the so-called creed of Constantinople is placed on the same level as the creed put forth at Nica. The creed of Constantinople eventually took the place of the creed of Nica even in the East.

The text of the definition may be found in its most important dogmatic part in Hefele, 193; Hahn, 146; Denziger, n. 148. For a general description of the council, see Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, II, 3, 4. Extracts from the acts in PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, 243 _ff._

The holy, great, and ec.u.menical synod, a.s.sembled by the grace of G.o.d and the command of our most religious and Christian Emperors Marcian and Valentinian, Augusti, at Chalcedon, the metropolis of the province of Bithynia, in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia, has decreed as follows:

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, when strengthening the knowledge of the faith in his disciples, to the end that no one might disagree with his neighbor concerning the doctrines of religion, and that the proclamation of the truth might be set forth equally to all men, said: My peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. But since the Evil One does not desist from sowing tares among the seeds of G.o.dliness, but ever invents something new against the truth, therefore the Lord, providing, as He ever does, for the human race, has raised up this pious, faithful, and zealous sovereign, and He has called together unto Himself from all parts the chief rulers of the priesthood, so that, with the grace of Christ, our common Lord, inspiring us, we may cast off every plague of falsehood from the sheep of Christ and feed them with the tender leaves of truth. And this we have done, with unanimous consent driving away erroneous doctrine and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all the creed of the three hundred and eighteen [_i.e._, the creed of Nica], and to their number adding as Fathers those who have received the same summary of religion. Such are the one hundred and fifty who afterward a.s.sembled in great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith which was observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders [_i.e._, Ephesus A. D. 431], we do declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith made by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, a.s.sembled at Nica in the reign of Constantine, of pious memory, shall be pre-eminent, and that those things shall be of force also which were decreed by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers at Constantinople for the uprooting of the heresies which had then sprung up and for the confirmation of the same Catholic and apostolic faith of ours.

Then follow:

The Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers at Nica. The so-called Constantinopolitan creed, without the filioque.

This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect doctrine concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it. But forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings, some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lords incarnation for us and refusing to use the name Theotokos in reference to the Virgin, while others bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that there is one nature of the flesh and the G.o.dhead, maintaining that the divine nature of the Only begotten is by mixture capable of suffering; therefore this present, great, and ec.u.menical synod, desiring to exclude from them every device against the truth and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate. And on account of them that contend against the Holy Ghost, it confirms the doctrine afterward delivered concerning the substance of the Spirit by the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers a.s.sembled in the imperial city, which doctrine they declare unto all men, not as though they were introducing anything that had been lacking in their predecessors, but in order to explain through written doc.u.ments their faith concerning the Holy Ghost against those who were seeking to destroy His sovereignty. And on account of those who are attempting to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation [_i.e._, the incarnation], and who shamelessly pretend that He who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril, pastor of the church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and to the Easterns,(189) judging them suitable for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardor for a knowledge of the saving symbol.

And to these it has rightly added for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines the letter of the president of the great and old Rome, the most blessed and holy Archbishop Leo, which was addressed to Archbishop Flavian, of blessed memory,(190) for the removal of the false doctrines of Eutyches, judging them to be agreeable to the confession of the great Peter and to be a common pillar against misbelievers. For it opposes those who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a duad of Sons; it repels from the sacred a.s.sembly those who dared to say that the G.o.dhead of the Only begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine there is a mixture or confusion in the two natures of Christ; it drives away those who fancy His form as a servant is of an heavenly or of some substance other than that which was taken of us,(191) and it anathematizes those who foolishly talk of two natures of our Lord before the union,(192) conceiving that after the union there was only one.(193)

Following the holy Fathers,(194) we all with one voice teach men to confess that the Son and our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same, that He is perfect in G.o.dhead and perfect in manhood, truly G.o.d and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as touching His G.o.dhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood,(195) in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten of His Father before all worlds according to His G.o.dhead; but in these last days for us and for our salvation of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, according to His manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten Son,(196) in(197) two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being preserved and concurring in one person and hypostasis,(198) not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only begotten, G.o.d the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the creed of the Fathers has delivered us.

These things having been expressed by us with great accuracy and attention, the holy ec.u.menical synod decrees that no one shall be permitted to bring forward another faith,(199) nor to write, nor to compose, nor to excogitate, nor to teach such to others. But such as dare to compose another faith, or to bring forward, or to teach, or to deliver another creed to such as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from among the Gentiles or the Jews, or any heresy whatever; if they be bishops or clerics, let them be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clerics from the clerical rank; but if they be monks or laymen, let them be anathematized.

(_d_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Canon_ 28. Bruns, I, 32.

The rank of the see of Constantinople.

This canon is closely connected with Canon 3 of Constantinople, A.

D. 381, but goes beyond that in extending the authority of Constantinople. With this canon should be compared Canons 9 and 17 of Chalcedon, which, taken with Canon 28, make Constantinople supreme in the East. For the circ.u.mstances in which the Canon was pa.s.sed, see Hefele, 200. The letter of the council submitting its decrees to Leo for approval and explaining this canon is among the Epistles of Leo, _Ep._ 98. (PNF, ser. II, vol. XII, p. 72.) For Leos criticism, _v. supra_, 86. See W. Bright, _Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils_, 1882. A valuable discussion of the canon in its historical setting is in Hergenrther, _Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel_, 1867, I, 74-89.

Texts of the canon may be found in Kirch, n. 868, and Hefele, _loc. cit._

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has just been read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops, beloved of G.o.d we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople or New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of Old Rome, because it was the royal city, and the one hundred and fifty most religious bishops, moved by the same considerations, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, judging with good reason that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate, and also enjoys equal privileges with old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace the metropolitans, and such bishops also of the dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained only by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses together with the bishops of his province ordaining bishops of the province, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been said above, the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses shall be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

(_e_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Protests of the Legates of Leo against Canon_ 28. Mansi, VII, 446.

Lucentius, the bishop [legate of Leo], said: The Apostolic See gave orders that all things should be done in our presence [Latin text: The Apostolic See ought not to be humiliated in our presence], and therefore whatever was done yesterday during our absence, to the prejudice of the canons, we pray your highnesses [_i.e._, the royal commissioners who directed the affairs of the council] to command to be rescinded. But if not, let our protest be placed in these acts [_i.e._, the minutes of the council then being approved], so that we may know clearly what we are to report to that apostolic and chief bishop of the whole Church [Latin text: to that apostolic man and Pope of the universal Church], so that he may be able to take action with regard either to the indignity done to his see or to the setting at naught of the canons.

91. Results of the Decision of Chalcedon: the Rise of Schisms from the Monophysite Controversy

The definition of the Council of Chalcedon, in spite of its condemnation of Nestorius and its approval of the letters of Cyril, was a triumph of the Antiochian school and a condemnation of Alexandrian theology. At Chalcedon no more than at Nica was a controversy settled. So far from being settled at the council, Monophysitism began with it its long career in the Eastern Church only to end in permanent schisms. As soon as the results of Chalcedon were known the Church was in an uproar. Riots broke out in Jerusalem against the patriarch. At Alexandria, Timothy lurus, a Monophysite, was able to drive out the orthodox patriarch. In Antioch, Petrus Fullo did the same and added to the liturgical Trisagion [Is. 6:3]

the Theopaschite phrase: G.o.d who was crucified for us. The Emperor Marcian died 457 and was succeeded by Leo I (457-474). His grandson Leo II (474) was succeeded by his father Zeno (474-475, 477-491). Zeno was temporarily deposed by Basiliscus (475-477), who, basing his authority upon the Monophysite faction, issued an Encyclion condemning Chalcedon and Leos Epistle, and making Monophysitism the religion of the Empire. Zeno was restored by a Dyophysite faction under the lead of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople. Zeno, to win back the Monophysites, issued in 482 the _Henoticon_, setting aside Chalcedon and making only the definition of Nica authoritative. Dissatisfaction arose on both sides, and minor schisms in the East took place. With Rome a schism arose lasting 484-519.

Additional source material: Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, lib. III.

(_a_) Basiliscus, _Encyclion_; A. D. 476; in Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, III, 4. (MSG, 86, II:2600.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 879 _f._

Although an anti-encyclion was issued in 477 condemning Eutyches as well as Nestorius, the attempts of Basiliscus were in vain.

The Emperor Csar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, and Marcus, the most n.o.ble Csar, to Timotheus, archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, most reverend and beloved of G.o.d.

Whatever laws the pious emperors before us, who worshipped the blessed and immortal and life-giving Trinity, have decreed in behalf of the true and apostolic faith, these laws, we say, as always beneficial for the whole world, we will at no time to be inoperative, but rather we promulgate them as our own. We, preferring piety and zeal in the cause of our G.o.d and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who created and has made us glorious before all diligence in human affairs, and also believing that concord among the flocks of Christ is the preservation of ourselves and our subjects, the firm foundation and unshaken bulwark of our Empire, and, accordingly, being rightly moved with G.o.dly zeal and offering to G.o.d and our Saviour, Jesus Christ, the unity of the holy Church as the first-fruits of our reign, do ordain as the basis and confirmation of human felicity, namely, the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were in time past a.s.sembled with the Holy Ghost at Nica, into which both ourselves and all our believing subjects were baptized; that this alone should have reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy churches of G.o.d as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient for the utter destruction of all heresy and for the complete unity of the holy churches of G.o.d; the acts of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers a.s.sembled in this imperial city, in confirmation of the sacred symbol itself and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, retaining their own force; as well as of all done in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently favored his opinions.(200) But the proceedings which have disturbed the unity and good order of the holy churches of G.o.d, and the peace of the whole world, that is to say, the so-called _Tome_ of Leo, and all things done at Chalcedon in innovation upon the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, whether by way of definition of the faith or setting forth of symbols, or interpretation, or instruction, or discourse; we decree that these shall be anathematized both here and everywhere by all the most holy bishops in every church and shall be given to the flames by whomsoever they shall be found, insomuch as it was so enjoined respecting all heretical doctrines by our predecessors of pious and blessed memory, Constantine and Theodosius the younger [_v. supra_, 73], and that, having thus been rendered null, they shall be utterly cast out from the one and only Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, as superseding the everlasting and saving definitions of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and those of the blessed Fathers who, by the Holy Ghost, decreed at Ephesus [it is possible that there is a fault in the text here; the expected reading of the pa.s.sage would be: and of the one hundred and fifty bishops who decreed concerning the Holy Spirit; and of those who were a.s.sembled at Ephesus] that no one, either of the priesthood or laity, be allowed to deviate in any respect from that most sacred const.i.tution of the holy symbol, and we decree that these be anathematized together with all the innovations upon the sacred symbol which were made at Chalcedon and the heresy of those who do not confess that the only begotten Son of G.o.d was truly incarnate and made man of the Holy Ghost and of the holy and ever-virgin Mary, Theotokos, but falsely allege that either from heaven or in mere phantasy and seeming He took flesh; and, in short, every heresy and whatever else at any time in any manner or place in the whole world, in either thought or word, has been devised as an innovation upon and in derogation of the sacred symbol. And inasmuch as it belongs especially to imperial providence to furnish to their subjects, with forecasting deliberation, security not only for the present but for the future, we decree that everywhere the most holy bishops shall subscribe to this our sacred circular letter when exhibited to them, and shall distinctly declare that they submit to the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers alone, which the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed, as it was also defined by the most holy Fathers who subsequently a.s.sembled in the metropolitan city of the Ephesians, that they should submit to the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, as the definition of faith, and shall anathematize everything done at Chalcedon as an offence to the orthodox people and utterly cast it out of the churches as an impediment to the general happiness and our own.(201) Those, moreover, who after the issuing of this our sacred letter, which we trust has been issued according to G.o.d, in an endeavor to bring about that unity which all desire for the holy churches of G.o.d, shall attempt to bring forward or so much as to name the innovation upon the faith made at Chalcedon, either in discourse, instruction, or writing, in whatsoever manner or placethose persons, as the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of G.o.d and among the whole body of our subjects, and as enemies of G.o.d and to our safety, we command (in accordance with the laws ordained by our predecessor Theodosius, of blessed and pious memory, against such sorts of evil designs, which laws are subjoined to this our sacred circular) that, if they be bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laymen, that they be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation and the severest penalties. For so the holy and h.o.m.oousian Trinity, the Creator and Life-giver of the universe, which has ever been adored by us in piety, now also is served by us in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol, becoming favorable and gracious both to our souls and to every one of our subjects, shall ever aid us and preserve in peace human affairs.

(_b_) Zeno, _Henoticon_; in Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, III, 14. (MSG, 86, II:2620.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 883 _f._

Zeno published his _Henoticon_ in 482 as an attempt to win back the Monophysites. Evagrius says, in a note to the doc.u.ment: When these things were read, those who were in Alexandria were joined to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The effect so far as the West went was just the opposite. Felix III protested and threatened. But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, who was chiefly responsible for the doc.u.ment, refused to listen. Felix (_cf._ Evagrius, III, 18) and Acacius thereupon issued mutual excommunications. On the accession of the Emperor Anastasius [491-518] the _Henoticon_ continued in force, as his sympathies were with the Monophysites. It will be noted that the _Henoticon_ not merely sets aside Chalcedon but introduces phrases which make it appear that the same moral subject is present in every act, whether of humility or majesty, and that it is G.o.d who suffers.

These are characteristic Monophysite positions.

The Emperor Csar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, to the most reverend bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis.