The Eutychian Controversy And Th

What is known as the Eutychian controversy is less a dogmatic controversy

than a struggle between the patriarchs of the East for supremacy, using

party theological differences as a support. Few passages in the history of

the Church are more painful. The union made in 433 between the Antiochian

and Alexandrian parties lasted fifteen years, or until after the death of

those who entered into it. At Antioch Domnus became bishop in 442, at

Alexandria Dioscurus in 444, and at Constantinople Flavian in 446. Early

in 448 Dioscurus, who aimed at the domination of the East, began to attack

the Antiochians as Nestorians. In this he was supported at Constantinople

by Chrysaphius, the all-powerful minister of the weak Theodosius II, and

the archimandrite Eutyches, the godfather of the minister. Eusebius of

Dorylaeum thereupon accused Eutyches, who held the Alexandrian position in

an extreme form, of being heretical on the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Eutyches was condemned by Flavian at an endemic synod [cf. DCA, I. 474].

November 22, 448. Both Eutyches and Flavian [cf. Leo the Great, Ep.

21, 22] thereupon turned to Leo, bishop of Rome. Leo, abandoning the

traditional Roman alliance with Alexandria, on which Dioscurus had

counted, supported Flavian, sending him June 13, 449, a dogmatic epistle

(the Tome, Ep. 28) defining, in the terms of Western theology, the point

at issue. A synod was now called by Theodosius at Ephesus, August, 449, in

which Dioscurus with the support of the court triumphed. Eutyches was

restored, and the leaders of the Antiochian party, Flavian, Eusebius,

Ibas, Theodoret, and others deposed. Flavian [cf. Kirch, nn. 804 ff.],

Eusebius, and Theodoret appealed to Leo, who vigorously denounced the

synod as a council of robbers (Latrocinium Ephesinum). At the same time

the situation at the court, upon which Dioscurus depended, was completely

changed by the fall of Chrysaphius and the death of Theodosius. Pulcheria,

his sister, and Marcian, her husband, succeeded to the throne, both

adherents of the Antiochian party, and opposed to the ecclesiastical

aspirations of Dioscurus. A new synod was now called by Marcian at

Chalcedon, a suburb of Constantinople. Dioscurus was deposed, as well as

Eutyches, but Ibas and Theodoret were restored after an examination of

their teaching. A definition was drawn up in harmony with the Tome of

Leo. It was a triumph for Leo, which was somewhat lessened by the passage

of canon 28, based upon the third canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381, a

council which was henceforth recognized as the "Second General Council."

Leo refused to approve this canon, which remained in force in the East and

was renewed at the Quinisext Council A. D. 692.





Additional source material: W. Bright, Select Sermons of S. Leo

the Great on the Incarnation; with his twenty-eighth Epistle

called the "Tome", Second ed., London, 1886; Percival, The

Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF); Evagrius, Hist. Ec., II, 1-5,

18, Eng. trans., London, 1846 (also in Bohn's Ecclesiastical

Library); also much material in Hefele, §§ 170-208.





(a) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 448, Acts. Mansi, VI, 741 ff.





The position of Eutyches and his condemnation.





Inasmuch as Eutyches was no theologian and no man of letters, he

has left no worked-out statement of his position. What he taught

can be gathered only from the acts of the Council of

Constantinople A. D. 448. These were incorporated in the acts of

the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, and as his friends were there

they may be regarded as trustworthy. The acts of the Council of

Ephesus, A. D. 449 were read in the Council of Chalcedon, A. D.

451, and in this way the matter is known.





The following passages are taken from the seventh sitting of the

Council of Constantinople, November 22, 448.





Archbishop Flavian said: Do you confess that the one and the same Son, our

Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with His Father as to His divinity,

and consubstantial with His mother as to His humanity?



Eutyches said: When I intrusted myself to your holiness I said that you

should not ask me further what I thought concerning the Father, Son, and

Holy Ghost.



The archbishop said: Do you confess Christ to be of two natures?



Eutyches said: I have never yet presumed to speculate concerning the

nature of my God, the Lord of heaven and earth; I confess that I have

never said that He is consubstantial with us. Up to the present day I have

not said that the body of our Lord and God was consubstantial with us; I

confess that the holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that of her

our God was incarnate.



Florentius, the patrician, said: Since the mother is consubstantial with

us, doubtless the Son is consubstantial with us.



Eutyches said: I have not said, you will notice, that the body of a man

became the body of God, but the body was human, and the Lord was incarnate

of the Virgin. If you wish that I should add to this that His body is

consubstantial with us, I will do this; but I do not understand the term

consubstantial in such a way that I do not deny that he is the Son of God.

Formerly I spoke in general not of a consubstantiality according to the

flesh; now I will do so, because your Holiness demands it.



Florentius said: Do you or do you not confess that our Lord, who is of the

Virgin, is consubstantial and of two natures after the incarnation?



Eutyches said: I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union

[i.e., the union of divinity and humanity in the incarnation], but after

the union one nature. I follow the teaching of the blessed Cyril and the

holy Fathers and the holy Athanasius, because they speak of two natures

before the union, but after the union and incarnation they speak not of

two natures but of one nature.





Condemnation of Eutyches.





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 associate 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 formulae 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 passages, 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 passible nature, so that as

proper remedy for us, one and the same mediator between God 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 God 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

God, 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 God, 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 assumed 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 God, is likewise

true man, and there is no fraud(186) since both the humility of the man

and the loftiness of God meet.(187) For as God 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 cum 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 succumbs 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 Nicaea, and is

theologically second only to that in importance. At Nicaea 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 God. In this way two natures were asserted 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 constitute 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 Nicaea and Ephesus, A. D. 431, and the so-called creed

of Constantinople is placed on the same level as the creed put

forth at Nicaea. The creed of Constantinople eventually took the

place of the creed of Nicaea 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 ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God 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 godliness, 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 Nicaea], 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 assembled 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, assembled at

Nicaea 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 Nicaea." 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 Lord's 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 godhead, maintaining that the divine

nature of the Only begotten is by mixture capable of suffering; therefore

this present, great, and ecumenical 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 assembled 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 documents 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 assembly those who dared to say that the godhead 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 godhead and perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man,

of a reasonable soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as touching

His godhead, 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 godhead; 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, God 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 ecumenical 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 circumstances in which the Canon was

passed, 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 Leo's 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

Hergenroether, 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 God 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.