Chapter III. The Church In The Eastern Empire.

At the beginning of the permanent division of the Empire, the church life of the East was disturbed by a series of closely connected disputes known as the First Origenistic Controversy (§ 87), in which were comprised a conflict between a rationalistic tendency, connected with the religious philosophy of Origen, and a traditionalism that eschewed speculation, a bitter rivalry between the great sees of Alexandria, the religious and intellectual capital of the East, and Constantinople, the church of the new imperial city, and personal disputes. But more serious controversies were already beginning. While the Church of the West was laying the foundations of the papal system, the Church of the East was falling more and more under the dominance of the secular authority; while the West was developing its anthropology, with its doctrines of Original Sin, Grace, and Election, the East was entering upon the long discussion of the topic which had been left by the Arian controversy—granted that the incarnate Son of God is truly eternal God, in what way are the divine and human natures related to the one personality of the incarnate God (§ 88)? The controversies that arose over this topic involved the entire Church of the East, and found in the general councils of Ephesus, A. D. 431 (§ 89), and Chalcedon, A. D. 451 (§ 90), partial solutions. In the case of each council, permanent schisms resulted, and large portions of the Church of the East broke away from the previous unity (§ 91); and on account of the intimate connection between the affairs of the Church and the secular policy of the Empire, a schism was caused between the see of Rome and the churches in communion with the see of Constantinople.

§ 87. The First Origenistic Controversy and the Triumph of Traditionalism

In the East the leading theologians of the fourth century were educated under the influence of Origenism; among these were Basil of Cæsarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. In the West the feeling regarding Origen was not so favorable, but the Western theologians, Jerome and Rufinus, who were then living in Palestine, shared in the general admiration of Origen. But a series of brief controversies broke out in which the standing of Origen as an orthodox theologian was seriously attacked, as well as the whole tendency for which he stood. The result was a wide-spread condemnation of the spiritualizing teaching of the great Alexandrian, and the rise of what might be called an anthropomorphic traditionalism. The first of the three controversies took place in Palestine, 395-399, and was occasioned by Epiphanius of Salamis, a zealous opponent of heresy. He denounced Origen and induced Jerome to abandon Origen; and Rufinus was soon in bitter enmity with Jerome. The second controversy took place in Egypt about the same time, when a group of monks in the Scetic desert, who were violently opposed to Origenism, compelled Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria and an admirer of Origen, to abandon that theologian and to side with them against the monks of the Nitrian desert, who were Origenists, and to condemn Origen at a council at Alexandria, 399. The third controversy involved John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, who had protected four Nitrian monks who had fled to his protection. Theophilus seized the opportunity and, with the assistance for a time of Epiphanius, ultimately brought about the downfall of Chrysostom, who died deposed and in exile, 404. No controversies of the ancient Church are less attractive than the Origenistic, in which so much personal rancor, selfish ambition, mean intrigue, and so little profound thought were involved. The literature, therefore, is scanty.

Additional source material: Jerome, Ep. 86-99 (PNF); Rufinus and Jerome, controversial writings bearing on Origenism in PNF, ser. II. vol. III, pp. 417-541; Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 2-21; Sozomen, Hist. Ec., VIII, 2-28.

(a) Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 27. (MSG, 32:187.)

The force of unwritten tradition.

The following is the most important and authoritative statement of the force of unwritten tradition in the Eastern Church. It is referred to by John of Damascus in his defence of images (De Fide Orthod., IV, 16), cf. § 109. It is placed in the present section as illustrating the principle of traditionalism which, in a fanatical form, brought about the Origenistic controversies.

Of the beliefs and public teachings preserved in the Church, some we have from written tradition, others we have received as delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these have in relation to true piety the same binding force. And these no one will gainsay, at least no one who is versed even moderately in the institutions of the Church. For were we to reject such customs as are unwritten as having no great force, we should unintentionally injure the gospels in their very vitals; or, rather, reduce our public definition to a mere name and nothing more. For example, to take the first and most general instance, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East in our prayers? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words at the invocation and at the displaying of the bread in the eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the Apostle or the Gospel has recorded; but, both before and after, we say other words as having great importance for the mystery, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover, we bless the water of baptism and the oil of chrism, and, besides this, him who is baptized. From what writings? Is it not from the silent and mystical tradition? What written word teaches the anointing of oil itself? And whence is it that a man is baptized three times? And as to other customs of baptism, from what Scripture comes the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from the unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in silence, averse from curious meddling and inquisitive investigation, having learned the lesson that the reverence of the mysteries is best preserved in silence? How was it proper to parade in public the teaching of those things which it was not permitted the uninitiated to look at?

(b) Jerome, Preface to the Vulgate Translation of the New Testament. (MSL, 29:557.)

Jerome’s free critical attitude in his work in his earlier life.

This preface is addressed to Bishop Damasus of Rome and is dated 383.

You urge me to make a new work out of an old and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures already scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ among themselves, I am to decide which of them agree with the Greek original. A pious labor, but a perilous presumption; to judge others, myself to be judged of all; to change the language of the aged, and to carry back the world already grown gray, back to the beginnings of its infancy! Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands and perceives that what he reads differs from the flavor which once he tasted, break out immediately into violent language and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books or to change or correct anything? I am consoled in two ways in bearing this odium: in the first place, that you, the supreme bishop, command it to be done; and secondly, even on the testimony of those reviling us, what varies cannot be true. For if we put faith in the Latin texts, let them tell us which; for there are almost as many texts as copies. But if the truth is to be sought from many, why should we not go back to the original Greek and correct the mistakes introduced by inaccurate translators, and the blundering alterations of confident and ignorant men, and further, all that has been added or altered by sleepy copyists? I am not discussing the Old Testament, which was turned into Greek by the Seventy Elders, and has reached us by a descent of three steps. I do not ask what Aquila and Symmachus think, or why Theodotion takes a middle course between the ancients and the moderns. I am willing to let that be a true translation which had apostolic approval [i.e., the LXX]. I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of the Apostle Matthew, who first published the gospel of Christ in Judea and in Hebrew. This [i.e., the New Testament], as it is in our language, is certainly marked by discrepancies, and the stream flows in different channels; it must be sought in one fountainhead. I pass over those manuscripts bearing the names of Lucian and Hesychius, which a few contentious persons perversely support. It was not permitted these writers to amend anything in the Old Testament after the labor of the Seventy; and it was useless to make corrections in the New, for translations of the Scriptures already made in the language of many nations show that they are additions and false. Therefore this short preface promises only the four gospels, of which the order is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, revised by a comparison of the Greek manuscripts and only of the ancient manuscripts. And that they might not depart far from the Latin customarily read, I have used my pen with some restraint, so that having corrected only the passages which seemed to change the meaning, I have allowed the rest to remain as it was.

(c) Jerome, Ep. 7, ad Pammachium. (MSL, 23:376.)

The principal errors of Origen according to Jerome.

This is the most important work of Jerome in the controversy known as the Origenistic controversy. Jerome attacks in this work John, bishop of Jerusalem, and writes as a result of the work of Epiphanius in Palestine three years before. The following were addressed to John to reject, as a test of that bishop’s orthodoxy. See above, § 43.

First, in the book περὶ ἀρχῶν it is said [I, 1:8]: “For as it is unfitting to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is not meet to think that the Holy Spirit can see the Son.”

Secondly, that souls are bound in this body as in a prison; and that before man was made in paradise they dwelt among rational creatures in the heavens. Wherefore, afterward, to console itself, the soul says in the Psalms, “Before I was humbled I went wrong,” and “Return, my soul, unto thy rest,” and “Lead my soul out of prison,” and similarly elsewhere.

Thirdly, that he says that both the devil and the demons will some time or other repent and ultimately reign with the saints.

Fourthly, that he interprets the coats of skins, with which Adam and Eve were clothed after their fall and ejection from paradise, to be human bodies, and no doubt they were previously in paradise without flesh, sinews, or bones.

Fifthly, he most openly denies the resurrection of the flesh, the bodily structure, and the distinction of sexes by which we men are distinguished from women, both in his explanation of the first psalm and in many other treatises.

Sixthly, he so allegorizes paradise as to destroy the truth of history, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers; and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of paradise by his tropological interpretation.

Seventhly, he thinks that the waters which in the Scriptures are said to be above the heavens are holy and supernal powers; while those which are upon the earth and beneath the earth are, on the contrary, demoniacal powers.

Eighthly, that the image and likeness of God, in which man was created, was lost and was no longer in man after he was expelled from paradise.

(d) Anastasius, Ep. ad Simplicianum, in Jerome, Ep. 95 (MSL, 22:772.)

Condemnation of Origen by Anastasius, bishop of Rome, A. D. 400

To his lord and brother, Simplicianus, Anastasius.

It is felt right that a shepherd have great care and watchfulness over his flock. In like manner, also, the careful watchman from his lofty tower keeps a lookout day and night on behalf of the city. In the hour of tempest and peril the prudent shipmaster suffers great distress of mind lest by the tempest and the violent waves his vessel be dashed upon the rocks. With similar feelings that reverend and honorable man Theophilus, our brother and fellow-bishop, ceases not to watch over the things which make for salvation, that God’s people in the different churches may not by reading Origen run into awful blasphemies.

Having been informed, then, by the letter of the aforesaid, we inform your holiness that just as we are set in the city of Rome, in which the prince of the Apostles, the glorious Peter, founded the Church and then by his faith strengthened it; to the end that no man contrary to the commandment read these books which we have mentioned and the same we have condemned; and with earnest prayers we have urged that the precepts of the Evangelists which God and Christ have inspired the Evangelists to teach ought not to be forsaken; but that is to be remembered which the venerable Apostle Paul preached by way of warning: “If any one preach a gospel unto you other than that which was preached unto you, let him be anathema” [Gal. 1:8]. Holding fast, therefore, this precept, we have intimated that everything written in days past by Origen that is contrary to our faith is even by us rejected and condemned.

We have written these things to your holiness by the hand of the presbyter Eusebius, who, being a man filled with a glowing faith and having the love of the Lord, has shown me some blasphemous chapters at which we shuddered and which we condemned, but if any other things have been put forth by Origen, you should know that with their author they are alike condemned by me. The Lord have you in safe-keeping, my lord and brother deservedly held in honor.

(e) Rufinus, Preface to Translation of Origen’s “De Principiis”. (MSL, 22:733 and also MSG, 11:111.)

In this preface Rufinus refers, without mentioning names, to Jerome. Inasmuch as it was perfectly clear to whom the allusion was made, as the translator and admirer of Origen, Jerome felt himself personally attacked and retorted furiously upon Rufinus.

I know that a great many of the brethren, incited by their desire for a knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested various men versed in Greek letters to make Origen a Roman and give him to Latin ears. Among these was our brother and associate [i.e., Jerome], who was so requested by Bishop Damasus, when he translated the two homilies on the Song of Songs from Greek into Latin, prefixed to the work a preface so full of beauty and so magnificent that he awoke in every one the desire of reading Origen and of eagerly examining his works, and he said that to the soul of that man the words might well be applied, “The King has brought me into his chamber” [Cant. 2:4], and he declared that Origen in his other books surpassed all other men, but in this had surpassed himself. What he promised in his preface is, indeed, that he would give to Roman ears not only these books on the Song of Songs, but many others of Origen. But, as I perceive, he is so pleased with his own style that he pursues an object bringing him more glory, viz., to be the father of a book rather than a translator. I am therefore following out a task begun by him and commended by him.… In translation, I follow as far as possible the method of my predecessors, and especially of him whom I have already mentioned, who, after he had translated into Latin above seventy of the books of Origen, which he called Homilies, and also a certain number of the tomes written on the Apostle [the Epistles of St. Paul], since a number of offensive passages are to be found in the Greek, eliminated and purged, in his translation, all of them, so that the Latin reader will find nothing in these which jar on our faith. Him, therefore, we follow, not indeed with the power of his eloquence, but as far as we can in his rules and methods: that is, taking care not to promulgate those things which in the books of Origen are found to be discrepant and contradictory one to the other. The cause of these variations I have set forth fully in the apology which Pamphilus wrote for the books of Origen, to which is appended a short treatise showing how proofs which, as I judge, are quite clear in his books have in many cases been falsified by heretical and evil-disposed persons.

(f) Augustine, Ep. 73, Ch. 8. (MSL, 33:249.)

The attempt of Augustine to bring about a reconciliation between Rufinus and Jerome. Jerome had written some affectionate words to Augustine to which he alludes in the beginning of the following passage:

When, by these words, now not only yours but also mine, I am gladdened and refreshed, and when I am comforted not a little by the desire of both of us for mutual fellowship, which has been suspended and is not satisfied, suddenly I am pierced through by the darts of keenest sorrow when I consider that between you [i.e., Rufinus and Jerome] (to whom God granted in fullest measure and for a long time that which both of us have longed for, that in closest and most intimate fellowship you tasted together the honey of Holy Scriptures) such a blight of bitterness has broken out, when, where, and in whom it was not to be feared, since it has befallen you at the very time when, unencumbered, having cast away secular burdens, you were following the Lord, were living together in that land in which the Lord walked with human feet, when He said, “Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you”; being, moreover, men of mature age, whose life was devoted to the study of the word of God. Truly, “man’s life on earth is a period of trial” [Job 7:1]. Alas, that I cannot meet you both together, perchance that in agitation, grief, and fear I might cast myself at your feet, weep till I could weep no more, and appeal as I love you, first to each of you for his own sake, and then for the sake of those, especially the weak, “for whom Christ died” [I Cor. 8:11], who to their great peril look on you as on the stage of time, imploring you not to scatter abroad, in writing, those things about each other which when reconciled, you, who are now unwilling to be reconciled, could not then destroy, and which when reconciled you would not dare to read lest you should quarrel anew.

(g) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VI, 15. (MSG, 67:708.)

The fall of Chrysostom.

Epiphanius had gone to Constantinople on the suggestion of Theophilus, and there, in his zeal, had violated the canons of ordination as generally received. In this case he had ordained priests in the diocese of Chrysostom and without his permission. Other troubles had arisen. On being called to account for his conduct by Chrysostom, Epiphanius hastily left the city, and died on the voyage back to his diocese, Salamis, in Cyprus.

When Epiphanius had gone John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had set Epiphanius against him. Being of a fiery temperament and of ready utterance, he soon after pronounced to the public an invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the Empress, and so the speech, laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, was brought to the knowledge of those in authority. At length the Empress, having been informed of it, immediately complained to her husband of the insult offered her, saying that the insult offered her was an insult to him. He therefore gave orders that Theophilus should speedily convoke a synod against John; Severianus also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge [i.e., against Chrysostom. See DCB, art. “Severianus, bishop of Gabala.”]. No great length of time, accordingly, intervened before Theophilus arrived, having stirred up many bishops from different cities; but this, also, the summons of the Emperor had commanded. Especially did they assemble who had one cause or another of complaint against John, and there were present besides those whom John had deposed, for John had deposed many bishops in Asia when he went to Ephesus for the ordination of Heraclides. Accordingly they all, by previous agreement, assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia.… Now none of the clergy [i.e., of Constantinople] would go forth to meet Theophilus or pay him the customary honors because he was openly known as John’s enemy. But the Alexandrian sailors—for it happened that at that time the grain-transport ships were there—on meeting him, greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called “The Placidian.” Then, in consequence of this, many accusations began to be poured forth against John, and no longer was there any mention of the books of Origen, but all were intent on pressing a variety of absurd accusations. When these preliminary matters were settled the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, which is called “The Oak,” and immediately cited John to answer charges which were brought against him.… And since John, taking exception to those who cited him, on the ground that they were his enemies, demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their citation four times; and as he persisted in his refusal to answer, always giving the same reply, they condemned him, and deposed him without giving any other cause for his deposition than that he refused to obey when summoned. This, being announced toward evening, incited the people to a very great sedition, insomuch that they kept watch all night and would by no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that the charges against him ought to be determined by a larger assembly. A decree of the Emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled and sent into exile. When John knew this he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon, unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation; for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and he was accordingly led away.

(h) Theophilus of Alexandria, Ep. ad Hieronymum, in Jerome, Ep. 113. (MSL, 22:932.)

Theophilus on the fall of Chrysostom.

To the well-beloved and most loving brother Jerome, Theophilus sends greeting in the Lord.

At the outset the verdict of truth satisfies but few; but the Lord, speaking by the prophet, says, “My judgment goeth forth as the light,” and they who are surrounded with a horror of darkness do not with clear mind perceive the nature of things, and they are covered with eternal shame and know by their outcome that their efforts have been in vain. Wherefore we also have always desired that John [Chrysostom], who for a time ruled the church of Constantinople, might please God, and we have been unwilling to accept as facts the cause of his ruin in which he behaved himself rashly. But not to speak of his other misdeed, he has by taking the Origenists into his confidences,(184) by advancing many of them to the priesthood, and by this crime saddening with no slight grief that man of God, Epiphanius, of blessed memory, who has shone throughout all the world a bright star among bishops, deserved to hear the words, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen.”

§ 88. The Christological Problem and the Theological Tendencies

The Arian controversy in bringing about the affirmation of the true deity of the Son, or Logos, left the Church with the problem of the unity of the divine and human natures in the personality of Jesus. It seemed to not a few that to combine perfect deity with perfect humanity would result in two personalities. Holding fast, therefore, to the reality of the human nature, a solution was attempted by Apollinarius, or Apollinaris, by making the divine Logos take the place of the human logos or reason. Mankind consisted of three parts: a body, an animal soul, and a rational spirit. The Logos was thus united to humanity by substituting the divine for the human logos. But this did violence to the integrity of the human nature of Christ. This attempt on the part of Apollinaris was rejected at Constantinople, but also by the Church generally. The human natures must be complete if human nature was deified by the assumption of man in the incarnation. On this basis two tendencies showed themselves quite early: the human nature might be lost in the divinity, or the human and the divine natures might be kept distinct and parallel or in such a way that certain acts might be assigned to the divine and certain to the human nature. The former line of thought, adopted by the Cappadocians, tended toward the position assumed by Cyril of Alexandria and in a more extreme form by the Monophysites. The latter line of thought tended toward what was regarded as the position of Nestorius. In this position there was such a sharp cleavage between the divine and the human natures as apparently to create a double personality in the incarnate Son. This divergence of theological statement gave rise to the christological controversies which continued in various forms through several centuries in the East, and have reappeared in various disguises in the course of the Church’s theological development.

Additional source material: There are several exegetical works of Cyril of Alexandria available in English, see Bardenhewer, § 77, also a German translation of three treatises bearing on christology in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenväter, 1879. For the general point of view of the Cappadocians and the relation of the incarnation to redemption, see Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism (PNF, ser. II, vol. V), v. infra, § 89 and references in Seeberg, § 23.

(a) Apollinaris, Fragments. Ed. H. Lietzmann.

His Christology.

The following fragments of the teaching of Apollinaris are from H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen, 1904. Many fragments are to be found in the Dialogues which Theodoret wrote against Eutychianism, which he traced to the teaching of Apollinaris. The first condemnation of Apollinaris was at Rome, 377, see Hefele, § 91; Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 10, gives the letter of Damasus issued in the name of the synod.

P. 224 . If God had been joined with a man, one complete being with another complete being, there would be two sons of God, one Son of God by nature, another through adoption.

P. 247 . They who assume a twofold spirit in Christ pull a stone out with their finger. For if each is independent and impelled by its own natural will, it is impossible that in one and the same subject the two can be together, who will what is opposed to each other; for each works what is willed by it according to its own proper and personal motives.

P. 248 . They who speak of one Christ, and assert that there are two independent spiritual natures in Him, do not know Him as the Logos made flesh, who has remained in His natural unity, for they represent Him as divided into two unlike natures and modes of operation.

P. 239 . If a man has soul and body, and both remain distinguished in unity, how much more has Christ, who joins His divine being with a body, both as a permanent possession without any commingling one with the other?

P. 209 [21, 22]. The Logos became flesh, but the flesh was not without a soul, for it is said that it strives against the spirit and opposes the law of the understanding. [In this Apollinaris takes up the trichotomy of human nature, a view which he did not apparently hold at the beginning of his teaching.]

P. 240 . John [John 2:19] spoke of the destroyed temple, that is, of the body of Him who would raise it up again. The body is altogether one with Him. But if the body of the Lord has become one with the Lord, then the characteristics of the body are proved to be characteristics of Him on account of the body.

(b) Apollinaris, Letter to the Emperor Jovian. Lietzmann, 250 ff.

We confess the Son of God who was begotten eternally before all times, but in the last times was for our salvation born of Mary according to the flesh; … and we confess that the same is the Son of God and God according to the spirit, Son of man according to the flesh; we do not speak of two natures in the one Son, of which one is to be worshipped and one is not to be worshipped, but of only one nature of the Logos of God, which has become flesh and with His flesh is worshipped with one worship; and we confess not two sons, one who is truly God’s Son to be worshipped and another the man—who is of Mary and is not to be worshipped, who by the power of grace had become the Son of God, as is also the case with men, but one Son of God who at the same time was born of Mary according to the flesh in the last days, as the angel answered the Theotokos Mary who asked, “How shall this be?”—“The Holy Ghost will come upon thee.” He, accordingly, who was born of the Virgin Mary was Son of God by nature and truly God … only according to the flesh from Mary was He man, but at the same time, according to the spirit, Son of God; and God has in His own flesh suffered our sorrows.

(c) Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. I ad Cledonium. (MSG, 37:181.)

In this epistle Gregory attacks Apollinaris, basing his argument on the notion of salvation by incarnation, which formed the foundation of the most characteristic piety of the East, had been used as a major premise by Athanasius in opposition to Arianism, and runs back to Irenæus and the Asia Minor school; see above, § 33.

If any one trusted in a man without a human mind, he is himself really bereft of mind and quite unworthy of salvation. For what has not been assumed has not been healed; but what has been united to God is saved. If only half of Adam fell, then that which is assumed and saved may be half also; but if the whole, it must be united to the whole of Him that was begotten and be saved as a whole. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, or clothe the Saviour only with bones and nerves and the semblance of humanity. For if His manhood is without soul [ἄψυχος], even the Arians admit this, that they may attribute His passion to the godhead, as that which gives motion to the body is also that which suffers. But if He had a soul and yet is without a mind, how is He a man, for man is not a mindless [ἄνουν] animal? And this would necessarily involve that His form was human, and also His tabernacle, but His soul was that of a horse, or an ox, or some other creature without mind. This, then, would be what is saved, and I have been deceived in the Truth, and have been boasting an honor when it was another who was honored. But if His manhood is intellectual and not without mind, let them cease to be thus really mindless.

But, says some one, the godhead was sufficient in place of the human intellect. What, then, is this to me? For godhead with flesh alone is not man, nor with soul alone, nor with both apart from mind, which is the most essential part of man. Keep, then, the whole man, and mingle godhead therewith, that you may benefit me in my completeness. But, as he asserts [i.e., Apollinaris], He could not contain two perfect natures. Not if you only regard Him in a bodily fashion. For a bushel measure will not hold two bushels, nor will the space of one body hold two or more bodies. But if you will look at what is mental and incorporeal, remember that I myself can contain soul and reason and mind and the Holy Spirit; and before me this world, by which I mean the system of things visible and invisible, contained Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For such is the nature of intellectual existences that they can mingle with one another and with bodies, incorporeally and invisibly.…

Further, let us see what is their account of the assumption of the manhood, or the assumption of the flesh, as they call it. If it was in order that God, otherwise incomprehensible, might be comprehended, and might converse with men through His flesh as through a veil, their mask is a pretty one, a hypocritical fable; for it was open to Him to converse with us in many other ways, as in the burning bush [Ex. 3:2] and in the appearance of a man [Gen. 18:5]. But if it was that He might destroy the condemnation of sin by sanctifying like by like, then as He needed flesh for the sake of the condemned flesh and soul for the sake of the soul, so also He needed mind for the sake of mind, which not only fell in Adam but was first to be affected, as physicians say, of the illness. For that which received the commandment was that which failed to observe the commandment, and that which failed to observe the commandment was that also which dared to transgress, and that which transgressed was that which stood most in need of salvation, and that which needed salvation was that which also was assumed. Therefore mind was taken upon Him.

(d) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Epistula Synodica. Hefele, § 98.

Condemnation of Apollinarianism.

At the Council of Constantinople held the year after that which is known as the Second General Council, and attended by nearly the same bishops, there was an express condemnation of Apollinaris and his doctrine, for though Apollinaris had been condemned in 381, the point of doctrine was not stated. The synodical letter of the council of 382 is preserved only in part in Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 9, who concludes his account with these words:

Similarly they openly condemn the innovation of Apollinarius [so Theodoret writes the name] in the phrase, “And we preserve the doctrine of the incarnation of the Lord, holding the tradition that the dispensation of the flesh is neither soulless, nor mindless, nor imperfect.”

(e) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Creed. Hahn, § 215.

The position of the Nestorians.

The following extracts are from the creed which was presented at the Council of Ephesus, 431, and was written by Theodore of Mopsuestia, the greatest theologian of the party which stood with Nestorius. Although it does not state the whole doctrine of Theodore, yet its historical position is so important that its characteristic passages belong in the present connection. Bibliographical and critical notes in Hahn, loc. cit.

Concerning the dispensation which the Lord God accomplished for our salvation in the dispensation according to the Lord Christ, it is necessary for us to know that the Lord God the Logos assumed a complete man, who was of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the statement of the divine Scriptures, and was according to nature whatsoever they were of whose seed He was, a perfect man according to nature, consisting of reasonable soul and human flesh, and the man who was as to nature as we are, formed by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin, born of a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem us all from the bondage of the law [Gal. 4:4] who receive the adoption of sonship which was long before ordained, that man He joined to himself in an ineffable manner.…

And we do not say that there are two Sons or two Lords, because there is one God [Son?] according to substance, God the Word, the only begotten Son of the Father, and He who has been joined with Him is a participator in His deity and shares in the name and honor of the Son; and the Lord according to essence is God the Word, with whom that which is joined shares in honor. And therefore we say neither two Sons nor two Lords, because one is He who has an inseparable conjunction with Himself of Him who according to essence is Lord and Son, who, having been assumed for our salvation, is with Him received as well in the name as in the honor of both Son and Lord, not as each one of us individually is a son of God (wherefore also we are called many sons of God, according to the blessed Paul), but He alone in an unique manner having this, namely, in that He was joined to God the Word, participating in the Sonship and dignity, takes away every thought of two Sons or two Lords, and offers indeed to us in conjunction with the God the Word, to have all faith in Him and all understanding and contemplation, on account of which things also He receives from every creature the worship and sacrifice of God. Therefore we say that there is one Lord, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom all things were made, understanding principally God the Word, who according to substance is Son of God and Lord, equally regarding that which was assumed, Jesus of Nazareth, who God anointed with the Spirit and power, as in conjunction with God the Lord, and participating in sonship and dignity, who also is called the second Adam, according to the blessed Apostle Paul, as being of the same nature as Adam.

(f) Theodore of Mopsuestia, Fragments. Swete, Theodori epis. Mops. in epistulas b. Pauli commentarii, Cambridge, 1880, 1882.

In the appendix to the second volume of this work by Theodore there are many fragments of Theodore’s principal dogmatic work, On the Incarnation, directed against Eunomius. The work as a whole has not been preserved. In the same appendix there are also other important fragments. The references are to this edition.

P. 299. If we distinguish the two natures, we speak of one complete nature of God the Word and a complete person (πρόσωπον). But we name complete also the nature of the man and also the person. If we think on the conjunction (συνάφεια) then we speak of one person.

P. 312. In the moment in which He [Jesus] was formed [in the womb of the Virgin] He received the destination of being a temple of God. For we should not believe that God was born of the Virgin unless we are willing to assume that one and the same is that which is born and what is in that which is born, the temple, and God the Logos in the temple.… If God had become flesh, how could He who was born be named God from God [cf. Nicene Creed], and of one being with the Father? for the flesh does not admit of such a designation.

P. 314. The Logos was always in Jesus, also by His birth and when He was in the womb, at the first moment of his beginning; to His development He gave the rule and measure, and led Him from step to step to perfection.

P. 310. If it is asked, did Mary bear a man, or is she the bearer of God [Theotokos], we can say that both statements are true. One is true according to the nature of the case; the other only relatively. She bore a man according to nature, for He was a man who was in the womb of Mary.… She is Theotokos, since God was in the man who was born; not enclosed in Him according to nature, but was in Him according to the relation of His will.

(g) Nestorius, Fragments. Loofs, Nestoriana.

The fragments of Nestorius have been collected by Loofs, Nestoriana, Halle, 1905; to this work the references are made. It now appears that what was condemned as Nestorianism was a perversion of his teaching and that Nestorius was himself in harmony with the definition which was put forth at Chalcedon, a council which he survived and regarded as a vindication of his position after the wrong done him at Ephesus by Cyril; cf. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and His Teaching, Cambridge, 1908.

P. 252. Is Paul a liar when he speaks of the godhead of Christ and says: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy”? My good friend, Mary has not born the godhead, for that which is born of the flesh is flesh.… A creature has not born the Creator, but she bore a man, the organ of divinity; the Holy Ghost did not create God the Word, but with that which was born of the Virgin He prepared for God the Word, a temple, in which He should dwell.

P. 177. Whenever the Holy Scriptures make mention of the works of salvation prepared by the Lord, they speak of the birth and suffering, not of the divinity but of the humanity of Christ; therefore, according to a more exact expression the holy Virgin is named the bearer of Christ [Christotokos].

P. 167. If any one will bring forward the designation, “Theotokos,” because the humanity that was born was conjoined with the Word, not because of her who bore, so we say that, although the name is not appropriate to her who bore, for the actual mother must be of the same substance as her child, yet it can be endured in consideration of the fact that the temple, which is inseparably united with God the Word, comes of her.

P. 196. Each nature must retain its peculiar attributes, and so we must, in regard to the union, wonderful and exalted far above all understanding, think of one honor and confess one Son.… With the one name Christ we designate at the same time two natures.… The essential characteristics in the nature of the divinity and in the humanity are from all eternity distinguished.

P. 275. God the Word is also named Christ because He has always conjunction with Christ. And it is impossible for God the Word to do anything without the humanity, for all is planned upon an intimate conjunction, not on the deification of the humanity.

(h) Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, V, 5. (MSG, 45:705.)

The Christology of the Cappadocians.

The Cappadocians use language which was afterward condemned when given its extreme Alexandrian interpretation. Hefele, § 127, may be consulted with profit.

The flesh is not identical with the godhead before this is transformed into the godhead, so that necessarily some things are appropriate to God the Word, other things to the form of a servant. If, then, he [Eunomius] does not reproach himself with a duality of Words, on account of such confusion, why are we slanderously charged with dividing the faith into two Christs, we who say that He who was highly exalted after His passion, was made Lord and Christ by His union with Him who is verily Lord and Christ, knowing by what we have learned that the divine nature is always one and the same mode of existence, while the flesh in itself is that which reason and sense apprehend concerning it, but when mixed with the divine it no longer remains in its own limitations and properties, but is taken up to that which is overwhelming and transcendent. Our contemplation, however, of the respective properties of the flesh and of the godhead remains free from confusion, so long as each of these is considered in itself, as, for example, “The Word was before the ages, but flesh came into being in the last times.”… It is not the human nature that raises up Lazarus, nor is it the power that cannot suffer that weeps for him when he lies in the grave; the tear proceeds from the man, the life from the true Life.… So much as this is clear … that the blows belong to the servant in whom the Lord was, the honors to the Lord, whom the servant compassed about, so that by reason of contact and the union of natures the proper attributes of each belong to both, as the Lord receives the stripes of the servant, while the servant is glorified with the honor of the Lord.

The godhead “empties” itself that it may come within the capacity of the human nature, and the human nature is renewed by becoming divine through its commixture with the divine.… As fire that lies in wood, hidden often below the surface, and is unobserved by the senses of those who see or even touch it, is manifest, however, when it blazes up, so too, at His death (which He brought about at His will, who separated His soul from His body, who said to His own Father “Into Thy hands I commend My spirit” [Luke 23:46], “who,” as He says, “had power to lay it down and had power to take it again”), He who, because He is the Lord of glory, despised that which is shame among men, having concealed, as it were, the flame of His life in His bodily nature, by the dispensation of His death, kindled and inflamed it once more by the power of His own godhead, warming into life that which had been made dead, having infused with the infinity of His divine power those humble first-fruits of our nature; made it also to be that which He himself was, the servile form to be the Lord, and the man born of Mary to be Christ, and Him, who was crucified through weakness, to be life and power, and making all such things as are piously conceived to be in God the Word to be also in that which the Word assumed; so that these attributes no longer seem to be in either nature, being, by commixture with the divine, made anew in conformity with the nature that overwhelms it; participates in the power of the godhead, as if one were to say that a mixture makes a drop of vinegar mingled in the deep to be sea, for the reason that the natural quality of this liquid does not continue in the infinity of that which overwhelms it.

§ 89. The Nestorian Controversy; the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431.

The Council of Ephesus was called to settle the dispute which had arisen between Cyril and the Alexandrians and Nestorius, archbishop of Constantinople, and the Antiochians. Several councils had been held previously, and much acrimonious debate. Both parties desired a council to adjust the dispute. The Emperor Theodosius II, in an edict of November 19, 430, called a council to be held on the following Whitsunday at Ephesus. The council was opened by Cyril and Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, June 22, a few days after the date assigned. This opening of the synod was opposed by the imperial commissioner and the party of Nestorius, because many of the Antiochians had not yet arrived. Cyril and Memnon, who had undertaken to bring about the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius, forced through their programme. On June 26 or 27 the Antiochians arrived, and, under the presidency of John of Antioch, and with the approval of the imperial commissioner, they held a council attended by about fifty bishops, while two hundred attended the rival council under Cyril. This smaller council deposed Cyril and Memnon. Both synods appealed to the Emperor and were confirmed by him. But shortly after Cyril and Memnon were restored. The Antiochians now violently attacked the successful Alexandrians but, having abandoned Nestorius, patched up a union with the Alexandrians, by which Cyril subscribed in 433 to a creed drawn up by the Antiochians, probably by Theodoret of Cyrus. Accordingly, the council of Cyril was now recognized by the Antiochians, as well as by the imperial authority, and became known as the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431.

Additional source material: Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 29-34; Theodoret, Epistulæ in PNF, ser. II, vol. III, and his counter propositions to the Anathemas of Cyril, ibid., pp. 27-31; Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (PNF).

(a) Cyril of Alexandria, Anathematisms. Hahn, § 219.

Condemnation of the position of Nestorius.

Cyril held a council at Alexandria in 430, in which he set forth the teaching of Nestorius, as he understood it, in the form of anathemas against any who held the opinions which he set forth in order. Nestorius immediately replied by corresponding anathematisms. They may be found translated PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV, p. 206, where they are placed alongside of Cyril’s. In the meantime, Celestine of Rome had called upon Nestorius to retract, though as a matter of fact the Nestorian or Antiochian position was more in harmony with the position held in Rome, e.g., compare Anath. IV with the language of Nestorius and Leo, see Tome of Leo in § 90. A Greek text of these Anathematisms of Cyril may be found also in Denziger, n. 113, as they were described in the Fifth General Council as part of the acts of the Council of Ephesus A. D. 431; the Latin version (the Greek is lost) of the Anathematisms of Nestorius, as given by Marius Mercator are in Kirch, nn. 724-736.

I. If any one shall not confess that the Emmanuel is in truth God, and that therefore the holy Virgin is Theotokos, inasmuch as according to the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh; let him be anathema.

II. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united according to hypostasis to flesh, and that with the flesh of His own He is one Christ, the same manifestly God and man at the same time; let him be anathema.

III. If any one after the union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by a connection only, which is according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by a union according to nature; let him be anathema.

IV. If any one divide between the two persons or hypostases the expressions in the evangelical and apostolic writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the saints, or by Himself concerning Himself, and shall apply some to Him as to a man regarded separately apart from the Word of God, and shall apply others, as appropriate to God only, to the Word of God the Father; let him be anathema.

V. If any one dare to say that the Christ is a god-bearing man, and not rather that He is in truth God, as an only Son by nature, because “The Word was made flesh,” and hath share in flesh and blood as we have; let him be anathema.

VI. If any one shall dare to say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess Him as at the same time both God and man, since according to the Scriptures the Word became flesh; let him be anathema.

VII. If any one say that Jesus is, as a man, energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only begotten is attributed to Him as being something else than His own; let him be anathema.

VIII. If any one say that the man assumed ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with Him, and recognized together with Him as God, as one being with another (for this phrase “together with” is added to convey this meaning) and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay Him one glorification, because “the Word was made flesh”; let him be anathema.

IX. If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit, so that He used through Him a power not His own, and from Him received power against unclean spirits, and power to perform divine signs before men, and shall not rather confess that it was His own spirit, through which He worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.

X. The divine Scriptures say that Christ was made the high priest and apostle of our confession [Heb. 3:1], and that for our sakes He offered Himself as a sweet odor to God the Father. If then any one say that it is not the divine Word himself, when He was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than He, a man born of a woman, yet different from Him who has become our high priest and apostle; or if any one say that He offered Himself as an offering for Himself, and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, He had no need of offering; let him be anathema.

XI. If any one shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving, and belongs to the Word of God the Father as His very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another who is united to Him according to worthiness, and who has served as only a dwelling for the Divinity; and shall not rather confess that that flesh is life-giving, as we say, because it has been made the possession of the Word who is able to give life to all; let him be anathema.

XII. If any one shall not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and that He was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise He tasted death in the flesh, and that He is become the first-born from the dead [Col. 1:18], for as God He is the life and life-giving; let him be anathema.

(b) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431. Condemnation of Nestorius. Mansi, IV, 1211.

The text may also be found in Hefele, § 134, under the First Session of the Council.

The holy synod says: Since in addition to other things the impious Nestorius has not obeyed our Citation and did not receive the most holy and God-fearing bishops who were sent to him by us, we were compelled to proceed to the examination of his impieties. And, discovering from his letters and treatises and from the discourses recently delivered by him in this metropolis, which have been testified to, that he has held and published impious doctrines, and being compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and fellow-servant Celestine, the Roman bishop, we have come, with many tears, to this sorrowful sentence against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ whom he has blasphemed, decrees through the present most holy synod that Nestorius be excluded from the episcopal dignity and from all priestly communion.

(c) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Ep. ad Celestinum. Mansi, IV, 1330-1338.

The letter is very long and gives an almost complete history of the council. It may be found complete in PNF, loc. cit., p. 237. It is of special importance in connection with the Pelagian controversy, as it states that the Council of Ephesus had confirmed the Western deposition of the Pelagians.

The letters were read which were written to him [Nestorius] by the most holy and reverend bishop of the church of Alexandria, Cyril, which the holy synod approved as being orthodox and without fault, and in no point out of agreement, either with the divinely inspired Scriptures, or with the faith handed down and set forth in the great synod by the holy Fathers who were assembled some time ago at Nicæa, as your holiness, also rightly having examined this, has given witness.…

When there had been read in the holy synod what had been done touching the deposition of the irreligious Pelagians and Celestinians, of Celestius, Pelagius, Julianus, Præsidius, Florus, Marcellinus, and Orontius, and those inclined to like errors, we also deemed it right that the determinations of your holiness concerning them should stand strong and firm. And we all were of the same mind, holding them deposed.

(d) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Canons, Bruns, I, 24.

The text may be found also in Hefele, § 141.

Whereas it is needful that they who were detained from the holy synod and remained in their own district or city for any reason, ecclesiastical or personal, should not be ignorant of the matters which were decreed by the synod; we therefore notify your holiness and charity that——

I. If any metropolitan of a province, forsaking the holy and ecumenical synod, has joined the assembly of apostasy [the council under John of Antioch], or shall join the same hereafter; or if he has adopted, or shall adopt, the doctrines of Celestius,(185) he has no power in any way to do anything in opposition to the bishops of the province because he is already cast forth by the synod from all ecclesiastical communion, and is without authority; but he shall be subjected to the same bishops of the province and to the neighboring bishops who hold the orthodox doctrines, to be degraded completely from his episcopal rank.

II. If any provincial bishops were not present at the holy synod, and have joined or attempted to join the apostasy; or if, after subscribing to the deposition of Nestorius, they went back to the assembly of apostasy, these, according to the decree of the holy synod, are to be deposed completely from the priesthood and degraded from their rank.

(e) Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, Manifesto of John of Antioch and his council against Cyril and his council. Mansi, IV, 1271.

The holy synod assembled in Ephesus, by the grace of God and at the command of the pious emperors, declares: We should indeed have wished to be able to hold a synod in peace, according to the canons of the holy Fathers and the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors; but because you held a separate assembly from a heretical, insolent, and obstinate disposition, although, according to the letters of our most pious emperors, we were in the neighborhood, and because you have filled both the city and the holy synod with every sort of confusion, in order to prevent the examination of points agreeing with the Apollinarian, Arian, and Eunomian heresies and impieties, and have not waited for the arrival of the most religious bishops summoned from all regions by our pious emperors, and when the most magnificent Count Candidianus warned you and admonished you in writing and verbally that you should not hear such a matter, but await the common judgment of all the most holy bishops; therefore know thou, O Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, and thou, O Memnon, bishop of this city, that ye are dismissed and deposed from all sacerdotal functions as the originators and leaders of all this disorder and lawlessness, and those who have violated the canons of the Fathers and the imperial decrees. And all ye others who seditiously and wickedly, and contrary to all ecclesiastical sanctions and the royal decrees, gave your consent are excommunicated until you acknowledge your fault and reform and accept anew the faith set forth by the holy Fathers at Nicæa, adding to it nothing foreign or different, and until ye anathematize the heretical propositions of Cyril, which are plainly repugnant to evangelical and apostolic doctrine, and in all things comply with the letters of our most pious and Christ-loving emperors, who require a peaceful and accurate consideration of the dogma.

(f) Creed of Antioch A. D. 433. Hahn, § 170.

This creed was probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus, and was sent by Count Johannes to the Emperor Theodosius in 431 as expressing the teaching of the Antiochian party. The bitterest period of the Nestorian controversy was after the council which is commonly regarded as having settled it. The Antiochians and the Alexandrians attacked each other vigorously. At last, in 433, John, bishop of Antioch, sent the creed given below to Cyril of Alexandria, who signed it. The creed expresses accurately the position of Nestorius. In this way a union was patched up between the contending parties. But the irreconcilable Nestorians left the Church permanently. This creed in the form in which it had been presented to the Emperor was at the beginning and the end worded somewhat differently, cf. Hahn, loc. cit., note.

We therefore acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, complete God and complete man, of a rational soul and body; begotten of the Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in the last days for us and for our salvation, of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood; that He is of the same nature as the Father according to His godhead, and of the same nature with us according to His manhood; for a union of the two natures has been made; therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this conception of the unconfused union, we confess that the holy Virgin is Theotokos, because God the Word was made flesh and became man, and from her conception united with Himself the temple received from her. We recognize the evangelical and apostolic utterances concerning the Lord, making common, as in one person, the divine and the human characteristics, but distinguishing them as in two natures; and teaching that the godlike traits are according to the godhead of Christ, and the humble traits according to His manhood.

§ 90. The Eutychian Controversy and the Council of Chalcedon A. D. 451

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 Dorylæum 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 formulæ 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 Nicæa, and is theologically second only to that in importance. At Nicæa 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 Nicæa and Ephesus, A. D. 431, and the so-called creed of Constantinople is placed on the same level as the creed put forth at Nicæa. The creed of Constantinople eventually took the place of the creed of Nicæa 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 Nicæa], 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 Nicæa 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 Nicæa.” 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 Hergenröther, 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.

§ 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 Nicæa 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 Ælurus, 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: “God 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 Leo’s 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 Nicæa 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 Cæsar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, and Marcus, the most noble Cæsar, to Timotheus, archbishop of the great city of the Alexandrians, most reverend and beloved of God.

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 God 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 godly zeal and offering to God 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 assembled with the Holy Ghost at Nicæa, 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 God 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 God; the acts of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled 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 God, 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 passage would be: and of the one hundred and fifty bishops who decreed concerning the Holy Spirit; and of those who were assembled at Ephesus] that no one, either of the priesthood or laity, be allowed to deviate in any respect from that most sacred constitution 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 God 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 assembled 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 God, in an endeavor to bring about that unity which all desire for the holy churches of God, 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 place—those persons, as the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the whole body of our subjects, and as enemies of God 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 homoousian 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 document: “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 document, 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 God who suffers. These are characteristic Monophysite positions.

The Emperor Cæsar 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.

Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible shield of our sovereignty, is the only right and true faith, which the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa set forth by divine inspiration, and the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers who in like manner met at Constantinople, confirmed; we night and day employ every means of prayer, of zealous care, and of laws, that the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God in every place may be multiplied, which is the incorruptible and immortal mother of our sceptre; and that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity in respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites, and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications in behalf of our sovereignty. So long as our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, who was made man and brought forth of Mary, the holy Virgin and Theotokos, approves and readily accepts the praise we render by concord and our service, the power of enemies will be crushed and swept away, and all will bend their necks to our power, which is according to God, and peace and its blessings, kindly temperature, abundant produce, and whatever else is beneficial will be liberally bestowed upon men. Since, then, the irreprehensible faith is the preserver of both ourselves and Roman affairs, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits and other venerable persons, imploring with tears that there be unity for the most holy churches, and the parts should be joined to parts which the enemy of all good has of old time attempted to keep apart, knowing that, if he assails the body of the Church sound and complete, he will be defeated. For, since it happens that of unnumbered generations which during the lapse of so many years in time have withdrawn from life, some have departed deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man without having partaken of the divine communion; and innumerable murders have also been committed; and not only the earth, but the very air has been filled by a multitude of blood-sheddings, who would not pray that this state of things might be transformed into good? For this reason we were anxious that you should know that neither we nor the churches everywhere have ever held or shall hold, nor are we aware of any persons who hold, any other symbol or teaching or definition of faith or creed than the aforementioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which the aforesaid one hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. If any person should hold such, we regard him as an alien; for we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty. And all the people desiring the saving illumination were baptized, receiving this faith only, and this the holy Fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed; who deposed the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments. And this Nestorius we also anathematize, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to the above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the twelve chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly archbishop of the holy Catholic Church of the Alexandrians. We confess, moreover, that the only begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly became man, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with the Father as to his godhead, and the same consubstantial with ourselves as respects his manhood; that having descended and become flesh of the Holy Ghost and Mary, the Virgin and Theotokos, He is one and not two; for we affirm that both His miracles and the sufferings which He voluntarily endured in the flesh, are of one; for we do not in any degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion or introduce a phantom; inasmuch as His truly sinless incarnation from the Theotokos did not produce an addition of a son, because the Trinity continued as a Trinity, even when one of the Trinity, God the Word, did become incarnate. Knowing, then, that neither the holy orthodox churches of God in all places nor the priests, highly beloved of God, who are at their head, nor our own sovereignty, have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the before-mentioned holy teaching, we have united ourselves thereunto without hesitation. And these things we write, not as making an innovation upon the faith, but to satisfy you; and every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or at another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematize; and specially the aforementioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother, the Church, and in her enjoy divine communion with us, according to the aforesaid one and only definition of the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. For your all-holy mother, the Church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your gentle voice so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for by so doing you will both draw toward yourselves the favor of our Master and Saviour and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty.

§ 92. The Church of Italy under the Ostrogoths and during the first Schism between Rome and the Eastern Church

The schism between New and Old Rome lasted from 484 to 517, but attempts were made on both sides to end the deplorable situation. The two successors of Acacius were willing to resume communion with Rome and restore the name of the bishop of Rome to the diptychs, but refused to take the names of their predecessors from the same, as required by the latter. Gelasius (492-496), Anastasius II (496-498), and Symmachus (498-514) held firmly but unavailingly to the Roman contention that, before any communion was possible, the name of Acacius must be struck from the diptychs—in the case of the dead an act as condemnatory as excommunication in the case of the living. Meanwhile the Roman see boldly asserted the independence of the Church, and protested against the action of the Emperor in setting aside the decree of Chalcedon as usurpation and tyranny. This is most clearly set forth by Gelasius, in his epistle to the Emperor Anastasius. The schism finally came to an end in 519, in accordance with the ecclesiastical policy of Justinian, and at that time the Formula of Hormisdas (514-523) was accepted by the heads of the Eastern Church by an act constituting a complete surrender of the claims of the Orientals.

While the schism was still existing and Rome was treating with the East upon an independent footing, the situation in Italy was far less brilliant. The Arian king, the Ostrogoth Theodoric (489, 493-526) ruled Italy, and the attitude of the Roman see was far less authoritative toward the local ruler. It was, however, a period of great importance for the future of the Church; Boethius, Cassiodorus, Dionysius Exiguus, and Benedict of Nursia (v. infra, §§ 104, 105) all belong to this period and the decree of Gelasius, De Recipiendis Libris, was of permanent influence upon the theological science of the West.

Additional source material: Cassiodorus, Varia, Eng. trans. (condensed), by T. Hodgkin (The Letters of Cassiodorus), London, 1886.

(a) Gelasius, Ep. ad Imp. Anastasium. (MSL, 59:42.)

A definition of the relation between the secular and religious authority.

The date of this epistle is 494. The period is not dealt with at any length in English works on ecclesiastical history; see, however. T. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, II, pp. 41-84, the chapter entitled “Papal Prerogative under Popes Gelasius and Symmachus.”

After Gelasius has alluded to the circumstances in which he is writing and excused his not writing, he mentions his natural devotion to the Roman Emperor—being himself by birth a Roman citizen—his desire as a Christian to share with him the right faith, and as vicar of the Apostolic See his constant anxiety to maintain the true faith; he then proceeds:

I beseech your piety not to regard as arrogance duty in divine affairs. Far be it from a Roman prince, I pray, to regard as injury truth that has been intimated to him. For, indeed, there are, O Emperor Augustus, two by whom principally this world is ruled: the sacred authority of the pontiffs and the royal power. Of these the importance of the priests is so much the greater, as even for kings of men they will have to give an account in the divine judgment. Know, indeed, most clement son, that although you worthily rule over the human race, yet as a man of devotion in divine matters you submit your neck to the prelates, and also from them you await the matters of your salvation, and in making use of the celestial sacraments and in administering those things you know that you ought, as is right, to be subjected to the order of religion rather than preside over it; know likewise that in regard to these things you are dependent upon their judgment and you should not bend them to your will. For if, so far as it pertains to the order of public discipline, the priests of religion, knowing that the imperial power has been bestowed upon you by divine providence, obey your laws, lest in affairs of exclusively mundane determination they might seem to resist, with how much more gladness, I ask, does it become you to obey them who have been assigned to the duty of performing the divine mysteries. Just as there is no light risk for the pontiffs to be silent about those things which belong to the service of the divinity, so there is no small peril (which God forbid) to those who, when they ought to obey, refuse to do so. And if it is right that the hearts of the faithful be submitted to all priests generally who treat rightly divine things, how much more is obedience to be shown to the prelate of that see which the highest divinity wished to be pre-eminent over all priests and which the devotion of the whole Church continually honors?

(b) Gelasius, Epist. de Recipiendis et non Recipiendis Libris. Mansi, VIII, 153 ff.

This decretal is evidently made of matter of different dates, as has been shown by Hefele, § 217, and probably contains matter which may be later than Gelasius. In the first section of the decretal is a list of the canonical books of the Bible, as in the Vulgate; the decretal then sets forth the claims of the Roman see (§ 2), the books to be received (§ 3), and the books which the Roman Church rejects (§ 4). In respect to several there are various comments added, but these have in several cases been omitted for the sake of brevity, where they are of less importance. Portions of the decretal in Denziger, nn. 162-164; the full text of the decretal may be found in Mansi VIII, 153 ff. Preuschen, Analecta, vol. II, pp. 52 ff.; Mirbt, n. 168.

II. Although the one dwelling of the universal Catholic Church spread through the world is of Christ, the holy Roman Church, however, has been placed before the other churches by no synodical decrees, but has obtained the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Saviour, saying, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” etc.(202) To it was given the fellowship of the most blessed Apostle Paul, that chosen vessel who not at a different time, as heretics prate, but at one time and on one and the same day by a glorious death, was crowned together with Peter in agony in the city of Rome under the Emperor Nero. And they equally consecrated the said holy Roman Church to Christ and placed it over all the others in the whole world by their presence and venerable triumph.

III. Therefore the first see of Peter the Apostle is the Roman Church, not having any spot or wrinkle or any such thing. The second see was consecrated at Alexandria in the name of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and the evangelist. He himself, having been directed by the Apostle Peter to Egypt, preached the word of truth and consummated a glorious martyrdom. But as the third see of the same most blessed Apostle Peter is held the see of Antioch, since he held that before he came to Rome, and there the name of the new people, the name of Christians, arose.

IV. 1. And although no other foundation can be laid than that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus, yet after the writings of the Old and New Testaments,(203) which we receive regularly, the same holy Roman Church does not prohibit these following writings to be received for the purposes of edification:

2. The holy synod of Nicæa, according to the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, under the Emperor Constantine.

3. The holy synod of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned with the consent of the most blessed Pope [papa] Celestine, held under Cyril, the prelate of the see of Alexandria, and Acadius, a bishop sent from Italy.

4. The holy synod of Chalcedon, which was held under the Emperor Marcian and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, and in which Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscurus were condemned.

V. 1. Likewise the works of the blessed Cæcilius Cyprianus, martyr, and bishop of Carthage; 2. … of Gregory the bishop of Nazianzus; 3. … of Basil, bishop of Cappadocia; 4. … of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria; 5. … of John [Chrysostom], bishop of Constantinople; 6. … of Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria; 7. … of Cyril, bishop of Alexandria; 8. … of Hilary, bishop of Poitiers; 9. … of Ambrose, bishop of Milan; 10. … of Augustine, bishop of Hippo; 11. … of Jerome, the presbyter; 12. … of Prosper; 13. … likewise the Epistle of the blessed Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, against Eutyches and other heretics; and if any one dispute even so much as an iota of the text of the epistle, and will not reverently receive it in all points, let him be anathema.

14. Likewise the works and treatises of the orthodox Fathers are to be read, who in no respect have deviated from the union with the holy Roman Church, nor have separated from its faith and teaching; but, by the grace of God, have shared in communion with it even to the last days of their life.

15. Likewise the decretal epistles which the most blessed Popes at different times have given from the city of Rome, in reply to consultations of various fathers, are to be reverently received.

16. Likewise the acts of the holy martyrs.… But, according to an ancient custom and singular caution, they are not to be read in the holy Roman Church, because the names of those who wrote them are not known.…

17. Likewise the lives of the fathers Paul, Antony, Hilarion, and all hermits which the most blessed Jerome has described, we receive in honor.

18. Likewise the acts of the blessed Sylvester, prelate of the Apostolic See, although the name of the writer is unknown; however, we know that it is read by many Catholics in the city of Rome, and on account of its ancient use many churches have copied it.

19. Likewise the writing concerning the discovery of the cross and another concerning the discovery of the head of the blessed John the Baptist.…

20. Rufinus, a most religious man, has published many books on ecclesiastical affairs and has also translated several writings. But because the venerable Jerome has criticised him in various points for his freedom in judgment, we are of the same opinion as we know Jerome is, and not only concerning Rufinus but all others whom, out of zeal toward God and devotion to the faith, Jerome has condemned.

21. Likewise several works of Origen which the blessed Jerome does not reject we receive as to be read; the remaining works along with their author we declare are to be rejected.

22. Likewise the chronicles of Eusebius of Cæsarea and the books of his Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narrative he has been a little warm and afterward he wrote one book in praise and defence of Origen, the schismatic, yet on account of the mention of several things, which pertain to instruction, we say that they are to that extent not to be rejected.…

23. Likewise we approve Orosius; 24. … the works of Sedulius; 25. … the works of Juvencus.…

VI. Other works which have been written by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in no respect receives, and these, although they are not received and are to be avoided by Catholics, we believe ought to be added below.

There follow a list of thirty-five apocryphal gospels, acts, and similar documents. The epistle continues:

36. The book which is called The Canons of the Apostles; 37. the book called Physiologus, written by heretics and ascribed to Ambrose; 38. the history of Eusebius Pamphilius; 39. the works of Tertullian; 40. … of Lactantius or Firminianus; 41. … of Africanus; 42. … Postumianus and Gallus; 43. … of Montanus, Priscilla, and Maximilla; 44. … all the works of Faustus the Manichæan; 45. the works of Commodus; 46. the works of another Clement of Alexandria; 47. the works of Thascius Cyprianus; 48. of Arnobius; 49. of Tichonius; 50. of Cassianus a presbyter of Gaul; 51. Victorinus of Pettau; 52. of Frumentius the blind; 53. of Faustus of Reiz; 54. the Epistle of Jesus to Abgar; 55. Passion of St. Cyricus and Julitta; 56. Passion of St. Georgius; 57. the writings which are called the "Curse of Solomon"; 58. all phylacteries which have been written not with the names of angels, as they pretend, but rather of demons; 59. these works and all similar to them which Simon Magus [a list of heretics down to] Peter [Fullo] and another Peter [Mongus], of whom one defiled Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his adherents, as also all heretics or disciples of heretics or schismatics have taught or written, whose names we do not remember are not only repudiated by the entire Roman Catholic Church, but we declare are bound forever with an indissoluble anathema together with their authors and followers of their authors.

(c) Hormisdas, Formula. Mansi, VIII, 407. Cf. Denziger, nn. 171 f.

The formula which Hormisdas of Rome (514-523) proposed in 515, and which was accepted Easter 519 by the patriarch John II of Constantinople and many other Orientals, and which ended the schism between Rome and Constantinople occasioned by Acacius. As soon as this formula was accepted the leading Monophysites fled to Egypt.

The beginning of salvation is to preserve the rule of a correct faith and to deviate in no respect from the constitutions of the fathers. And because the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to fail, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” etc. [Matt. 16:18], these things which were said are proved by the effects of things, because in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot or blemish. Desiring in no respect to be separated from this hope and faith, and following the constitutions of the Fathers, we anathematize all heretics, and especially the heretic Nestorius, who was once bishop of the city of Constantinople, and condemned in the Council of Ephesus by Pope Celestine and by the holy Cyril, prelate of the city of Alexandria. Likewise we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscurus of Alexandria, condemned in the holy synod of Chalcedon which we follow and embrace; adding to these Timotheus the parricide, known as Ælurus, and also his disciple and follower Peter [Mongus], also Acacius, who remained in the society of their communion; because he mixed himself with their communion he deserves the same sentence of condemnation as they; no less condemning Peter [Fullo] of Antioch with his followers and the followers of all those above named. We receive and approve, therefore, all the universal Epistles of Pope Leo which he wrote concerning the Christian religion. And therefore, as we have said, following in all things the Apostolic See and approving all of its constitutions, I trust that I may be deemed worthy to be in the communion with you, in which as the Apostolic See declares there is, complete and true, the totality of the Christian religion.

Period III. The Dissolution Of The Imperial State Church And The Transition To The Middle Ages: From The Beginning Of The Sixth Century To The Latter Part Of The Eighth

The third period of the ancient Church under the Christian Empire begins with the accession of Justin I (518-527), and the end of the first schism between Rome and Constantinople (519). The termination of the period is not so clearly marked. By the middle and latter part of the eighth century, however, the imperial Church has ceased to exist in its original conception. The Church in the East has become, in great part, a group of national schismatic churches under Moslem rulers, and only the largest fragment of the Church of the East is the State Church of the greatly reduced Eastern empire. In the West, the imperial influence has ceased, and the Roman see has allied its fortunes with the rising Frankish power, and the rise of a Western empire is already foreshadowed.

In this period, the imperial ecclesiastical system, which had begun with Constantine, found its completion in the Cæsaropapism which was definitively established by Justinian as the constitution of the Eastern Church. But at the same time the Monophysite churches seceded and became permanent national churches. The long Christological controversy found, at least as regards Monophysitism, its settlement on a basis derived from the revived Aristotelian philosophy; and the mystical piety of the East, with its apparatus of hierarchy and sacraments, found its characteristic expression in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.

While in the East the Church was assuming its permanent form, in the West the condition of the Church was being profoundly influenced by the completely changed political organization of what had been the Roman Empire of the West, but was now parcelled out among new Germanic nationalities. The Church in the various kingdoms, in spite of its adherence to the see of Rome as the centre of Catholic unity, came, to no small extent, under the secular authority, and Christianity in Ireland, in Spain, among the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and even among the Lombards in Italy assumed a national character, coming largely under the control and subject to the laws and customs of the nation. In this period were laid the foundations of the leading ecclesiastical institutions of the Middle Ages, as the Church, although still under the influence of antiquity, adapted itself and its institutions to the changed condition due to the political situation and took up its duty of training the rude peoples that had come within its fold.

The seventh and eighth centuries saw the completion of the revolution in the ecclesiastical situation. In the East, in the territories in which the national churches of the Monophysites were established, the Moslem rule protected them from the attempts of the orthodox emperors to enforce uniformity. The attempts made to recover their allegiance before they succumbed to Islam had only ended in a serious dispute within the Orthodox Church, the Monothelete controversy, which ended in the Sixth General Council of 681. In Italy the Arian Lombards were gradually won to the Catholic faith, but the Roman see soon found itself embarrassed by the too near secular authority. Accordingly, when the controversy with the East over Iconoclasm broke out, the Roman Church became practically independent of the Eastern imperial authority, and in its conflict with the Lombards came into alliance with the rising Frankish power. With this, the transition to the Middle Ages may be said to have been completed. It was, however, only the last of a series of acts whereby the Church was severing itself from the ancient order and coming into closer alliance with the new order in the life of the West. Henceforth the Church, which found its centre in the Roman see, belongs to the West, and its relations to the East, although no formal schism had occurred, are of continued and increasing estrangement or alienation.

The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. II, will cover the entire period and give ample bibliographical references.