The Fourth Ecumenical Council
Concerning the Monophysites
The Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus, did not put an
end to the debate over the Person of the God-man, failing to
reconcile those sympathetic to Nestorius with the Orthodox. Not
long afterwards, however, in the 430s, just such a reconciliation
was attained by means of a union, i.e., a unification which, for
all intents and purposes, brought an end to the division within
the Church.
Immediately after the Council of Ephesus, Emperor Theodosius
the Younger, seeing that it had failed to achieve the
pacification of the Church, addressed to John of Antioch the
demand that he enter into communion with Saint Cyril of
Alexandria. At first, John and his supporters wished to establish
this peace at an unfair cost-the cost of demanding that Saint
Cyril repudiate all his writings in which he laid bare the
doctrine of the God-man. Such a repudiation would have been
tantamount to a rejection of the dogmatic activity of the
Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which had just concluded.
Saint Cyril, however, would not agree to this, and, on the
contrary, sent to the bishops of Antioch a meek and equable
letter, proposing that they renounce their heretical (Nestorian)
ideas, embrace the decision of the Council of Ephesus to depose
Nestorius, and acknowledge as the legitimate pastor of the
Imperial City Archbishop Maximian of Constantinople , who had
been chosen by the Council from among the partisans of Saint
Cyril to occupy the place from which Nestorius had been deposed.
In reply to this, as Saint Cyril himself describes it, "a
letter was sent from John, unseemly of content and expression,
written in a tone of mockery, and not of agreement. For,"
said the saint, "instead of comforting me in my grief over
events of the recent past and their own behavior [i.e., that of
the bishops of Antioch] at Ephesus, they took advantage of the
occasion to vent upon me their rage, which was engendered, they
would have me believe, by their zeal for the holy dogmas."
Yet in his quest for the peace of the Church, the holy Cyril
did not cease to apply his efforts toward its attainment. And the
Lord blessed the labors of the great archpastor, for they
eventually bore fruit: John of Antioch, in the name of all the
bishops of the region of Antioch, sent to Saint Cyril a
confession of faith, the essence of which is included in the
following excerpt: "We [wrote the Antiochian bishops]
confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son
of God, perfect God, and perfect man of a reasonable soul and
flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father
according to His divinity, and in the last days, for us and for
our salvation, [was born] of the Virgin Mary according to His
humanity; that He is consubstantial with the Father according to
divinity and consubstantial with us according to humanity, for in
Him there is a perfect unity of two natures. For this reason do
we also confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this
understanding of such an unconfused union, we confess the
all-holy Virgin to be the Theotokos; because God the Word was
incarnate and became man, and in His very conception He united
Himself to the [bodily] temple received from her. We know the
theologians make some things of the evangelical and the apostolic
teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one Person,
and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute
the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and
the lowly ones to His humanity."
At the end of the epistle there is an anathematization of
Nestorius and his doctrine, with a declaration to the effect that
Maximian is received into communion. Cyril of Alexandria accepted
this confession of John and the bishops of like mind with him as
a gift from heaven, acknowledging it as wholly Orthodox. Peace
began to spread throughout the ecclesiastical world, and disputes
began to die down, as is apparent from the following expressions
of the epistle of John of Antioch (dated 437): "All the
bishops of the East [i.e., those subject toAntioch], as well as
the bishops of the rest of the world, have condemned Nestorius
and agreed to his deposition. We have done and have declared what
we ought to have done already these four years past. All the
bishops of the coastal regions have consented and signed. The
bishops of Phnicia Minor and Cilicia did so last year; the
Arabs [have done so] through their bishop Antiochus; the lands of
Mesopotamia, Osrhoene, Euphratensis and Syria Minor have approved
all that we have done. We have long since received a [favorable]
reply from the land of the Isaurians; and all the bishops of
Syria Major have signed with us."
Yet with the extreme tension in ecclesiastical life
surrounding the questions raised by the Nestorians, a union could
not fail to encounter disapprobation on the part of certain
people, both in Antioch and in Alexandria, who were dissatisfied
with it. Particularly dangerous for the ecclesiastical world were
those opponents of ecclesiastical agreement between Alexandria
and Antioch who were among the ranks of those who held Saint
Cyril in high respect. These people were the forerunners of the
soon to be revealed Monophysite heresy. They considered the
communion between Saint Cyril and John of Antioch to be a
betrayal of Orthodoxy and perceived heresy in the teaching of
Saint Cyril on the two natures in Christ. For his part, Saint
Cyril did everything possible to "impose silence upon [his]
enemies who had formerly been his friends." When discussing
their views, he never ceased to explain that the doctrine of two
natures in Christ does not exclude the doctrine of their
conjoining. But, stubbornly adhering to their error, the former
friends of Saint Cyril paid no heed to his explanations and
exhortations, and the great hierarch went to his grave without
the assurance that the union which had been achieved to his great
joy would be a lasting one.
The more time passed, the more the number of both the
proponents and the defenders of the union grew, which increased
the malice of its enemies, who had formerly been among the ranks
of those who honored and respected Saint Cyril. Despite their
great number, they behaved with restraint while Saint Cyril was
alive, for he enjoyed tremendous respect with the Church. But
with his death matters changed. In Alexandria, enemies of the
union began openly and forcefully to act against it in the name
of Orthodoxy, yet in actual fact in the name of their own
heretical doctrine, which has become known in the history of the
Church under the name Monophysism.* The principal representative
of the Monophysite heresy was Eutyches, the abbot of one of the
monasteries in Constantinople. At the time of the Third
Ecumenical Council, Eutyches showed himself to be a zealous
partisan of Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his struggle against the
heresy of Nestorius: "When Nestorius opposed the Truth,
Eutyches stood up for it." Thus Eutyches' activity earned
for him the respect of Saint Cyril, and after the Third
Ecumenical Council the saint sent Eutyches a copy of his
description of the activity of the just-concluded Council. But
Eutyches, like all the Alexandrians who were opposed to the
union, only respected Saint Cyril as the champion of Orthodoxy
against Nestorius; he considered the holy father's activity
during and after the union as a mistake, if not a betrayal of
Orthodoxy. For this reason, Eutyches did not recognize the
treatises authored by the famous Archbishop of Alexandria in
preparation for the Union and in defense of it. In these
treatises the idea of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus
Christ was developed and forcefully maintained.
This completely contradicted the heretical Monophysite views
of Eutyches, who taught: "After the incarnation of God the
Word I worship one nature-the nature of God Who took on flesh and
became man"; "I confess that our Lord consists of two
natures before [their] union, and after [their] union I confess
one nature". One should note that these words are also
encountered in the writings of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who
himself borrowed them from the writings of Saint Athanasius of
Alexandria; thus, they were not devised by Eutyches, but
extracted by him from the treatises of Saint Cyril without tying
them in with his other views: they therefore take on a heretical
character which they do not have when read in context. However,
the circumstance that the expressions cited were to be found in
the writings of Saint Cyril lent credibility to the heretical
teaching of the Monophysites and attracted short-sighted
Christians to them. The case of Eutyches aroused the interest of
Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylum, famous for his opposition to
Nestorius. At one of the councils of bishops which were so
frequent in antiquity, and which in this case took place in
Constantinople in the year 448, Eusebius stated publicly that
Eutyches, the abbot of a renowned monastery of the capital, was
reasoning heretically, not in accordance with the Tradition of
the apostles and the Nican Creed, concerning the Redeemer and
the mystery of man's redemption. In a special memorandum
containing this statement, which he sent to Archbishop Flavian of
Constantinople and the council of bishops, Eusebius wrote, among
other things: "I have asked Eutyches, priest and
archimandrite, that he not give rein to such a rout of the
senses, to such an intoxication of the thoughts and frenzy of the
mind, so that he even forgets the fear of God and dares to call
heretics those fathers who are considered to be among the saints,
and us, their followers in the Faith; but he, having unrestrained
lips and an unbridled tongue, does not cease to reject the pious
dogmas of Orthodoxy. I beg and beseech Your Holiness: Do not
leave my request without attention, but instruct Eutyches, the
priest and archimandrite, to appear before your holy council and
defend himself against that of which I accuse him. I am prepared
to denounce him for falsely calling himself Orthodox and for
being totally alien to the Orthodox Faith." Not wishing to
call public attention to the case, yet considering it impossible
to ignore Eusebius' statement, Flavian, the president of the
council, proposed that Eusebius confront Eutyches in a private
meeting.
But the fact was, Eusebius had gone to admonish Eutyches
several times, but without affect. "Now," Eusebius
resolutely declared, "it is impossible for me, having gone
to him often and been unable to persuade him, to go to him again
and listen to blasphemous words." Seeing that Eusebius could
not be dissuaded, the council found itself forced to send to
Eutyches a deputation consisting of the priest John and the
deacon Andrew; the deputation was obliged to present Eutyches
with the memorandum of Eusebius of Dorylum and to invite the
archimandrite to the council to give an explanation.
On returning from Eutyches, the deputation stated the
following to the council: "We went to him at his monastery,
read to him the memorandum of accusation, gave him a copy
thereof, declared to him the name of his accuser, and announced
that they were summoning him to justify himself before Your
Holiness. He utterly refused to come and justify himself, saying
that he had a particular custom, as it were established by law
from the beginning, never to part from his brethren to go
anywhere, but to live in the monastery, almost as if in a tomb.
He asked us to inform Your Holiness that Bishop Eusebius,
supposedly beloved of God, who from of old has been his enemy,
has lodged this accusation against him out of jealousy and
hatred. He maintained that he is ready to agree with the
exposition of the holy fathers who comprised the councils in
Nica and Ephesus, and promised to sign their interpretations.
After the incarnation of the Word of God, i.e. the nativity of
our Lord Jesus Christ, he worships the one essence, the essence
of God, Who was incarnate and became man. That our Lord Jesus
Christ consists of two natures united hypostatically, this he has
not encountered in the expositions of the holy fathers, and were
he to chance to read anything similar in someone's writings, he
would not accept it, because the divine Scriptures are more
sublime than the teaching of the fathers. He confessed that He
Who was born of the Virgin Mary is perfect God and perfect man,
but does not have flesh which is consubstantial with ours."
"The proofs which we have heard," said Eusebius
after the report of the deputation, "suffice to make clear
what ungodly opinion, contrary to the expositions of the holy
fathers, Eutyches holds. I ask that Eutyches be again summoned
hither." It was decided to send a second deputation to
Eutyches, consisting of two priests, Mammas and Theophilus; the
deputies were given a writ of summons calling Eutyches to appear
before the council "without any delay." From the report
to the council of this second deputation, it is evident that
Eutyches twice refused to receive the deputation on excuse of
illness, and that it was only thanks to their persistence that
the deputation gained the needed access.
"When we went in [to Eutyches]," the deputies said,
"we gave him the signed paper; he ordered it read in our
presence, and after it had been read, he said: "I have set
it as a rule not to leave the monastery save for some deadly
necessity; the holy council and the God-loving bishop see that I
am old and decrepit; let the archbishop and the council do with
me what they want; I ask only one thing-that no one be bothered
here again, for it is my rule not to leave the monastery."
When they heard this statement, the council decided: "We
must urge Eutyches a third time to come to this holy council. If
he will not do so, he accuses himself." The third deputation
consisted of the priests and keepers of the sacred vessels,
Memnon and Epiphanius, and the deacon Germanus. With these
persons Eutyches was again sent a writ of summons, which read, in
part: "You know that it is determined by the holy canons
against the disobedient and those who do not wish to appear so as
to justify themselves, when a third summons is sent to them.
Hasten to come tomorrow morning, i.e. the fourth day of the week,
the seventeenth day of the month of November." On the eve of
this day, a deputation from Eutyches, consisting of Archimandrite
Abramius and three deacons, appeared before the fathers of the
council. The archimandrite reported to the council on the illness
of Eutyches and was called upon to give certain explanations on
behalf of the sick man. Archbishop Flavian promised to await the
recovery of Eutyches, but declined the request of the
archimandrite.
On November 17th, the third deputation, returning from
Eutyches, transmitted to the fathers of the council the latter's
request: "I beg leave to ask my lord, the archbishop, and
the holy council, to give me the space of this week; and the
following week, if it please God, I will come and justify myself
before my lord and the holy council." This request was taken
under consideration, and Archbishop Flavian, in the name of the
council, decided: "We grant [Eutyches] the space of time he
requests. But if, contrary to his own promise, Eutyches does not
appear on the second day of the following week [November 22nd],
he will be utterly deprived both of his rank as priest and the
abbacy of his monastery."
November 22nd arrived. The members of the council assembled in
the judgment hall of the archepiscopal residence. Eutyches
appeared before the council with a multitude of soldiers, monks
and underlings of the Prtorian Prefect; furthermore, Eutyches
was accompanied by the Silentarius Magnus, a high-ranking palace
official sent by the emperor to place before the council the
following proposal: "We are concerned for the peace of the
holy Churches and the Orthodox Faith, and we desire to preserve
the Faith which was truly, under the inspiration of God, set
forth by our holy fathers who assembled in Nica in 318 and were
in Ephesus at the condemnation of Nestorius. We desire this, so
that scandal not intrude upon the aforementioned Orthodoxy. And
since we know the most renowned Patrician Florentius to be
faithful and tested in Orthodoxy, we desire that he be present at
the session of the council, since the discourse will concern the
Faith." "We all know our lord Florentius to be faithful
and tested in Orthodoxy," said Archbishop Flavian after
reading the emperor's decree, "and we desire that he be
present."
After Florentius arrived at the council, the investigation of
Eutyches' case commenced. At the session dedicated to Eutyches,
the Council of Constantinople of 448 bases its decision on the
question of the union of two natures in Christ Jesus principally
on the epistle of Saint Cyril of Alexandria "To Those in the
East", where the progress of the union is set forth, the
confession of faith of John of Antioch is confirmed, and-what is
especially important for the council-the false theology of the
Monophysites is expressly overturned: "Let the mouths of
those be closed," says the epistle, "who confess either
the identity or the blending or the confusion of the Son of God
with the flesh." From among other of Saint Cyril's writings
the council was guided by one of his epistles to Nestorius, in
which the teaching of the two natures in Christ was confessed
with full clarity. In investigating the case of Eutyches, the
council strove mainly to ascertain whether Eutyches was in
agreement with the epistle of Saint Cyril referred to above and
with the words of the confession of John of Antioch where were
contained therein.
The deacon who declaimed the epistle of Saint Cyril "To
Those in the East" at the council read without being stopped
until he reached the following words: "We confess that the
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is perfect God
and perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a body; that
He was begotten by the Father before the ages in His divinity,
and the latter times, for our sake and the sake of our salvation,
[was born] of the Virgin Mary in His humanity; that He is
consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial
with us in humanity, for in Him was the union of two natures
accomplished. This is why we also confess one Christ, one Son,
one Lord; and on the basis of such an unblended union we confess
the all-holy Virgin to be the Theotokos, because God the Word was
incarnate and became man, and in His very conception united with
Himself the temple He received from her."
At this point the reading of the epistle was interrupted when
Eusebius of Dorylum cried out: "Eutyches does not confess
this and has never been in agreement with this; rather, he has
thought and taught contrary to this!" This exclamation
resulted in Eutyches debating, first with the Prefect Florentius,
and afterwards with Archbishop Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylum.
These debates ultimately led Eutyches to make the following
statement: "I confess that our Lord consisted of two natures
before [their] unification, and I confess one nature after
[their] unification." There no longer remained any doubt
that Eutyches was a heretic.
To prevent the heresy of Eutyches from resulting in grievous
consequences for the Church, the fathers of the council proposed
that he anathematize all that was contrary to the dogmas read out
at the council. But Eutyches rejected this proposal in a bitter
tone of voice. Then the fathers of the council, rising up,
proclaimed: "Let Eutyches be anathema!" Later, after a
conference, a statement was made regarding Eutyches, signed by
Archbishop Flavian, 31 bishops and 23 archimandrites: "From
everything-the actions which have taken place and the present
acknowledgment of Eutyches-it has been discovered that he is
suffering from the errors of Valentinus and Apollinarius. Not
moved to shame by our exhortations and admonitions, he has not
wished to agree with the true dogmas; for this reason, sighing
and weeping over his utter damnation, we have determined in our
Lord Jesus Christ, of Whom he [Eutyches] has spoken evil, to cut
him off from all priestly ministry, communion with us and the
leadership of monasteries.
Let all those who after this will converse or have fellowship
with him know that they themselves will deserve the punishment of
excommunication, as ones who have not avoided converse with
him." The Council of Constantinople in 448 did not, however,
bring an end to the disputes: it was not recognized by the Church
of Alexandria or Egypt, which was the focus of the enemies of
union; or the Church of Jerusalem, which from of old, from the
days of the First Ecumenical Council, had gone hand in hand with
the Church of Alexandria in resolving disputed questions of
dogma; or even the Church of Rome, which in the person of Pope
Leo the Great at first comported itself with disapproval
regarding the Council of Constantinople, being poorly acquainted
with the details of disputes taking place in the remote East. The
Council of Constantinople was accepted by the Church of
Constantinople and those Churches in Asia Minor and Syria which
before were sympathetic to the union. It is not surprising,
therefore, that when the Council of Constantinople did not
encounter the sympathy it needed among the exalted secular
authorities, difficult times befell the Orthodox Church: the
friends of the union, the defenders of the Orthodox Faith, were
considered enemies of Orthodoxy, and the Monophysites became as
powerful as the Arians had been during the lamented days of the
Emperor Constantius.
Such being the state of affairs, the resolutions of the
Council of Constantinople did not break the hardened obduracy of
Eutyches. Relying on the Court's sympathetic relations with him,
he determined to wage war on the council and his own archbishop:
he submitted a petition to Emperor Theodosius, in which he asked
for a review of his case at a new council.
At the same time, Eutyches sent a complaint to Saint Leo the
Great in Rome, to the effect that among those in the East, i.e.
in Constantinople, "through the efforts of certain men, the
Nestorian heresy is being resurrected anew." By this
Eutyches wished to tell the pope that at the Council of
Constantinople he, Eutyches, was condemned (he alleged) as one
who defended and honored Saint Cyril, who had dedicated himself,
as they saw, to war on Nestorianism. In his written reply to
Eutyches, Pope Leo expressed his approval of his pious zeal,
though at the same time stating that he was little acquainted
with the matter: "As soon as we know more fully those who
have impiously done this," writes the holy pope, "we
will consider what is necessary, with God's help, to assure, as
it were, that the ungodly infection, which has long since been
condemned, be extirpated." Saint Leo then addressed a
request to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople for a
clarification of the matter: "Let thy brotherliness inform
us in a most detailed report," the pope proposes to Flavian
in his letter, what new thing has arisen among us against the
ancient Faith." Flavian did not delay in making his reply.
He elucidated for the pope the essence of the case against
Eutyches, informed him of the intrigues of the latter after his
condemnation by the Council of Constantinople, and asked the pope
to strengthen the faith of the "most pious emperor".
Not long afterwards, Flavian sent the pope a second letter with a
more detailed exposition of Eutyches' heretical teaching. The
pope's reply to this was The Encyclical or Conciliar Epistle of
His Holiness Leo, Archbishop of the City of Rome, Written to
Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople (Against the Heresy of
Eutyches)", which is famous in the history of the Church.
[Note: The following translation of this epistle is quoted
verbatim, with minor editorial alterations, from A Select Library
of the Christian Church: Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.
XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (New York: Charles Scribers
Sons, 1900; reprinted Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.,
1994), pp. 254-258.]
"Leo the bishop, to his most dear brother Flavian.
"Having read your Affection's letter, the late arrival of
which is matter of surprise to us, and having gone through the
record of the proceedings of the bishops, we have now, at last,
gained a clear view of the scandal which has risen up among you,
against the integrity of the Faith; and what at first seemed
obscure has now been elucidated and explained. By this means
Eutyches, who seemed to be deserving of honor under the title of
presbyter, is now shown to be exceedingly thoughtless and sadly
nexperienced, so that to him also we may apply the prophet's
words: "He hath not willed to understand how to do good:
iniquity hath he devised upon his bed" [Ps. 35: 4-5]. What,
indeed, is more unrighteous than to entertain ungodly thoughts,
and not to yield to persons wiser and more learned? But into this
folly do they fall who, when hindered by some obscurity from
apprehending the truth, have recourse, not to the words of the
prophets, nor to the letters of the apostles, nor to the
authority of the Gospels, but to themselves; and become teachers
of error, just because they have not been disciples of the truth.
For what learning has he received from the sacred pages of the
New and the Old Testament, who does not so much as understand the
very beginning of the very Symbol [of Faith]? And that which, all
the world over, is uttered by the voices of all applicants for
regeneration, is still not grasped by the mind of this aged man.
If, then, he knew not what he ought to think about the
Incarnation of the Word of God, and was not willing, for the sake
of obtaining the light of intelligence, to make laborious search
through the whole extent of the Holy Scriptures, he should at
least have received with heedful attention that general
Confession common to all, whereby the whole body of the faithful
profess that they 'believe in God the Father Almighty, and in
Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, Who was born of the Holy
Spirit and the Virgin Mary.' "By which three clauses the
engines of almost all heretics are shattered. For when God is
believed to be both 'Almighty' and 'Father', it is proved that
the Son is everlasting together with Himself, differing in
nothing from the Father, because He was born as 'God from God',
Almighty from Almighty, Coëternal from Eternal; not later in
time, nor inferior in power, not unlike Him in glory, not divided
from Him in essence, but the same only-begotten and everlasting
Son of an everlasting Parent was 'born of the Holy Spirit and the
Virgin Mary'. This birth in time in no way detracted from, in no
way added to, that divine and everlasting birth; but expended
itself wholly in the work of restoring man, who had been
deceived; so that it might both overcome death, and by its power
'him who had the power of death, that is, the devil' [Heb. 2:
14]. For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of
death, unless He Who could neither be contaminated by sin, nor
detained by death, had taken upon Himself our nature, and made it
His own. For, in fact, He was 'conceived of the Holy Spirit'
within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore Him as she had
conceived Him, without loss of virginity.
"But if he [Eutyches] was not able to obtain a true
conception from this pure fountain of Christian Faith, because by
his own blindness he had darkened for himself the brightness of a
truth so clear, he should have submitted himself to the
Evangelist's teaching; and after reading what Matthew says: 'The
book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son
of Abraham' [Mt. 1: 1], he should also have sought instruction
from the Apostle's preaching; and after reading the Epistle to
the Romans: 'Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle,
separated unto the Gospel of God, (which He had promised before
by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures), concerning His Son, Who
was made [unto Him] of the seed of David according to the flesh,'
he should have bestowed some devout study on the pages of the
prophets; and finding that God's promise said to Abraham, 'in thy
seed shall all nations [of the earth] be blessed' [Gen. 22: 18],
in order to avoid all doubt as to the proper meaning of this
'seed', he should have attended to the apostle's words, 'To
Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not,
"And to seeds," as of many; but as of one, "And to
thy seed," which isChrist' [Gal. 3: 16]. He should also have
apprehended with his inward ear the declaration of Isaiah:
'Behold, a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring
forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name Emmanuel, which, being
interpreted is, God with us' [Is. 7: 14; Mt. 1: 23]; and should
have read with faith the words of the same prophet: 'For a Child
is born to us, and a Son is given to us, Whose government is upon
His shoulder; and His name is called the Angel of great Counsel,
wonderful, Counsellor, mighty God, Prince of peace, Father of the
age to come' [Is. 9: 6]. And he should not have spoken idly to
the effect that the Word was in such a sense made flesh, that the
Christ Who was brought forth from the Virgin's womb had the form
of a man, and had not a body really derived from His Mother's
body. Possibly his reason for thinking that our Lord Jesus Christ
was not of our nature was this-that the Angel Who was sent to the
blessed and Ever-virgin Mary said: 'The Holy Spirit shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,
and therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God' [Lk. 1: 35]; as if, because the
Virgin's conception was caused by a divine act, therefore the
flesh of Him Whom she conceived was not of the nature of her who
conceived Him. But we are not to understand that 'generation',
peerlessly wonderful and wonderfully peerless, in such a sense as
that the newness of the mode of production did away with the
proper character of the kind.
"For it was the Holy Spirit Who gave fecundity to the
Virgin, but it was from a body that a real body was derived; and
'when Wisdom was building herself a house', the "Word was
made flesh, and dwelt among us' [Jn. 1: 14], that is, in that
flesh which He assumed from a human being, and which He animated
with the spirit of rational life. "Accordingly, while the
distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and
both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty,
weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay
the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to
the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one
and the same 'Mediator between God and men, the man, Christ
Jesus' [I Tim. 2: 5], might from one element be capable of dying
and also from the other be incapable. Therefore, in the entire
and perfect nature of true man was born true God, whole in what
was His, whole in what was ours. By 'ours' we mean what the
Creator formed in us at the beginning and what He assumed in
order to restore. "For of that which the deceiver brought
in, and man, thus deceived, admitted, there was not a trace in
the Savior.
"And the fact that He took on Himself a share in our
infirmities did not make Him a partaker in our transgressions. He
assumed 'the form of a servant' without the defilement of sin,
enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because
that 'emptying of Himself', whereby the Invisible made Himself
visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one
among mortals, was a stepping down in compassion, not a failure
of power. Accordingly, the Same Who, remaining in the form of
God, made man, became man in the form of a servant. For each of
the natures retains its proper character without defect; and as
the form of God does not take away the form of a servant, so the
form of a servant does not impair the form of God. For since the
devil was glorying in the fact that man, deceived by his craft,
was bereft of divine gifts and, being stripped of his endowment
of immortality, had come under the grievous sentence of death,
and that he himself, amid his miseries, had found a sort of
consolation in having a transgressor as his companion, and that
God, according to the requirements of the principle of justice,
had changed His own resolution in regard to man, whom He had
created in so high a position of honor; there was need of a
dispensation of secret counsel, in order that the unchangeable
God, Whose will could not be deprived of its own benignity,
should fulfill by a more secret mystery His original plan of
loving kindness toward us, and that man, who had been led into
fault by the wicked subtlety of the devil, should not perish
contrary to God's purpose. Accordingly, the Son of God,
descending from His seat in heaven, and not departing from the
glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new
order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because He Who
in His own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He Who
could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing
to be before times, He began to exist in time; the Lord of the
universe allowed His infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and
took upon Him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not
disdain to be passible Man, and the Immortal One to be subjected
to the laws of death.
And born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virginity,
while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter of His
flesh. What was assumed from the Lord's Mother was nature, not
fault. "Nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our
Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin's womb, imply that His
nature is unlike ours. For the Selfsame, Who is true God, is also
true man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the
lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For
as 'God' is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so 'Man'
is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each 'form' does
the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the
Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh
carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines
out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word
does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the
flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. For, as we must
often be saying, He is one and the same, truly Son of God, and
truly Son of Man. God, inasmuch as 'in the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God' [Jn. 1:
1]. Man, inasmuch as 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among
us' [Jn. 1: 14]. God, inasmuch as 'all things were made by Him;
and without Him was not anything made that was made' [Jn. 1: 3].
Man, inasmuch as He was 'made of a woman, made under the law'
[Gal. 4: 4]. The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of
human nature; the Virgin's child-bearing is an indication of
divine power. the infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the
humiliation of swaddling clothes: the greatness of the Highest is
declared by the voices of angels. He Whom Herod impiously designs
to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but He Whom the Magi
rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. Now when He came
to the baptism of John His forerunner, lest the fact that the
Godhead was covered with a veil of flesh should be concealed, the
voice of the Father spake in thunder from heaven: 'This is My
beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased' [Mt. 3: 17]. Accordingly,
He Who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same
to Whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to
thirst, to be weary, and to sleep, is obviously human. But to
satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and give to the
Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which can secure him
that drinks of it from ever thirsting again; to walk on the
surface of the sea with feet that sink not, and by rebuking the
storm to bring down the 'uplifted waves', is unquestionably
divine. As then-to pass by many points-it does not belong to the
same nature to weep with feelings of pity over a dead friend and,
after the mass of stone had been removed from the grave where he
had lain four days, by a voice of command to raise him up to life
again; or to hang on the wood, and to make all the elements
tremble after daylight had been turned into night; or to be
transfixed with nails, and to open the gates of paradise to the
faith of the robber; so it does not belong to the same nature to
say, 'I and the Father are one' [Jn. 10: 30], and to say, 'the
Father is greater than I' [Jn. 14: 28]. For although in the Lord
Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby
contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory
attaches to both is another.
"For from what belongs to us He has that manhood which is
inferior to the Father; while from the Father He has equal
Godhead with the Father. Accordingly, on account of this unity of
Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures,
we read, on the one hand, that 'the Son of man came down from
heaven', inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin
of whom He was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is
said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as He underwent
this, not in His actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is
coëternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the
weakness of human nature. Wherefore, we all, in the very Symbol
of Faith, confess that 'the only-begotten Son of God was
crucified and buried', according to that saying of the apostle,
'for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory' [I Cor. 2: 8]. But when our Lord and Savior Himself was by
His questions instructing the faith of the disciples, He said,
'Whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am?', that is, 'I Who am
Son of Man, and Whom ye see in the form of a servant, and in
reality of flesh, Whom say ye that I am?'
Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to
benefit all nations by his confession, said, 'Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God' [Mt. 16: 13-16]. Not
undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord,
and derived from the original rock that solidity which belonged
both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from
the Father confessed the Selfsame to be both the Son of God and
the Christ; because one of these truths, accepted without the
other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally
dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and
not man, or merely man and not God. But after the resurrection of
the Lord-which was in truth the resurrection of a real body, for
no other person was raised again than He Who had been crucified
and had died-what else was accomplished during that interval of
forty days than to make our faith entire and clear of all
darkness? For while He conversed with His disciples, and dwelt
with them, and ate with them, and allowed himself to be handled
with careful and inquisitive touch by those who were under the
influence of doubt, for this end he came in to the disciples when
the doors were shut, and by his breath gave them the Holy Spirit,
and opened the secrets of Holy Scripture after bestowing on them
the light of intelligence, and again in His selfsame Person
showed to them the wound in the side, the prints of the nails,
and all the fresh tokens of the Passion, saying, 'Behold My hands
and My feet, that it is I myself; handle Me, and see, for a
spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have' [Lk. 24: 39]:
that the properties of the Divine and the human nature might be
acknowledged to remain in Him without causing a division, and
that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what the
flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and
flesh. On which mystery of the Faith this Eutyches must be
regarded as unhappily having no hold, who does not recognize our
nature to exist in the only-begotten Son of God, either by way of
the lowliness of mortality, or of the glory of resurrection.
"Nor has he been overawed by the declaration of the blessed
Apostle and Evangelist John, saying, 'Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is of God;
and every spirit which dissolveth Jesus is not of God, and this
is Antichrist' [cf. I Jn. 4: 2, 3]. Now what is to dissolve
Jesus, but to separate the human nature from Him, and to make
void by shameless inventions that mystery by which alone we have
been saved? Moreover, being in the dark as to the nature of
Christ's body, he must needs be involved in the like senseless
blindness with regard to His Passion also. For if he does not
think the Lord's crucifixion to be unreal, and does not doubt
that He really accepted suffering, even unto death, for the sake
of the world's salvation; as he believes in His death, let him
acknowledge His flesh also, and not doubt that He Whom he
recognizes as having been capable of suffering is also Man with a
body like ours; since to deny His true flesh is also to deny His
bodily sufferings. If then he accepts the Christian Faith, and
does not turn away his ear from the preaching of the Gospel, let
him see what nature it was that was transfixed with nails and
hung on the wood of the Cross; and let him understand whence it
was that, after the side of the Crucified had been pierced by the
soldier's spear, blood and water flowed out, that the Church of
God might be refreshed both with a Laver and with a Cup.
"Let him listen also to the blessed Apostle Peter when he
declares, that 'sanctification of the Spirit' takes place through
the 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ' [I Pet. 1: 2], and
let him not give a mere cursory reading to the words of the same
apostle, 'Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, like silver and gold, from your vain manner of life
received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious
blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot'
[I Pet. 1: 18-19]. Let him also not resist the testimony of
Blessed John the Apostle, 'And the blood of Jesus, the Son of
God, cleanseth us from all sin' [I Jn. 1: 7]. And again, 'This is
the victory which overcometh the world, even our Faith,' and 'Who
is this that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God? This is He Who came by water and blood,
even Jesus Christ; not in water only, but in water and blood; and
it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is
truth.
And there are three that bear witness-the Spirit, water, and
the blood; and the three are one' [I Jn. 5: 4-6, 8]. That is, the
Spirit of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the
water of baptism; which three things are one, and remain
undivided, and not one of them is disjoined from connection with
the others; because the Catholic Church lives and advances by
this Faith, that in Christ Jesus we should believe neither
manhood to exist without true Godhead, nor Godhead without true
manhood.
"But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your
examination of him, answered, 'I confess that our Lord was of two
natures before the union, but after the union I confess one
nature'; I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession
as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of
his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely
blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard
which could give offense: seeing that it is as impious to say
that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the
Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word
became flesh, there has been in Him one nature only. But lest
Eutyches should think that what he said was correct, or was
tolerable, because it was not confuted by any assertion of yours,
we exhort your earnest solicitude, dearly beloved brother, to see
that, if by God's merciful inspiration the case is brought to a
satisfactory issue, the inconsiderate and inexperienced man be
cleansed also from the pestilent notion of his; seeing that, as
the record of the proceedings has clearly shown, he had fairly
begun to abandon his own opinion when on being driven into a
corner by authoritative words of yours, he professed himself
ready to say what he had not said before, and to give his
adhesion to that faith from which he had previously stood aloof.
But when he would not consent to anathematize the impious dogma,
you understood, brother, that he continued in his own misbelief,
and deserved to receive sentence of condemnation. For which if he
grieves sincerely and to good purpose, and understands, even
though too late, how properly the episcopal authority has been
put in motion, or if, in order to make full satisfaction, he
shall condemn orally, and under his own hand, all that he has
held amiss, no compassion, to whatever extent, which can be shown
him when he has been set right, will be worthy of blame, for our
Lord, the true and good Shepherd, Who laid down His life for His
sheep, and Who came to save men's souls and not to destroy them,
wills us to initiate His own loving kindness; so that justice
should indeed constrain those who sin, but mercy should not
reject those who are converted."For then indeed is the true
Faith defended with the best results, when a false opinion is
condemned even by those who have followed it. "We trust that
the divine assistance will be with you, so that he who has gone
astray may be saved by condemning his own unsound opinion.
"May God keep you in good health, dearly beloved brother.
The epistle concluded with the pope's statement: "But in
order that the whole matter may be piously and faithfully carried
out, we have appointed our brethren, Julius, bishop, and Reatus,
priest", and also my son, the deacon Hilarius, to represent
us. And with them we have associated our notarius, Dulcitius, of
whose fidelity we have had good proof." From this statement
by the pope it is apparent that Eutyches' intercession before the
imperial power for a new council was honored. In fact, enjoying
the protection of Archbishop Flavian's enemy, the powerful
minister Chrysaphius, who manipulated the will of the weak and
characterless Emperor Theodosius, Eutyches managed, within four
months of his condemnation, to have the emperor declare the
convocation of a new, Church-wide council to investigate contrary
dogmatic views on the Person of the God-man and the manner of the
uniting within Him of the two natures, and for a review of the
decisions of the Council of Constantinople regarding the case of
Eutyches. It was proposed that the newly convoked council would
be Ecumenical, as was the council of 431-to it were summoned
hierarchal representatives from all the major Churches of that
time. But such was not the judgment of the Providence of God: in
history this council has not come to be known as the Fourth
Ecumenical Council, but rather the "Robbers' Council",
for the activity it directed not for the triumph of Orthodoxy,
but for heretical beliefs. That the council was convoked at the
desire of Eutyches and his adherents bode ill for Orthodoxy and
its defenders. For some reason the principal champions of
Orthodox Truth, such as, for example, Archbishop Flavian of
Constantinople and Pope Leo, did not incline sympathetically to
the convocation of a new council, foreseeing what troubles and
disorders it would bring into the Church. The basis for their
minute apprehensions was to be found in the directives of the
supreme civil authority which preceded the opening of the
council.
Thus, by imperial edict, the blessed Theodoretus, a
perspicacious enemy of Monophysism, who had bitter
misunderstandings and altercations with Saint Cyril, was banned
from attending the coming council; and he was banned, of course,
not because he was an opponent of Saint Cyril, but as a powerful
and mighty opponent of Eutyches. Also, a deliberate decree was
issued allowing Archimandrite Barsum from Syria to vote at the
council, even though according to the canons only bishops could
be members. Such an exception was made for Barsum because, as the
decree stated, he "is waging a war against certain Eastern
bishops infected with the ungodliness of Nestorius" (though
it would be more accurate to say that he was against Orthodox
bishops, whom the Monophysites called Nestorians because, unlike
Eutyches, they taught that there are two natures in Christ
following the incarnation).
By the emperor's decree, the president of the council was to
be Archbishop Dioscorus of Alexandria, who sided with the
partisans of Eutyches and had ties with Chrysaphius. Elpidius, a
member of the imperial council, and Eulogius, a prtorian
tribune and notarius, received special instructions from the
emperor: "Follow what will be done at the council in
Ephesus, and under no circumstances permit any disorder. If you
see that anyone is causing tumult or disorder [at the council],
to the disgrace of the Holy Faith, place such a person under
arrestŠ Those who before condemned Archimandrite Eutyches
must be present at the council, but must remain silent, not
having the title of judges, but are to await the general opinion
of all the other fathers, because that which before was defined
by them themselves is now to be condemned." That is,
Archbishop Flavian and his partisans were not even permitted the
right to speak in their own defense, lest by violating the
emperor's will they be placed under arrest.
The instructions concluded with a directive to the effect that
Elpidius and Eulogius were to be assigned a detachment of
soldiers, and through them it was to be placed at the service of
the Monophysites who had gained control of the council.
These preconciliar directives by the emperor culminated in his
epistle to the council itself. The epistle explained the reasons
for the convocation of the council and indicated the general aim
of its activity thus: "Since the God-loving Bishop Flavian
desired to raise a question of the Holy Faith against the most
honorable Archimandrite Eutyches and, having convoked a council,
began to do something, we, applying several times to this most
God-loving bishop, desired to prevent the disorder which was
stirred up, being sufficiently firm in the Orthodox Faith
bequeathed us by the holy fathers who were at Nica, and
confirmed by the holy Council which was held in Ephesus. Yet
although we repeatedly urged this right most honorable bishop to
leave off such investigation, lest it become a cause of disorders
throughout the whole world, he, however, was not pacified.
Mindful that to conduct such an investigation into the Faith
without your holy council and without representatives of the Holy
Churches would not be without danger, we have considered it
necessary to gather Your Holinesses together, that you might
uproot every diabolical root from the Holy Churches and cast out
those who incline to the blasphemy of the ungodly Nestorius or
those who favor him, and might make the inviolability of the
Orthodox Faith soundly unshakable, because all our hope and the
might of our empire depends on the Orthodox Faith in God and on
your holy prayers."
Under such unfavorable conditions for the defenders of
Orthodox Truth, the council convened in Ephesus on August 8th,
449; its sessions were held in the Church of the All-holy Virgin
Mary, which had been the site of the sessions of the Third
Ecumenical Council. The number of fathers participating in the
council fluctuated between 122 and 130. From the acts of the
council which preceded the appearance of Eutyches at it, one must
note that the epistle of Leo the Great was not permitted to be
read, obviously since it was unfavorable for Eutyches and
Dioscorus, since it was directed against their heretical
teachings. When, at the suggestion of Elpidius, Eutyches was
summoned to the council, they suggested to him that he set forth
before the council "justifications beneficial for him".
Eutyches began his explanation with words which show that he saw
among the fathers of the council those who shared his opinions:
"I have entrusted myself to the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit," Eutyches said, "and I have you as
witnesses to the faith for which together with you, I have
struggled." Afterward, he submitted to the fathers of the
council two written articles containing his confession of faith.
In them Eutyches first of all complains against the Council of
Constantinople's "slanders" against him, that he
"would not agree to think contrary to that Faith which was
set forth by the holy fathers in Nica." Further on,
without directly voicing his teachings concerning the unity of
the two natures in Christ, Eutyches quoted in full the Nican
Symbol of Faith and added that he held firmly to the resolutions
of the Councils of Nica and Ephesus and anathematized all
heretics, beginning with Simon Magus. After this confession there
followed a series of Eutyches' complaints against Archbishop
Flavian and the Council of Constantinople-that (he alleged)
Eusebius of Dorylum, accusing him of heresy at the council, did
not prove the latter directly and definitively; that the council,
knowing of Eutyches' promise not to leave his monastery, and
nevertheless summoning him for court examination, wanted only to
condemn him as a man disobedient to the Church on the basis of
the fact that he would not come to the council; that at the
council itself, when he appeared unexpectedly, he was not given
the possibility to justify himself, but "suddenly,"
Eutyches falsely alleges, "a previously composed
condemnation was read against me"; and that the very acts of
the Council of Constantinople were subsequently reworked to his
detriment. "I therefore request," Eutyches says at the
end of his confession (or more accurately his slanderous
accusations against the Council of Constantinople and its
presiding hierarch), "that we discuss the calumny and
injustice raised against me, the disorder which for this reason
has arisen in all the churches and has resulted in much scandal;
to commit to ecclesiastical punishments those guilty of all of
this; and to cut off every root of blasphemy and impiety."
Archbishop Flavian, accused by Eutyches, demanded that
Eusebius of Dorylum be summoned to the council to set forth the
points of accusation against Eutyches. But Elpidius, the imperial
bureaucrat, would not permit this, announcing the emperor's edict
that the judges of Eutyches (at the Council of Constantinople)
stand among those under investigation, without the right to
speak. Instead of fulfilling the request of Flavian, he ordered
that the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 448 be read and
condemned. During the reading of these acts, the heresy
(Monophysism) of the council's president, Dioscorus, and of the
greater part of the bishops who comprised it, was shown to be
quite blatant. When the reading reached the question put to
Eutyches by Eusebius at the Council of Constantinople, "Do
you confess two natures after the incarnation?", many of the
members of the council cried out: "Take and burn Eusebius
[of Dorylum]! Let him be burned alive! Let him be cut in twain!
As he has divided Christ, let him be divided himself!"
Seeing that the turn of events was favorable to him, Dioscorus
addressed to the bishops the question: "Is this expression,
where two natures are spoken of after the incarnation, acceptable
to us?" "Anathema to him who speaks thus!" cried
the council. Thus was the Monophysite heresy proclaimed instead
of the Truth at the unlawful council, and Orthodoxy was trampled
underfoot. Of course, Eutyches, as the principal champion of the
Monophysite heresy, was thereafter declared to be Orthodox and
was restored to the dignity of archimandrite and the rank of
priest.
Then followed the trial of Flavian, Archbishop of
Constantinople. Following a previously devised plan, at precisely
that moment several monks from the monastery of Eutyches appeared
at the council with a petition containing the most unjust
accusations against the archbishop. "Flavian," said the
petition, which was read before the council on the orders of
Dioscorus, "has rained slanders and blasphemies upon our
pastor Eutyches, and under the guise of piety has found an unjust
pretext for condemning him; and he has commanded us to avoid our
pastor and not speak to him, and has ordered the monastery's
possessions to be taken over by himself under pretext of helping
the poor, for he has sold them. The holy altar which Eutyches
raised up six months prior to his denunciation stands without the
divine oblationŠ And we ourselves have been bound by his
unjust condemnation. For this reason," the petition
concludes, "we entreat your holy council to have pity on us
who have endured such an unjust punishment, and return to us the
ecclesial fellowship unjustly taken away, and wreak vengeance
upon him who has done this [i.e., upon Flavian] because he has
judged unjustly."
Of the three hundred monks of Eutyches' monastery only
thirty-five signed the petition, so that the whole affair would
appear to be dishonest. The monks were received into ecclesial
communion by the council, and their petition provided Dioscorus
with a suitable basis for further machinations against the
innocent Archbishop of Constantinople. Dioscorus ordered the
decisions of the Third Ecumenical council read, and then asked:
"I think that all are pleased with the Nican definition of
the Faith, which the Council of Ephesus confirmed, ordering that
it alone be held. We know that the fathers of that council
resolved that if anyone speak or think or introduce anything
contrary to it, he is to be subjected to condemnation.
What do you think of this? Can we examine or introduce
anything new contrary to this? If anyone has investigated
anything above and beyond what has been said, defined and
approved, will he not in all justice fall under the condemnation
of the fathers? Let everyone say whether he is of this
opinion"*
A majority of votes at the council confirmed this. Then
Dioscorus, rising from his seat, proposed in the following words
that the canon of Ephesus be applied to Flavian and to Eusebius
of Dorylum: "Flavian, former bishop of the Church of
Constantinople, and Eusebius of Dorylum, as this holy and
Ecumenical council clearly sees, show themselves to be ones who
reject and misconstrue almost everything, and have given occasion
for scandal and the troubling of the Holy Churches and all the
Orthodox people. It is clear that they have subjected themselves
to the punishments once prescribed by our holy fathers in
council. For this reason, basing ourselves on the decisions of
the fathers, we sentence the aforementioned Flavian and Eusebius
to deprivation of every priestly and episcopal dignity." The
opinion of Dioscorus was unanimously accepted by the Monophysites
and was subscribed to by all the members of the council. Flavian
and Eusebius were deposed from their hierarchal rank. Afterwards,
Flavian was banished and ended his life in exile. After the
council, Eusebius of Dorylum endured so many misfortunes that
he later referred to Dioscorus as his murderer. The Deacon
Hilarius, the legate of the pope, "barely managed to
escape" from the council and reached Rome by roundabout
ways. The blessed Theodoretus, who was not present at the
council, was deposed from his rank and incarcerated in a
monastery. Ibas, Metropolitan of Edessa, was anathematized. Thus
did the Monophysite heresy triumph over the Truth of Orthodoxy,
yet it triumphed, as was later revealed at the true Fourth
Ecumenical Council, by way of dishonesty and violence.
The dark cloud of heresy hung over nearly the entire East. But
the Lord did not delay in coming to the help of His Church
through His worthy servant, Saint Leo the Great. Having received
word from Deacon Hilarius and Archbishop Flavian concerning the
acts of the "Robbers' Council", Leo the Great addressed
an epistle to the Emperor Theodosius and his sister, Pulcheria,
in which, noting the illegal actions of the recently concluded
council, he pointed out the necessity of convoking a new
Ecumenical council "which would so resolve or check all the
injustices which have arisen, that there would no longer remain
the least doubt as to the Faith, or division in love."
Saint Leo also sent two epistles, one after the other, to the
clergy and people of Constantinople. "He who thinks as a
Monophysite," the zealous champion of Orthodoxy suggests in
his epistles, "is drawn into fellowship with Arius, to whose
corruption this ungodliness, which denies the human nature in God
the Word, is greatly pleasing.Š He who does not acknowledge
the human nature assumed by the only-begotten Son of God within
the womb of the Daughter of David, cuts himself off from every
mystery of the Christian Faith, and not recognizing the
Bridegroom [Christ], and failing also to recognize the Bride [the
Church], he cannot be a participant in the fraternal banquet
[i.e., the Eucharist]. The Blood of Christ is the covering of the
Word, wherewith everyone who confesses this Word is clothed. And
he who is ashamed of Him and denies [His flesh] as though it were
something unworthy, cannot receive from Him any adornment, even
if such a one were to come to the banquet of the King and
audaciously join in the sacred meal. On the contrary, as a
dishonorable interloper he will not be able to hide from the
fastidiousness of the King, but, as the Lord Himself has borne
witness, he will be taken and, bound hand and foot, will be cast
into the outermost darkness, where there will be weeping and
gnashing of teeth (Mt. 22: 13). Therefore, he who does not
confess a human body in Christ has acknowledged himself to be
unworthy of the Mystery of the incarnation and cannot have any
part in this Mystery." "Do not think, beloved,"
the holy pope wrote in an epistle to the Eastern Churches,
"that divine Providence does not suffice for the Holy Church
now or henceforth, in the future. The purity of the Faith will
shine forth when the admixture of errors is removed from her.
Providence always shows the necessary help to His own."
And the omnipotent Head of the Church did not delay in
justifying the faith placed in His providential activity: Emperor
Theodosius, the protector of the Monophysites, soon died; his
place was taken by General Marcian in August of 450, by the
election of the army and the senate. Deeply committed to
Orthodoxy, Marcian subsequently married Theodosius' sister
Pulcheria, who was also renowned for her zeal for Orthodoxy. For
the Orthodox, the affairs of the Church thus took a turn for the
better. Leo the Great's idea for the convocation of a new
Ecumenical council was realized. The council was appointed to be
held in Nica, but later, to make it easier for the emperor to
oversee its course, it was moved to Chalcedon, which is separated
from Constantinople only by the width of the straits of the
Bosphorus. There the council opened its sessions on October 8th,
in the magnificent and vast Church of the Holy Martyr Euthymia.
The number of fathers at the council was very great - between 600
and 630, more than had attended any of the other councils. The
most prominent of its members were: Anatolius, Archbishop of
Constantinople, Maximus, Archbishop of Antioch, Juvenal,
Archbishop of Jerusalem, Thalassius, Bishop of Cappadocia, and
the legates of the pope, Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and
the Priest Boniface. A multitude of military and civil officers
also attended, though they took no part in the acts of the
council when purely ecclesiastical matters were being considered,
as for example the trial of bishops. The activity of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon consisted of 1) judgment over the
"Robbers' Council" of 449 and Dioscorus of Alexandria,
its head; and 2) an investigation into the true teaching
concerning the two natures in the Person of the God-man.
At the first session of the council, which took place on
October 8th, at the insistence of the pope's legates, Dioscorus
of Alexandria, who was sitting among the other fathers, had to
leave their ranks and sit in the middle, as one under judgment,
who had lost the right to vote. Then Eusebius of Dorylum also
went to the middle of the church, to act as plaintiff, since he
had endured much at the "Robbers' Council". "I
have been insulted and offended by Dioscorus; and the Faith has
also been insulted and offended," declared Eusebius;
"He is responsible for the death of Bishop Flavian and
unjustly condemned him and me. I ask that you accept my
petition." In Eusebius' petition, Dioscorus is accused
principally of "having assembled a riotous mob and, having
acquired the might which comes from money, offended the Faith of
the Orthodox as far as he was able, and confirmed the impiety of
the Monk Eutyches." "Since his [Dioscorus']
encroachment upon the Faith and upon us [i.e., Eusebius himself
and Flavian] is great, we ask that Dioscorus be commanded to
defend himself against that of which we accuse him." Then
began a review of the acts of the Council of Constantinople of
448 and of the "Robbers' Council" of Ephesus. The
reading of the acts of the latter council was interrupted when
the imperial edict permitting Theodoretus of Cyrrhus to be
present at the council, if the council itself so desired, was
read. When Theodoretus of Cyrrhus was mentioned, they demanded
that this zealous defender of Orthodoxy against Monophysism be
permitted at the sessions of the council. The appearance of
Theodoretus provoked a storm among the fathers: some, partisans
of Dioscorus, cried aloud that Theodoretus should be driven out;
others, defenders of Orthodoxy, demanded that Dioscorus be
expelled. The cries traded back and forth between both sides
resulted in no little tumult and disorder, which had to be
quelled by the senators and functionaries, who addressed the
disorderly parties thus: "For the sake of God, it would be
better not to prevent [the proceedings] from being heard. Permit
everything to be read in order!"
When they reached the emperor's edict which appointed
Dioscorus as president of the council, and when the latter tried
to place part of the blame for the illicit actions on Bishops
Juvenal, Thalassius, on the whole council and the emperor, the
bishops of the Antioch area declared: "None of the Orthodox
bishops at the Council of Ephesus was in agreement with the
condemnation of Bishop Flavian and Bishop Eusebius; our assent
was given under threat of violence. Under threat of blows we
signed the required paper on which, afterwards, the condemnation
of the aforementioned bishops was written. They threatened us
with condemnation; they threatened us with banishment. Soldiers
were standing by with staves and swords, and we were terrorized
by them. Where there are staves and swords, what kind of [Church]
council can there be? The soldiers cast Flavian and Eusebius down
more than we did, and what we did, we did out of fear."
This general statement concerning the intimidations and
threats made by Dioscorus were confirmed by Bishops Stephen of
Ephesus, Theodore of Claudiopolis and Basil of Isaurian Seleucia,
who clarified the more individual and truly crying details of
violations of justice. By the statements of many it was likewise
determined that the famous epistle of Pope Leo was
"intentionally prevented by Dioscorus [from being
read]", even though he swore seven times that he would order
it to be read." By the conclusion of the reading of the acts
of the Council of Ephesus, which revealed more and more of
Dioscorus' abuses, bringing to light all his criminal acts, the
bishops who took part in the Council of Ephesus, and were to one
degree or another guilty of illegal actions, repented profoundly
of their sin and many times cried out in the presence of the
council: "We all ask forgiveness!" Only Dioscorus and
certain Egyptian bishops continued to remain stubbornly in their
heresy and even openly, in the presence of the entire council,
declared their heretical Monophysite views.
Convinced of the abuses of the "Robbers'" Synod, the
fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council pronounced their
sentence over them, but in such a way that the majority of the
men who comprised its membership would not be deposed from their
episcopal rank, in view of their sincere repentance. The sentence
was greeted by the fathers of the council with cries of rapture.
The question of Dioscorus, by reason of his stiff-necked refusal
to forsake his heresy, was examined in particular at the session
which took place on October 13th. At this session, Eusebius of
Dorylum presented the council with the request that Dioscorus
be punished for his unjust treatment of him [Eusebius] and
Archbishop Flavian, and for violating "piety and the sacred
canons", so that for the remainder of his life Dioscorus
might "serve as an example and warning to those who might
consider acting as he has."
At the same time, a multitude of complaints were lodged
against Dioscorus by the clergy and one layman of the Church of
Alexandria-one complaint accusing Dioscorus of persecuting the
relatives and friends of Saint Cyril, and another of having
misappropriated church property. All of these petitions were
accepted by the council, which also decided to invite Dioscorus
to make personal explanations. But despite being summoned three
times, Dioscorus refused to appear at the council, citing various
reasons. The council, therefore, laid down its sentence
concerning him in absentia. "The council has learned,"
Paschasius, the pope's legate, said before the council,
"that Bishop Dioscorus, who has been summoned three times to
answer his accusers, knowing himself to be guilty, has disdained
the council's order to come hither. Let the holy fathers declare
with their own mouths what one who thus spurns the will of the
council deserves." The council answered: "The
deposition prescribed by the canons against those who will not
submit!" Dioscorus was deposed, and the sentence of the
council was confirmed by the emperor. Afterwards, Dioscorus was
banished to the city of Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died in
the year 454. The fathers' deliberation over the question of the
union in Christ Jesus of two natures opened with a proposal being
set before the council for the composition of a new definition of
the Faith which would eliminate the false teaching of the
Monophysites and reconcile everyone: "We must investigate,
deliberate and try to confirm the true Faith," said the
proposal, "for the sake of which this council has primarily
been convoked; it would be desirable that the teaching of the
articles of the Faith be correct, and that every doubt be removed
by the concordant exposition and teaching of all the fathers [of
the council]; strive without fear, without obsequiousness and
enmity, to set forth the Faith in purity, so that even those
whose ideas are not in agreement with those of all [of us] may
again be brought into oneness of mind through a knowledge of the
Truth."
During the exchange of opinions regarding this proposal, the
council reached the unanimous decision to read certain writings
of the councils and fathers of the Church, where the truth of
Orthodoxy was expressed with particular clarity. First of all,
the Nican Creed was read, at the conclusion of which the
fathers of the council cried out: "This is the Faith of the
Orthodox! By this do we all believe, in it have we been baptized,
and therein do we baptize!" The Constantinopolitan Creed of
381, whose ecclesiastical authority had hitherto not been firmly
established, likewise found unanimous recognition when it was
read. All the bishops of the council, when they had listened to
the Constantinopolitan Creed, cried aloud: "This is the
Faith of us all! This is the Faith of the Orthodox!"
Following the reading of the Creeds, the council proceeded to the
reading of the works of the holy fathers, in which was found a
clear and definite teaching concerning the wholeness and fullness
in Christ Jesus of two natures, and also an indication of their
unity was noted not with such force, as an indication of their
distinction. First to be read were those writings of Saint Cyril
of Alexandria which had earlier been read at the Council of
Constantinople of 448: the epistle of Saint Cyril to Nestorius
and the famous epistle he wrote after the union had been
effected. The reading of these works of Saint Cyril was
accompanied by cries of joy: "Thus do we believe! As Cyril
does, so do we also believe!" Following these writings of
Saint Cyril of Alexandria the encyclical epistle of Saint Leo the
Great was read. This was accompanied by arguments, for several of
the bishops who were partisans of Dioscorus found the epistle
dubious in places with regard to Orthodoxy; for this reason, the
council was compelled to elucidate the true sense of the suspect
portions of the epistle by collating them with the writings of
Saint Cyril, which the doubters held authoritative. The doubters,
however, were not satisfied with this and demanded that the
fathers who accepted the epistle of Saint Leo the Great
anathematize those who separated the two natures in Christ in the
sense of the Nestorians, and only after this did they accept the
epistle. Then followed citations from the works of the fathers in
which, as in the epistle of Leo the Great, the doctrine of two
natures in Christ was noted with particular expressiveness. Thus
the following were read: from the writings of Hilary of Poitiers
(+366): "Do you see that Christ is confessed to be God and
man so that death might be ascribed to man and the resurrection
of the flesh to God? Recognize the nature of God in the power of
the resurrection, and understand the œconomy of man in the
flesh. Yet remember that the one Christ Jesus is both the one and
the other"; from the writings of Saint Gregory the
Theologian: "God issued forth from the Virgin, assuming
[human nature], one of the two things-flesh and Spirit-which are
contrary to each other, from which one was elevated to divine
dignity, and the other imparted the grace of deification";
"True, He was sent, but not as a man, for in Him was a
twofold nature; which is why He grew weary, and hungered and
thirsted, and struggled, and wept, in accordance with the law of
the human body".
Among the citations made from the writings of Saint Ambrose of
Milan they read: "We hold that there is a distinction
between the Godhead and the flesh. In the one and the other the
Son of God speaks, for in Him are one and the other nature.
Although He speaks as one and the same, yet He does not always do
so in an identical manner. Note in Him both the glory of God and
the sufferings of man. As God, He speaks of what is divine,
because He is the Word [of God]; as man He speaks of what is
human, because He speaks in this [human] nature." From the
writings of Saint John Chrysostom the following passage was
chosen to be read: "Thus, He brought the firstfruits of our
nature to the Father: the Father was so moved to pity by the
gift, both by the great dignity of the Giver, and also by the
purity of Him Who was offered, that He received His [gift] with
His own hands, shared His throne with Him, and, what is more, set
Him at His right hand." In conclusion, citations were read
by the council from the writings of Saint Cyril's treatise On the
Resurrection, among them these dicta of the holy father: "He
[i.e. Christ] appeared on earth, not forsaking what He was, but
assuming our nature, which is perfect in its own sense";
"that which indwells is usually understood as something
different within something which differs from it, i.e. within
humanity the divine nature, which did not endure admixture or
confusion of any kind, or transformation into that which before
it was not. For that which is spoken of as abiding within
something else did not became that in which it dwells; on the
contrary, it is considered something different within something
that differs from it."
Finally, the council proceeded to the composition of a
definition of the Faith, so as to proclaim the Orthodox doctrine
of the God-man. During this there were many debates and disputes,
and much distrust and dissatisfaction was expressed; yet all of
this did not hinder the council from attaining the desired end:
to proclaim the most pure doctrine of the God-man. The debates
and disputes were, as it were, a crucible in which the worthiness
of the Truth was tried. After this testing, the Truth could only
shine forth in all its brilliance, could only became a Truth
unquestionable for all time. A debate of short duration put an
end to the hundred-year old controversy which had been present in
the Church until this time, and has prevented disputes in the
Church for the future. No sooner did the fifth session open than
the definition of the Faith, evidently composed not in the
presence of the whole council and not at its official sessions,
was read aloud for the fathers of the council.
The reading of this doctrinal definition elicited heated and
lengthy discussions among the fathers of the council: John,
Bishop of Germanicia, was the first to protest, saying of the
reading of the definition that "The definition of the faith
is not well composed and must be amended." Then Patriarch
Anatolius posed to the fathers of the council the question:
"Are you satisfied with the definition?" The majority
of the bishops exclaimed: "The definition pleases everyone.
This is the Faith of the fathers. He who thinks other than this
is a heretic. If anyone thinks otherwise, let him be anathema.
Away with the Nestorians!"
But the Roman legates and certain bishops from the East were
not satisfied with the doctrinal definition, since it did not set
forth the teaching of the fullness of the two natures in Jesus
Christ with that sensible clarity which they desired. Seeing this
difference of opinion, and desiring to eliminate it, Patriarch
Anatolius noted that the day before "everyone had been
pleased with the definition." The bishops who accepted the
definition again cried out: "The definition is pleasing to
all; we do not believe otherwise! Anathema to him who believes
otherwise! Let the Faith not endure falsification! Let the holy
Virgin be described as Theotokos; let us add this to the Symbol
of Faith!" By this demand for the addition of the word
"Theotokos", the bishops apparently desired to indicate
the indivisible unity of the natures in Christ. For their part,
the legates again declared: "If they will not agree with the
epistle of Pope Leo, then issue the order that we be given formal
leave to return, and thus let the council be brought to an
end." Obviously, the legates found little correspondence
between the doctrinal definition as it was composed and the
epistle of Pope Leo, which definitely and decisively expressed
the concept of two perfect natures in Christ. Seeing that the
debates among the bishops were dragging on and that there seemed
to be no easy way to terminate them, the imperial functionaries
who were present at the sessions intervened.
Taking the side of those who were protesting, the officers
suggested that the doctrinal definition be reviewed by a panel of
six bishops especially empowered by the council, selected from
three of the most important groups, under the presidency of
Anatolius, in the presence of the legates, and in a place agreed
upon. But this proposal was rejected vociferously by those
bishops who accepted the doctrinal definition. Then the imperial
functionaries addressed an admonition to the bishops who did not
want a review, urging the fathers of the council to remove from
the definition the expression "and from two natures",
in that it had been employed by the condemned heretic Dioscorus,
and in its place to insert the phrase "two natures",
for which the champion of Orthodoxy Flavian had suffered, and
which, for its precision, was used also by Leo and the Council of
Chalcedon. "Do you not know," they said, "that you
have all accepted the epistle of Leo?"; and when they had
received an affirmative response to this question, they noted:
"Therefore, introduce into the definition that which is
contained therein." Yet even the admonition of the imperial
officers could not persuade the fathers who desired that the
definition remain without alteration to leave off their
opposition.
When the Emperor Marcian was informed of this, he addressed a
special edict to the council, decreeing that the doctrinal
definition be reviewed either by the method suggested by the
imperial functionaries, or by the ranking metropolitans at the
council itself. In the event that this proposal was not assented
to, the council would be declared closed. But even the stern
decision of the emperor had no effect upon the bishops who did
not desire a review; they said: "Let the definition remain
in force, or we will leave."
Thus, the matter became even more complicated. Yet what was
all but unattainable by human means was in the simplest manner
achieved through the grace of the Holy Spirit. The imperial
functionaries again repeated the words they had spoken previously
to the council, "and the fullest, most sacred unanimity,
which had been so desired, was established at the council."
"Dioscorus said," quoth the officers: "'I accept
[that Christ is fused] from two natures; but two [unconfused]
natures I do not accept.' But the holy Leo says that in Christ
there are two unconfused, immutable and indivisible natures in
the only-begotten Son, our Savior. Therefore: who will you
follow: Leo or Dioscorus?" "We believe as Leo does!
Those who speak otherwise are Eutychians! Leo has set this forth
in Orthodox manner!", the fathers of the council exclaimed
unanimously.
Utilizing this unanimity, the functionaries proposed that the
concept of Leo the Great be introduced into the doctrinal
definition, viz. that in Christ the two natures are united
without confusion, change or division. This proposal was accepted
without comment. Immediately, at the request of all, a committee
of bishops-the primates of the most important regions-was
selected, which withdrew from the council for a short time to
make the changes in the definition. When the members of the
committee returned , the doctrinal definition of the Council of
Chalcedon was read aloud, to unanimous and rapturous
acclamations. This document, remarkable in the history of
Christianity, consists of a lengthy introduction and a short
doctrinal definition. In the introduction those doctrinal works
of the Christian Church are indicated, which each believer who
desires truly, and not only in name, to bear the name Orthodox,
must necessarily acknowledge. Here was noted the Nican Symbol
of Faith, and after it that of the Second Ecumenical Council at
Constantinople. This latter Creed is spoken of in the doctrinal
definition with particular praise and respect. Thus, "the
Constantinopolitan Symbol, after a protracted and stormy voyage
through disputes and disagreements over it, reached a calm harbor
thanks to the Council of Chalcedon."
The doctrinal definition also confirmed the resolutions of the
Third Ecumenical Council, about which there were still disputes
as to whether it was Ecumenical or not. Then the definition
singled out the following patristic writings which have
importance for the resolution of the question concerning the
person of the God-man: the epistle of Saint Cyril of Alexandria
to Nestorius, read at the Council of Constantinople in 448, and
his epistle "To Those of the East", written after the
achievement of union. Thus, the holy men who espoused the union
"did not suffer in vain at the hands of the Robbers'
Council: their blood cried out to heaven, and the Holy Spirit,
through the mouths of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon,
blessed their work and crowned their labors." After the
writings of Saint Cyril high praise was accorded the encyclical
epistle of Saint Leo the Great.
After this introduction came the following definition of faith
by the Fourth Ecumenical Council: "Following the holy
fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our
Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same
[Person], that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood,
true God and true man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body
consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching His
Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching His manhood;
having become like us in all things save sin only; begotten of
His Father before the ages according to His Godhead; but in these
last days, for us men and for our salvation, born of the Virgin
Mary, the Mother of God, according to His manhood. This one and
the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be
confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably,
indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the
distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather
the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being
united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided
into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God
the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old have
spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught
us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered unto us."
The fathers of the council expressed their unanimous agreement
with the Symbol, crying out: "This is the Faith of the
fathers! Let the archbishops sign immediately! Let not what has
been defined well be subjected to postponement! We all agree with
this faith! This is how we all think!" The fathers of the
council informed the emperor of the confirmation of the
definition by a special report, as follows:
"Epistle of the Council of Chalcedon to the Emperors
Valentinian and Marcian. "To Valentinian and Marcian, the
most pious, most noble and most Christian emperors, victorious
and triumphant, the holy and great council assembled, by the
grace of God and at the command of your piety, in the city of
Chalcedon (for intense illnesses powerful remedies and a wise
physician are required). For this reason, the Lord of all has
provided your piety as the best physician for the sufferings of
the world, that you might heal them with the best remedies. And
you, the most Christian ones, having accepted the divine
decision, before all others showed exemplary care for the Church,
prescribing for the foremost hierarchs the therapy of concord.
For, having gathered us together from all over, you used every
means to annihilate the disagreement which had arisen, and to
strengthen the teaching of the Faith of the fathers.
"And we, pondering and examining the reason for the
tempest which smote the whole world, found that the culprit in
this matter was Dioscorus, former Bishop of Alexandria. First of
all, because he forbade the reading to the most honorable bishops
assembled in Ephesus, of the epistle of the most holy Leo,
Archbishop of Old Rome, which had been sent to Flavian, late
bishop of the city of Constantinople, of holy memory; and this
after his promises and many vows, as we know well, having been
present there. Secondly, because he illegally restored to
Eutyches, who suffers from the ungodliness of Manes and has been
lawfully deposed, from both the priesthood and the oversight of
monks, prior to a decision by the council, and also whereas the
most holy and most blessed Leo, Archbishop of Old Rome, in the
same epistle determined what was necessary for him and condemned
the criminal ungodliness of Eutyches, who said: 'I confess our
Lord Jesus Christ [to be] of two natures before the union, but
after the union of a single nature'.
"Furthermore, because he caused insult to the most
God-loving bishop Eusebius. And also because he on his own
authority received into communion certain men who had been
condemned by various councils, whereas the holy canons prescribe
that those who have been excommunicated by some must not be
received into communion by others. Yet he might have been able to
receive forgiveness for these many misdemeanors had he through
fitting repentance sought healing from this Ecumenical council.
But since he, above and beyond his other indecencies, fought
against the Apostolic See itself and tried to compose a document
of deposition against the most holy and most blessed Leo,
arrogantly persisting in his former misdeeds, and showed himself
defiant towards this present holy Ecumenical council, because he
did not wish to answer the accusations made against him, utterly
disdaining them, and also, having been summoned once, and then a
second and third time, in accordance with the holy canons, he
disdained this also and did not appear, he has been justly
deposed from the priesthood by the Ecumenical council and
sentenced to deprivation of the episcopal dignity, so that an
example of order and strictness might be provided for others who
are tempted to act in a like manner, for the divine laws command
us, saying: 'Put away from among yourselves that wicked person'
[I Cor. 5: 13]. What can be worse than one who sins in such
deeds, thus trampling underfoot the divine canons, filling the
whole world with turbulence and tempest, scattering the members
of the Church and spurring them to make war upon one another?
Truly, every man who, seeing that one of his members has
contracted a serious illness and could infect his whole body,
seeks out a physician who is able to use a scalpel and excise the
ailing part, so as to preserve the other parts of the body in
health. We are making true report of this to Your Piety, so that
you also might perceive his criminality and the purity of the
just sentence pronounced over him, as before the very face of
God. We are certain that you also, O most pious and most
Christian emperors, will agree with us; we know what fear your
honored authority inspires in the wicked and what concern you
show for the peace of the Church, being taught by experience. And
so that your most Christian authority might know more clearly
that what has been decided is faithful to and in accordance with
the holy canons and the will of God, we have appended to this
report the very documents of the acts, bearing the signatures of
us all."
The definition of the Faith was given its final form and read
out at the council on 22 October 451. At the following, sixth
session, on October 25th, the solemn confirmation of the
definition of Faith took place in the presence of the Emperor
Marcian, the Empress Pulcheria, and a vast assembly of palace
functionaries. The emperor opened this joyous session with a
speech to the fathers of the council in which, among other
things, he said: "In recent times certain men were to be
found-some out of greed for money, others out of evil
attachments-who reasoned in a different manner and set forth a
mass of teachings full of harmful errors. Desiring to heal the
evil, we convoked your holy council, confident that thanks to
your labors there would be great success in the matter of the
confirmation of the worship of God, so that the darkness which
lay on the minds of the people who had been led astray would be
removed. Therefore, let the truth which lies in your expositions
be laid bare. And in order to impart confirmation to the acts of
the council, and not for show of force, we have decided to be
present at the council, taking as our model Constantine of
blessed memory." After the emperor's speech, to which the
fathers of the council responded with cries of approbation, there
followed the reading of the definition of the Faith, after which
the sovereign requested of the fathers of the council: "Let
the holy council say whether the definition now read has been
proclaimed with the assent of all the bishops." And the
reply was heard: "We all believe thus; we all think in this
manner. Many years to Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul,
the new David! You are the peace of the whole world; you are the
lamp of Orthodoxy! O Lord, preserve the luminaries of the whole
world! Pulcheria, O new Helen, you have shown the zeal of Helen!
Anathema to Nestorius, Eutyches and Dioscorus! The Trinity has
rejected all three of them!"
After this solemn confirmation of the definition of the Faith
by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Emperor Marcian issued a
number of edicts intended to eradicate heresies and to strengthen
Orthodox teaching. Yet such edicts were powerless to bring an end
to the turbulence within the Church, which continued in various
areas even after the Council of Chalcedon. The goal of the
ultimate pacification of the Church, which was troubled by
disputes over the two natures in Christ, was assumed by the Fifth
Ecumenical Council, which was to follow.
The Orthodox Church commemorates the Fourth Ecumenical Council
on the 16th of July.
Translated from the Russian by the reader Isaac E.
Lambertsen, from The Seven Ecumenical Councils (Based on the
Menology of St. Dimitri of Rostov), (Jordanville, NY: St. Job of
Pochaev Press, 1968), pp. 40-73.
|