Neo-Chalcedonianism and the Council of 553

INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. l.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of "sectioning" the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road

Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8404042

Ludwig, Eugene Michael

NEO�CHALCEDONISM AND THE COUNCIL OF 553

TH.D.

Graduate Theological Union

University Microfilms I n t e r n a t i O n a l 300 Ν.Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml48106

Copyright 1984 by Ludwig, Eugene Michael All Rights Reserved

1983

NEO�CHALCEDONISM AND THE COUNCIL OF 553

A dissertation by Eugene Michael Ludwig, Ο.F.M. Cap. presented to The Faculty of the Graduate Theological Union in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology Berkeley, California

January 3, 1983

Committee Signatures

Dordinator*

~

ABSTRACT

Neo�Chaleedonism and the Council of 555 is a study in Christology in the century between the Council of Chalcedon (451) and the second Council of Constantinople (553).

It deals particularly with

the interpretation of the Chalcedonian definition which received official, canonical status in 553, and which in modern times has been called neo�Chalcedonism. Representative documents and figures of the period are studied to illustrate the development of this interpretation are the codex Encyclieus

of 458 and the Henotikon

Included

of Zeno (482);

Nephalius of Alexandria, John the Grammarian of Caesarea, Ephraim of Amida, Constantinopolitan and Palestinian monastic figures including John Maxentius and the Skythian monks and Leontius of Jerusalem, Theodore of Raithou and the emperor Justinian.

Leontius of Byzantium

is not identified as a neo�Chalcedonian and is not included in this study.

Finally, the canons of the Council itself are examined to

determine its Christological teaching. 1.

The Problem. The Council of Chalcedon used dyophysite language (two

cpuoeus) to indicate the divinity and humanity of Christ, and used the word ύπόστασυε to indicate their union.

The Council did not, however,

define its terms, with the result that what appears to be a well balanced formula was in fact open to various interpretations.

To the

monophysite opponents of the Council, its definition sounded like a

1

2 revivla of Nestorianism.

The understanding of a monophysite or

dyophysite formula obviously depends on how one understands the words φνίσυς and ύπόστασυς. 2.

Characteristics of Neo�Chalcedonism. Neo�Chalcedonism arose within the Chalcedonian party around

the turn of the sixth century to counter the increasingly sophisticated monophysite theology articulated by figures such as Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabbug.

We can trace its development from a polemic

ad hominem style of argument through to an elaborated system. the compilation of patristic florilegia

Through

and an analysis and definition

of technical Christological terms, they set out to show that despite verbal differences, Chalcedon, Leo's Tome to Flavian,

Chril of

Alexandria and the rest of patristic tradition were in agreement. There are four major characteristics of neo�Chalcedonism which can be identified.

1) An insistence—particularly in the early

states—on the use of both monophysite and dyophysite language together as necessary to preserve orthodoxy.

2) The use—particularly

in the later states—of a theopaschite formula, "God suffered in the flesh."

3) The development of a "two nativities of God the Word, one

in eternity and one in time" motif.

4) The use of Cappadocian

Trinitarian terms to understand Christological terms, and the development of a theory of "synthetic" union as synonymous with hypostatic union. 3.

Relation of the Various Writers to These Characteristics. While the general characteristics of neo�Chalcedonism can

be identified, it is important to note that not all of these features

3 appear in all the writers surveyed.

It is rather a case of features

which develop and assume places of greater or lesser importance as neo-Chalcedonism moves toward its canonical expression in Constantinople II. We are in fact able to observe a whole range of approaches from extreme to cautious. 4.

Conclusions. The imbalance of the Fifth Council was more political and

ecclesiastical than theological.

It tried to bring about a reconcili-

ation with the monophysite party without making a corresponding attempt to reconcile others. While in condemned the material of the Three Chapters,

which, as it was presented, is certainly heretical, it made

no corresponding condemnation of any monophysites such as Severus of Antioch or Timothy Aelurus. Theologically, the task facing the Chalcedonian party was to put forward a coherent interpretation of Chalcedon which would retain Chalcedon's fundamentally sound balance and at the same time enable them to claim the authority of Cyril of Alexandria for themselves.

The

neo-Chalcedonian attempt was finally successful because it developed the notion of synthetic or hypostatic union as the basis for preserving Christ humanity and divinity intact.

From that position they could

then articulate a Christology from the Cyrillian perspective of the incarnation of God the Word without ending in Eutychianism.

Their

result is something very close to what was intended by the vast majority at Chalcedon, and neo-Chalcedonism should not be looked upon as a misinterpretation or a capitulation to monophysitism. The Fifth Council canonized a moderate form of neo-Chalce-

4 donism, and the emperor Justinian played a strong role in its formulations; but both the Council and Justinian have to be understood in the context of the preceding century's discussions.

The positive

contribution of the Ffith Council was that it integrated the advances made by Chalcedon, and the Western and Antiochene traditions preserved by Chalcedon, with the Alexandrian part of the Church's tradition. While the Council of 553 made a theologicall positive contribution, it also left a problem.

It accepts the full humanity

of Christ, but it puts all its emphasis on the fact that he is a divine person.

This became the theological problem which the Sixth Council,

Constantinople III (681) had to deal with.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It would be ungrateful of me not to thank Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., and through him many other members of the faculty of the Graduate Theological Union for their direction, patience and encouragement so willingly given. My special thanks to the members of my Capuchin community, particularly to those friars who have been local and provincial superiors, standing.

for their trust, support and under-

A particular word of gratitude to the Dominican School of

Philosophy and Theology, Berkeley,

whose support has been shown in

that most concrete form, employment.

i

PREFATORY NOTES

NOTE ON THE TRANSLITERATION OF SYRIAC SCRIPT Syriac script is transliterated according to standard consonantal equivalents.

In a work of this nature it did not seem

necessary to include a great many sigla of only technical interest.

I

have followed the principle that the reader familiar with Syriac should be able to recognize the root and that the reader not familiar with Syriac should be able to pronounce the word. While I have allowed myself some inconsistency, particularly with tau, indicated the aspiration of bgdkpt.

I have not generally

Wau used as a mater

designated u or o, while vocalic yuan is rendered i . regularly designated sh.

Initial alaph

where necessary to indicate 'e.

lectionis

is

Shin is

is not indicated; a '

is used

No distinction is made between long

and short vowels, nor between vowels with or without mater

iii

lectionis.

NOTE ON THE TRANSLATION OF CHRISTOLOGICAL TERMS

I have regularly translated the Syriac terms k yana and e

q noma

into their Greek equivalents, φύσοε and ύπόστασυς.

While these

words are standardly rendered in English as nature and person, I have been hesitant to so translate them in this work.

In the fifth and

sixth centuries, different people used these words with different meanings so that a consistent translation of φύσχε and ύπόστασυε as nature and person would in many cases be a distortion of a particular writer's thought.

For this reason I have thought it best to leave the

words untranslated even though it has meant a large intrustion of Greek into the text.

iv

NOTE ON LATIN TEXTS

The printed editions of the Latin texts used in the preparation of this work have followed different editorial practices regarding capitalization and spelling, particularly in the distinction between consonantal ü and vocalic u.

In direct citation of printed

texts I have followed the spelling of the printed edition but have consistently capitalized the initial letter of each sentence. When not citing directly I have followed the standard editorial practice of distinguishing u and v.

ν

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFATORY Note Note Note

i

NOTES on the Transliteration of Syriac Script on the Translation of Christological Terms on Latin Texts

INTRODUCTION

iii iv ν 1

CHAPTER I: THE CODEX ENCYCLICUS OF 458 AND THE HENOTIKON OF 482 . . 16 CHAPTER II: NEPHALIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

34

CHAPTER III: JOHN OF CAESAREA

48

CHAPTER IV: EPHRAIM OF AMIDA

67

CHAPTER V:

CHALCEDONIAN AND NEO�CHALCEDONIAN MONASTICISM IN CONSTANTINOPLE

88

CHAPTER VI: THEODORE OF RAITHOU

106

CHAPTER VII: LEONTIUS OF JERUSALEM AND PALESTINIAN MONASTICISM . .116 CHAPTER VIII: JUSTINIAN

129

CHAPTER IX: THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, CONSTANTINOPLE II . . . .141 CONCLUSION

149

BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Secondary sources

154 157

vi

INTRODUCTION

2

The impact of the definition of the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which was an attempt to resolve the Christological debates of the fourth and fifth centuries, has extended far beyond its own time.

Its

assertion that in Christ two natures are united in one person provided not only an answer, it provided the context within which Christological questions were asked.

If there is a break between Chalcedon and some

of the Christological thought of our own period, the break stems not so much from a disagreement over the basic answer as from a difference in formulating the basic questions.

Let us grant that the formula of

Chalcedon was expressed in the historical, theological and philosophical categories and perspectives of its own time, and that the categories of the twentieth century may not be the same as those of the fifth century, nonetheless, when we read the definition of Chalcedon it appears to us across a distance of fifteen hundred years as a balanced and sensible expression.

The immediate results of Chalcedon were anything but

balance and sensibility however.

The immiediate results of Chalcedon

were schisms, some of which continue even today, riots, bloodshed and murder.

The Christological formulation became a matter of passionate

concern not only to bishops, theologians and ecclesiastical types, but to the typical man and woman in the street.

In Constantinople the

Christological factions began associating with the circus teams and a horse race in the imperial city had the potential to end up in a Christological riot.

(No records exist showing whether God favored

Chalcedonian or monophysite horses.)

The whole affair appears partly

3 tragic, partly comic, and leaves us with questions. sensible sounding formulation a problem?

Why was such a

Why such an exhibition of

passion and violence? The answer to the first question is the simplest. Chalcedon put forward a formula without defining its terms. (physis)

and ύπό'στασυε (hypostasis)

The words φυσυε

did not necessarily have the

meanings of nature and person which we attach to them, and while the Council spoke of the one ύικίστασυε, it did not use the term hypostatic union as a means for explaining the relation between the two φύσευε and the one ύπόστασι,ε. Because there was an elasticity in the meaning of these words, a variety of interpretations was possible. The opponents of the Council found the formula contradictory at best, blasphemous at worst. Many of the Council's early supporters did nothing to calm their fears that Chalcedon's dyophysite formula was a revival of Nestorianism.

One of the major goals of this study is to

show the development in the meaning of those Chalcedonian terms from 451 to 553. The answer to the second question is more complex and involves matters theological and political.

The loudest and most

violent protests against Chalcedon came from Alexandria.

The Council

of Chalcedon had deposed its partiarch in a legally questionable manner and its adoption of dyophysite language appeared to them as a repudiation of Cyril of Alexandria.

This latter point needs seriously

to be challanged, particularly since it is one of those myths which too many moderns tend to accept too uncritically.

A reading of the acts of

Chalcedon will show that Cyril of Alexandria was the

authority in

4 Christology at that council.

The supporters of Pope Leo's Tome had

the burden of proving that Leo agreed with Cyril. bishops were at least in a vague way Cyrillian.

The majority of the

Whatever they may have

done, they did not intend either the rehabilitation of Nestorius or the repudiation of Cyril.

This, however, is not our major concern now,

and we may simply conclude that the patriarchate of Alexandria felt like it had much to be unhappy about. Monophysite opposition to Chalcedon was not confined to Alexandria; rather it was to be found throughout the empire.

A

localized rebellion might possibly be understood as an expression of Coptic ident ty against the Greco-Roman empire, though the argument that monophysitism was a social rebellion would be stronger if the debates had been carried out in Coptic rather than in Greek on both sides or if Alexandria had stopped paying taxes to the emperor and had stopped praying for him in the churches.

The wide appeal of monophysi-

tism and the violence of Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian toward one another require another explanation. The first step in the explanation is the recognition of the unity of culture and religion in the empire, and this is particularly important for us who live in a religiously pluralistic society.

We

know that at any time religious innovation is likely to meet resistance, and this was certainly true for the classical world. us add to that the fact that with religion

Let

and culture so closely

interwoven, religious deviation becomes social deviation.

Such a

context does not make the violence and bloodshed to be acceptable human conduct, but it does make it explicable.

5 Perhaps it would also be useful to consider the areas of agreement between monophysites and dyophysites regarding the means and content of salvation.

The late antique world was very much interested

in salvation and the means of salvation, hence the attraction of gnosticism, the mystery cults and various religio-philosophic systems which were earliest Christianity's major rivals.

For the Christian,

salvation comes through faith, and faith was identified with correct belief which was further understood as verbal orthodoxy.

In this

context, heresy, verbal hererodoxy, is a peril to salvation, and if you introduce heresy into the Church, you imperil not only your own salvation but others' as well; and when you abandon right belief you abandon the necessary foundation of right action.

If we are to under-

stand the dogmatic disputes of the patristic period we must avoid retrojecting modern discussions of the relation between faith, orthodoxy and heresy, the function of dogmatic formulations, etc., into our study and attempt rather to study them in terms of their own presuppositions rather than ours. A second point of agreement among all the parties concerned the content of salvation.

Salvation for humanity was considered

primarily as the conferral of immortality and incorruptibility, attributes which properly belong to God. through a real union of God and humanity.

Salvation is only possible This soteriological point

had been well established in the Arian controversy, the Apollinarian controversy and the debates over the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

Here

again it is important to rid our minds of the myth too frequently accepted in the West that all monophysites denied the humanity of Christ.

6 If we exclude the radical minorities who were recognized by both sides as heretical, we find that the concern of all parties was to maintain the reality of Christ's divinity, the reality of Christ's humanity and the reality of their union.

An unbiased reading of the textual

evidence will show that the monophysite party did not intend to deny the reality of Christ's humanity not did the dyophysite party intend to deny the union.

Their disagreement was over the way in which these

realities should be expressed. The period covered by this study includes the years between the fourth ecumenical council, Chalcedon, 451, and the fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II, 553. Historically the period

can be

divided into two unequal parts of which the publication of the emperor Zeno's Henotikon

in 482 is the dividing line.

This attempt by the

emperor to unite the eastern episcopate around a declaration of faith which side stepped Chalcedon precipitated a major schism between Constantinople and Rome and produced a situation where the three major ecclesiastical centers, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria were out of communion with one another.

It also marks a shift in imperial

policy from attempted enforcement of Chalcedon to attempted compromise with the monophysite party and in some cases, as with the emperor Anastasius, outright repudiation.

This put the emperor and the

Constantinopolitan Church in a delicate position.

The majority of the

populace at Constantinople was Chalcedonian at least to a moderate degree, and deviations in a monophysite direction frequently produced violent popular reaction.

Hence the general policy was of necessity

one of careful conciliation, formally in agreement with Chalcedon, but

7 letting the monophysites know they had friends in high places. Justinian and Theodora, his wife, were superb practitioners of this art. I do not intend to deal exhaustively with the history of the period.

There exist an adequate number of studies, particularly for

Justinian's reign.

It might be helpful to point out, however, that

this was a complicated period and we are dealing with people who helped give Byzantine politics their reputation. The Christological scene of the fifth and sixth centuries is best viewed as a continuum ranging from Eutychianism on one end through various moderate degrees of monophysitism to moderated degrees of dyophysitism ending in Nestorianism on the other side.

The first

distinction which we must make is between monophysites and dyophysites. I use the terms in this study with the following meanings. Monophysites are those who use the formula "one incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word."

Dyophysites are those who use a formula of "two φύσει,ε and

one ύπόστασοε [or πρόσωπον]."

It would in incorrect to look upon

either one of these parties as an intellectually or politically homogeneous group.

Eutyches was a monophysite and clearly a heretic;

it is much more difficult to label a monophysite such as Severus of Antioch a heretic when his thought is carefully analyzed. both Nestorians and Chalcedonians are dyophysites.

Similarly,

The two terms are

thus not to be faciley equated with heresy and orthodoxy. Even within the Chalcedonian party we see a diversity of thought. party.

We may distinguish two general groups within the Chalcedonian

The first can be labeled strict dyophysites or strict

Chalcedonians, though to my mind the latter term begs the question.

8

Theodoret of Cyr (d. 466) is probably the most notable member of this group.

Their theological outlook is basically Antiochene, which is to

say that their primary Christological concern was to preserve the distinction between humanity and divinity, the created and the uncreated, in the incarnation.

This group tended to interpret

Chalcedon as an affirmation of Antiochene concerna and a partial turning away from the strongly unitive Christology of Cyril and the Alexandrian school whose excesses were represented by Eutyches. The other major group, and the group with which this work is concerned may be labeled moderate dyophysites or neo-Chalcedonians. This latter term is frequently applied in a pejorative sense by those who consider strict dyophysitism to represent the true intention of Chalcedon from which neo-Chalcedonism is a deviation back toward monophysitism.

For this group Chalcedon did not repudiate Cyril

although it made a necessary change in his terminology.

Consequently,

their efforts are directed toward demonstrating the inner agreement between Cyril, Pope Leo and Chalcedon. Neo-Chalcedonism arose within the Chalcedonian party in reaction to monophysite arguments. Around the turn of the sixth century, as the monophysite theology became more sophisticated through men such as Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabbug, the Chalcedonian response developed.

We can trace the growth of neo-Chalcedonism

from a polemic ad hominem style of argumentation through to an elaborated system. patristic florilegia,

Its method consists of:

1) the compilation of

principally using texts of Cyril of Alexandria

and the Cappadocians; 2) an analysis and definition of the technical

9

terms of Christology.

This approach was necessary if they were to

prove that despite verbal differences, Chalcedon, Leo's Tome to Flavian,

Cyril and the rest of patristic tradition were in agreement. We can list four major characteristics of neo�Chalcedonian

theology; however, it is important to note that not all of these features appear in all the writers in question.

It is rather that

these features develop and assume places of greater and lesser importance as neo�Chalcedonism moves towards its definitive canonical expression in the declarations of Constantinople II. These four major characteristics are: i) an accpetance of both monophysite and dyophysite language together as necessary for orthodoxy; 2) the use of a theopas� chite formula, "God suffered in the flesh;" 3) development of a "two nativities of God the Word" motif; 4) the use of Cappadocian Trinitarian terms to understand Christological terms and the development of a theory of "synthetic" union.

We will consider each of these in a

little more detail. 1.

Acceptance of monophysite and dyophysite language. Particularly in the early states of the movement we see an

assertion that both Cyril's µιία φύσυε (or µιία ύπόστασυε) formula and the Chalcedonian definition together

are necessary for orthodoxy.

It

involves an equation of Cyril's φύσυε/ύποστασυε with the ύπό*στασυε/ πρόσωπον of Chalcedon.

Cyril's recognition of the one φιίσι,ε as

incarnate, σεσαρκοµένη, it was claimed, indicates that he recognized the same duality which Chalcedon recognized when it spoke of two φύσευε/

Among some neo�Chalcedonians there is a tendency to recognize

the Cyrillian formula as a more apt expression, and a tendency among

10 virtually all of them to recognize its legitimacy in an anti�Nestorian context.

In its most extreme expression we see assertions that the

Chalcedonian definition is expressed in less exact (crsssioribus terminology which is not so much a definitio scutum

2.

or mathema fidei

verbis) but a

or shield aimed at the exclusion of Eutychianism.

The theopaschite formula. The formula "one of the Trinity suffered [in the flesh]"

first appeared in the Henotikon

of 482 and was until early in the

sixth century a monophysite slogan against Chalcedon.

The Skythian

monks who became active in Constantinople were responsible for introducing it into neo�Chalcedonian circles.

It is aimed at upholding the

unity of Christ and at emphasizing the divine activity in the work of human salvation.

It is at least very congenial to a monophysite style

of spirituality which assigns a rather passive role to the humanity of Christ in the process of redemption.

Liturgically this trend was seen

in the theopaschite interpolation of the Trisagion

made by Peter the

Fuller, the monophysite patriarch of Antioch (Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, crucified

for

us,

have mercy on us).

Its best

neo�Chalcedonian liturgical expression is found in the hymn attributed to Justinian, 0 Monogenes:

0 only begotten Son and Word of God, although you are immortal, you condescended for our salvation to take flesh from the holy θεοτώωε and ever virgin Mary, and without changing you became man. You were crucified, Christ who are God, by your death trampling death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity and are glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit; save us.

11 This hymn is still used in those Churches which celebrate the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

3.

The "two nativities." Similar to theopaschism is the "two nativities" motif which

is observable also in the 0 Monogenes.

It is a common theme of

Alexandrian Christology to speak of the two nativities of the Word of God, one from eternity from the Father, the other in time from the θεοτώωε, theotokos, divinity of Christ.

God�bearer.

It emphasizes the unity and the

The theopaschite and two nativities formulae work

against the Antiochene tendency to speak of "God assuming" and the "man assumed."

4.

Cappadocian terms and synthetic union. The neo�Chalcedonians take the traditional Cappadocian

trinitarian terminology, expand it and to some extent stand it on its head.

For the Cappadocians the divine ούσιία was the principle of

unity and the three ύποστασεε were principles of distinction.

In the

neo�Chalcedonian system the one ύπόστασυε becomes the principle of unity while the two φύσει,ε, which are defined like ούσώχ as "that which is common [to all members of a class], το* κοι/υόν," become the basis of distinction.

Neo�Chalcedonian terminology goes beyond the Cappadocian

conception of ύποστασϋε as "το* tôuov, that which is individual," and defines ύποστασι�ε as "that which exists by itself." This characteristic definition, along with the alignment of φύσυε/ούσιία to express commonality, and ύποστασυε/προσώπον to express individuality form the metaphysical basis of neo�Chalcedonian Christology.

A further

12 characteristic of neo�Chalcedonian metaphysics is the assertion that things which are not όµοούσυος with each other are united hypostatically or synthetically. In this study I have undertaken to describe the growth of neo�Chalcedonism from the end of the Council of Chalcedon, 451, to its expression in the declarations of the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 through an analysis of representative writers and documents. It seemed best to devote a section to each writer or group and let them speak for themselves.

While this does not make for as smooth a narrative,

it does reflect better the varied character of the neo�Chalcedonian party and the sometimes disjointed growth of the movement.

It would

have been intriguing, but a methodological mightmare, to start from the declarations of Constantinople II and work backwards to their antecedents in the writers of the fifth and sixth centuries. At this point a word of explanation is in order on my decision not to include Leontius of Byzantium in this study. recent studies of Leontius disagree among themselves. 2 Evans

The most

Meyendorff

and

3 consider him an Origenist.

but for different reasons.

Daley

Gray

reaches the same conclusion

rejects the arguments of Evans and

John Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Washington: Corpus, 1969) 2

David Evans, Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist

Dumbarton Oaks Studies tine Studies, 1970)

Christology3

13 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzan-

3

Patrick T.R. Gray, The Defense of Chalcedon in the East

(Leiden: Brill, 1979) 4 Brian Daley, "The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium," JTS new series 27(1976) part 2, pp. 333�369

13 Meyendorff and considers him a "paleo�Chalcedonian." Leontius does not accept theopaschite language and is very cautious about synthesis language, both of which are characteristic of the neo�Chalcedonism of his day.

Modern commentators have only one point of agreement about

Leontius: he is not a neo�Chalcedonian. It has been said that the neo�Chalcedonians are dry and "scholastic," caught up in definitions and full of polemic.

It is

true that we will find no stirring orations, or even much which would qualify as good spiritual reading.

Certainly detailed reading of the

ploddings of Leontius of Jerusalem requires an act of endurance. This, however, is not to say that they are uninteresting, unoriginal, or that they generated all heat and no light.

They are grappling

with a significant problem and ought to be recognized as theological pioneers in developing a theology of hypostatic union. Without losing sight of the limited scope of this work, something should be said about the place of this period of 451�553 within the broader context of Patristic Christology.

There is, I

contend, a shared vision, or a set of common concerns, first articulated in a systematic way by Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 220), developed by Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria, balanced by the likes of Theodoret ο," Cyr, which reached its completed expression not at Chalcedon but with Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and the declarations of the Sixth (Constantinople III, 681) and Seventh (Nicaea II, 787) Councils.

I identify this as the mainstream of Greek Patristic

thought and I see the inner continuity of that stream as the key to understanding the Christology of the Greek Fathers.

This shared

14

vision is a vision of God the Word who became incarnate to elevate the God�humanity relationship to a new level, a divine initiative bringing about human transformation.

Although Christ is truly God, he truly

took everything we are to himself, entered human history, experienced all that we experience, sin excepted; he destroyed the power of sin and death and continues to communicate to us all the power of the resurrection. The detailed explication of this vision was a long process and it hardly seems worthwhile here to catalogue the partial solutions, deviations and outright failures which occured along the way to a coherent theology of the hypostatic union.

I should, however, explain

my insistence on the importance of the Sixth and Seventh Councils.

The

Sixth Council dealt with the complexities of the monergist crisis, a heresy which had both a monophysite wing and a Nestorian wing.

The

Fifth Council had emphasized the one ύπόστασι,ε of Christ in its identity with the pre�existent ύπόστασι,ε of God the Word.

The advance

of the Sixth Council was in the way it saw the one ύπόστασι,ε of Christ as the means by which not only the metaphysical reality but also the functional reality of both humanity and divinity were preserved. Without a working theology of the hypostatic union, Nicaea II could not have vindicated the tradition of making an ikon of Christ in the way it did.

The Council recognized that the one ύπόστασι,ε of

Christ is the one reality which concretizes both his humanity and his divinity and preserves them both intact.

For this reason the ikon is

not an empty attempt >. '. to portray the divinity, nor simply a portrait of the humanity, whose veneration would be blasphemous.

The ikon is

the representation of the divine�human ύπόστασι,ε which entered human

15 history and is accessible to human experience.

It is simultaneously

the symbol of deified humanity and the divine condescension.

One has

to be in profound possession of a theology of hypostatic union to arrive at this kind of a theology of the ikon. Let us return to the point of departure.

The development of

neo-Chalcedonism and its ecclesiastical and canonical expression in 553 is but one chapter of a larger history.

It is not an end in itself, but

it is rather part of a theological work in progress, at just about its midpoint.

CHAPTER I THE CODEX ENCYCLICUS OF 458 AND THE HENOTIKON OF 482

1. The Codex Enayclicus

of 458

The collection of letters known as the Codex Enayclicus

is

the result of a consultation of bishops, most oriental, though Pope Leo is also included, order by the emperor Leo I (457-474). The metropolitans were to meet with their provincial synods and send the emperor their opinions on two questions: the legitimacy of the succession of Timothy Aelurus (Timothy "the Cat") as patriarch of Alexandria after the assassination of Proterius, the Chalcedonian patriarch, and the demand made by Timothy that a new council be called to counteract Chalcedon. The extant replies exist in a Latin translation which does not include all the letters.

Since, however, the letters show a range

of opinion, it does not appear that the Latin translator or collector was attempting to present a one-sided view; hence the collection can safely be used as a document representative of the oriental episcopacy 2 at this time. The evidence of Michael the Syrian, the twelfth century Jacobite patriarch of Antioch, confirms this judgment. A monophysite himself, he tells us that only Amphilocus of Sidon and his synod, whose letter is not in the Latin collection, wrote against the Council. He would have no reason to suppress information on monophysite dissent. ^Collectio Sangermanensis3 ACO 11,5. References will be given as CE followed by the number of the letter, and then the page and line in ACO 11,5. "Tlichael the Syrian, Chronicle IX,5 (ed. J.B. Chabot, Paris: 1901); translation: vol. 2, pp. 145-148; text: vol. 4, pp. 250-253

17

18 Michael's admission that Amphilocus took a negative view of Timothy Aelurus' ordination adds to his trustworthiness axe interesting from two

The replies in the Codex Enayclicus

viewpoints: their opinions regarding Chalcedon, and their conception of ecclesial polity.

The oriental bishops take the view that the emperor

is charged with the preservation of the true faith.

Typical of their

attitude is the response:

Primum enim oblatio et acceptabile sacrificium est ut auriga mundi et princeps totius orbis qui sub sole consistit, adorandae trinitatis fidem seruiet incolumem et doceat ex his quae facit et colit, timere et homines deum et talia sectari per quae nostrum seruatur genus.1

No one questions the legitimacy of the imperial intervention or 2 suggests recourse to the bishop of Rome.

The opinion of Pope Leo, on

the other hand, is that what is set forth by the Apostolic See is

sufficient for the elimination of heresy: "ut liceat

apostolica

sunt praedicta suffiaerent,

eti.am haec sunt

adiecta

reseruarent."

insidias

ea quae a sede

tarnen haereticorum

This expresses what was to be

The principal offering and acceptable sacrifice is that the helmsman of the world and the ruler of everything under the sun should preserve intact the faith in the adorable Trinity, and should teach people through the things which he does and approves to fear God and to adhere to those things by which our race is saved. CE 33, 64.2-5 2 The best study of this aspect of the CE is Alois

Grillmeier's "Auriga Mundi," Mitt ihm und in ihm (Freiburg: Herder, 1975), pp. 386-419.

See also Theodore Schnitzler, Im Kampf um

Chalcedon: Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Enayclicus von 458 (Analecta Gregoriana 16, Rome: 1938). 3 Leo, Epistle 156, = ACO 11,4, 104.5-6; = CE 12, 24. This letter properly belongs to the CE. It promises another communication to the emperor which is Leo's Epistle 165.

19 the Roman attitude during this period.

Rome considered the matter of

a Christological formulation settled and was resolutely opposed to further discussion or any additional definitions of faith.

Leo's

entire letter politely but firmly advises the emperor not to get into any dealings with the heretics. The question of Timothy Aelurus does not concern us here. Most of the bishops reject his succession as illegitimate, even Amphilocus.

A few express a desire to have the facts of the case

investigated. The replies indicate that the majority of the oriental episcopacy at this time accepted the Council of Chalcedon. Most of the writers simply state that they accept the Council, see no need for a new meeting and make no elaboration of their understanding of the Chalcedonian definition.

Those who mention Cyril of Alexandria

consider him an orthodox teacher with whom Chalcedon is in continuity. It is noteworthy that all the letters which make a serious attempt to explain, justify and interpret the Chalcedonian formula come from Asia Minor, an area where Chalcedonians and monophysites were in conflict with one another.

A few of the letters are of some interest

in tracing the beginning of the neo-Chalcedonian movement. An important part of the letter of Basil of Antioch and eight other bishops of Syria Prima

is the consideration that conciliar

statements have served to exclude heretics.

The symbol of Nicaea is

compared to a rock against which every attack of the heretics is X

CE 20, 32.34-35.7

20

quickly dissolved into foam.

The Nicene symbol of faith excludes

those who deny the divinity or the humanity of Christ: "quod enim

incarnationem et humanitionem, nihil

ad

aliud quam adsumptionem et Having thus interpreted the

unitionem nostrae naturae monstrauit."

intentions of Nicaea, Basil goes on to state that the 550 Fathers at Chalcedon followed this same faith.

Interestingly, no mention is made

of the Council of Ephesus, possibly because the extent to which Ephesus had approved Cyril of Alexandria was a point at issue.

It should also

be remembered that the monophysites recognized two Ephesian councils, that of 431 and the so-called Latrocinium

of 449.

Some other letters

follow the same pattern of stressing the continuity between Chalcedon and Nicaea, e.g. Letter

30 from the bishops of Lydia.

It should also

be noted that one monophysite argueront against Chalcedon was that it had by its definition "added" to the faith of Nicaea. Basil and the bishops with him both accept Chalcedon and anathematize with it Nestorius and Eutyches. Chalcedon praised, no names mentioned.

They praise those whom

Later neo-Chalcedonism was to

make much of this distinction between positive teaching and anathemas or exclusion of heretics. Letter

28,

from the bishops of Pisidia,

shows some similar ideas. While it does not attempt any explanation of Chalcedon, it sees it as a necessary complement in excluding 2 heresy.

Nestorius taught one error; Eutyches taught the opposite

error. 1 2

IHd.

33.5-37

Ibid.

53.19-25

21 The general tone of Basil's letter is careful.

Christ is

truly consubstantial with the Father and truly consubstantial with us. The assertion of this double consubstantiality does not detract from the unity of Christ.

The Council of Chalcedon taught one and the same

son, "unum eundemque filium,"

human and divine: "non alium et alium

per haec denuntiantes, sed eundem filium et deum et quaecumque de eo 2 dicuntuTj conpetenter glorificantes." further clarified.

The manner of that union is not

This would surely not satisfy a monophysite, but

it appears carefully phrased to avoid any suggestion of a "two sons" Christology while maintaining the symetrical character of the Chalcedonian definition.

The bishops make no attempt to define the

Chalcedonian terms. While Basil and the bishops with him should be classified as strict Chalcedonians, one feature of their letter does reappear later in the neo-Chalcedonian program, the distinction between positive teaching and the condemnation of heresy by a council. The bishops of Panphylia gathered under Epiphanius take a 3 more reserved view of Chalcedon. They honor Nicaea and the accept Chalcedon as a scutum,

shield, against heretics, but they do not

consider it a mathema fidei.

Both the Tome of Pope Leo and the

definition of Chalcedon were not directed to the people, but to 1

Ibid. 33.39

2 They did not indicate one and another by this, but they glorified together the same son and God and whatever else is said of him. Ibid. 34.5-6 3

k

CE 31, 58.1-60.24

Ibid. 59.4

22

priests in order to give them a means of fighting against the contrary heresies.

There is no difference in meaning between the formulae: an

unconfused union "of two natures" and "from two natures." says "una natura

incarnata,"

this expresses the same thing

If someone "honestiore

The bishops do not take up the problem of defining any

sermone."

Christological terms.

They see both the Cyrillian/Alexandrian

and the

Chalcedonian terminology as equivalent, but seem to think the former more suitable for simple people. Fathers.

Both usages are attested by the

Given that monophysitism had a following among the lower

classes, this attitude is perhaps understandable.

One gets the feeling,

however, that the bishops too are more comfortable with the Alexandrian terminology. 4 John and the other bishops of Armenia Prima stress the continuity of Chalcedon not only with Nicaea but with Constantinople I (381) and Ephesus. Ephesus: "praeaipue synodum quae Ephesis -" present the Letters 1

Ibid.

2

Ibid.

They present Chalcedon as a

répugnons est

uesaniae

oelebrata

to Nestorius

nefandi

confirmation of

Nestorii

et

sanatam

Interestingly, they

confirmons." and the Letter

. 6 to the Orientals as

59.4-7 59.22

^Ibid. The argument from tradition became very important to all the parties in this period. 4

C£ 36, 69.13-71.9

5

Ibid.

70.9-10.

That is, Cyril's letter Laetentur in 433. Also known as the Symbol of Union.

eoeli

to John of Antioch

23

the products of both Cyril of Alexandria and Pope Celestine, and the Twelve

Anathemas

Against

Nestorius

as the work of Cyril alone:

quorum [Cyrillum et Caelestinum] epistulae aduersus eundem impium Nestorium et [ad] Orientales uniuersos data et ab eodem sanctae memoriae Cyrillo contra eundem Nestorium anathemata proposita sunt firmata atque roborata.l

It would appear from this text that the Armenian bishops consider that Ephesus approved all the writings of Cyril against Nestorius, a point the monophysites would insist upon. Letter

to the Orientals

Nonetheless, they also accept the

which was written at the time of the reunion of

433 and which expresses Cyril's more moderate approach. The formula of Chalcedon is regarded not as a fidei,

symbolum

and thus appearantly not on a par with the faith or symbol

of

ο Nicaea, but a definitio

to prevent the errors of Nestorius and to 3 exclude those who deny the incarnation. The bishops concede that understood are there are some things, in the definition which rightly 4 orthodox but which otherwise might be doubtful. The bishops appear to be attempting to hold both sides together.

Rome is as anti�Nestorian

as Alexandria; Cyril and the oriental bishops were in agreement;

^"Their letters [Cyril's and Celestine's] against the same impious Nestorius, and the one addressed to all the orientals, and the anathemas of the same Cyril of happy memory directed against the same Nestorius were approved and given force. Ibid. 70. 15�18 2

Ibid.

3

Ibid.

h

Ibid.

70.15 70.15�18 70.22�26

24

Chalcedon is in union with the three great universally recognized Councils; Chalcedonian dyophysite terminology is orthodox, but only if properly understood. Alypius and Musonius, bishops of Caesarea and Nyssa

agree

that there is nothing in the Chalcedonian definition which departs from the true

faith and that it is in continuity with the prior Councils

2 and the Fathers.

It approved Pople Celestine and Cyril of

Alexandria who is everywhere known as approved: "maxime 3

prolatis

contra Nestorium et ei similia

sapientium."

in

anathematibus

It likewise

approved all other who struggle against Nestorius and against whoever tries to adulterate the true faith by denying:

dominum nostrum Iesus Christum . . . ex sancta Maria uirgine dei genetrice [obviously θεοτόχοε] incarnatum nostra c a m e et per omnia secundum nos factum praeter nostrum peccatum propter nostram salutem.4

Alypius professes ignorance of what was done at Chalcedon since he was not there.

This is not an idle point.

The monophysites had attacked

the condemnation of Dioscoros, Patriarch of Alexandria, at Chalcedon as

X

CE 38, 75.21�77.20

2

Ibid.

77.22�28

particularly for his anathemas directed against Nestorius 76.30 and those who think as he does. Ibid. Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . was incarnate with our flesh from the holy virgin Mary, the mother of God, and made like us in all things except our sin for our salvation. Ibid. 76.33�36 5

Ibid.

76.8

25 irregular, and the proceedings were in fact open to that accusation. Alypius has nothing against Chalcedon as regards its definition, but he is willing to see the procedural question examined, but not in a way which would cause a general disturbance.

Si uero non propter fidem, sed propter alia quaedam quasi non secundum régulas . . . facta sint, quaestio nunc exorta est, haec non uniuersalem debent tumultum facere.2

The one negative response which we have mentioned comes from Amphilocus of Sidon, who was a signatory of the Chalcedonian formula. His negative opinion does not, however, extend so far that he would approve the ordination of Timothy Aelurus; he explicitly condemns it. Amphilocus would not appear to be an individual of heretical or schismatic inclination, rather he has found himself uncomfortable with the Chalcedonian terminology. to say that there is one qenoma

In particular he finds it contradictory (ύπόστασι,ε) and two k yane

One qenoma means for him one ούσι,'α, and each k%ana qenoma;

(φΰσει,ε) ·

would have its own

that, in fact, is how it is made known; φοσυς is known through

ύπόστασι,ε which is its external expression.

Obviously Amphilocus has

not made a metaphysical distinction between the Chalcedonian terms; ύπόστασι,ε is identified with φύσι,ε and signifies a concrete being.

The

logic of such a position is that it is impossible to speak of two

•'"For a description of the proceedings from the viewpoint of a modern member ofa non�Chalcedonian Church, see V.C. Samuels, "Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon and Its Historical Problems. Ecumenical Review, 22(1970), pp. 321�347 2

CE 38, 76.39�77.1

26

φύσει,ε and only one

ύπόστασι,ε.

Such a statement seems to Ampnilocus

to be a return to Nestorianism, i.e. the Chalcedonian "one ύπόστασι,ε" appears to him as a kind of veneer over a duality rather than a real principle of unity.

This suggests that at this point the Chalcedonian

party had not developed a coherent theology of hypostatic union which understood the Chalcedonian one ύπόστασι,ε as a union of two natures in one person. Amphilocus' preference is not to deal with the question of one or two φύσευε.

He considères it sufficient to follow the gospel

which says that the Word became flesh and that the Word united to himself flesh malliltha

endowed with a rational and reasoning soul (b

widoutanatha).

naphsha

He suggests that perhaps the Council of

Chalcedon feared that some would see a mixture or confusion in the incarnation unless they spoke of "two."

He thinks, however, that it

would have been better to stay with the gospel formula rather than to compose a new decree. The evidence of the Codex Enayclicus

indicates that for many

bishops the Council of Chalcedon presented no particular problem at this time.

Those who have to face serious monophysite resistance,

however, find themselves uncomfortable with the new terminology and their responses show that they want no

association with Nestorianism.

Their approach, while never rejecting Chalcedon, is moderate and conciliatory but with no theological depth, and they are willing to see real grievances investigated.

Chronicle, loc. cit.',

text: pg. 251

2.

The Henotikon

of 482

In 460 the emperor Leo exiled Timothy Aelurus from Alexandria and the Chalcedonian Timothy Salophakialos was elected to replace him.

Under the monophysite usurper Basiliskos, 475-477,

Timoth Aelurus was restored.

Shortly after the emepror Zeno regained

his throne in 477, Timothy Aelurus died and Zeno once again established Timothy Salophakialos as patriarch.

When Timothy died in 481, the

Chalcedonian party elected the monk John Talaia as patriarch.

Shortly

arterwards, seemingly becuase he was irritated at the delay in receiving the synodal letters informing him of John's election, Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, 471-489, presented Peter Mongus to the emperor as the person capable of uniting the monophysite and the Chalcedonian parties.

By this time Pope Simplicius, 468-483, had

recognized John Talaia as patriarch of Alexandria and was in no mood to retract that recognition in favor of a known monophysite. Prior to his accession Peter Mongus signed a statement of faith which was probably the work of Acacius.

It was officallly

promulgated as a letter of Zeno to the bishops, clergy, monks and people of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, and known as the Henotikon

or formula of union.

The activities of Acacius throughour this period are curious. At the time of Basiliskos he opposed the monophysite sympathies of the

Simplicius, Letter

17, Mansi 7, 992-993 27

28 usurper.

Around 479 he consecrated Calandion, a Chalcedonian, as

patriarch of Antioch on orders from the emperor to succeed Stephen who was murdered by the monophysites.

For the sake of enforcing

Chalcedonian orthodoxy he interfered with the right of another patriarchate to elect its own bishop. At Alexandria he first supported and then opposed John Talaia.

He then supported a known monophysite and

authored a document which was to be used as an anti-Chalcedonian warhorse.

His actions resulted in his excommunication by Rome, and

ecclesiastical communion between the two sees was broken until the accession of Justin I in 519. The text of the Henotikon Scholasticus.2

The Henotikon

is preserved for us by Evagrius

attempted to resolve the terminological

problems produced by Chalcedon by passing over them.

It recognized as

the only true expression of faith the creed of the Council of Nicaea which was confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, 381, and which the Fathers followed at Ephesus. whether "Ephesus'* included :both the Council of 431 and the so-called Latrooinium

of 449 is unclear, perhaps

deliberately. The

Henotikon

who hold their opinions. sop to the Chalcedonians.

anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and all The inclusion

of Eutyches is not simply a

The monophysites were quite sensitive to

For an account of the rather convoluted history of the Acacian Schism see E. Stein, HBE. vol. 2; and L. Salaville, "Henotique," DTC 6, 2153-2178; and idem, "L'Affaire de l'Henotique," Echos d'Orient, 18(1916-1919). I note Salaville's thesis that the explanation for Acacius seemingly contradictory actions is his concern for the prestige of the see of Constantinople and his desire to appear as a mediator between Rome and Alexandria. 2

HE III.14 - PG 86. 2620-2625

29 the charge of Eutychianism and took pains to dissociate themselves from that position.

The Henotikon

αλήθευαν, in truth.

The mutual accusations of Nestorianism and

twice speaks of the incarntion κατ'

Eutychians are quite indicative of the level and character of the whole debate at this time. While claiming to accept only the Nicene faith as approved and followed at Constantinople and Ephesus, the Henotikon nized as authoritative the Twelve

Capitula

also recog-

of Cyril of Alexandria

against Nestorius, which leaves it open to charges of logical contraditction.

This seems to be a play to the Alexandrian grandstand

as do the three uses of θεοτόκοε, albeit that Chalcedon had recognized the legitimacy of the term. The Henotikon*s exercise in evasion.

treatment of the unity of Christ is an

It neither uses nor condemns any of the

Chalcedonian terms, nor does it propose a terminology of its own.

It

states that Christ is όµοοΰσι,οε with the Father κατά τή*ν θεότητα and όµοοΰσι,οε with us κατά* τή*ν ανθρωπότητα, which is good Cyrillian terminology.

Christ is "one" and not "two."

We confess that the only begotten Son of God, and God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is truly incarnate, who is of one essence with the Father according to the divinity, the same is one essence with us according to the humanity, who came down and took flesh from the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, the God bearer, is one and not two.

Both his miracles and his passion are "of one" (ένοε without any substantive). The Henotikon

rejects any division, confusion or introduction

30 of a mere appearance since Christ's sinless and real incarnation did not add a son, but the Trinity remained Trinity even when one of the Trinity, God the Word, became flesh.

This is clearly anti�Nestorian in

1

its intent, and we should note the introduction of the formula "one of the Trinity became flesh" since it will figure in later discussion. The Henotikon

then pronounces anathema against those who

held or who now hold any contrary opinion, whether at Chalcedon or at any other synod. takes.

This is the most radical position the

Henotikon

Chalcedon is not condemned, but its authority and status are

devalued.

It is possible to accept the Henotikon

as the correct

exposition of Chalcedon, as many did, particularly at Constantinople; or it is possible to accept it as an anti�Chalcedonian document, which 2 was done particularly at Alexandria. This is precisely what the emperor hoped to accomplish with the Henotikon;

to restore unity by

arriving at a formula of faith ambiguous enough for everyone to accept. Ultimately the Henotikon

was a theological and political

failure. We will briefly examine its shortcomings in both these fields. Theologically the Henotikon

lacks depth and in no way con-

tributed to the solution of the Christological problem.

Chalcedon had

Χ

Ιη context the rejection of the introduction of a phantom (φαντασία) into the incarnation must be seen not as anti�docetic or anti�Eutychian, but as formulated against Nestorianism as the monophysites understood it, i.e. a union which was more apparent than real Otherwise the logic of the argument disintegrates. 2

For a fuller account see the first chapter of L. Duchesne, L'église au V I e m e siècle, (Paris: Fontemoing, 1925).

31 attempted to resolve the terminological issues but had failed to define its terms. What was needed was a good definition, not an evasion of the issues.

The Henotikon

did no more than restate the

problem from a monophysite point of view, viz. the Christological problem is a matter of preserving the unity of Christ, and pays little attention to the other side of the problem, preserving the integrity of the humanity and the divinity in the union.

Whatever its short-

comings, the definition of Chalcedon had attempted to maintain that balance. This doctrinal one-sidedness, and the fact that it accepted non-Chalcedonians into communion, made it difficult for orthodox Chalcedonians in the East to accept the Henotikon.

The fact of the

imperial intervention was not a serious issue for them, but the content of that intervention was. It was otherwise in Rome.

Neither the fact nor the content

of the imperial interventions sat well.

The West was determined to

uphold the authority of Pope Leo's Tome to Flavian

and the authority

of the Roman See, and was completely opposed to any new definition of faith.

As a result it could not accept the slight to papal authority

represented by the Henotikon.

It involved not just a matter of faith

but a matter of ecclesiastical polity.

We are dealing with a difference

in style which will become increasingly more significant for relations between East and West.

Both civily and ecclesiastically the West

tended to be more centralized and authoritarian.

The imperial loyalty

of the Latin West was directed more toward the city of Rome than toward a distant emperor in Constantinople whose authority in the West

32 A

was by this time largely metaphorical. While the East could hardly be described as democratic, its style could be characterized as more collégial.

It was a diverse and generally more prosperous society with

more active participants in its economic and political life.

Civic

loyalties centered around both the local city and the person of the emperor.

As the personal unifying force of the empire, the emperor

could much more readily involve himself in the religious affairs of the empire as part of his office. The Alexandrian Church had little to gain from acceptance of the Henotikon.

The more radical monophysites would be content only

with an explicit condemnation of Chalcedon and Leo's Tome.

They

wanted no part of communion with any variety of Chalcedonism. was also the matter of Constantinople.

The ecclesiastical ascendancy

of Constantinople did not sit well with Alexandria and the did nothing about that problem.

There

Henotikon

It must be remembered that at the

Council of Chalcedon Rome and Constantinople had co-operated in securing the deposition of Alexandria's patriarch, and the Council had declared Constantinople to be "the new Rome," second in rank among the patriarchates after "old Rome."

In addition, the Alexandrians

viewed the Chalcedonian definition as a rejection of their local 2 luminary, Cyril, in favor of Roman and Antiochene theology. Local pride and local theology had both taken a beating.

A new statement of

For a brief account of this growing difference between East and West at this time see Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971), especially pages 38-44. A major part of the neo-Chalcedonian program is, of course, devoted to disproving that opinion.

32 Β

faith coming from Constantinople was hardly a salve for bruised Alexandrian feelings. The emperor's intervention also shows us how his priorities were ordered.

The West's participation in the empire was more nominal

than real and while he could not alienate the West, the problem of the East came first. Rivalry between Chalcedonians and non�Chalcedonians was causing civic disruption and consuming energy that could be better directed against the barbarians and the Persians. A solution had to be found.

Zeno's intervention was inept, however, because it

really left every issue unresolved. by the Henotikon

The only one who stood to profit

was the emperor.

The incident of the Henotikon complexity of the problem.

and its failure show the

The introduction of a political�theological

distinction would be artificial; certainly the niceties of such a distinction would have been lost on most of the participants.

It is

true that the solution of the Christological problem was not the only thing on people's minds and that the debate did not take place in an ecclesiastical or civil vacuum, but that does not means that there was not a theological problem.

Religion and theology were part of the

total life of the empire, and theological discussion could occupy people's attention.

The need for a satisfactory Christological

formula would have existed independently of the other problems.

It is

equally true that some of the other issues which we have mentioned

For a fuller, and very sensible, discussion of this issue see A.H. M. Jones, "Were Anceint Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?," JTS, new series 10(1959) pp. 280�298.

33 would have demanded attention independently of the Christological issue. In fact, however, the problems complicated one another and in most cases it would be a mistake to presume that anyone was acting from unmixed motives.

CHAPTER II NEPHALIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Our information for the early life of Nephalius of Alexandria comes from the Ecclesiastical

of Zacharias Rhetor, written

History

shortly before the close of the fifth century.

Charles Moeller has

demonstrated that this is the one reliable source for information on his early career. When Peter Mongus signed the Henotikon

he faced opposition

from a group of monophysite monks who were unhappy with the

Henotikon

because it did not contain an explicit condemnation of Chalcedon.

The

opposition reached such a point that Peter expelled some of these monks from their monasteries, and among them was a certain Nephalius, whom Zacharias characterizes as a "rabble rouser."

It was not enough

for these monks that Peter had expressed himself against Chalcedon as long as he continued to maintain communion with those who did not explicitly pronounce anathema against Chalcedon even though they had accepted the

Henotikon.

We next hear of Nephalius around 507, when we find him in Palestine.

In the intervening twenty-five years, however, there has

been a change in Nephalius.

He is no longer the radical monophysite,

but the author of an Apology

defending the Council of Chalcedon which

shows definite neo-Chalcedonian features. We can only guess at the

Zacharias Rhetor, Ecclesiastical

History;

CSCO 83-84, 87-88

2 Charles Moeller, "Un représentant de la Christologie Néochalcedonienne au debut du sixième siècle in orient, Nephalius d'Alexandrie," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, 40(1944-45) pp. 73-140

35

36 reason for this change.

I find Moeller's thesis that Nephalius'

former actions represented a political rather than a doctrinal extremism possible, but unproved. Nephalius is not an isolated case. As Moeller's study has 2 shown, there was a moderate movement on both sides which was looking for reconciliation, and the correspondence of Severus of Antioch shows 3 evidence of this tendency within his own party. Theologically the 4 monophysite party was as diverse as the Chalcedonian party. The evidence suggests that neither were the monophysites simply a unified group ecclesiastically bent on schism, but that at the beginning of the sixth century there were individuals on both sides looking for a theological resolution to the problem. It would be difficult to say how large a group Nephalius directly influenced, but he does appear to be the leader of a group. In Severus* refutation of Nephalius, he frequently addresses his opponents in the plural. While Nephalius' theological position may have changed, his contentious disposition did not. He appears in his work as argumentative rather than conciliatory. Y 2

Ibid.

p. 101

Ibid.

p. 102-103

3

In his answer to Nephalius'

See, for example, The Select

Letters

of Severus

of

Apology,

Antioch,

(edited by E.W. Brooks, London: Text and Translation Society, 1904) pp. 260, 291, 360-61. For a sample of the variety within the monophysite party see Roberta Chestnut, Three Monophysite Christologies, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976).

37 Severus finds it necessary to defend himself against a personal attack which apparently suggested that in his writings he was bringing the Church into disrepute before outsiders. of his Apology,

Shortly after the composition

Nephalius began agitating against Severus, who was

then a monk at Maiouma, and against other monks who rejected Chalcedon, even attempting to have them expelled from their monasteries.

Severus

and his party left for Constatninople to appeal to the emperor.

They

remained there for three years as an active monophysite force within the imperial city. Our knowledge of Nephalius' Apology refutation by Severus of Antioch, Orationes preserved in Syriac translation.

is derived from its ad Nephalium,

2

which is

Nephalius' theological role is

actually rather modest, but he does show us the extent to which neo�Chalcedonism had developed in the early years of the sixth century. The state of the evidence forces us to work backwards, i.e. using the fragments preserved by Severus and the arguments in his refutation, we can reconstract the general features of Nephalius' work.

Working in this manner I suggest that the main line of

Nephalius' argument ran as follows.

1. The formula "two φΰσει,ε united without division" is equivalent to the formula "one incarnate φΰσι,ε of God the Word."

Severus of Antioch, Orationes ad Nephalium, 1,7.18�8.17; CSCO 119, 120. For the reader's convenience, location references are made to the Latin translation which is cross referenced to the Syriac text. All direct translations, however, are made from the Syriac. 'supra

n. 1

38 2. Cyril of Alexandria and other orthodox Fathers used dyophysite terminology. 3. The position of Severus ends in Eutychianism, Julianism, or in a kind of theopaschism which introduces passibility into the divinity.

On the other hand, it is Severus' position that Chalcedon contradicted itself by positing unity of ύπόστασι,ε and duality of φΰσευε and had ended up in Nestorianism.

As far as Severus is concerned, saying two

φΰσευε and one ύπόστασι,ε is a trick to deceive the simple, and he seems convinced that the entire dyophysite movement not only is mistaken, byt also malicious. We will deal with each of Nephalius' arguments in turn.

1.

The Christological Formula of Nephalius The attitude of Nepnalius and his group toward the Chalce-

donian definition is that it was combatting the Eutychian heresy in imprecise words (b melle

"abyathe).

Thus Nephalius and his group are

willing to admit that there are potential problems with the Chalcedonian formula and that it needed to be interpreted in a proper manner.

This,

of course, had already been recognized by several bishops at the time of the

Codex

Enayclicus.

From Severus' description at the beginning of his second oration it appears that Nephalius and his group were using the formula e

e

e

"two φΰσευε united and undivided, (m hayyade w la m pallage), 1

AdN.

2

Ibid.

11,50.15; 1,3.10

see also 49.33

and this

39 terminology is cited frequently by Severus.

At the same time, they

claim that the φΰσευε are united in one ύπόστασυε which Severus, as we have already mentioned, considered a contradiction. It appears further that they were arguing that the formula "two united and undivided φΰσευε" was the equivalent of the "one incarnate φύσυε" formula 3 which came from Cyril and was favored by the monophysites. It is probable that they also were contending that the formulae "from two φΰσευε" and "in two φΰσευε" meant the same thing, since Severus takes time to reject that position and to point out that Chalcedon rejected the formula "from two φΰσευε." There is nothing surprising in all of this. Aside from the more precisely worded formula, there is nothing in Nephalius' arguemnts which is not already found in the Codex Enayclicus.

Neither does his

method make any advance over the Codex Eneyalicus.

There is no indi-

cation that Nephalius ever attempted to define his terms more precisely or to produce any theology of hypostatic union. It is noteworthy also that Nephalius nowhere attempts to use the term πρόσωπον. This was an Antiochene and not an Alexandrian term. It was used by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius as well as by Theodoret, and Alexandrian theologians were suspicious of the term as meaning a union which was more apparent than real. Nephalius' hdN. 2

Ibid.

3

Ibid.

k

Ibid.

11,19.5; 32.25; 35.25�26; 49.9�12 11,13.4�5 11,24.35�25.2; 46.9�12 11,9.16�10.13

40

avoidance of the term suggests that while he may have been a convert to Chalcedonism, he was not a convert to Antiochene theology.

2.

The Father's Use of Dyophysite Terminology It appears that Nephalius had accused Severus and his party

of infidelity to the Fathers since it could be shown that the Fathers had used dyophysite language.

Nephalius has obviously scored a point

here and Severus replies to this charge in several places. He argues that Chyril and other orthodox Fathers had indeed used dyophysite language, but not in a Chalcedonian sense.

When they spoke of a union

of two φΰσευε, Severus argues, they showed that Christ is to be spoken 2 of as one and not two. Thus after the Nestorian problem, it was no longer permissible to say that "God the Word assumed a man," which was the formula used by Gregory Nazienzen against the error of Apolli� naris.

At the same time Severus is particularly careful to defend

himself against the accusation that he is "confusing the φΰσευε" which shows his concern to dissociate himself from any Eutychian position. Nephalius' main argument for the legitimacy of dyophysite language on the basis of tradition comes, naturally, from his use of to Suocensus Cyril speaks of two 4 united in a indissoluble union. From this basis Nephalius

Cyril of Alexandria. φΰσευε

In his Epistle

comes to his conclusion that it is permissible to speak of Christ "in 1

Ibid.

2 Ibid.

1,1.3�21 II,44.21ff sums up the whole discussion.

3

Ibid.

4

PG 77.232

1,2.21

41

two united φΰσευε."

The same kind of terminology, "a union of

φΰσευε," appears in Cyril's Letter

to the Orientals.

to some length to give what he considers

Severus goes

the correct understanding

The thrust of Severus' argument is that when things are

of Cyril.

united they can no longer be either known or spoken or as two, but as 2 one, and thus Cyril also spoke of the union as producing one φΰσυε· In the Scholia φΰσευε or υπόστασεε

on the Incarnation 3 remain unconfused."

Cyril states that "the Using this, Nephalius

argues that "if the φΰσευε or υπόστασεε continue undissipated, by all 4 means they are two, since they are not confused even after the union." From this it appears that for Nephalius a confession of one φόσυε after the union destroys the metaphysical reality of the two components, humanity and divinity. dilute the other.

It is as if in such a mixture each would

The result is a loss not only of the full human

reality but also of the full divine reality.

Perhpas this notion will

help to explain Nephalius' break with the monophysite party. The piety of Nephalius the Alexandrian monophysite would have been very concerned with the transformation of the human by the divine in the incarnation.

When the divinity is somehow weakened by the union it

λ

ΜΝ.

2

Ibid.

3

k

11,22.25�29 11,19.7�21.4

PG 75.1381

AdN.

11,18.12�14

For a discussion of this feature of Alexandrian "monophysite" spirituality see Henry Chadwick, "Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy," JTS ns 2(1951) pp.151�164

42

will not have its full effect; and as we shall see, Nephalius seemed to think that Severus' system did in fact introduce passibility into the divine.

He has no problems with the theology of Cyril of Alexandria

as he understands

it;

his problems are with Severus and his under-

standing and use of Cyril.

Preserving the divinity intact seems to be

more important to him than preserving the humanity intact.

If this is

so, then Nephalius' underlying concern did not change; rather he found in moderate Chalcedonism a better means to protect his concerns. Lacking any clear statement from Nephalius, this suggestion

must,

however, remain speculative. Cyril of Alexandria is not the only orthodox Father used by Nephalius.

Gregory of Nazienzen is also used with some frequency to

establish the legitimacy of the "two φΰσευε united" formula.

Gregory

had spoken of Christ as the one who was sent by the Father, but who was sent as a man, and had called him "double."

Severus is forced to

admit the use, but he denies that Gregory used the word in the way that Nephalius and the Nestorians (and he lumps them all together) use 2 it, i.e., distinguishing the φΰσευε but uniting the honor.

In

another place Gregory had said that two φΰσευε do not produce two sons or two gods. context.

Severus counters this by appealing to Gregory's

In the same passage Gregory speaks of Chrst "from" rather

than "in" two φόσευε.

It follows for Severus that there is only one

^Oration 383 On the Theophanies, PG 36.328 2

AdN. II,31.27ff

3

Letter

101, To Cledonius, PG 37,180

43

incarnate φύσυε. Gregory's use of dyophysite language was also, it seems, employed by Nephalius against any form of theopaschism.

In his oration

On the Son Gregory describes the union as one which took place not 2 according to φΰσυε but by means of conjunction. The two φΰσευε are distinguished in thought and are distinguished in name. Thus, 3 Nephalius, it is improper to attribute suffering to God.

concludes

Severus' position is that all the acts of Christ are to be attributed 4 not to one or the other φΰσυε but to the one incarnate Word. Proclus of Constantinople (d.477) is also used to support Nephalius' position.

He had called Mary the "workshop" (έργαστή*ρυον)

of the union of the φΰσευε.

He says that "the φόσευε are joined and

the union remains unconfused." While Nephalius claims this authority supports his "two united φΰσευε" formula, Severus accuses him of using φΰσυε with plural meanings in order to deceive the simple.

Severus

admits that Christ is "from two φΰσευε, but he adds that by synthesis (rukkaba)

they become one φΰσυε. Nephalius uses the argument from authority with no more than 1

Aflf.

II,26.4ff

2

0mtion 30, PG 36,113. Gregory's Greek text reads: "εΰ γά*ρ τό συναµφότερον εν, άλλ' ού τη φΰσευ τζ συνοδφ τοΰτων." 3

AdN.

h

Ibid.

11,31.2�8 11,28.30

Oration I, Encomium to Mary the Mother of God, PG 65.681. The Syriac text of Severus is corrupt at this point, but we have the Greek text of Proclus. 6

AdN.

11,333.19

44 moderate effectiveness.

The style of his presentation suggests that

he is working from a florilegium

rather than from complete texts.

Selected passages are used as proof texts without regard to context or to the issue the authority in question was discussing.

Severus is

able to embarrass Nephalius in several places by appealing to the wider context of a passage.

Severus himself, however, shows that he

is equally capable of assembling proof texts without being overly concerned about context.

3.

The Errors of Severus Severus spends a great deal of time defending himself against

two charges of doctrinal error.

These are: 1) that by insisting on

the µυ*α φΰσυε formula he is confusing the φΰσευε together and ending in the error of Eutyches; 2) that his position ends in theopaschism and introduces passibility into the divinity. Severus' position relies heavily on the authority of Cyril of Alexandria, particularly his anti�Nestorian writings.

For Severus,

to speak of a union and then to continue to speak of two φΰσευε destroys the union, and any talk to two φΰσευε and one ύπόστασυε is a contradiction and, in fact, deceitful. and ύπόστασυε. and ύπόστασυε.

X

Ibid.

Christ is one composed φΰσυε

Severus thus shows that he equated the terms φΰσυε For him the term ύπόστασυε does not have some distinct

1,7.8; 50.15

1,6.7�10. "And as I wrote to Nephalius, 'we are one Ibid. thing and one φΰσυε from two conjoined things; these are a body and a soul, and this is the human being. It is one κατά φΰσυν (.bakyana) and this is also καθ* ύπόστασυν (.baqnoma) and this same is known as κατ' ουσύαν'."

45 meaning such as "existence as an individual" which would not also apply to φΰσυε. We have no evidence for how Nephalius defined his terms, but it is evident that he did distinguish between φΰσυε and ύπόστασυε in some way and is thus working within a different metaphysical framework than Severus.

It also appears that Nephalius and Severus are really

talking past one another rather than to one another.

We might be left

wondering how much real difference there is between Severus' "one composite φΰσυε" and Nephalius' "two φΰσευε inseparably united." The two combattants obviously thought there was a lot of difference. Against Nephalius' charge that he was confusing the φΰσευε, Severus makes a great point of showing how Cyril of Alexandria agrees that the φΰσευε are unconfused after the union and that humanity and divinity remain distinct. human body and soul

The incarnation consists of a union with a

God the Word is beyond all composition and yet in

the incarnation he becomes synthetic or composed (m rakkaba). µιία φΰσυε formula does not imply a confusion but a union.

The

He accepts

the complete reality of Christ's humanity; nothing he did was a mere appearance.

In this Severus appears to be defending himself against 2 a charge of Eutychianism of Julianism, both of which were, in fact, as distasteful to Severus as they were to any Chalcedonian. Severus is particularly sensitive to the charge that he is

1

Ibid.

2

11,9.2

The doctrines of Julian of Halicarnassus dealt with the natural incorruptibility and immortality of Christ's human body. We will discuss this in more detail when we deal with Ephraim of Amida.

46 introducing passibility into the divinity through the use of formulae such as "the Lord of glory suffered in the flesh."

He brings forward

a long list of authorities to justify this usage including Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Julius of Rome, Athanasius and the Cappadocians. His argument is that God the Word truly made his human body and human sufferings to be "his own," lity to the divinity.

and that this does not attribute passibi-

It is this feature which is most interesting

about Nephalius. Acceptance of some kind of theopaschite formula was to become an important part ot the later neo-Chalcedonian program as articulated by the Skuthian monks and by Justinian and canonized at Constantinople II, yet, at the beginning of the sixth century Nephalius was able to use theopaschism, or the suspicion of it, as an anti-monophysite club.

Conclusions The reasons for Nephalius' conversion to Chalcedonism remain unclear, and the basis of his thought appears more Alexandrian than Antiochene.

He does not appear as an original thinkger or even as a

profound thinker, and he lacks the theological depth of Severus of Antioch.

He is interesting for the example he gives us of neo-

Chalcedonism fifty years before its canonized form at Constantinople II, and he shows us that Chalcedonians and monophysites were still largely at an impasse, althoug there were some who were looking for a via media.

The most interesting feature of the neo-Chalcedonism of this

period is that while it recognized the legitimacy of the Cyrillian 1

Jbtd.

11,39.19-42.4

47

Christologial formula properly understood, it had not yet adopted the use of a theopaschite formula. Nephalius shows us that the Chalcedonian party was far from having a coherent theology of hypostatic union.

His own concern seems

limited to showing that Cyril and Chalcedon did not contradict one another but that the monophysites' rejection of Chalcedon led to an untenable position.

He does not come up with a new system or develop

much positive theology.

The real task of defining the Chalcedonian

terms and understanding their implications remains undone. His formula "two φΰσευε inseparably united" breaks no new ground.

CHAPTER III JOHN OF CAESAREA

We know almost nothing about the person and life of John of Caesarea (fl. 510-520). fession.

He was a presbyter and a grammarian by pro-

References to him as a bishop are found in later manuscripts

and are probably based on a confusion with one of his contemporaries, John the Khozbite, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. A grammarian was a teacher of language and literature on the secondary level, beyond the primary level but not yet at the level of the sophist or rhetorician.

Particularly in the later classical

period, however, these are not rigorous distinctions and the literary study of the grammarian tended to encroach upon the territory of the rhetorician.

The work of the grammarian began with a textual study

which was more of an apologetic for the textus than a rigorous exercise in textual criticism.

receptus

before him

What was in the text

was to be accepted and commented on, not excised as an interpolation. Resolutement conservateurs, socieux avant tout d'intégrer à leur culture la totalité du patronomie hellénique, ils se sont moins préoccupés d'expurger Homère, au nom de principes rigoreux, que d'expliquer le text reçu qu'on possédait. D'où au lieu de rechercher les vers à condamner et les interpolations à rejeter, un effort permanent pour comprendre, pour justifier la présence de tel episode ou de tel détail, dût-on pour réussir, fair appel a toutes les ressources d'une dialectic apologétique.1

When we consider the vagaries of manuscript trasnmission we can appreciate what a task this could become. 1

Henri Marrou, Histoire de l'éducation dan l'antiquité (6th. edition, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1965) p. 249

49

50 The textual study was followed by a grammatical study properly so�called, i.e., cases tenses, etc.; and by the definition of terms.

Only after these preliminaries did the grammarian's student

explain or comment upon the text.

Even this commentary is quite formal

in nature. Marrou gives an interesting example of this technique. The student is asked to comment on an aphorism of Isocrates, "the root of education is bitter but its fruits are sweet."

The exercise

consists of eight steps: 1) presenting and praising Isocrates; 2) paraphrasing his aphorism; 3) justifying his conclusion; 4) refuting contrary opinions; 5) illustrating his meaning by way of a comparison; 6) illustrating it by means of an anecdote taken from literature; 7) citing authorities from among the ancients to support the opinion; 8) concluding "such is the correct thought of Isocrates regarding education." John of Caesarea brings the method of the grammarian into the Christological dispute.

He will attempt to explain the presence of

µυ'α φΰσυε terminology in Cyril of Alexandria's texts, to define Christological terms and to cite authorities to show the orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian position.

The resultant theology can be somewhat dry

and "schoolish" but this is not to say that the Grammarian is uninteresting or does not make a contribution. We are concerned with two works of John of Caesarea, his

Apology for the Council of Chalcedon, and Seventeen Capitula the Akephales.2 1

Ibid.

2

against

We do not possess the entire text of the Apology.

pp. 262�263

i.e. schismatics who were without a bishop or "head".

We

51 know of it through the fragments preserved in the Syriac version of Severus of Antioch's refutation of it entitled Contra

impium

grammaticum,

the Greek original of which is not extant, and from some Greek fragments preserved by Eulogius of Alexandria, a Chalcedonian supporter who was patriarch from 580 to 607. The posthumous publication of Marcel Richard's collection Caesarea

2

and edition of the extant works of John of

has made his work more easily available.

includes the extant Greek fragment of the Apology translations of the Syriac fragments.

This publication

and the Latin

Some reading of Severus'

refutation is still useful, however, in understanding the Grammarian's position.

Akephales

The full Greek text of the XVII Capitula 3

against

the

is extant. The dry and rational style of the Grammarian's argumentation

in his Apology Severus.

belies the emotional character of his dispute with

The tone of Severus through the CIG ranges from disdainful

to taunting to sarcastic.

The Grammarian appears to have incurred

Severus' wrath by criticizing some monophysite monks and by suggesting X

CSC0 93-94; 101-102; 111-112

2

supersunt

Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri (CCSG 1, 1977)

et Grammatici: Opera quae

3 All references to the works of the Grammarian, even those which are found in Severus, will be made to Richard's CCSG edition. The XVII Capitula (Cap. followed by number and the line in Richard where that is appropriate) are cited according to the Greek. The Apology is cited according to Greek or Syriac fragment, GF, SF3 followed by the numner and line with an appropriate cross reference to Contra impium grammaticum (CIG) where one exists. When the Greek and Syriac coincide, translation is made from the Greek; translation of the Syriac is made from the CSCO text. The CIG is cited according to the Latin version for the reader's convenience, but all translations are made from the Syriac.

52 they lacked understanding of doctrinal matters. He further claimed that they were persecuting him.

All of this suggests the kind of

rivalry which is quite possible between the scholar and the monk. Certainly it shows that the style of argumentation between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians had lost nothing of its ad hominem character. Richard has suggested that the general plan of the

Apology

can be reconstructed, although the exact order in which the extant fragments appeared is open to questions.

The work itself is in four

parts beginning with an explanation of the Chalcedonian position as understood by John and a refutation of monophysite objections. The Grammarian then presented a section dealing with Cyril of Alexandria and his relations with the Orientals. important part of the work.

This, of course, is a very

Cyril is the recognized authority and as

such he can not be attacked; be must be interpreted and explained. third section of the Apology

is a critique of Severus' Ad

The

Nephalium.

The Grammarian seems more familiar with Severus' refutation than with Nephalius' work itself.

He provides us with no new fragments and we

may rightly wonder whether he knew of Nephalius' work except through Severus.

This section was followed by a long florilegium

of

patristic authorities whose texts the Grammarian found supported his own position. Philoxenus of Mabbug (450-523), a monophysite supporter of Severus and an original theologian in his own right, archbishop of Mabbug (Hierapolis in Syria) from 485 until his exile in 519, may give X

CIG 1.3, 15,1-8

53 us some additional information on John of Caesarea.

He mentions a

meeting of theologians held in Alexandria Minor (modern Ishkendron, located on the coast about thirty miles north of Antioch) sometime between 514 and 518.

It is possible that John of Caesarea may have

been the one who wrote a collective letter on behalf of the synod to the pro-monophysite emperor Anastasius (491-518). that letter which Philoxenus gives

The summary of

shows a general agreement with

the doctrinal position of John of Caesarea.

The only question which

arises concerns his attitude toward Leo's Tome and the definition of Chalcedon.

This synod shows a tendency to regard these not as

definitions of faith but as a rejection of both Nestorius and Eutyches.

It does not appear from the Grammarian's fragments that

he took this minimalist view toward Chalcedon and Leo, but neither dcis he ever deal directly with that matter.

In any case, we can see

that John the Grammarian is in contact with others of a similar theological tendency who are dealing with monophysite opponents. One of the clear differences between John the Grammarian and Nephalius is the Grammarian's Antiochene background.

As we shall

see, he is familiar with Antiochene terminology, and he is concerned to preserve the integrity of Christ's humanity and divinity in a more balanced way than was Nephalius. In the beginning of the XVII Cap. John sets forth his idea of what constitutes Christological orthodoxy as contrasted with various heresies.

Christ is perfect God and perfect human being

See J. Lebon, Le monophysisme Sévérien (Dissertation, Louvain: 1909) pp. 138-139.

54 because God the Word has united our commonality, which is to say our humanity which consists of a body and a rational soul, to himself. The Grammarian uses the term θεάνθρωποε (theanthropos) Christ.

to describe

2 This term, which comes initially from Origen, was in common

use in the sixth century to express the divine�human composition of Christ.

The Grammarian insists that this does not mean that Christ is

some kind of hybrid like the mythical goat�stag, neither God nor man, but that he is completely and perfectly both.

By itself either one

φΰσυε or two φΰσευε terminology can lead to heresy. one must say "two perfect φόσευε ύπόστασυε."

To avoid this

preserved in one characteristic

The notion of a characteristic ύπόστασυε or characteristic

πρόσωπον is very important for the Grammarian's system.

The members

of a class or φΰσυε have the characteristics of that class. Humanity, for example, is a class, and any member or ύπόστασυε of this class is an individual with a body and a rational soul.

As we shall see later,

the single characteristic ύπόστασυε of Christ has all the characteristics of both humanity and divinity. At the base of the Grammarian's system is his equation of φ\3συε with ούσιία and of ύπόστασυε with πρόσωπον. to that which is common to all its members. ουσία, is considered equally in many."

1

Cap.

I, 8�10

Homily on Ezekiel, 3

Cap.

h

I. 22�24

GF I, 10�11

3.3

Φΰσυε/ούσιία refers

"The φΰσυε, which is the

The οΰσυ'α of humanity is one

55 even though it consists of body and soul which are different.

We can

thus speak of one ούσιία of humanity to denote that which is common (τό κουνόν).

For the Grammarian then, the φΰσυε/ούσιία is not a

concrete existent as φΰσυε/ύπόστασυε was for Severus, nor is it a Platonic, realist universal as ούσιία seems to have been for Severus. Arguing against the Grammarian's distinction he will say that ούσιία and ύπόστασυεboth denote existence.

The former denotes the existence

2 of the genus, the latter, that of the individual in a species.

This

explains why the Grammarian can posit two φύσευε or ούσιίαυ in Christ. For Severus, to say two ούσιίαυ in Christ would mean that the entire Trinity had become incarnate in all of humanity. understands φύσυε/ούσυ'α in an abstract way.

The Grammarian then

In reply to Severus'

objection he can say that every characteristic ύπόστασυε contains all the notes (γνωρίσµατα) of its ούσιία. So each ύπόστασυε of the divine ούσιία

contains all the notes of divinity.

Likewise, God the Word

assumed the total human ούσιία, i.e. a body and a rational soul. When you speak of the total ούσιία you mean all its characteristics, not all its members.4

In a long reply, Severus expresses his reservations

about introducing Trinitarian terminology into the Christological discussion.

His basic objection was that these categories apply only

imperfectly to the Trinity and that the Grammarian's univocal

• ^ m , 17�24 2

CIG 11.33, 197.24�198.4

3

k

Ibid.

11.17, 119.22�26

GF III, 134�169 = SF 14 = CIG 11.17, 119.23�120.26

56

application of these to both the human and the divine was illegitimate. The many human υπόστασεε are not one humanity because of their common ούσιία in� the same way that the υπόστασεε of the Trinity are one God because of their common ούσιία.

Severus makes a good point. The

introduction of Trinitarian distinctions is something to be done cautiously, yet it was the introduction of these Trinitarian notions which did push the Christological question closer to a generally understandable solution. We can say, then, that for John the Grammarian, φΰσυε/ούσιία has a generic meaning; it implies nothing about the existence of individual members.

Only the four elements exist, according to him,

as ούσιίαυ, but when they combine to form a body of some thing such as wood or stone which is considered in itself, this thing is an ύπόστασυε.

This model deals with mixtures and he sees it as also

applicable to the human person who is one ύπόστασυε·

The ούσιία

of the soul is different from the ούσιία of the body, but together they form one πρόσωπον which can be called by a name. Nonetheless the two remain distinct; ψυχή" does not become σαρξ.

While admitting that the

economy in Christ is beyond human grasp, the Grammarian applies the same model to the incarnation; two ούσιίαυ form a single ύπόστασυε and one πρόσωπον. While φΰσυε does not necessarily imply ύπόστασυε, ύπόστασυε necessarily requires φΰσυε, for which reason the Grammarian insists on the term "characteristic" ύπόστασυε or πρόσωπον to show that X

GF

IV.2, 136�155

57

ύπόστασυε is not to be understood as ούσιία.

Since an ύπόστασυε is an

individual, two υπόστασεε can not be united in such a way that they 2 will ever form one single ύπόστασυε or πρόσωπον.

They may be united

according to ούσιία or according to a common participation, but such a union will never reduce two individuals to one. Two ούσιίαυ or φΰσευε can, on the other hand, be united in a single ύπόστασυε· As many φΰσευε as are hypostatically divided are considered in an equal number of πρόσωπα. As many φΰσευε as are hypostatically united are considered in one πρόσωπον.3 This principle forms a key part of the Grammarian's Christological system and makes it possible for him to put forth a combination of Chalcedonian dyophysite language and Cyrillian µιία ύπόστασυε language within a single system. One other characteristic of ύπόστασυε remains to be considered.

Every ύπόστασυε is in a class which is its ούσιία. It may

be either simply or composite (συνθετόε).

If the ύπόστασυε is simple,

the class is simple; if the ύπόστασυε is composite, either the class is composite or the composed ύπόστασυε is in both classes.

A human

being is a composite ύπόστασυε of body and soul; its class is composite. Christ's composite ύπόστασυε, on the other hand, is not in a composite class; rather he is in both classes. 1

Ibid.

III.2,70�77 = SF 19.128�137 = CIG 11.21, 139.32�

140.8 2

Ibid.

3

IV.1,93�105

Cap. XI

k

It is possible to have one

Cap. VII

58

πρόσωπον from either a simple or a composed ύπόστασυε. After two φόσευε or ούσιίαυ are united in this way they are neither separated from one another nor do they coalesce into a single category (ουσυότηε), but "we know the composition in the whole and we know the whole in the composition."

The development of this notion of synthesis or

composition, which was in use in monophysite circles, is an important part of the neo�Chalcedonian program. Within this framework, John understands that the Council of 2 Chalcedon taught that Christ was one ύπόστασυε in two ούσιίαυ. He did not change into flesh, but the two

remain in Emmanuel, the one

Christ who is the son of God, after the incarnation and they form a single incarnate ύπόστασυε of God the Word. While his emphasis is on the incarnation as a union distinguished from a mixture,

as

the Grammarian presents some of the

strongest statements that we can find within a dyophysite context on the personal unity of Christ.

He insists that God the Word did not

assume some one but some thing.

Christ's flesh is not the flesh of

"another" and it never existed at all except in God the Word.

His

flesh had the act of existence (τό εϊναυ) of God the Word and that is why there is only one ύπόστασυε in Christ.

the two φΰσευε do not

exist separately, but only in the one πρόσωπον, their hypostatic union.

1

Cap.

X cf.

Cap.

2

GF V.220

3

Ibid.

k

Cap.

IV.3, 180�187; SF 25 = CIG 11.32, 194.1�11 IX

59

This appears to be the most important implication of the hypostatic union for the Grammarian; in Christ there is only a single act of existence. Even with such a position on the unity of Christ, and even though he does on occasion use θεοτόκοε terminology, the Grammarian exhibits a reserved attitude toward any kind of theopaschite formula. The divine φΰσυε did not suffer; the flesh did. If anyone says that the divinity suffered, he is a Manichee; and if anyone says that the man suffered and was crucified, he is a Nestorian. If anyone says that the body undivided from God suffered, he is orthodox.1 In Cap. VI he again insists that it is the flesh which suffered. I ask whether the flesh is the φΰσυε of the divinity itself or is other κατ' ούσιίαν. If it is the same as the divinity, you are teaching θεοπάθευα. If it is different in φΰσυε but united hypostatically to God the Word, who would not confess the two φΰσευε in the one Christ? The flesh thus has its own role to play in the union. While, interestingly enough, the Grammarian never mentions Leo's Tome to Flavian,

his

general approach to the integrity of both the humanity and the divinity in the union seems quite compatible with the theology of the Tome. John the Grammarian's Christological system and his defense of the Council of Chalcedon depend on two suppositions. ουσία are to be equated.

1) Φΰσυε and

2) It is possible to have a real φΰσυε/ούσυ'α

without its own distinct ύπόστασυε/πρόσωπον.

A major difficulty

facing his first supposition was the Christological language of many of the Fathers, including the

authority, Cyril of Alexandria.

He

recognizes particularly that their use of φΰσυε sometimes corresponds Y

Cap. XVII, of.

GF VI, 268�272

60 to his defintion of ούσιία, and sometimes to his definition of ύπόστασυε.

Since this has to be explained, the Grammarian must go

about showing that they did not always mean

what it sounds like

they meant. His argument covers two points: when Cyril said φΰσυε he sometimes meant ούσιία and sometimes meant ύπόστασυε; Cyril sometimes used ύπόστασυε with the meaning of ούσιία, which is not what Chalcedon meant by ύπόστασυε·

We remember that it was the Cappadocians, Basil

the Great, Gregory "the Theologian" of Nazienzen, and Gregory of Nyssa who first elaborated this distinction.

In the Symbol

of Nicaea they

are used synonymously. According to the Grammarian, Cyril's use of φΰσυε in the singular with the addition of "of God the Word" indicated that he meant the common ούσιία of the divinity.

In fact, the qualification "of God

the Word" indicates that the Fathers confessed two φΰσευε in Christ, that of God the Word and that of humanity, since they certainly knew that he was δµοοΰσυοε with us and with the Father according to different 2 things. He further argues that when Cyril speaks of the one φύσυς of God the Word he means the hypostatic πρόσωπον of God the Word. When he adds that it is incarnate with a body and a rational soul, he teaches that in God the Word there also exists that which is common to all human persons, a human ούσιία, and not a separate characteristic man.

Thus, he concludes, Cyril teaches that in Christ there is both X

2

SF 5 = CIG 11.17, 113.2�8

SF 4 = CIG 11.17, 118.9�12; SF 21 = CIG 11.17, 113.17�21

61

the ούσιία of divinity and the ούσιία of humanity.

This is, of course,

a variation on the argument we have already seen that the confession of an incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word was the equivalent of the Chalcedonian confession of two φΰσευε, but we may note that the argument is deepened here.

By implication, the confession of a human

φΰσυε/ούσιία avoids the problem of a human characteristic πρόσωπον. Cyril Anathema

ύπόστασυε/

This is further emphasized as the Grammarian argues that

sometimes used ύπόστασυε when he meant ούσιία. In his third against Nestorius, for instance, Cyril condemns anyone who

would divide the υπόστασεε in the one Christ after the union.

In a

condemnation directed against Nestorius, reasons the Grammarian, Cyril could only have used that term in the sense of ούσιία and not in the sense of his own characteristic ύπόστασυε*

For this reason, as we

have already mentioned, the Grammarian insists on the precision of "characteristic" ύπόστασυε to show that ύπόστασυε is never to be considered apart from a character (διίχα χαρακτηροε) so that it takes 3 on the meaning of ούσιία. This brings us to the discussion of the Grammarian's second supposition, that it is possible to have a real φΰσυε/ούσιία without its own υπόστασυε/πρόσωπου.

His opponents had contended that

a φΰσυε can not be without its πρόσωπον (άπρόσωποε) or that an ούσιία is never without ύπόστασυε (άυυπόστατοε), objections which he took as

1

SF 22 = CIG 11.17, 113.21�35

2

GF IV.4 = SF 20 = CIG 11.24, 150.31�151.6

3

GF III.2, 70�76 = SF 19.128�138 = CIG 11.21, 139.32�140.8

62

equivalent.

He starts his answer from the anthropological argument we

have already seen. A human being is composed of body and soul which are different in their ούσιία, yet form one ύπόστασυε�

If this is

true of the human being, what reason is there to say that in Christ the two φύσευε must mean two υπόστασεε?

If two φΰσευε necessarily

mean two υπόστασεε his objectors are, in fact, falling

into the error

of Nestorius since it would follow that Emmanuel is not only from two φΰσευε but from two πρόσωπα.3

When the Grammarian analyzes what his

opponents might mean by their statement that a φΰσυε is never άπρόσωποε, he sees two possibilities.4

1) The first possibility is

that they may mean that the characteristics of the φΰσυε appear in all its members, and a φύσυε can only be known in its πρόσωπα. For example, only the φΰσυε of divinity appears in the πρόσωπα of Father, son and Holy Spirit, or the angelic φΰσυε appears in Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and the other angels. meaning.

He sees no real problem with this

What he appears to be saying is that through an inductive

process it is possible to know the single φύσυε through an examination of its multiple πρόσωπα.

2) The second possible meaning is that every

φΰσυε has its own particular πρόσωπον. As long as his opponents are talking about thins which are not united hypostatically, the Grammarian has no objections, but they are wrong, he says, if they are talking

X

GF

IV.3

2

GF IV.1. 82�93. We will deal later with the Grammarian's objections of "from two φόσευε" language. 3

GF IV.2

h

Ibid.

118�121 = SF 13 = CIG 11.17, 117.23�33

63

about things which are hypostatically united in composition or synthesis (εν συνθέσευ).

Again he uses the example of composition,

especially the human being, to establish his point. He even suggests that those who are opposing him on this point are deliberately distorting the Chalcedonian position. The final argument that Cyril and the Chalcedonians were in agreement in their ideas if not in their language comes from Cyril's actions in the Union of 433.

Cyril, who was not shy about speaking

his mind, said nothing against Theodoret of Cyr who used dyophysite language.

This was not an act of condescension on Cyril's part, but

he saw that there was no difference between saying "one incarnate φύσυε of God the Word" and "two φΰσευε inseparably united."

He

recognized that not all the Orientals were partisans of Nestorius. The Grammarian can go so far as to accuse Severus of maliciously trying to calumniate Cyril and Theodoret and to undo Cyril's work. With his understanding of Cyril and Chalcedon, John the Grammarian can make the characteristically neo�Chalcedonian acceptance of both mono� and dyophysite language.

It is those who reject one or

the other formula outright who are to be suspected of heresy. Because of this [Apollinaris] the blessed Cyril approved those who are saying two φΰσευε in Emmanuel and then again he professed to say one incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word because of the division of Nestorius. When both of these are accepted it is a sign of orthodox doctrine. When one confession falls out, the suspicion of heresy comes in.2 ^F 29�SF 32 = CIG 11.34, 211,5�17; III.3, 15.18�31; III.9, 116.31�117.10 2

SF 40 = CIG III.12, 154.12�18

64 That acceptance, however, has a qualification attached.

Monophysite

language must include a reference to a real incarnation with a body and a rational soul.

To balance this insistence he is careful to state

that Christ is not simply in two φύσευε but in two united

2 φΰσευε.

While the Grammarian can find a place in his system for Cyrillian, monophysite language, he takes a strong stand against any formulation of a union "from two φΰσευε." He rejects even more vigorously the formula "two φΰσευε in the union, one φΰσυε after the ο

union'.'

This is logically consistent with the rest of his system.

For

the Grammarian, the one ύπόστασυε of Chalcedon refers to a hypostatic union of two φΰσευε; no other kind of union can unite humanity and divinity.

This union is a permanent union and as long as the union

perdures the φΰσευεπηίΒί perdure, otherwise the union is destroyed. Each φύσυε is the source of a contradictory set of qualities, e.g., passibility and mortality, impassibility and immortality.

If Christ

is only one φΰσυε after the union, or has become one φΰσυε from two φύσευε, the consequence for the Grammarian is that one φΰσυε has been destroyed, and hence the source of one of the sets of contradictory qualities has been destroyed, and thus the permanent union of the See, for instance, Cap. I. 2

SF 38 = CIG III.16, 189.30�190.4

3

SF

h

SF

5

SF

6

24 = CIG 11.31, 183.16�184.3 34 = CIG III.9, 125.22�25 24.203�205 = CIG 11.31, 184.1�3

Cap.

VI

65

two has been effectively (destroyed. It might be possible to argue with with logical consistency of the Grammarian's metaphysics on one point.

On his own admission,

the φΰσυε/ούσιία of humanity is synthetic or composite, consisting of a soul and a body, although it is still one φΰσυε/ούσιία; yet he can see no possibility for a composite φΰσυε of humanity and divinity. A possible answer to that objection is that in the Grammarian's system we are not deal with the equation class (humanity) + class (divinity) = composite class, but with the equation class (humanity) + individual in a class (God the Word) = one composite ύπόστασυε in two classes. At this point we can draw some conclusions concerning John of Caesarea. He is obviously a more systematic and profound theologian than Nephalius. While he is a Chalcedonian, he is not so attached to the Council's formula that he will not try to "improve" it.

We can

note also that when he uses the argument from authority, he appeals to individuals. He nowhere suggests that the Council of Chalcedon itself possessed any authority which it was incumbent upon any orthodox Christian to submit to. His greatest contribution is the distinction which he makes between φΰσυε and ύπόστασυε, and he does have a real theology of hypostatic union. His is the clearest declaration yet heard from a dyophysite that the implication of the hypostatic union is that God the Word did not assume an existing human individual, but that the humanity and the divinity, while remaining distinct, share one common act of existence.

He is able to

take elements of Cyril of Alexandria, notably his µιία φύσυε formula, and elements of Severus of Antioch, notably, the concept of synthesis,

66

and join them with dyophysite Chalcedonian elements in one Christological system. The greatest weakness in his system also concerns his concept of φΰσυε/ούσιία.

At times the Grammarian's statements about

φΰσυε/ούσιία as a collection of qualities which can be determined indcutively leave his reader wondering whether ούσιία is really a category of being or onl> a category of the mind.

If it is the latter,

it leaves the Grammarian not with a Christological problem, but with a Trinitarian problem.

If the divine ούσιία is merely a mental

category, the unity of God is jeopardized. Even granting this ambiguity, we can generally conclude that John the Grammarian made a constructive contribution toward clarifying the Christological problem and toward the formulations of the Council of 553.

CHAPTER IV EPHRAIM OF AMIDA

Ephriam of Amida is one of the few figures in this study for whom we have significant biographical information. adequately detailed the primary and life and career.

Grillmeier

has

major secondary sources for his

A detailed review of that material seems unncessary

here, but a short summary by way of introduction is in order. Ephraim was born sometime in the late fifth century at Amida, a city on the Tigris about 250 miles northeast of Antioch. His native language was probably Syriac, but his known writings are all in Greek and his theological method and vocabulary are thoroughly Greek. He began a career in the imperial service and eventually held the office of comes orientis, Justin I.

a posotion of extensive responsibility, under

Even the monophysite historian Zacharias Rhetor, whom we

have met earlier, and who complained about Ephraim's treatment of the monophysites, praised his good administration. In 526, Antioch was hit by a severe earthquake, and among the many people killed was the patriarch Euphrasius. With at least the consent of Justin and Justinian, Ephraim was elected patriarch and consecrated in April or May of 527. He remained in that position until his death in 544.

Since Severus had been the former patriarch

of Antioch, Ephraim had some reason to be concerned about the

^loys Grillmeier, S.J., "Ephrem d'Amid," DHGE 15 cols. 581-584. See also Glanville Downey, "Ephraimius, Patriarch of Antioch," CH 7(1938) pp. 364-370; and Patrick T.R. Gray, The Defense

of Chalcedon in the East (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 68

69 monophysite party in the city and undertook a persecution directed principally against monks and clergy in 531 which nearly cost him his throne.

In 537 or 538, on the occasion of the dedication of the

rebuilt cathedral in Antioch, he convoked a synod which reaffirmed Chalcedon and condemned Severus and his party.

Even after the death

of Severus (between 538 and 542) Ephraim kept up his anti-monophysite program. Though Ephraim was supported by Justinian—and Ephraim frequently praised the emperor and his orthodoxy—Ephraim was an independent bishop. At times his anti-monophysitejstance .clashéd'Tiith the more compromising imperial policy and he was reluctant to condemn

the so-called Three

Chapters.

Ephraim wrote extensively and most of his known writings were in defense of Chalcedon, but only a few fragments of his work remain. A fragment of his work Against

Severus

is preserved in Mansi,

X.1108. Fragments of an Apology for the Council of Chalcedon are preserved in Mansi,

XI.433-435.

Some fragments of these are also

found in Migne, PG 86,2.2103ff., along with a fragment of a homily on the words "like to us in all things but sin." The other texts attributed to Ephraim in Migne are spurious, as Grillmeier has adequately demonstrated in his study of Ephraim.

Only one of those

dubious texts would have a bearing on our interpretation of Ephraim's Christology, and on the basis of its vocabulary, which is quite different from Ephraim's certainly authentic works, (it speaks of a

λ

Ιη margaritam,

PG 86,2.2108

70

"characteristic ύπόστασυε"), I accept Grillmeier's evaluation. additional texts, Twelve Against

Acacius

Orthodox

Capitula,

Two

and a fragment of the work

have been edited and transcribed by Helmer.

The

principal source for our knowledge of Ephraim's writings is the extensive summary given by the ninth century patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, who is familiar with some major treatises and a large collec� tion of letters.

Photius admires Ephraim and there seems to be no

reason to suspect him of hostile interpolation.

Photius is a

summarizer rather than an analyst, and his summary is consistent in itself and agrees generally with the known fragments of Ephraim, which suggests that we need not be overly concerned about the possibility of friendly interpolation or misinterpretation. Ephraim is illustrative of the diversity which existed within the neo�Chalcedonian movement.

He uses the typical method of

citing the Fathers, particularly Cyril, Athanasius and the Cappado� cians to establish the orthodoxy of Chalcedonian dyophysite terminology and he adopts the Cappadocian understanding of ούσιία, τό κουνόν, as his definition of φΰσυε, and their understanding of ύπόστασυε as τό ύδυκόν.

In contrast to others though, Ephraim does not try to

improve upon the Chalcedonian formula, and the Council itself seems to have more authority of itself for him than it holds for someone like John of Caesarea.

While Ephraim recognizes the authority of Cyril of

^"Sigfried Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus (Diss. Bonn: 1962) pp. 262�265 and 271�272. I note the reservations of Gray, op. cit. p. 149, on the fragment of the work Against Acacius. 2

Photius, Bibliotheka, codicies 228,229. I have used the edition of R. Henry, (Paris: 1965).

71 Alexandria, he attaches only a limited value to his µιία φΰσυε formula and he does not insist that a person must use both formulae together in order to avoid the suspicion of heresy.

He accepted

θεοτόκοε terminology but is very cautious in his approach to any theopaschite formula.

While Ephraim's Christological views are thus

rather conservative, he is in his anthropology close to the position of Julian of Halicarnassus.

Though he never goes so far as to say

that the human body of Christ was naturally immortal even before the resurrection, he does spend a lot of time discussing how mortality is not really part of perfect human nature as it was created, but how it is the result of sin.

This may seem at first a surprising contrast

but we should remember the Julianism is more of an anthropological position than a Christological position.

Ephraim's Defense of Dyophysite Language Ephraim's defense of Chalcedonian dyophysite language covers the following points.

1) It is necessary to preserve the double

consubstantiality of Christ both with us and with the Father:; expresses the intention

of Cyril ·ο·£ Alexandria.

2) It

3) Monophysite

terminology is a misuse of language since φύσυε is to be equated with ούσιία.

4) The confession of two φύσευε does not imperil their unity

in one ύπόστασυε· Typical of Ephraim's approach is his treatise Severus. Second

Against

The Severian party had put forward a text from Cyril's Letter

to Succensus

in which Cyril had said that body and soul

is each a φύσυε but that it is only on the level of our thinking that

72

we consider their difference. single life:

We know that together they form one

"άλλα' µιίαν ενοε εΐναυ νοουµευ, ώστε τα' δΰο µηκέ*τυ µέ*ν

είναυ δύο δυ' άµφοΕν δε' τό ' εν άποτελεΕσθαυ ζωον."

The argument of

the Severian party was that Cyril meant that the φύσυε (=ούσιία) of the body and the φύσυε of the soul, when united in a single being form one φΰσυε and that it is possible in thought to make a distinction, but not in words.

The application to the Christological formula is

obvious; it is possible to make a mental distinction, but it is not permissible to speak of two φΰσευε. Ephraim's reply is that they have missed Cyril's point.

He

is not talking about the formation of a single φύσυε but of a single ύπόστασυε.

He did not say that a single being is realized from (έξ)

both, or in place of (άντιί) both, but by means of (δυά) both. is why he calls the one being εν ζωον and not µιία φΰσυε.

This

If a

distinction between the φΰσευε can be made in thought, it is legitimate to express it in words. φΰόυε

The real point is that in the union neither

has its own independent act of existence (µη* άνά µέ*ροε καιί 2

υδυοσυστάτωε ύπάρχευν).

This, Ephraim argues, does not mean that the

two φύσευε coalesce into one essence.

Body remains body and soul

remains soul; likewise humanity remains humanity and divinity remains 3 divinity. Cyril himself says as much in the same letter. we know one act of existence since the two do not result in two acts of existence, but by means of both they result in one living being. PG 77,245; cited by Photius, Bib. 229, 249b.9�10 2

Bib.

3

Ibid.

229, 250a.14 250b.16�22

73 Ephraim's major concern appears then to be upholding not only the legitimacy, but even the necessity of dyophysite language.

He

frequently cites authorities, particularly Cyril, who use dyophysite language,

and he aruges that Pope Leo's writings, particularly his

Tome to Flavian

and his letters to the emperor Leo are in agreement

with the Fathers.

Almost his entire Letter

to

lenobvus

,

2

aside from

some remarks on the monophysite interpolation of the Trisagion

which

we will consider later, is devoted to a defense of Leo. While Photius does not preserve too many of the details of Ephraim's argument in the letter, his summary suggests an uncharacteristically sharp tone.

Ephraim explains to Zenobius that the articles placed

before the names of the two φύσευε in the Greek text of Leo's Tome, b θεόε, ό Ανθρωποε, (the difficulty does not exist, of course,..in :the original Latin text), are there simply to show the reality of the two φΰσευε which are truly united.

They have no temporal significance as

though each had an independent existence prior to their union and do not imply a separation.

He cites other authors who follow the same

practice, particularly Athanasius and the Cappadocians.

Not content

with simply defending Leo, Ephraim goes further and accuses the monophysites of bad faith in attacking some of Leo's statements while using the same kind of language themselves.

One of the major thrusts

of Leo's Tome had been that the duality of naturae

1

Ibid.

in Christ was

Ibid. 228,246a.24�40, Letter to Zenobius of Emesa; and 228, 247b.1�5, Letter to Syncleticus, Metropolitan of Tarsus,

are examples. 2

Bib.

228, 245a.34�247a.6

74

manifested in his actions, albeit that they are the actions of a single persona.

Christ, for example, showed his humanity be weeping

for Lazarus, and showed his divinity by raising him from the dead. One particular objection which was raised against Leo, and which Ephraim1s reserve on the theopaschite question would naturally have prompted him to answer, was Leo's remark

that Eutyches should ask

himself "of what kind was the φΰσυε which was pierced by the nails on the wood of the cross of the one who was crucified on the cross." Ephraim produces a passage from the monophysite party without giving its source which says the same thing about the raising of Lazarus. By weeping he showed the reality of his flesh; in the resurrection by the command of his voice he showed his pute divinity. He who is one and the same both acted and spoke.2 Leo's words are thus vindicated by

the words of the opposition

since even they recognize actions which manifest Christ's humanity and his divinity.

We might note that the text which Ephraim cites could

have come from any number of monophysite sources.

The vast majority

of the monophysite party did not deny the reality of Christ's humanity; their soteriology as much as the Chalcedonians' demanded it.

Even

granting that in their strongly unitive theology the humanity of Christ played a basically passibe role and that their emphasis is on the active role of the Logos, the humanity of Christ can not be done away with.

The problem for them was that the dyophysite formula as

they understood it imperiled the unity of the incarnation.

^Ibid. Leo's Tome. 2

Ibid.

For a

228, 246b.41�247a.l, citing the Greek version of

228, 246b.34�38

75 dyophysite like Ephraim, the monophysite position ended in an unacceptable coalescing of humanity and divinity. Ephraim frequently returns to his latter issue. He insists that flesh and divinity do not become οµοοΰσυοε in Christ, and this is the basis of his reservations about the µιία φΰσυε formula. even now is known in the flesh. Christ even after the ascension.

Christ,

Flesh and divinity both remain in 2

The most notably neo�Chalcedonian characteristic of Ephraim is to be found in his explanation of Chalcedonian terminology.

Words

such as φύσυε, γέ*νοε, είδοε and ούσιία all refer to τό κουνόν, that which is common to all the members of a class. The terms ύπόστασυε and πρόσωπον refer to τό υδυκόν or καθ' έκαστου, that which is 3 It is permissible to use φΰσυε particular or exists individually. and ούσιία interchangeably, but not;φΰσυε and ύπόστασυε�

Some people

have used these latter terms as equivalents but it was a misuse of 4 the language. Ephraim cites Cyril's Apology for the Twelve Chapters against

Theodoret

to show that Cyril understood this.

In fighting this, necessarily we say that a hypostatic union 1 has come about. The καθ ύπόστασυυ means nothing other than that only the φΰσυε of the Word, or rather (ήγουν) the ύπόστασυε which is the Word himself has been truly united to a human _ φύσυε. . .he is known as one and he is Christ, both God and man. Against

Severus,

Ibid.

229, 231a.42�321b.l

To Anatolius, Ibid. 229, 253a.19�42. This person's identity is not further known. 3 Against Severus', Ibid. 229, 251b. 15�17; Apology for Council

of Chalcedon,

Ibid.

**Apology, Ibid. Against

Severus,

229, 259b.13�16 229, 259b. 19�21 Ibid.

229, 252a.4�10

the

76

Ephraim makes the same point in his explanation of his actions at the synod of 537 or 538 which we mentioned earlyer; namely, that Cyril frequently used φΰσυε with the same meaning as ύπόστασυε, particularly when he spoke of the one φύσυε.

The One ύπόστασυε We have seen thus far that for Ephraim, dyophysite language is not only legitimate but is necessary to express the dual divine/ human reality of Christ.

Equally, as we will see now, it is the one

ύπόστασυε which expresses the unity of Christ. Ephraim understands ύπόστασυε or πρόσωπον as that which is individual, as we have already seen. Hypostatic union is the way in which things which are not οµοοΰσυοε with one another unite. According to Ephraim, an ύπόστασυε can not be united hypostatically to another ύπόστασυε.

Similarly, two ουσυ'αυ can not be united to form

a single ούσυ'α.2 In order to maintain a hypostatic union it is necessary to preserve the difference

of the things thus united.

Hence, to

preserve the hypostatic union in Christ it is necessary to preserve the two φΰσευε/ούσυ'αυ.3

At the same time, citing Cyril as his

authority but without giving any text, Ephraim insists that hypostatic union of the kind he is talking about does not imply a division, and 4 that making a distinction is not the same as making a separation. 1

Tbid.

2

Letter

228, 248b.14�24

to Dometianos, Bishop of Militene,

Ibid. 228,

247a.24�36 3

Against Severus,

^Apology,

Ibid.

Ibid. 229, 250b.24�33 229, 255a.8�11.

Ephraim makes the same

77

According to Ephraim, the single ύπόστασυε of Christ may be called a synthetic ύπόστασυε.

It is not

correct, however, to speak

of a synthetic ούσιία, which is the position of Apollinaris.

This

seems to be directed against Severus who spoke, as we have seen, of a single synthetic φύσυε·

With Ephraim's understanding of φύσυε

and ούσιία such a position could only mean that humanity and divinity had coalesced into one another. Ephraim further refines his explanation of the single ύπόστασυε when he deals with an objection which was also raised against John of Caesarea, namely, that two φΰσευε implied two υπόστασεε·

necessarily and equally

Ephraim replies that the partisans of Severus

who say that if there arc� ··:·._

ύσευε in Christ there must also be two

υπόστασεε and two πρόσωπα are untrue to Severus. He never attributed to Christ a composition of πρόσωπα

or υπόστασεε.

Ephraim speaks, it suggests a date for his Apology,

From the way which is where

this discussion in found, after the death of Severus.

There are,

says Ephraim, several things such as water, anger, war, which are called φΰσυε but which do not imply personification.

We have a

spiritual φύσυε and a corporeal φΰσυε, but we do not think of a πρόσωπον or ύπόστασυε of soul or body.

He goes on further to cite

Proclus of Constantinople to the effect that if the φΰσυε of humanity were not truly assumed, then humanity and divinity would indeed have

point in his Letter

to Anthimus of Trapizond, Ibid. 228, 247b.35�42,

that hypostatic union does not imply a division. 1

Ibid.

229, 255b. 11 �41

78

been separated into two separate υπόστασεε but the incarnation has united the two φΰσευε in a single ύπόστασυε.

Ephraim, then, is engaged

in the same project as John the Grammarian, which is to establish that φύσυε can be real without necessarily being a hypostatic reality. This is necessary if God the Word who is properly speaking an ύπόστασυε with a divine φΰσυε/ούσιία is to assume humanity, i.e. the φΰσυε/ούσιία of humanity and not an individual human person, i.e. ύπόστασυε. The error of Nestorius was precisely that he imagined two φύσευε which existed independently and were divided according to ύπόστασυε and 2 united only in adoration. Ephraim insists that before it was united to the Word, Christ's flesh did not exists; to say it did is Nestorian.

For this reason he

rejects as nonsense a formula of "two φΰσευε before the union, one after."

Christ was not composed of two φΰσευε before the union, but

3 after it.

Failure to recognize this was the error of Eutyches who,

while he did not deny the incarnation or the union according to ύπόστασυε, would not confess that Christ is οµοοΰσυοε with us. The single ύπόστασυε is for Ephraim the meeting place of the human/divine duality in Christ and he makes it a real metaphysical

Apology, Ibid. 229, 256b.18�257a.12. The passage of Proclus is taken from his Homily on Lent, a work otherwise known except for this fragment. 2

3

Against Severus,

Apology,

Ibid.

Against Severus,

Ibid. 229, 252a.39�252b.l 229, 256b.4�17

Ibid. 229, 252b.2�11

79

principle.

Christ has not only two φύσευε, but two energies as well,

as Cyril of Alexandria had said in his Thesaurus.

It is possible

to consider within one and the same πρόσωπον two different physical 2 energies.

The one ύπόστασυε is the locus where Christ performs the

works both of the divinity and the humanity. That Christ our true God did not perform the acts proper to his divinity and the acts proper to his humanity separately, but that the one and the same [Christ] accomplished both the divine and �. the human works by reason of the union according to ύπόστασυε, he [Ephraim] cites again the witnesses of our God�bearing Fathers." His understanding of the unifying function of the ύπόστασυε can be further explained by his analogy of the single faculty of the will. In the divine wee we can see different characteristics which are proper to the divinity, and the scriptures say that God wills many different things. Think in the same way of the soul which is made according to the image of God. It has by essence one and the same cognitive and rational volitional power which it received for fulfilling and acting on God's commandments. This power exists κατά φΰσυν and it is not called sin or justice, but a voluntary habit (εξυε) of the soul. Accordingly, from this soul by reason of its power of self determination, two manifestations of the will arise, the divine and the evil. Should we direct our inclination toward the command of God, our will is called divine, not according to its ούσιία, but by reason of its act; and again should it be dragged down toward obedience to the Evil One it is rightly called a carnal will. This is to say the will of our rational nature is to love life. Again our carnal will is to live according to the passions; the divine will is to despise and disown life.^

Treatise Letter

to Some Oriental Monks, Ibid.

229, 261a.32�261b.2

to Some Schismatic Monks, Ibid. 228, 248a.31�32.

"Physical" is used here in the sense of "coming from a φύσυε." 3

Apology,

Ibid.

229, 257b.3�8

^Against Severus, PG 86,2.2105C�2108A

80

In other words, we naturally will to live.

The way we express this

will, either in obedience to the passions or in a spirit of detachment, determines whether our will in act

is "carnal" or "divine."

The application of this to the one ύπόστασυε is obvious.

The

will is one faculty, yet it is the basis of acts which are both multiple and qualitatively different.

The explanation of our good and

evil acts does not require two separate voluntary faculties. The ύπόστασυε is analogous to a habitus

of the φΰσευε.

Of itself, in

regard to divinity and humanity it is indifferent, but it is by means of the ύπόστασυε that human or divine acts may be posited.

The human

and divine actions of Christ do not require two separate hypostatic agents. Ephraim thus understands the Chalcedonian one ύπόστασυε to mean a hypostatic union and says quite clearly that this is the teaching of the Church and the teaching of the Council.

He even uses

quite Cyrillian language in his explanation and says that Chalcedon taught that "one of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, became flesh and 2 was incarnate", by which the Council meant a union by ύπόστασυε.

The

incarnation did not involve two hypostatic realities and Ephraim insists that Chalcedon condemned those who confessed two υπόστασεε before the 3 union and one after. Ephraim's appreciation of the hypostatic union makes it X

To Syncleticus, Metropolitan of Tarsus, Bib. 228, 247b.8�11; cf. Twelve Orthodox Capitula, 3 (Helmer, p.263). 2

Apology,

3

ibid.

ibid.

229, 259a.24�27

260a.17�19

81

possible for him to accept θεοτόκοε terminology without reservation and even to use it as a criterion of orthodoxy.

Part of his defense of

Pope Leo's orthodoxy was that in his Tome and in his correspondence with the emperor Leo 3 was θεοτόκοε.

2

he had condemned Nestorius for denying that Mary

He even suggests that Leo's condemnation was stronger

than any other's on this point. . . . and that Elizabeth should first proclaim the Mother of God saying "and who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" The blessed Pope Leo interpreted this reading more clearly than the others afterward. In the letter to the Emperor Leo he wrote these words: "Let Nestorius be anathema since he believed that the blessed θεοτόκοε Mary was not the mother of God but only of the man. 4 While Ephraim's understanding of the hypostatic union leads him easily to acceptance of Mary as the God bearer, he is much more cautious in his attitude toward any theopaschite formula. beginning of his Letter

to Zenobius

At the

he shows a conciliatory attitude

in explaining the interpolation of the Trisagion

hymn which Peter the

Fuller had introduced in Antioch, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, You who were crucified

for

us,

have mercy on us."

Ephraim explains

that the Orientals who used this formula interpreted it as a hymn to Christ, and as such the interpolation was legitimate. understood the hymn

For those who

as addressed to the Trinity, the interpolation was

inadmissible since it attributed suffering to the Godhead.

Letter 2

Letter 3 Letter to Syncleticus,

to Some Schismatic Monks, ibid.

He suggests

228, 248a.33�36

165 to Zenobius of Emessa, Bib. 228, 246a.16�22; ibid. 228, 247b.14�19

To Syncleticus,

loc.

cit.

Letter

82 that each group is correct within its own context and should avoid attacking one another. When we look at Ephraim's thought in itself, however, it becomes clear that a theopaschite formula is not part of his personal Christology. His entire work Against

Severus

does not contain any theo-

paschite reference and his whole emphasis is on the distinction, but not the separation, of Christ's humanity and divinity.

He wrote a

treatise to a group of theopaschite monks which was devoted completely to showing that Christ's humanity and divinity remained unmixed and 2 unconfused in the incarnation.

It is within this treatise that Ephraim

affirmed the two energies in Christ which we have already discussed. In his Apology

he states that the doctrine of the Church is that Christ

suffered in his flesh, but not that he suffered in his divinity.

In

fact, the Council of Chalcedon had condemned those who say that Christ 3 suffered in his divinity. In all that we have seen thus far, Ephraim is not very different from other neo�Chalcedonians in his methodology, in his application of Cappadocian definitions to the Christological formulae λ

Το Zenobius, ibid. 229, 245a.40�245b.20. The reality of the matter is a little more complicated than Ephraim's presentation suggests. The Trisagion was almost certainly considered a Christological hymn initially. Peter the Fuller's interpolation led the Chalcedonian opponents of a theopaschite formula to reinterpret it as a Trinitarian hymn—which remains the standard understanding of it in its liturgical usage. For background on the Trisagion see J. M.

Janssens, S.J., Institutiones

liturgicae

de ritibus

orientalibus,

111,2 (Rome, 1932) pp. 110�123. 2 3

Treatise

to Some Oriental Monks, ibid. 229, 260b.37�261a.10

Apology,

ibid.

229, 255a.31�34; 260a.16�17

83 and in his use of θεοτόκοε. His reservations about theopaschism are also typical.

His theology of hypostatic union is no more explicit than

John of Caesarea's, yet it does appear a little more sophisticated.

We

shall consider the point on which Ephraim differs from these others. As we have already seen, Ephraim considered the equation of φΰσυε and ύπόστασυε a misuse of the language, even though some of his authorities had done it.

In reality, since flesh and divinity do not

become οµοοΰσυοε, it is impossible to speak of one φΰσυε.

If you

speak of one incarnate φύσυε in its correct sense you would be speaking of an incarnation of the entire Trinity since the φΰσυε of the Trinity is the same in Father, Son and Holy Spi

c."

According to Ephraim, the orthodox faith and the teaching of Cyril is the confession of one incarnate ύπόστασυε of God the Word and one πρόσωπον.

Christ is consubstantial both to us and to the Father.

This means that we must confess the two φΰσευε from which he is com� 3 posed. This is Ephraim's typical style of argumentation: Cyril really meant one ύπόστασυε.

The

µιία φΰσυε formula really means that

it is necessary to proclaim a single incarnate ύπόστασυε of God the 4 Word, which is what—according to Ephraim—Chalcedon did. While Ephraim basically rejects the µυ'α φΰσυε formula, he sees in it some limited value as an anti�Nestorian statement.

One

against Severus, ibid. 229, 25la.42�25lb.1 2

ibid.

229, 250b.24�32

3

Apology, ibid. 229, 254b.35�43. Notice that Ephraim is not concerned here about whether Christ is in or from two φΰσευε. k

ibid.

229, 259a.22�27

84

must recognize Emmanuel in his two φΰσευε.

The µιία φύσυε

formula is directed against those who would separte the φΰσευε·

It does

not do anything about those who would destroy the difference between the two on account of their union.

In the same way that the µιία φΰσυε

formula combatted one error, recognition of two φύσευε destroys the opposite error.

The two formulae are opposed to opposite errors and

not to each other. other.

Thus Cyril and Chalcedon are not opposed to each

We can see, then, that for Ephraim the µιία φύσυε formula does

have .some value, but he does not suggest the the confession of the one φΰσυε and two φΰσευε formulae together are necessary for orthodoxy. There is one instance in Ephraim's writings where he does seem to suggest the necessity of the Cyrillian monophysite formula and that is in the Twelve

Orthodox

Capitula.

The text reads:

If then, anyone does not confess with his soul and with his mouth one incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word against Nestorius who divided 2 the φΰσευε from one another after the union, let him be anathema. Gray has advanced an interpretation of this text which deserves atten� 3 tion. He suggests that Ephraim is positing the necessity not of using the formula, but of using it against other way.

Nestorius

and not in any

This means that the words "who divided the φύσευε after the

union" are not a casual explanation but an integral part of the anathema.

The following anathema, since it is directed against Eutyches

To Megas of Beroea, ibid. 228, 248b.24�249a.3. As Henry points out in his not on the text, there is something wrong with this identification. Beroea did not have a bishop by that name. 2 Anathema 3 op. cit.

1, (Helmer, p: 263)

p. 148

85 "who took away the difference of φΰσευε on account of the union" supports this interpretation.

If Gray is correct, and his explanation

does have the attraction of making Ephraim appear more consistent, we also see an important preparation for the seventh dogmatic canon of the Council of 553 which dondemned those who used the monophysite formula to mean., something other than that a hypostatic union was made of the two φύσευε.

Ephraim's reserve in regard to the Cyrillina one φΰσυε

formula appears as a minority position at this point. However, it is the position which will ultimately be adopted in 553. An interesting side issue in Ephraim's Christology is the extent to which he seems to hold a position similar to that of Julian of Halicarnassus on the question of the natural immortality and incorruptibility of the human body of Christ.

The doctrines of Julian first

appeared around 510, but it was only after 518, when he and Severus were both refugees in Egypt that the disagreement between them grew bitter.

Briefly stated, the doctrine of Julian is that by Adam's sin

human nature ceased to exist in the way God originally created it and it fell under the control of concupiscence, suffering and death. Only Christ was born without being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death because these are not part of human nature but are the result of sin.

Christ died because he willingly took on mortality, not because

he was subject to sin; thus his body, even before the resurrection can be called immortal and incorruptible.

Julian's point is that Christ's

sufferings were not imposed on him, they were freely chosen, and that is why Christ died not for himself but for us.

Julian is not really

a docetist nor a Eutychean, but it is easy to see how he could be

86

interpreted as one.

In reality he is more concerned with the effects

of the sin of Adam and the manner in which they have been passed on to all humanity. Ephraim's writings indicate he may have had some sympathy for Julian's position.

In his Letter

to

the Monk Eunoius

he compares

corruptibility and incorruptibility to states of sickness and health. For this reason, even though Adam's body was incorruptible before his 2 sin, he was still οµοοΰσυοε with us.

In his Treatise

to

Anatolius,

he answers Anatolius' question on whether Adam was immortal since he was a composite being.

Ephraim answers in the affirmative, saying

that God is the author of life and not of death.

Death is not the

3 result of composition; death is the result of Adam's disobedience. All this is very much a side issue in Ephraim's Christological style, albeit a surprising one.

It is useful to mention it, how-

ever, so as to provide one more example of the kind of diversity which existed within the Chalcedonian party. We can say in summary that Ephraim of Amida's brand of neo�Chalcedonism is more cautious and reserved than that of John of Caesarea or Nephalius. He is outspoken in his defense of Pope Leo's

The best short analysis of Julian of Halicarnass is the article of R. Draguet, "Julien d'Halicarnesse," DTC vol. 8, cols. 1931� 1940. For a more detailed treatment of the relations between Julian and Severus see the same author's Julien d'Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d'Antioche sur lTTncorruptibilité du corps du ChrTst (Diss. Louvain, 1924). 2

Bib. 228, 248b.10-19 3 ibid. 229, 253b.7-22. of Eunoius or Anatolius.

We know nothing about the identities

87 orthodoxy and of the formula of Chalcedon as it stands without additions or improvements.

He understands that the explanation of a

union by ύπόστασυε is the basic problem in the controversy and his appreciation of the single ύπόστασυε of Christ represents a theological advance.

This conservative variety of neo�Chalcedonism which begins

with Ephraim as its first notable writer was to have a large influence in 553.

CHAPTER V CHALCEDONIAN AND NEO-CHALCEDONIAN MONASTICISM IN CONSTANTINOPLE

The loyalties of the average Christian in Constantinople were basically Chalcedonian. Chalcedonian manner. Trisagion

The Henotikon

was interpreted here in a pro�

An attempt to introduce the interpolated

into the churches of Constantinople was short�lived and met

violent opposition during the reign of the emperor Anastasius. recent study

Jarry's

has shown that even the famouls rivalry between the

circus factions, (the "Blues" and the "Greens", named after the color of their respective favorite racing teams) largely involved differences between strict and moderate Chalcedonians and that there was little organized monophysite opposition among the populace of the imperial city. The monasteries, particularly the monastery of the Akoemete, (άκουµι*του, the sleepless ones), were a powerful force in maintaining Chalcedonian loyalty. origin.

These monks were of Syrian and Mesopotamian

We know that their first leader was named Alexander and that

they were organized in Syria around 380. A major portion of their activity was concerned with popular preaching.

They were also distin-

guished for their practice of the continual recitation of the psalms in choir by a portion of the community, a practice which they preserved even on their missionary journeys.

They attempted to establish a

monastery in Constantinople early in the fifth century but the

viii

J.Jarry, "Heresies et factions à Constantinople du ν siècle," Syria 37(1960) pp. 348-371

89

au

90 foundation was short-lived.

After Alexander's death, c. 430, they

established a monastery on the Bosphorus opposite Constantinople near modern Tchiboukli.

It was here that because of the practice of

continual choral prayer they were nicknamed akoimete, became the title of their monastery.

which eventually

In 448 their hegumen, the

archimandrite Marcellus, signed a condemnation of Eutyches, and in 451 he was one of the eighteen archimandrites in Constantinople to petition the emperor Marcian to call for a council. He was likewise present at Chalcedon. At the time of the Henotikon

the Akoimete monks

opposed Acacius and alerted Rome to the dealings between Acacius and Peter Mongus.

Interestingly, Peter the Fuller was for a time a member

of the Akoemete monastery.

It is not difficult to imagine the reasons

for his departure. The Chalcedonism of the Akoemete and their associates was a strict dyophysite variety.

The rigidity of their position, in fact,

resulted in their excommunication (probably unfairly) as Nestorians in 534. Of more interest to us are the Skythian monks and their leader John Maxentius, who represent the neo-Chalcedonian tendency in Constantinopolitan monasticism.

Before discussing their doctrine in

detail a short historical sketch of their activities in the years 518520 may help to sort out the cast of characters.

As the name suggests,

these monks were of Skythian origin and it appears that they were more comfortable with Latin than with Greek.

They were in correspondence

with the Skythian Dionysius Exiguus who was active in Rome in the early halft of the sixth century.

Dionysius was a canonist and is also the

91 one responsible for our present system of numbering years from the birth of Christ, which he fixed at 753 A.U.C. Dionysius provided these monks with Latin translations of the two letters of Cyril of Alexandria to Succensus. These same monks were also connected to the imperial court via another Skythian, Vitalian, Justin and Justinian's militum.

magister

Vitalian was the father of one of the monks, Leontius, who

is not to be confused with Leontius of Byzantium.

In 518 these monks

became involved in a debate with several bishops in Skythia, whom was Paternus, bishop of Tomi.

among

The monks were accusing the

bishops of heresy because of their opposition to a theopaschite formula "unus de trinitate claiming it to be a necessary

crucifixus"

which the monks were using,

addition to the Chalcedonian formula.

The dispute was taken to Constantinople where the monks had further difficulties with the deacon Victor. We know the names of the four monks who were there at Constantinople, John Maxentius, their leader, Achilles, Leontius and Mauritius.

The ecclesiastical origin and status of these monks is

uncertain.

The Roman legate Dioscorus, whom we shall meet shortly,

wrote to Pope Hormisdas telling him that he could get no

clear answer

from John Maxentius about when he had been made a monk or where. 1

Collectio

Avellana,

187, CSEL 35.2, 64.4. The Collectio

Avellana will be cited by the number of the epistle followed by page number and line number where appropriate in CSEL 35.2 Maxentius tarnen qoud sub abbatis uocabulo dixit se congregationem habere, si interrogetur aut con quibus monachis uixit aut in quo monasterio aut sub quo abbate monachus factus est, dicere non potest. Similiter et si de Achille dicere voluero, rem facio supervacuam; cui hoc sufficit: smeper later propter conscientiam suam ab omnibus catholicis damnatam. ibid. 224, 687.19-25

92 In the same letter he expressed his doubts about the character of the monks Achilles. In 519, shortly after the arrival of Bishop Paternus and the monks, a papal delegation arrived in Constantinople to negotiate an end to the Acacian schism.

The delegation consisted of the bishops

Germanus and John, the presbyter Blandus and the deacon Dioscorus. Dioscorus had fled from Alexandria to Rome and was the real power in the papal delegation.

They reported to Pope Hormisdas (514�523) that

at the insistence of Vitalian they had frequently been called upon to hear the monks' case.

According to a dispatch of Dioscorus, the

monks were claiming that in their disputes with the heretics, (i.e. the monophysites) that the Chalcedonian formula was not in itself adequately anti�Nestorian and that it was necessary further to use the formula "unus de trinitate

crucifixus"

to express the unity of

Jesus incarnate with the eternal Word who is οµοοΰσυοε with the 2 Father. To understand why the question of a Christological formula took on a Trinitarian dimension it is necessary to remember the accusation lodged (rightly or wrongly) against Nestorius.

He was

accused of making the πρόσωπον of union a person distinct from the person of God the Word.

A logical consequent of this was that this

"Christ" was a "second son" and thus a fourth person was introduced into the Trinity.

hbid. 2

The opponents of Chalcedon, who saw it as a

217, 677�678

ibid. 216, 275�^276. Letter 224, 685�687 reports the same issue arose in their dealings with the deacon Victor.

93

revival of Nestorianism, accused the Council of Chalcedon of doing the same thing. After several long and fruitless sessions the legates rejected the demands of the Skythian monks as an innovation and as dangerous. We have the following accounts from the legates. There is found in these [propositions which they presented] a place where they wish to say "one of the Trinity was crucified." something which is not contained in the holy synods nor in the letters of the holy Pope Leo nor in ecclesiastical custom. If this is permitted, it seems to me that disagreements and no small amount of scandal will arise among the churches.1 The Skythians then began to say '"one of the Trinity' ought to be added also!" We replied that "we are not permitted to say nor to add anything which is not defined by the four councils nor [contained] in the letters of the blessed Pope Leo. 2 The legates were unable to convince the monks, and even Justinian himself was unable to reconcile the monks and bishop Paternus. He was, however, able to make peace between Paternus and Vitalian.

In their

account of the monks and the deacon Victor the legates report to the Pope a meeting between the patriarch, Justinian, Vitalian and Victor at which they were not present. Victor has not come to them since and no one else has told them the results of that meeting. With the support of Vitalian the monks decided to go to Rome est in ipsis [capitulis] inter cetera, ubi uolunt dicere unum de trinitate crucifixum, quod est nee in Sanctis synodis nee in epistolis sancti papae Leonis nee in consuetudine ecclesiastica. Quod si permittitur fieri, mihi uidetetur dissensiones aut scandala non mediocra nasci inter ecclesias. ibid. 216, 675.29-676.4 2 Scythae e contra inchoauerunt dicere "addatur et unus de trinitate!" Nos e contra diximus "quod non est in quattuor conciliis définiturn nee in epistolis beati papae Leonis, nos nee dicere possumus nee addere. ibid. 224, 686.2-5

94

and appeal to Hormisdas himself.

The legates sent a dispatch to the

Pope informing him of the whole incident and complaining of Vitalian's interference: "propter uiro

subripuerunt

et

istas talia

nouas intentiones uindicare

quaecumque potuit

impedimenta

alert "ne illorwn

subtilitas

Uitaliano

et pro talibus

contra

nos,

They put the Pope on the

afferre." glorietur

rebus

magnifico

in nostra

simplicitate."

2

They must have been convincing arguers. The monks did not at first enjoy imperial support.

Justian,

who already was governing with Justin at this time, in his initial dispatches to Hormisdas warns him against the monks who, he considers, are introducing a novelty into the Church, and expresses the fear that 3 they will cause another general disturbance. It appears that the monks arrived in Rome before the letters either of the legates or of Justinian. Libellus

fidei

The text of John Maxentius'

indicates that it was presented to the papal legates

in Constantinople and refused, and that it was then presented to Hormisdas in Rome and approved: "susceptus papa Hormisdo et in oonuentu etiam omnium senatorum

lectus

episcoporum catholicus

est siue

uero Eomae a totius

ecclesiae

est per omnia

beato nee non

approbatus."

Whatever kind of approval Hormisdas may have given the Skythian monks,

2

ibid.

217, 697.8-11

ibid.

7-8

3 quoniam uaniloquim ipsorum festinantium nouitates .introducere in ecclesia,, quod neque quattuor uenerabiles concilii neque sancti papae Leonis continere noscuntur in omni loco turbas excitare uidentur. ibid. 187, 644.15-18 4 ACO IV.2, 3. The writings of John Maxentius are also contained in PG 86, 75-158

95 and we must allow for the possibility of exaggeration on Maxentius' part, he obviously changed his mind.

He replied to Justinian saying

that what the monks were proposing had to be investigated and asked him to return his legates to Rome and to send along with them the deacon Victor so that the whole matter could be investigated. Now, however, we see a shift in imperial policy.

In reply to

the pope's letter, Justin wrote saying that he had received some petitions from some of the oriental provinces regarding their faith in the Trinity.

He promised to send these to Hormisdas so that he would be

2 more fully informed. The ploy of Justin and Justinian was to suggest that there were some ambiguities which the pope needed to be informed of so he could settle them and maintain peace in the Church. 3 "dubitationes

incongruas."

Justin speaks of

It is Justinian who develops the

theological nicety which was presented to Hormisdas. He argued that nothing should remain in ambiguity and suggested a modification of the monks' formula.

Christ is properly "unus

Father and the Holy Spirit.

in trinitate"

along with the

It is ambiguous to say "unus

de

trinitate"

without being more specific and including the name of Christ in the formula as one in the Trinity. He urged Hormisdas to do something so 4 that no doubts would remain for the futurev Justinian must have know that the Skythians' formula as they

Collectio.Avellana,

189, 646-647

2

ibid.

181, 636-637

3

ibid.

181, 636.24

ibid.

198, 656; 235, 715

k

96 presented it would be unacceptable in Rome, and he attempted a compromise by adding a theological refinement.

Hormisdas may not have been a

brilliant theologian, but he was no idiot, and, as he proved in the settlement of the Acacian schism, he was a strong willed and tough negotiator.

He took no notice of Justinian's distinction and simply

wrote back to Justin that he saw no need for any additional formula. He suggested that the people raising this issue were more interested in doubting than in believing and in arguing than in knowing.

Finally,

he says that those who use this theopaschite formula are introducii... a division into the Trinity. Hormisdas also ordered the Skythian monks to disband and to leave Rome.

They returned to Constantinople in the autumn of 520

where they discovered that Vitalian, their protector, had been assassinated.

Now, however, Justin and Justinian were willing to

shelter them, and from this time onward, a theopaschite formula is a part of the neo-Chalcedonian program.

The Skythian monks continued

as a small but vocal group with imperial protection.

They kept up a

name calling contest with the more popular Akoimete monks and iwere instrumental in their condemnation in 534 as Nestorians.

The greatest

significance of the Skythian monks is that they attempted to turn the theopaschite formula to the defense rather than the attack of Chalcedon.

The Writings of John Maxentius In his writings John Maxentius appears capable but ill-tempered, (courtesy to one's theological opponents was not the style of hbid.

236, 716-722

97 the day), with a fairly good grasp of the problem.

Although he can be

wordy at times, the direction of his though is clear and sometimes original. He puts a great amount of effort into interpreting Chalcedon in an anti-Nestorian manner.

While most of the writers we have seen

thus far were basically engaged in controversy against the monophysites and in defending themselves against charges of Nestorianism coming from that quarter, Maxentius takes the offensive against Nestorianism, or against what he took to be Nestorianism.

The true meaning of the

Chalcedonian formula, he contends, is expressed in the formula "one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh." At the outset he recognizes that he has a problem; the introduction of his theopaschite formula goes beyond what Chalcedon said and so he must say something about what we would today call the formulation and development of dogma.

He argues that in itself the

catholic faith is complete and perfect and cannot be added to. An addition of words, an explanation.

however, may have the helpful effect of providing Not all additions of words are bad; additions of

words, he contends, are to be feared when they bring about a corruption or a contradiction of the faith rather than an explanation.

His

point is that something more is needed than the continued reiteration of the words of Chalcedon; the words need to be properly explained in order to defend the Counci.

This is an important point for John

Maxentius. He sees what to his mind is an incorrect and Nestorianizing

X

Libellus fidei, ACO IV.2, 3.15ff. All future references to the works of John Maxentius contained in ACO IV.2 will simply be given as ACO followed by the appropriate page and line numbers for that volumn.

98 interpretation of the Council is destroying Chalcedon's meaning. He says that sometimes the unwise defend error thinking it is the truth. He thus sees his project as a defense of Chalcedon, "qui autem non contra ipsam sed pro ipsa patrum sententias proferunt, defensores sunt, 2 In his view the problem comes from non retractatores concilii." 3 those who accept Chalcedon's words but not their meaning. From this comes the necessity of accepting the "one of the Trinity" formula. The Coucnil did not say it, but that does not mean that it should not be said. Maxentius' favorite Christological formula is that two naturae

are united in Christ, and this expression occurs throughout

his writings. "in two naturae"

This very neatly sidesteps the whole question of or "from two naturae"

terminology, although he

occasionally uses the Chalcedonian "in duabus Maxentius' understanding of natura persona

naturis." and its relation to

suggests a strongly Aristotelian background. Natura indicates

that which is common and is that without which no persona Natura,

even though it receives its act of existence or

can exist. subsistentia

Responsio adversus epistolam quam ad Possessorem a Romano episcopo dicunt haeretici destinatam, ACO 49.38-40 2 Those who set forth the opinions of the Fathers not against it but for it are the upholders, the the rejectors of the Council. Lib. ACOk.22-24 3 Dialogi contra nestorianos, Lib II. ACO 44.6 k

Lib.

ACO 4.28

Capitula édita contra nestorianos et pelagianos, ACO 10.8; Professio brevissima catholici fidei, ACO 11.30; Responsio contra acephdlos qui post adunationem stulte unam profitentur in Christo naturam, ACO 12.30, 14.2

99 in a persona,

is not nothing.

It contains all the perfections which

will appear at their proper time.

Thus a child, even though he does

not have the use of abstract reason, is still a human because of his human natura

which contains this perfection.

He does not use the

Aristotelian terms of act and potency, but his thinking fits those categories.

Probably his clearest statement on natura

is found in Dial.

and

persona

I.

Persona, therefore, is distinguished from natura since persona signifies one individual member of a natura, while natura is understood to indicate the common matter from which plural personae can subsist. For this reason, every persona likewise has a natura, but not every natura is equally expressed in a

persona.2

This distinction between natura

and persona

is fundamental in Maxentius'

thought and enables him to criticize both the Nestorian and the Monophysite position. His explanation of the unity of Christ contains no real surprises, but it does represent a consolidation of the developing currents of the neo-Chalcedonian position.

He insists again and

again that God the Word did not assume an already existing human person, but that he assumed humanity.

In Christ there are two

but only one subsistentia.

substantiae

or persona

subsistentia 1

Dütl

I.

The humanity receives its 3 from God the Word. He describes the union

ACO 24.11-17

Discernitur ergo a natura persona quia person unam rem indiuiduam naturae significat, natura uero communem cognoscitur declarare materiem ex quo plurimae possent personae subsistere, Quapropter omnia quidem persona simul naturam continet, non autem omnia natura personam aeque complectitur. ibid.23.30-34. 3

ibid.22.10-35

as substantialis subsistentialis

or naturalis, or personalis,

and opposes this to a union which is soeialis,

or a union which is merely

or union by grace or good pleasure.

The phrase "union by good

pleasure" was characteristic of Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) and in Maxentius' remarks which are found particularly in Dial.

II we can see

the growth of the attack against Theodore which reached its height in his posthumous condemnation by the Council of 553. Maxentius' Nestorian interlocutor in the dialogue has raised the objection that what is done according to natura

is done by necessity, whereas God was

united with humanity because of his love and mercy. in God there is no distinction between natura is simple. Unio naturalis

He replies that

and voluntas

because God

is rather to be distinguished from God's

2 union by grace or love with someone already formed in the womb. At this point we must ask whether, since subsistentia persona

and

appear to be the equivalents of the Chalcedonian ύπόστασυε

and πρόσωπου, Maxentius really has any idea of hypostatic union. On the level of terminology we must say that he does not. He understands the union of two naturae

to be a unio

to follow that a unio subsistentialis of two personae

or subsistentiae,

naturalis,

from which it seems

or personalis

would be a union

which is precisely the kind of

union he wants to reject. At the very least we must say that this indicates a certain diversity and fluidity of terminology still Is, then, his unio naturalis

prevailed.

CNP, ACO 10.14�18; Brevissima ad propriam carnem, ACO 12.7 2

Dial.

II, ACO 26.39�27.13

simply a different expression adunationis

ratio

Verbi Dei

101 of the same idea? natura/persona

The basic parts are there, particularly the

distinction, but he never really puts them together.

It seems that he did not realize the need or importance of analyzing and organizing his thought on this point. Synthesis terminology also appears in the writings of Maxentius.

He states that after the incarnation Christ is composite.

This composition makes of the incarnation a real unity rather than an indwelling of one persona

in another.

Contrary to "Nestorian"

objections, composition does not mean that the two parts can then be divided from one another nor that the two naturae one another.

are confused with

If Christ is not composite after the union he could not

2 have suffered since that which is simple is also impassible.

This

composition must have taken place in the womb of the virgin since 3 otherwise we would have not a union but an indwelling.

Composition

is a term which we have seen used by both monophysites and neo�Chalcedonians.

Since Maxentius elects to deal with it in such detail it

probably indicates that objections to the term were coming from strict dyophysite circles. To this point we have seen John Maxentius' anti�Nestorian side; we must also consider his attitude toward the monophysites. He brings forward the standard arguments against the una natura If there is only one natura To say two naturae

in Christ then he has not assumed flesh.

before the union but only one natura

λ

ΟΝΡ, ACO 10.32; Dial.

2 Dial. 3

ibid.

II,

formula.

II,

after the

ACO 27.18, 29.8�11; Resp.

ACO 55.3

ACO 29.8�11 is the crux of the discussion.

29.25�29

102 union implies in its context not only two naturae

but two personae

since they do not distinguish these terms, which is Nestorian.

also,

These

arguments are too commonplace by now to require further detailing here. Of more interest is Maxentius' reaction to the anthropological analogy of body and soul forming one natura, manner.

which he handles in a differnt

He rejects the analogy as inapplicable since the soul is not

a pre-existent entity which later takes on a body, whereas in Christ, God the Word pre-exists his flesh.

Earlier neo-Chalcedonians had used

the argument that even in the single human composite body remains body and soul remains soul. One of Maxentius' more interesting arguments centers on the name Christ.

No thing or natura

exists which can not be given a name.

Christ, however, is not the name of a natura. are the names of naturae,

Christs.

and

humanitas

Christ is the, name of an operation or an

effect, namely, anointing. unique thing or natura

Divinitas

Christ is thus not the name of a single

since in the Old Testament there were many

To speak of Christ as a single natura

would, in effect,

2 reduce him to either mere humanity or mere divinity. Although John Maxentius generally insists upon the duae naturae

formula, he is willing to make some concessions.

can be understood in a Chalcedonian sense as two

incarnata unitae.

Una

3

It is thus possible that those who use una natra ^CAceph.

ACO 13.38-44

2

ACO 13.45-14,22

3

10.8-11

ibid.

CNP, ACO

natura

naturae or ex

103 may have a correct understanding of the catholic faith

duabus naturis

although they express it in different words to avoid giving an opening to heresy.

In this position Maxentius shows himself much more accomo-

dating to the moderate monophysite party than to the strict dyophysite party whom he tends to suspect of crypto-Nestorianism. Maxentius' theopaschite formula comes as a logical consequence of his understanding of the union and the natura/persona The entire position which he outlines in his Libellus briefly summarized.

distinction. fidei

could be

God became flesh, flesh did not become God.

The

whole Trinity did not become flesh, one of the Trinity became incarnate and was crucified.

His starting point is thus the divine Word who has

two nativities, one before the ages with the Father, the other in time from the womb of the virgin.

that he is God, "Christus

The most important fact about Christ is

super omnia deus est"

and "deus uerbum ipse

3

est

Christus." In the prologue to the Dialogue against

the Nestorians

he

puts his position into the starkest of terms. Either Christ is God or he is not, and if he is God he is either the whole Trinity or one of the Trinity.

The touchstone by which Nestorianism can be detected is

refusal to confess that Christ is one of the holy and undivided Trinity. It is not that Maxentius has difficulty with Christ's humanity; it is 1

Dial.

II,

ACO 43.13-28

2

CNP, ACO 10.29-31

3

ACO 32.45, 35.39

Dial.

II,

ibid.

I, ACO 14.25-15.13

k

104 a given which he never sees the need to prove. His project is to uphold the real and unique continuity between Jesus and God the Word, and hence his appearantly unilateral insistence upon speaking of Christ as God.

The humanity of Christ is not really intended to exist or to

function independently.

This brings us once again to the soteriologi-

cal issue. Maxentius is careful to show his anti-Pelagianism as an accompaniment to his anti-Nestorianism.

His criticism of the

Pelagians is that they make virtue and salvation come from human nature rather than from Christ.

Christ humanity in the incarnation is like

our humanity in salvation, a recipient of divine activity. We can see both positive and negative aspects in the works of John Maxentius. As a participant in the neo-Chalcedonian program of formulating a moderate dyophysitism sensitive to the objections of moderate monophysitism he recognizes that Chalcedonian dyophysitism had to distinguish itself clearly from Nestorian dyophysitism.

He is,

however, too quick to find Nestorianism where it does not really exist. As a result he appears insensitive and unconcerned about many issues concerning the consequences of Christ's real humanity.

A theopaschite

formula may in context be legitimate, but it is one of those phrases which require long explanation of what you mean, and perhaps even longer explanations of what you do not mean.

To insist upon it

exclusively as the criterion of orthodoxy is certainly a theological imbalance. On the positive side, however, Maxentius must be credited ^Resp.

ACO 57.4-5

105 with attempting to give the heretofore monophysite slogan an acceptable meaning within a dyophysite framework.

This is significant because the

introduction of a theopaschite formula into Chalcedonian orthdoxy was a major project of the Fifth Council.

CHAPTER VI THEODORE OF RAITHOU

We know very little about the person of Theodore of Raithou. The only things we know certainly are that he was a presbyter and monk in Raithou, which is located on the Gulf of Suez about forty miles west of Mount Sinai and three hundred and fifty Alexandria.

miles south�east of

There have been some unsuccessful attempts to identify him

with other Theodores who were active in the late sixth century. One work exists which is attributed to Theodore of Raithou, his Proparaskue

or Prepatation.

The first part deals with Christo-

logical questions, the second part deal with philosophic concepts such as ούσυα, φύσυε, ύπόστασυε, which are of interest to the theology of the incarnation.

The second part is not always found in the manuscripts

along with the first, but the content and style are adequately similar to suggest that they are both by the same author.

2

The dating of Theodore's work is also a problem. basis of internal evidence I place it prior to 553.

On the

The reason for

this is that Theodore follows the early neo�Chalcedonian tendency to require the Cyrillian and Chalcedonian formulae together as necessary to preserve orthodoxy.

He also speaks of the Chalcedonian union as

an essential union more frequently than he speaks of it as a union ed. F. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 117, (Rome, 1938) pp. 185�225. An edition of the first part may be found in PG91, 1484�1504. 2

An adequate account of the identity, literary activity and the dating of Theodore is provided by Diekamp in the introduction to his edition of the Proparaskue.

107

108 καθ' ύπόστασυυ. prior to 553.

Such features are more consistent with the situation

It is also possible to infer from his treatment that

Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus of Antioch are still alive. How much influence did Theodore have directly on the decisions of Constantinople II?

Probably little, if any.

Raithou was a long way

removed from places like Constantinople or Antioch or Jerusalem where most of the discussion was taking place, and he really does not bring forward anything new.

He is presented here not as a contributor to the

process but as a reflector of the spread of neo�Chalcedonian ideas throughout the Eastern Church. Theodore begins his work with an historical sketch of the major Christological heretics. He lists Mani, Paul of Samosata, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius and Eutyches.

The

teaching of the Church takes the middle ground between their opposing positions.

Against Mani, Eutyches and Apollinaris it confesses one

incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word which is animated by a rational soul. Theodore is careful in his phrasing to include the notion of a real body and a real soul, "µιία φΰσυε θεού λόγου σεσαρκοµέυη σαρκιί έµψυχωµέ*υη ψυχξϊ νοερφ καιί λογυκξί."

Against Theodore of Mopsuestia and

Nestorius the Church confesses not simply two φυ*σευε, but adds that they are united essentially (ούσυωδωε), and further adds that they are 2 united hypostatically (καθ' ύπόστασυυ) without division or mixture. One aspect of Theodore's approach is particularly noteworthy. Proparaskue, ed. Diekamp, p. 191.4�5. Further references will be given as Diekamp followed by page and line numbers. 2

Diekamp, 191.5�11

109 He formulates a monophysite formula to use against heretical monophysites and a dyophysite formula to use against heretical dyophysites.

He is

not starting from a defensive position of vindicating the validity of the Chalcedonian formula. He assumes its validity and goes on to an exposition of it. At this point it may be helpful to turn to the second part of Theodore's work for his understanding of the Christological terms. He equates φύσυε with ούσιία and understands these terms to mean something which exists in itself and not in another, or which does not depend on another for its existence.

Color, for instance, since it

exists only in a body, can not be an ούσιία.

Despite this very

Aristotelian sounding definition, we shall see that his understanding of it is neoplatonic.

He does not understand ούσιία as a concrete

individual but as a particular kind of being.

Humanity, divinity, etc.

are ούσιίαυ and, in a platonic sense, real. On the other hand, ύπο'στασυε refers to the existence of some thing (πράγµα) and is equated with πρόσωπου. The distinction between ούσιία and ύπόστασυε is that ούσιία refers simply to the act of being 'τό ευναυ) while ύπόστασυε refers to the way it exists in a particular thing (πωε and ποΕοε). As it is used in reference to any specific kind of being, ανθρωποε

for example, ούσιία refers to the being which all the

individuals who share that ούσιία have in common, while ύπόστασυε refers to those things which distinguish one individual from another.

hbid.

201.9�202.9; 202.21�23

110

Theodore's understanding of the individual is as much historical as it is metaphysical.

The distinguishing characteristics he enumerates

which distinguish individual men are such things as family, place of birth, activities, other incidents in a person's individual history, etc.

The ύπόστασυε acts as a unifying principle which unites an

individual's diverse activities into one act of existence.

It is

important also to note that for Theodore an individual is not just an ύπόστασυε, an individual is both ούσιία and ύπόστασυε.

The distinction

between ούσιία and ύπόστασυε means for Theodore that ούσιία can never become ύπόστασυε; ούόιία is eternally ούσιία.

An ούσιία can not be synthesized with another ούσιία in such a manner that they become one ούσιία, and the same is true of ύπόστασυε. When an ούσιία is synthesized with another ούσιία they are synthesized 2 to exist in one ύπόστασυε. With this understanding of the terminology we can now return to Theodore's exposition.

He explains that by two φύσευε is meant

that the two φύσευε which come together in Christ are of different genus and essence.

To say that they are united essentially means that

the union is not one of good pleasure or appearance, but involves the very essence and manner of being (ύποκευµένω) and reality (πράγµατυ) of the things which are brought together and synthesized. : Union καθ1 ύπόστασυυ .indicates that the humanity of Christ was not first formed and then united to the divinity; rather, from the very beginning of its

X

2

ibid.

204.5�11; 205.6�7

ibid.

215.6�19

existence it was united to the divinity.

In saying that the union is

without division or mixture we indicate that the union did not form some new kind of being, but rather that the union is eternal and that it preserves each φΰσυε in its own proper manner of being. Theodore's explanation does, however, reveal a lapse in his application of language about the hypostatic union.

He notes that the

word σεσαρκοµέ*νη in the monophysite formula indicates the φΰσυε of 2 He later says that humanity which the φΰσυε of God the Word assumed. 3 it is the divinity, θεότητοε, which assumed the humanity. He treats the monophysite formula as an ecclesiastically sanctioned formula (ο λόγοε τηε έκκλησιίαε) and says that it refutes those who would introduce two υπόστασεε or πρόσωπα on account of the two φύσευε·This formula also shows that the humanity of Christ did not exist in an ύπόστασυε before its formation and assumption by God the Word in Mary's womb.

He says that the adjectival use of σεσαρκοµένη

is not indicative of a modification made in the divine φΰσυε but is truly indicative of a second φύσυε. If anyone accepts the µιία φΰσυε formula according to the mind of the Church, he ought equally to accept the formula "δύο φύσευε οΰσυωδωε ήνωµέναε", two φύσευε united essentially, although Theodore

hbid. 2

ibid.

3

190.17�21

ibid. 191.14�16

hbid. 5

191.14�27

192.2ff

ibid. 194.4ff

112 recognizes that some people may be reluctant to accept a dyophysite formula without that qualification.

For Theodore each formula has

the same meaning and is the principle for interpreting (έρµηνευτυκόε) 2 the other. The dyophysite formula, on the other hand, refutes those who attempt to confused the φΰσευε. It shows that the things which are proper to each φύσυε remain in the union and it manifests that which is common to both and that which is particular to each [i.e. φΰσυε]. It is, he says, impossible to talk about a union of two things if each 3 one does not have something of its own. God and man are both the names of an ούσιία, while son refers to ύπόστασυε, and the Church confesses one ύπόστασυε because Christ is the one Son of God the Father and the virgin mother. That which is proper (υ*δυον) to the φύσυε of God the Word is to exist as a Son of God, while that which is proper to the φΰσυε of the assumed humanity ix to exist as a son of man. Their union means that the two have become one who is both Son of God and son of man, and because he is both the 4 Church confesses two φύσευε. In a clever turn of phrase, Theodore says that in its confession of two united φύσευε the Church "divides unitedly . . . and unites dividedly" (ηνωµόυωε γάρ δυαυρεΐ...δυακεκρυµόνωε συυαπτευ). He hbid.

195.11�13

2

195.27�196.2

ibid.

3

k

ibid. 194.Iff ibid.

194.11�27

113 further notes that this is the opposite of the theology of the Trinity 1 which proclaims a unity in φύσυε

2 and a division in ύπόστασυε.

From his treatment we can judge that Theodore does see a utility in both the monophysite formula and his "improved" dyophysite formula.

Along with the fact that each provides the principle for

understanding the other, they allow the Church to emphasize different things. When the Church wants to show the great kindness of God toward us in the incarnation it uses the µιία φΰσυε formula since it emphasizes the action of God. When it wants to teach about the composition of 3 Christ (τά έν ο£ε Χρυστόε) it uses the dyophysite formula. This catalogue of heresies and exposition of the ecclesiastical doctrine serves as a lengthy preamble to Theodore's short but sharp attack on Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus.

Once again

the doctrine of the Church is presented as holding the middle ground between Julian, who destroys the humanity of Christ, and Severus, who 4 He begins accepts the humanity of Christ, but not in the right way. by giving a brief account of the rise of Severus and Julian, noting that while they disagree with one another, they both introduce a confusion into the union.

He does not spend much time dealing with Julian,

though it is clear that he has no use for him; his main target is Gregory of Nazienzen, whom Theodore refers to here, as well as all the Cappadocian Fathers, used ούσιία not φΰσυε. Theodore is being consistent with himself as he uses the terms synonymously. 2

Diekamp, 195.5ff

3

ibid.

199.27�200.10

ibid.

198.15�21

k

114 Severus and Severus' system. Severus, says Theodore, came up with something which is not totally a lie and not totally the truth, and since there can be no middle ground between truth and falsity, he really has come up with nothing.

Theodore's principal objection to Severus is that his "one

synthetic φΰσυε" is inconsistent. He says that Christ is one φύσυε and yet at the same time he recognizes a difference (δυαφορά) in him. The result, as Theodore sees it, is a φΰσυε which is in conflict with itself because of its different and contradictory properties, and such a thing just can not exist. He recognizes that, unlike Julian, Severus has kept the humanity of Christ but, he says, Severus has not preserved it in the same way the Church has. The Church says that the two 2 φύσευε of Christ are one, not by φΰσυε but by conjunction (συνοδψ). The conclusion for Theodore is that a dyophysite formula is necessary 3 to maintain both the humanity and the divinity of Christ.

Conclusions Theodore's Christology, despite his acceptance of the monophysite formula, has a strong Antiochene flavor which is particularly notable in his use of "assumed man" and "God assuming" terminology. He seems to have a grasp of the "communication of idioms" which is shown in the way he treats the proper state of the two φύσευε which unite to form one Son of God and man, and he has made a clear distinction

hbid.

197.22�23

2

ibid.

197,18�198.21

ibid.

199.1�22

3

115 between φυσυε and ύπόστασυε.

Yet it seems that he has not fully

realized the implications of his own position and at times he appears inconsistent.

We are left with the question of whether he really

understands the ύπόστασυε as the concrete, metaphysical individual, the acting "self" of Christ, and the φύσευε as the two sources of that activity.

This, of course, was the problem that all Antiochene Chris-

tology had difficulty with.

Had he expressed himself on the theopaschite

formula that might have been made clearer but, curiously, he neither defends nor attacks it.

If we had to depend on Theodore, we would

never know that it was an issue. It is remarkable how little Theodore relies on the arguemnt from authority and tradition. of Alexandria.

He does not cite, nor even mention Cyril

Similarly, Pope Leo is not mentioned.

He uses Gregory

Naxienzen only briefly. Theodore ought to be judged a theological moderate, and it might be interesting to compare him with Ephraim of Amida.

Aside from

their estimation of Julian of Halicarnassus, who may have held some attraction for Ephraim, their positions are not too far removed. greatest real difference between them is the more conservative attitude of Ephraim toward the use of the monophysite formula.

The

CHAPTER VII LEONTIUS OF JERUSALEM AND PALESTINIAN MONASTICISM

There were several figures named Leontius who were active in this period, notably the Leontius associated with the Skythian monks, Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem.

Modern scholarship

has finally succeeded in disentangling the latter two and their works, and I do not intend to recover here what may now be safely considered "old ground."

Leontius of Jerusalem would be all but unknown to us

were it not for his writings.

He was a monk in Palestine; he may have

been present at Constantinople in 532 for a colloquy with Severus and his party, and he may also have been the delegate from the Palestinian monasteries to the synod which was held in Constantinople in 536. It can be noted that in Palestine, as elsewhere, the monasteries were significant sources of influence.

Palestinian monasticism

had, understandably, developed a more sophisticated, cosmopolitan tradition than had its Egyptian counterpart.

The theological atmos-

phere was more complex than in many other places, but generally the Palestinian monks can be credited with keeping the bishop of Jerusalem in communion with Constantinople rather than the Severan party during this period. whatever Leontius' personal history may have been, or whatever synods he may or may not have attended is insignificant for "Marcel Richard's remarks in "Léonce de Jérusalem et Léonce de Byzance", Mélanges de Sciences Religieuses, 1(1944) pp. 35-88 provide an adequate review of this question. Gray, op. cit. pp.121144 is also helpful.

117

118 the purposes of this study. works, Contra

Monophysitas

between 538 and 541.

Leontius is known to us through his two

and Adversus

Nestorianos,

which are dated

In the Migne edition these are published among

the works of Leontius of Byzantium.

A new edition of these works is

projected for the Greek series of the Corpus

Christianorum

but is

not yet available. In these two treatises Leontius produces a many sided and highly characteristic Christiology which deserves a more detailed study than is possible in a work of this character.

A summary of his basic

ideas must suffice here to expose his variety of neo�Chalcedonism and to compare it with the declarations, of Constantinople II. The Adversus

Nestorianos

than the Contra Monophysitas.

is theologically more significant

It is written in a dialogue form where

particular Nestorian positions are stated and refuted.

In reality,

it is unlikely that there were many people around who actually held the positions described by Leontius, so his device is somewhat artificial and the real objective of his work appears to be the linking of those who rejected a theopaschite formula with Nestorianism. Monophysitas

The

is a little more difficult to characterize.

Contra

It begins

with a series of questions designed to show the problems connected with the monophysite position and continues with a, ny now familiar, treatment of the use of dyophysite language and ideas by the Fathers, and concludes with a plea to end the schism. Leontius' plea for peace deserves a special mention.

As we

shall see, he has little use for the Severan "one synthetic φΰσυε" formula; however, he is willing to go quite far in accommodating his

119

opponents. He suggests that his opponents should not reject the Council of Chalcedon just because some supporters of Nestorius (and we can imagine that he has Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas of Edessa especially in mind) were present.

They were only a minority.

Leontius clearly shows

that he considers the Council as an institution with real authority which his opponents are not free to reject.

He sees some value in

the µιία φΰσυε formula against the excesses of those who hold not only two φΰσευε but also two υπόστασεε in Christ.

In his view the

monophysite formula has been misused and it is now necessary to come up with a new formula which will preserve its true meaning. He proposes the formula "the two φΰσευε of the one Christ exist united 2 according to his one ύπόστασυε."

Leontius considers that the one

ύπόστασυε statement is adequate to prevent a Nestorianizing understanding of the two φΰσευε position. He views the ecclesiastical separation of the two parties as irrational and states that he is ready to accept Severus, Timothy Aelurus and Dioscorus! His opponents may keep their formula and Leontius ask that in return they do not condemn his "two φύσευε of Christ united according to his one ύπόστασυε" formula, or Pope: Leo or the Council of Chalcedon. As for those who use the monophysite formula with the wrong meaning, Leontius is 3 willing to leave their judgment to God, the judge of us all. He concludes with the exhortation that both sides concentrate on taking 1

ContMon.,PG

2

ibid.

3

ibid.

86.1877ff.

1809 A�B

1881 Β

120

the beam out of their own eyes and being reconciled.

Now that we have

seen this eirenic, in fact extremely eirenic, side of Leontius, we may look at his own formulations. Perhaps the best way to begin is with a short summary of Leontius' thought.

His metaphysics, while quite distinctive, is

basically Aristotelian.

Fundamentally, the union of Christ means one

act of existence. Α φΰσυε truly exists as an individual when it is in an ύπόστασυε.

The two φύσευε or ούόιίαυ of Christ are synthesized in

the one ύπόστασυε of God the Word.

This involves an appropriation by

the Word of all the things which constitute a humanity, but not the assumption of an already existing individual human being.

The result

is not a synthetic φΰσυε/ούσιία, and only in a restricted sense is it a synthetic ύπόστασυε.

Likewise it is only in a restricted sense that

the humanity and divinity can be called "parts" of Christ. For Leontius, humanity is a synthetic φΰσυε/ούσιία.

By this

he understands that the ούσυ'α of body and the ούσιία of rational soul are synthesized to make one ούσιία. He speaks of these as έυοΰσυοε, 2 i.e. an ούσιία within an ούσιία. Thus in relation to the human ούσιία body and soul are parts; in relation to the human ύπόστασυε they are a whole, that is, neither actually exists by itself.

For this reason

the union of humanity and divinity is not comparable, according to Leontius, to the union of body and soul.

Body and soul are united to

act and show forth together the human operation; speech or laughter,

hbid. 2

1891A

AdvNest. 1.6, PG 86.1421A; I I . 8 , PG 86.1560D

for example, require a soul and a bodily faculty.

Christ is united

with his humanity to show forth in a human way actions which belong properly to God.

Christ, he says, is κατά' Λόγου, not κατά φύσυυ,

(that is to say, the ύπόστασυε of Christ is the ύπόστασυε of God the Word) and he is truly God and man.

Thus it is not possible to speak

of a φύσυε of Christ in the same way as one could speak of a φύσυε of humanity.

2

From this position he can criticize the monophysite

synthetic φύσυε and say: If the φύσευε of God and humanity are not two, but one, what is truly the φύσυε of Christ? In fact, following [your line of reasoning], the holy Virgin should be called Χρυστοτόκοε and not θεοτόκοε since she gave birth to a φύσυε different from simple divinity and simple humanity.3 Leontius thus begins with two perfect ούσιίαυ. God the Word is synthesized κατ' ούσιίαν, his ούσιία with outs, and each is distinguishable as a part of the whole synthesized Christ (ώε µέροε τοϋ συυθετοΰ ΧρυστοΟ), but not as though they are one synthesized ούσιία. The ούσιίαυ of Christ are perfect or complete, not in the sense that they contain all the members of the two classes God and man, but in the sense that they contain all the notes which make a thing human or divine.

He is particularly insistent that the complete and perfect

divine ούσιία of Christ is not part of something else.

hbid.

11.14, 1457D�1459A

2

1.21, 1487C

ibid.

3

ContMon.

k

AdoNest.

5

ibid.

6

ContMon.

55, PG 86.1800A I.10, PG 86.1440D II.5, PG 86.1548B�C 19, PG 86,1789D

Thus when one

122

speaks of parts, it is not as though two things formed a new genus or as though each was incomplete or imperfect prior to their union. Leontius does in one place admit that the two φΰσευε of 2 Christ can in some way be called particular (ΰδυκά). must be understood within his Aristotelian context.

This, however, The incarnation

is not a union of two particulars, but each φύσυε, as it exists concretely in Christ's ύπόστασυε is truly his humanity and his divinity. This brings us to a consideration of Leontius' understanding of ύπόστασυε. He understands ύπόστασυε as a φΰσυε after the addition 3 of particularities (µετά υδυωµάτων). He makes the subtle but significant distinction that ύπόστασυε is not simply a particularized ούσιία (ΰδυκά ούσιία).

If this were the case then when you say three

υπόστασεε of the Trinity you would also have to say three ούσιίαυ of the Trinity also, and would end up having to say that things having the same ούσιία must also have the same ύπόστασυε, and there would be no:: way to distinguish individuals.

Thus ύπόστασυε is constituted by

a set of individuating characteristics which make a φΰσυε to exist in an

individual. It is fundamental for Leontius that everything comprised in

an ύπόστασυε shares one common act of existence and nothing which is X

AdvNest.

2

ibid.

3

ibid.

k

ibid.

1.52, PG 86.1521C; II.2, 1536A; III.l, 1604A�C II.6, 1548D 1.20, 1485C II.6, 1549B

123 an ύπόστασυε exists as a "part" of another ύπόστασυε. Nothing which is one in number can be dyhypostatic.

A thing can truly be but not have

its own act of existence, as color in a body, for instance, thing is "enhypostatized,"

Such a

(ένυπόστατοε), which is to say that it gets

its hypostatic reality by being in another.

His point is that if there

is going to be a union in Christ, one thing must have its existence in the other.

2

The two φΰσευε of Christ have their existence (ύφιίστασθαυ)

in one and the same ύπόστασυε, not as though either could be anhypostatic in itself, but as they are both able to exist in the one common ύπόστασυε. Strictly speaking a synthetic ύπόστασυε means a synthesis of υπόστασεε, which is impossible in Leontius' system. υπόστασεε as you can φΰσευε.4

You can not unite

There is however, a way in which any

ύπόστασυε may be called synthetic.

Any ύπόστασυε, unless it has only

one particularizing characteristic, is composite.

Leontius can apply

this use of synthetic even to the Trinity since all have several υδυώµατα. Dpitiy.

The Father is unbegotten, begets the Son, spiriate the

Yhr Don is generated, is consubstantial with the Father, does

not proceed as the Spirit porceeds.5

A non�synthetic φΰσυε does not

necessarily imply a completely simple ύπόστασυε.

hbid.

11.16, 1572C

2

II.8, 1553B�1560D

ibid.

3

ibid.

k

ContMon.

5

AdvNest.

(If Hormisdas was

11.13, 1561B 31, PG 86, 1788D 1.20, PG 86.1458B; 11.23, 1585C�D

124 uneasy about the Trinitarian theology of the Skythian monks, how would he have reacted to this?

Nonetheless, for Leontius it is the way to

preserve the simplicity and impassibility of the divinity.)

However,

strictly speaking, the ύπόστασυε is ασύυθετοε because it is not a synthesis

of differing hypostatic realities even when the ύπόστασυε

of God the Word takes on all the properties of humanity.

It remains

uncomposed and Leontius paradoxically calls it άσυνθετώτεροε, even less synthetic, because it has assumed more particularities into one hypostatic reality.

Following his logic, Leontius does not predicate

'αλλ' άσυυθετώτερου ύδιίωµα τηε τοϋ Λόγου γέγονεν ύποστασεωε, πλευόνων έπυσωρευθέ*ντων έν αύτξ των απλών ΰδυοµάτων µετά τή*υ σάρκοσυυ: όπερ ουδέ* σύνθετοε ούδε τρεπτή*ν δειίυυσυν ούτε την φΰσυν ούτε τή'ν ύπόστασυν αύτου. ibid. 1.20, 1485D. I have followed the Greek text given in Migne. Charles Moeller has suggested, "Textes 'monophysites' de Léonce de Jérusalem,"

Ephemerides Theologicae Louvaniensis, 27(1951) p. 474, that the text should be corrected to read συνθετωτερου. It appears to me that there is about equal weight for and against the correction. 1. On the one hand it is a strange word and the correction would make the text logically more consistent. In the flow of the discussion, συνθετώτερον is the word we would expect here. 2. Against this it can be argued that Leontius used language in a creative and original way. A person who can use words like σαρκοθή*ναυ and συνυποστάσα is quite capable of coming up with άσυνθετώτεροε if he thinker, it necessary to express his thought, and this paradoxical word does, in fact, convey a meaning which is consistent with Leontius' ideas about the synthetic character of Christ's ύπόστασυε. Following the general principle of text criticism that the more difficult reading is to be preferred, I have retained the Migne reading, although I admit that my decision could almost as easily have gone in the other direction. 3. Most significantly, neither reading really changes the meaning. Leontius clearly means that the addition of all the human hypostatic characteristics to the one ύπόστασυε of God the Word does not, in the strict sense, produce a synthetic ύπόστασυε.

125

infinity of the ύπόστασυε of the Word.

Infinity is a characteristic

of φΰσυε, because an infinite ύπόστασυε could not be distinguished from other υπόστασεε, that is, it would have no particularity and hence no hypostatic reality. The starting point of the incarnation is thus the individual ύπόστασυε of the Word who individually assumes a human φΰσυε and gives it its hypostatic reality in his pre�existent ύπόστασυε.

Christ is 2 thus one hypostatic reality and nothing in him in anhypostatic. As a

result there is a communication of names (µετάδοσυε τωυ όυοµάτωυ) and 3 the things of the one φύσυε are communicated to the other. It is this one hypostatic reality which we adore in Christ. We adore God with one total adoration, not three. In Christ we adore the one ύπόστασυε without saying what it is in Christ that we adore. By adoring the one ύπόστασυε we adore the one πρόσωπον, and the flesh is 4 adored insofar as it pertains to the union. This brings us to a consideration of the theopaschism of Leontius. He states his position quite clearly: It is necessary to say that when the flesh of Christ suffered, the impassible Word of God suffered, not just because of indwelling, but because of the union.5 He has, however, a fairly nuanced understanding of the seemingly blunt \bid. 1.48, 1508B 2

ibid.

II.5, 1544B; II.6, 1548B

3

ibid.

1.8, 1436C; 1.19, 1479D�1482A

k

ibid.

1.44, 1503B

5

ibid.

VII.10, 1786C�D

126 Statement.

In respect to his ύπόστασυε, the Λόγοε is one of the

Trinity; in respect to φύσυε he is not one of three.

One ύπόστασυε

can not communicate in another ύπόστασυε. Thus when we speak of the Word suffering we are speaking of him in his individuality and not in his commonality with the Father and the Spirit.

Christ is one of

the Trinity, but he is also one of us since he assumed a φύσυε which is synhypostatized (συυυποστασα) in his ύπόστασυε.

His flesh is a

property of his ύπόστασυε, not of his divine φύσυε, and it is in his human φΰσυε that he suffered.

The self�humiliation which brought

about redemption is that in the φΰσυε of his flesh, Christ served Pilate, while in the φΰσυε of the Word (and that is how Leontius expresses it; it is a terminological inconsistency), he is Lord of all. Leontius clearly states that the divine φύσυε did not suffer.

Body

and soul can suffer together, but things which are not ordered to one another do not suffer with one another. that Christ suffered in his

The point, for Leontius, is

2 human φύσυε, not in someone else's.

It

is likewise for this reason that the Church accepts the eucharist as 3 truly Christ's flesh and blood.

Hbid.

VII. 6, 1786C

2

1.6, 1425A�B; 1.42, 1503A; VII.2, 1761B; VII.6, 1786C

ibid.

3 ibid. VIII.3, 1765B. It is curious that, considering the significance which Cyril of Alexandria attached to the deified flesh of Christ and its communication to us in the eucharist as the instrument of deification, and which he expressed so sharply in his Anathemas against Nestorius, that we see bery little development of this idea in the neo�Chalcedonian writers. Although it would take us too far afield to develop the point. Leontius also treats of the sonship of Christ as the basis of our divine filiation, which is also a very Cyrillian concern.

127

We are thus left with a carefully constructed understanding of the theopaschite formula, and this same care appears again when Leontius discusses the term θεοτόκοε.

The Word of God has two births,

one without flesh from the Father and one with flesh from Mary.

On

account of his good pleasure (and Leontius is deliberately trying here to "correct" the understanding of Theodore of Mopsuestia regarding "union by good pleasure"), he enters into the virgin and "he who was fleshless formed himself bodily" and took his flesh from her. What the Logos took from Mary was a particular manner of being.

He did

not take his existence simply (τό* ευναυ αύτου άπλωε) from her, but his existence as incarnate (σαρκοθή*ναυ), so becoming composite from what was simple.

Leontius is not simple reading; his style of argumentation can become slow and plodding.

The device of refuting positions and

raising objections forces us to impose a systematic order upon him. Nonetheless, Leontius leaves us with a Christology which, though formulated in clearly dyophysite language, is strongly unitive in its intent, which possibly explains his accommodating attitude toward the monophysites.

Its strength lies in Leontius1 attempt to make the one

ύπόστασυε of God the Word the one common act of existence of the total reality which is Christ. While his system as a whole is generally self� consistent, there is some inconsistency in his application and non� application of the word synthesis to the one ύπόστασυε, and this

hbid. and 1688B

III.3, 1675D; III.9, 1669D�1672A;

III.16, 1681D

128 inconsistency must certainly be seen as a weakness.

It is a little

difficult to appreciate his position that the process of synthesis does not result, except in a mitigated way, in a synthetic product. Granting these considerations, Leontius should still be credited with a high degree of theological creativity and philosophical sophistication.

CHAPTER VIII JUSTINIAN

We have already seen the actions of Justinian during the affair of the Skythian monks; we now will look at his neo�Chalcedonian theological writings prior to the Council of 553 in more detail. In order to appreciate Justinian's position in the development of neo�Chalcedonism it is important to remember that he was both an emperor and a theologian and that he was competent in both fields. As a consequence, Justinian was able both to take part in the discussions and to provide an impetus to bring them to a conclusion. As a theologian Justinian is a powerful synthesizer.

He

obviously has at his disposal extensive florilegia of authorities including the Cappadocians, Cyril, Ambrose and Augustine as well as the writings of the monophysite party.

His habit of citing authority

upon authority at times makes his writing repetitious, but he is clear and he is not a mere cataloguer.

In fact, it becomes clear that he

understands the theological issues involved and has his own personal approach to them. It would be futile to attempt to catalogue all the places where Justinian uses the common ideas of neo�Chalcedonism such as the equation of φύσυε and ούσιία, and he really adds nothing new to that part of the discussion.

His declarations that God the Word, one of

the Trinity and coeternal with the Father, became incarnate are likewise so pervasive that there is no point in trying to list them all.

It

seems better to concentrate instead on a few points which show the real

130

131 character of Justinian's theology and his program for a settlement. An important part of that program was a condemnation of the so-called Three

Chapters,

that is, the writing of Theodoret of Cyr

against Cyril of Alexandria, the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Mari the Persian, and the person and the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Exactly why Justinian became so very interested in this issue is unclear.

It was probably Theodore Askidas, bishop of Caesarea in

Cappadocia and an Origenist, who suggested it to Justinian as a means of turning his attention away from developments which were taking place in Origenistic circles, particularly in Palestine, and which Justinian had condemned in 532. Whatever may have drawn his attention to the issue, it is clear that Justinian saw a condemnation of the Three Chapters

as an

important device for disassociating Chalcedon from Nestorianism.

He

argues that Theodoret and Ibas have calumniated both Cyril and Chalcedon, defended Nestorius and accused Cyril of doctrines which he really did not hold.

It is true, he admits, that Chalcedon received them

both back into communion, but it did so only after they repented of their errors, including their opposition to Cyril's Anathemas Nestorius.

against

They were received back by the Council not as teachers, but

1

See the Letter to Menas, PG 86.945-989. Modern studies have shown that much of the "Origenism" in question comes from the writing of Evagrius on Pontus, (345-399). For a short summary see

John Eudes Bamberger, Evagrius Ponticus: The Praktikos, Chapters on Prayer, Cistercian Studies Series: Number Four, (Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications, 1970) pp. lxxi ff. This means that the neoChalcedonian settlement had to deal not only with Severus, but also with Origenistic speculations about the pre-existent humanity of Christ.

132 as penitents.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in 428, prior to the

Council of Ephesus, was covered by no such canonical nicety, hence Justinian proposed his condemnation as a heretic. There was evidently some reluctance to condemn a man who had died in communion with the Church, since Justinian thought it necessary to address that issue. People who were unjustly condemned, he argues, such as Flavian of Constantinople, were posthumously rehabilitated; why should heretics who died in their errors be immune from posthumous 2 condemnation? Justinian produced anathemas against the three, which are given below,

We will see their similarity to the condemnations

finally issued by the Council itself. If anyone defends Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is one [person] and Christ was another who underwent the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh and who worked toward that which was better and was baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and who by baptism received the grace of the Holy Spirit and became worthy of adoptive sonship, and who comparably to an imperial image, is adored in the πρόσωπον of God the Word, and that after the resurrection he was made immutable in his thoughts and altogether sinless, and who further said that the union of God the Word and Christ is like that which the apostle says concerning man and wife, that the two are one flesh, . . . He says concerning the confession of Thomas when he touched the hands and the side of the Lord after the resurrection and said, "My Lord and my God," that this was not said by Thomas about Christ (since he[Theodore] did not think that Christ was God), . . . but that Thomas was praising God who raised up Christ. . . If therefore anyone defends this same Theodore who has so blasphemed but does not anathematize him along with his writings and all those who either have thought or do think like him, let him be anathema. If anyone defends the writings of Theodoret on behalf of the heretic

Against the Three Chapters, hereafter, ContCap. edited by E. Schwartz, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians, (Milan: 1973) p. 120.24�26. All subsequent references to Justinian's works are made to this edition unless otherwise noted. 2

ibid.

122.33�41

133 Nestorius and against the true faith and the first holy synod of Ephesus and holy Cyril and his twelve chapters, in which impious writings this same Theodoret labels "apparent" (σχετυκήν) the union between God the word and some man, on account of which he blaspe� mously says that when Thomas touched the risen one, he adored the one who raised him up, and who, on account of this, branded as impious those teachers of the Church who confess that the union of God the Word and the flesh is made according to ύπόστασυε, and who, beyond this, denies that the holy and glorious and every virgin Mary is the θεοτόκοε, but does not anathematize them, let such a one also be anathema. On account of these blasphemies he was deposed from the episcopate and afterwards in the holy synod of Chalcedon he was compelled to contradict these writings and confess the orthdox faith. If anyone defends the impious epistle which is said to have been written to Mari the Persian heretic, which denies that God the Word became man andwhich says that God the Word incarnate was not born from the virgin, but only the man was born from her who is called the temple, so that God the Word is one [person] and the man is another, and which calumniates the first synod of Ephesus as though it was without inquiry or process that it condemned Nestorius, and which calls holy Cyril a heretic, and calls his twelve chapters,impious, but defends Nestorius and Theodore along with their impious writings, if anyone, therefore, as it is said, defends this same impious epistle or says that it or any part of it is correct, and does not condemn it, let him be anathema.1 The whole affair of the Three

Chapters

is quite complex,

especially in the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

I do not intend to

take up the issues of whether any of them actually held the positions they are accused of or whether Theodoes of Mopsuestia was the victim of hostile interpolations. Three

Chapters

It remains that as they

are presented,

the

are clearly heretical.

When we turn to Justinian's own Christological thought we see that he is very concerned about the issue of soteriology and our divine aoption and renewal in Christ.

God the Word assumed flesh because of

our flesh and a soul because of our soul, and he did this in order to

Edict on Orthodoxy (De recta fide), Schwartz, 150.26�152.23

hereafter, Orth.,

134

to save us completely.

Justinian sees Christ as the new Adam, a

2 renewed archetype, who is thus the first born of many brothers. The following passage is typical of his thought. When he assumed the mortal father of men, Adam, he gave men his immortal Father, for which it is said: "he gave them the power to become sons of God." Thus the Son of God tasted death according to the flesh which came from his earthly father, so that the sons of man might share his life which comes from his heavenly Father. He is by nature (φύσυε) the son of God, but we by grace (χάρυε).�*

It is from this position that we can appreicate the other aspects of Justinian's thought.

The unity of Christ is for him a

soteriological necessity and from that come his attitudes on the theopaschite formula and Mary the θεοτόκοε.

God the Word, one of the

holy Trinity, gave his body for us so that our faith and hope are in 4 him and not in some man, because it is above man to give life. Justinian sees that this is the great problem which he has with Theodore of Mopsuestia.

Theodore made a distinction between the Savior and the

one who is saved.

How can he then save us? People who think this way

are practicing a foolish worship when they receive the eucharist. The true faith is that we receive the Word's body and blood.

Justinian

makes it clear that it is the earthly φΰσυε which suffers, since both φΰσευε are preserved in the one true Son whose ύπόστασυε is thus both Contra Monophysitas, 2

ibid.

8.17T23; Orth.

0rth.

134.19�23

ibid.

130.34, 132.7�9

3

k

5

Schwartz, 8.1�5; 44.1�6

ContCap.90.31�92.10

134.2

135

passible and impassible.

Commenting on John 20:17, "Destroy this

temple, etc. ", Justinian says" Christ was destroyed in my ούσιία (κατά έµή"ν ούσιίαν) which he assumed and he built his own temple again by his 2 divine ούσιία." This is not as clear as it might be, namely that it was the ύπόστασυε which suffered in his human ούσιία, but he is being careful not to attribute mutability to God. It is this same concern which he shows when he speaks of the two births of God the Word, who took a mother on earth and gave us a Father in heaven. Mary is θεοτόκοε not because the Word took his 3 origin·' from her� but because he took his humanity from her. Despite his obviously unitive concerns, Justinian has no place for a monophysite formula.

His own dyophysite thought, as I

have already mentioned, simply takes up the standard neo�Chalcedonian position.

In a comment on

Phil. 2:5�7, "He was in the form of God",

Justinian states that the apostle meant by this that the ύπόστασυε of the Word exists (ύπάρχευν) in the form, that is, in the ούσιία of God, and he assumed the ούσιία

of humanity so that he exists in one

ύπόστασυε in each µορφή* or ούσιία.

Christ is known in those things

from which he is, and Justinian frequently makes the point that this kind of language keeps the union unconfused and undivided.

Christ is

thus one synthetic ύπόστασυε, which means that the parts exist in the

1

CMon.

2

ibid.

3

0rth.

14.20�29 50.5�6 134.8�10, 18�19

4 CMon. 50.47�52.11 ibid.

8.31�10.3

136 whole and the whole is known in the parts.

Unlike Leontius, Justinian

does use the anthropological analysis, body and soul are one κατά 2 σΰνθεσυν. We thus have a synthetic Christ but not a synthetic φυσυε. By itself φΰσυε is undefined (αορυστόε) and Christ is not undefined so that the name can be applied to many. Follwoing the logic of the Severan position, says Justinian, it would be necessary to say that the φΰσυε became composite, not simple, and so is no longer like the 3 φύσυς of the Father. In Justinian's view the monophysite position is simply warmed over Apollinarianism which makes Christ a "middle being." Justinian, in fact, tends to equate all monophysitism with Apollinarianism and sees it as an attempt to destroy the integrity of the humanity and divinity of Christ. He makes a long compilation of extracts from Apollinaris, Mani, who also believed in one φύσυε, Dioscorus and Timothy Aelurus, showing the patent differences between them and Cyril and Athanasius. He makes a point of their attempt to falsify documents, giving them the authority of Athanasius of Alexandria or Julius of Rome. He repeats the standard neo�Chalcedonian position that Cyril's incarnate φύσυε is the equivalent of the Chalcedonian one ύπόστασυε and two φΰσευε. He concludes this discussion by taking up the contention of Severus that after the X

0rth.

132.20�21

2

CMon.

20.29�22.2

Hbid.

24.13�18

k

26.30, 70.8�22

ibid.

137

condemnation of Nestorius it was no longer permissible to use dyophysite language.

He points out that after the condemnation of

Nestorius, Cyril, in his Epistle

to Eulogius

2

stated that the error of

Nestorius was not his confession of two φΰσευε but his denial of their 3 union.

All this, of course, comes from the concern to show that

Chalcedon, not the monophysite party, is the true representative of Cyril of Alexandria's thought. Justinian the emperor had more on his mind than just entering into the discussion.

He had a program for resolving the issue which

he put forth quite clearly in the anathemas which he attached to the

Edict on Orthodoxy and the Contra Monophysitas.

Those in the Edict

axe of more interest and we will look at them in some detail and make comparisons with the Contra

Monophysitas

where appropriate.

He begins by using trinitarian theology to establish his terminology,

directing his anathema against those who do not confess

that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are to be adored in one divinity, that 4 is, φΰσυε or ούσιία, and three υπόστασεε or πρόσωπα. A similar anathema

•'•Severus, AdN. 1.2.21 2

PG 77.223�226

3

CMon.

58.12ff

Orth. 147.16�18. One remark should be ma^e. This kind of statement, along with one we shall see later directed against those who do not condemn certain heretics whom the Church has condemned, appear at first sight to be farily harmless, like a general resolution favoring motherhood. Such a statement is difficult to reject, but its acceptance implies acceptance of its presuppositions. People like Justinian, or Cyril of Alexandria before him, are not given to platitudes.

138

is found in the CMon.,

again at the very beginning.

The second condemnation is directed against those who do not recognize the two nativities of God the Word.

The CMon.,

interestingly,

2 refers to the two nativities of the πρόσωπον of God the Word. The thrid and fourth condemnations are both directed against those who say that God the Word is one and the Christ is another, and specifically condemns Theodore of Mopsuestia's "union by good pleasure." The fourth condemns those who do not admit that because of the union 3 Christ is one synthetic ύπόστασυε.

The CMon. is not as detailed, but

it does condemn anyone who does not admit that the humanity and divinity of Christ are one ύπόστασυε or πρόσωπον. The fifth anathema is directed against those who accept the term θεοτόκοε in only a relative sense and is the logical correlative to the "two nativities" statement. in the CMon.

It has two corresponding anathemas

The first is a lapidary condemnation of anyone who denies

that Mary is truly the θεοτόκοε.

The second is decidedly anti�Docetic

in tone. If anyone says that he passed through the virgin as through a passage way, and does not say that he was formed in her both divinely and humanly, divinely since it was without a man, humanly since it was by the usual course of pregnancy, let such a person likewisebe damned (άθεοε)· The sixth anathema, the complement of the third, "If anyone X

CMon. 76.24�26

2

0rth.

148.19�23; CMon. 76.32

3

0rth. 148.24�36 4 CMon. 78.9�10. It should be noted that the Latin translation of Schwartz' text is faulty at this point; it omits the word 5

ibid.

78.3�5 and 76.37; Orth.

150.1�5

humanitas.

139 does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is truly God and the Lord of Glory and one of the holy Trinity, let such a person be anathema," has no direct correlative in the CMon. The seventh and eigth condemnations are directed against using the formula "in two φύσευε" or using any dyophysite language in order to introduce a division into Christ.

It is balanced by a

condemnation of those who use µιία φύσυε language in the Apollinarian 2 or Eutychian sense.

In CMon. there is a condemnation of the formula

"two φΰσευε before the union, one after", followed by a condemnation against those who do not acknowledge that the two φΰσευε form one single ύπόστασυε, and that the miracles and the passion are of one 3 and the same being. The tenth anathema is against those who do not condemn Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and anyone else who holds their doctrine. condemnation of the Three

This forms the prelude for Justinian's 4 Chapters which we have already seen.

Justinian's dogmatic works are as theologically satisfying as anything else produced in this period, and from that point of view this imperial intervention was more successful than the earlier interventions which produced such documents as the Henotikon

of Zeno.

^Orth. 150.6�7 2

ibid.

150.13�23

3 CMon.78.11�17. omitting the word ^Orth.

passio.

150.24�25

Once again the Latin translation is faulty,

140 His actions did push things toward some kind of theological resolution, and to him belongs a significant amount of credit for the convocation of Constantinople II and its declarations.

It is Justinian also who

must take the blame for most of the Council's failures. Justinian must be judged positively as a theologian.

He is

capable not only of discussing the meaning of words, but of dealing with issues of soteriology and grace. believe that he meant what he said.

He writes convincingly, and I

His neo-Chalcedonism is not a

radical variety; he is not ready to reconcile the people Leontius was, for example.

However, in considering Justinian the emperor, we may be

more reserved.

It was only by sheer bullying that he got Pope

Vigilius to consent to a council and to accept its condemnation of the

Three Chapters. Such high handed maneuvers had predictable results.

CHAPTER IX THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, CONSTANTINOPLE II

We come now to a consideration of the Council of 553 which is the definitive canonical expression of neo�Chalcedonism.

The events

leading to the convocation of the Council are well enough known that there is no need to repeat them here. Pope Vigilius was against a council; Justinian would have been as happy to try to resolve the issue by imperial decree, but finally became convinced of the need for a council to consider the differences between Chalcedonians and monophysites.

Our method will be to examine the fourteen dogmatic canons

or capitula

of the Council to find the elements of neo�Chalcedonian

Christology which it adopted. The first issue which the Council addresses is the question of terminology.

The very first canon equates the divine ούσιία with

φύσυε, and likewise equates ύπόστασυε and πρόσωπον.

While the

Council does not provide a precise definition of these terms, its use of them is clear and it can speak in canon eight of the φΰσευε of the divinity and the humanity.

It is not, however, the φΰσυε/ούσιία

equation which concerns the Council; it is rather the meaning of the Chalcedonian one ύπόστασυε which receives most of the attention. The starting point for the Council's treatment of the one ύπόστασυε question is Cyrillian, God the Word became incarnate. phrase or some variant of it occurs frequently in the canons.

That

This

strongly unitive concern is further stressed in the second canon which

X

ACO IV,2, 240.3�5

142

143 declares anathema all those who do not confess the two nativities of God the Word, one from eternity and one from Mary the θεοτόκοε·

This

theme is taken up again in canon six which is directed against those who do not confess that Mary is in a true senes the θεοτόκοε, "because God the Word who was begotten of the Father before time [began], in these last days took flesh and was born from her." Christ is twice, in canon six and in canon ten, called one of the Trinity, and canon ten contains the theopaschite formula "if anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of glory and one of the Holy 2 Trinity, let him be anathema." The Council gives a capsulized statement of its Christological stance in canon three. If anyone says that God the Word who worked wonders and the Christ who suffered are one and another,, or ways that God the Word existed with the Christ who was born of a woman or existed in him as one in another, but that our Lord Jesus Christ is not one and the same, the Word of God incarnate and made man, and of this same one are both the miracles and the passion which he freely underwent in the flesh, let such a person be anathema. In canon four the Council goes on to condemn explicitly union by good pleasure (εύδοκιία), the position of Theodore of Mopsuestia. It then remains for the Council to explain its understanding of the union.

It admits in canon four that the word union is under-

stood in different ways.

The followers of Apollinaris and Eutyches

hbid.

241.34�35

2

ibid.

242.30�31

ibid.

240.12�16

3

144 had taught a union κατά σύγχυσυν, that is, a mixture, (and Chalcedon had, we remember, called the union άσυγχυτόε).

The followers of

Nestorius and Theodore hold only a relative union.

To exclude both of

these understandings, the Councils declares the union to be synthetic, which it equates with hypostatic, and states "the union by synthesis in the mystery of Christ not only preserves those things which came together without confusion, but it does not allow their separation." Canon five further develops this understanding.

It first anathematizes

anyone who would understand the one ύπόστασυε of Christ as a union of many υπόστασεε, and extends that anathema to anyone who claims that this is what the Council of Chalcedon meant by its one ύπόστασυε and one πρόσωπου

formula.

It understands the orthodox position to be the

confession "that God the Word was united with flesh καθ' ύπόστασυυ and 2 that therefore there is one ύπόστασυε, that is, πρόσωπον of Christ." The intent of the Council is clear.

Its purpose is to

identify the one ύπόστασυε/πρόσωπον of Chalcedon with the ύπόστασυε of God the Word, and to do this it used the notion of synthesis which we have seen developed. This equation of synthetic and hypostatic union, along with the material in canons seven, eight and nine which we will now consider, represent the theologically positive contribution of the Fifth Council to the Christological discussion. "in two φύσευε."

2

Canon seven deals with the formula

It recognizes the legitimacy of this formula to

ibid.

241.14�15

ibid.

241.22�23

145 distinguish the difference of the two φΰσευε which are synthesized but whose differences are not destroyed.

The Council agrees with the

monophysite position that this is only a mental distinction (έν θεωριία µόνη), but by continuing to speak of the two φύσευε it shows that it has accepted the neo�Chalcedonian argument that a distinction which may be made mentally may also be expressed verbally.

Finally, the Council

rejects the use of "in two φΰσευε" as a device for dividing the φΰσευε or of making each an ύπόστασυε on its own (ΰδυουπόστατοε) Canon eight deals with the "from two φύσευε" formula and the Cyrillian µιία φΰσυε·

Again the Council follows the method of

recognizing a highly restricted understanding of the terms. If anyone confesses that the union has been made from two φΰσευε of divinity and humanity, or says one incarnate φΰσυε of God the Word, and does not understand these as the holy Fathers have taught, that from the union καθ' ύπόστασυυ made from the divine and human φΰσευε there is one Christ, but who, from these words attempt to make a single φύσυε, that is to say, ούσιία of the 2 divinity and flesh of Christ, let such a person be anathema. The canon goes on to reiterate the Chalcedonian declaration that the one Christ is homoousios and homoousios

with the Father in respect to his divinity

with us in respect to his humanity.

Canon nine completes the discussion by dealing with how Christ is to be worshipped; lex orandi,

lex credendi.

It rejects the

notion that there is one act of adoration properly directed to God the Word and another proper to his humanity.

It likewise rejects a single

act of adoration directed to one confused φυσυε/ούσιία of Christ,

hbid.

242.1�4

2

242.12�16

ibid.

146 but if anyone does not, just as the Church has taught from the beginning, adore with one act of adoration God the incarnate Word along with his own flesh, let such a person be anathema. We have already discussed the theopaschite formula of canon ten, which leaves us with the final canons, eleven through fourteen to consider. While these canons are the ones for which the Council is best known, they are of the least importance to this discussion, and we shall consider them only briefly.

Canon eleven sets the stage:

If anyone does not condemn Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen . . . and those who held or now hold and have persisted to the end similarly to the above mentioned heretics, let such a person be anathema. The three canons which follow condemn the person, works and exegesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia because of his understanding of the relation between God the Word and Christ, and the works of Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas of Edessa directed against Cyril of Alexandria. While this condemnation had become part of the general neo-Chalcedonian program, particularly with Justinian, and their adoption is indicative of the general tenor of the Council, they do not contain any further elaboration of the Council's theological position which requires detailed comment here. Conclusions The influence of Justinian on the Council is obvious, but neither the Council nor Justinian can be understood except in relation to the previous century of discussion.

hbid.

242.27-29

2

242.32-37

ibid.

Before going on to a general

147 summary of the neo-Chalcedonian movement, a few remarks should be made about the Fifth Council specifically. Ecclesiastically, the Fifth Council was not a success.

The

shabby treatment of Pope Vigilius by the Council and Justinian angered the West and even produced a schism in Italy.

Neither did it manage

to bring about any reconciliation with the non-Chalcedonians.

By this

time most Christians who were, nominally at any rate, Nestorian were in the Persian Empire and it only increased their isolation.

In

fairness, however, it should be added that in view of the relations between the Persian and Roman Empires, Persian Christians would have found it helpful to maintain a distinction between themselves and Christians within the Roman Empire in any case.

It is nonetheless

true that the Council did try to bring about reconciliation with the monophysite party without making a corresponding attempt to reconcile others.

Neither was the Council any more successful in dealing with

the monophysite party.

After a century of conflict, anything the

Chalcedonians could do was bound to be too little, too late. The condemnation of the Three political side of the Council.

Chapters

also belongs to the

The posthumous excommunication of

Theodore of Mopsuestia was, of course, beyond the competence even of an ecumenical council.

God is quite capable of judging us without that

kind of outside coaching.

While the rhetoric of the condemnations,

particularly of Theodore, is immoderate, one positive thing can be said. as it

The material of the Three is

stated,

Chapters

which the Council condemned,

could certainly be rejected.

The real imbalance is

148 that there is no corresponding rejection of any monophysites such as Severus or Timothy Aelurus. Theologically the Council represents moderate neo�Chalcedonism. It did not, for instance, adopt the attitude of earlier neo�Chalcedonism that the Cyrillian monophysite formula and the Chalcedonian dyophysite formula were together necessary for orthodoxy; on the contrary, it allowed one possible orthodox interpretation of the Cyrillian formula. In handling the "in" and "from" two φΰσευε formulae it was theologically sensible. The Council's theologically most decisive step was the official equation of the Chalcedonian one ύπόστασυε with the ύπόστασυε of God the Word, and its use of the notion of synthetic union to explain hypostatic union.

It was this action which set the stage for

the next Christological development.

CONCLUSION

The development of Christology in the patristic period was a continual attempt to balance the human and divine reality of Christ and to understand its meaning for the individual Christian.

While

many of the Fathers were theologians, they were also bishops with bishops' instincts to deal with immediate problems.

The immediate

problem in 431 was Nestorius; the immediate problem in 451 was Eutyches.

Both Nestorianism and Eutychianism were repugnant to the

faith of the Church. Unfortunately, the Church was better able to articulate its opposition to Nestorianism than it was to Eutychianism, and no one had an acceptable, definitive solution. Chalcedon at least managed to set down certain parameters of discussion; Christ was not a divine-human hybrid, nor a divine-human schizoid.

The difficulty, as we have seen, was that Chalcedon lacked

the terminology adequate to express its intention.

The initial

monophysite reaction against the Council had a strong position.

It

could claim the authority of Cyril of Alexandria; none of its supporters were suspected of Nestorianism, and its theologians were intellectually superior. . In this circumstance the Chalcedonians found themselves on the defensive, which is quite clear from the general tenor and argumentation of the early literature which we examined. was incumbent upon the Chalcedonian party to take the offensive by putting forward a coherent interpretation of Chalcedon which would retain its fundamentally sound balance and enable them to claim the

150

It

151

authority of Cyril of Alexandria for themselves.

This was the immediate

problem faced by the neo-Chalcedonian movement and Constantinople II, and it was no easy task. Many approaches had to be tried and ded.

In my opinion they were finally successful.

discar-

The reason for that

success is their development of the notion of a synthetic or hypostatic union as the basis for preserving Christ's humanity and divinity intact.

From that position they could then articulate a

Christology from the Cyrillian perspective of the incarnation of God the Word without ending in Eutychianism.

The result, in my opinion,

is something very close to what was intended by the vast majority at Chalcedon, and neo-Chalcedonism should not be looked upon as a misinterpretation or a capitulation to a dis-incarnating monophysitism. The contribution of the Fifth Council is that it consolidated the advances made by Chalcedon, and the Western and Antiochene traditions Chalcedon preserved, without sacrificing another part of the Church's tradition.

It is the exclusively Alexandrine or exclusively Antiochene

interpretations which should be regarded as the misinterpretations. Constantinople II accepted the full human reality of Christ, and its declarations contain enough safeguards to put that point beyond dispute.

It leaves us, however, with a picture of Christ which, while

it accepts his full human reality, puts most of its emphasis on the fact that he is a divine person.

This is an imbalance, and one which

the Sixth Council would have to do something about during the monergist debate.

Nonetheless, it must also be granted that this imbalance

Not that monergism was only monophysitism redivivus;

it had

152 reflects the imbalance inherent in the Christian doctrine of grace and redemption. However much grace may demand a human response, it is first of all true that human salvation begins in the divine initiative made toward a needful creature. I do not intend to go on at length about the relevance or irrelevance of this entire discussion for modern Christology.

The

theology of the hypostatic union served the Church well for centuries and its contributions do not need to be elaborated here.

That does

not mean that the answer to all Christological questions is to be found by resorting to person and nature categories.

It is certainly

legitimate to ask whether these terms mean the same thing in the language of the non-specialist that they did in the sixth century; surely the idea of person has taken on a psychological overtone in our own time which it did not have then, and such change is not necessarily bad.

I suggest, however, that if there is an application

to be made to contemporary discussion is the lesson of being wary of rigid adherence to one's own favorite formula or approach, whatever it may be, blind and defensive toward its shortcomings; and the lesson that real theological progress is that which can integrate its past. Nestorian wing too.

Things don't necessarily get less complicated.

See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Spirit

of Eastern

Christendom

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), pp. 62-75.

(600-1700),

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

I. General Collections Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 4 tomes in 13 volumes, edited by E. Schwartz, Strasbourg, Berlin and Leipzig, 1914-1940, and volume 14 edited by J. Straub, Bonn, 1970 Patrologia Graeca (Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca), 161 volumes, edited by J.P. Migne, Paris, 1857-1866 II. Particular Works Chapter I: The Codex Enayclicus Collectio

of 458 and the Henotikon

of 482

Sangermanensis, edited in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, 11,5 pages 3-98. (Contains the collected letters of the Codex Enayclicus)

Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History III.14, edited in Patrologia Graeca 86.2620-2625 (Contains the text of the Henotikon of Zeno) Chapter II: Nephalius of Alexandria Severus of Antioch, Severi Antiocheni Orationes ad Nephalium. edited and translated by J. Lebon, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, volumes 119-120, Louvain, 1949 Chapter III: John of Caesarea Apology for the Council of Chalcedon. XVII Capitula against the Akephales. edited by M. Richard, loannis presbyteri et grammatici Caesariensis opera quae supersunt, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Series Graeca, volume 1 (Contains the known Greek fragments and J. Lebon's translation of the Syriac fragments found in Severus of Antioch) Severus of Antioch, Contra Impium Grammaticum. edited and translated by J. Lebon, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, bolumes 93-94, 101-102, 111-112, Paris and Louvain, 19291938

154

155 Chapter IV: Ephraim of Amida

Against Acacius. Twelve Orthodox Chapters, donismus,

edited by Sigfried Helmer, Der

Neuchalke-

Dissertation, Bonn, 1962, pages 271-272, 262-265

Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, Bibliotheka. edited and trnaslated by R. Henry, Paris: Société d'éditions "Les Belles Letters", 1965 Chapter V: Chalcedonian and neo-Chalcedonian Monasticism in Constantinople

Collectio Avellana (Epistulae Imperatorum Pontificum Aliorum inde ab aetate CCCLXVII usque ad aetate DLIII Avellana quae dicitur Collectio. edited by 0. Günther, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum volume 35, Vienna, 1895-1898 (Contains correspondence of Pope Hormisdas, Justin, Justinian and the papal legates concerning the Skythian monks)

John Maxentius, Libellus fidei. Capitula contra nestorianos et pelagianos. Professio brevissima catholicae fidei. Brevissima adunationis ratio Verbi Dei ad propriam carnem. Responsio contra acephalos qui post adunationem stulte unam profitentur in Christo naturam. Dialogi contra nestorianos. Responsio adversus epistolam quam ad Possessorem a Romano episcopo dicunt haeretici destinatam. edited in Acta Conciliorum

Oecumenicorum IV,2, pages 3-62. Also edited in

Patrologia Graeca 86.75-158 Chapter VI: Theodore of Raithou

Proparaskue.

edited by F. Diekamp, Analecta Patristica,

Orientalia

Christiana Analecta 117, Rome, 1938, pages 185-225. A partial ediction is also found in Patrologia Graeca 91.14841504 Chapter VII: Leontius of Jerusalem and Palestinian Monasticism

Adversus Nestorianos. Contra Monophysitas. edited under the name Leontius of Byzantium in Patrologia Graeca 86.1400-1910

156 Chapter VIII: Justinian Against the Three Chapters. Contra Monophysitas. Edict on Orthodoxy (De recta fide). edited with a Latin translation by E. Schwartz, Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians. Florentina Studiorum Universitas, Subsidia II, Legum Iustiniana imperatoris vocabularium, Milan, 1973. The works of Justinian are also edited in Patrologia Graeca 86.945-1162. See also the Collectio Avellana, above, Chapter V. Chapter IX: The Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II Constantinopolitanum sub lustiniano Habitum. Concilium universale Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum,volwsii& 4, in two parts. The canons of the Council are edited in IV,1. pages 240-245.

SECONDARY SOURCES Amann, E.

"Scythes (Moines)" Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique 1746-53, Paris: 1930-1950

.

"Theopaschite (Controverse)" Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique XV, 505-512, Paris: 1930-1950

.

"Trois Chapitres (Affaire de)" Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique; XV, 1869-1925, Paris: 1930-1950

XIV

Anastos, Milton V. "The Immutability of Christ and Justinian's Condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia" Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6(1951) pp. 125-160 Arnou, R.

"Unité numérique et unité de nature chez les Pères, après le Concile de Nicée" Gregorianum 15(1934) pp. 242-254

Barker, J. Justinian

and the later Roman Empire» Madison, Wisconsin:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1966 Browning, Robert. Justinian Nicolson, 1971

and Theodora.

London: Weidenfel and

Camelot, P. Th. "Bulletin d'histoire des doctrines chrétiennes" Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 54(1970) pp; 516-551 Canivet, Pierre. Histoire d'un enterprise apologétique au ν siècle. ("Bibliothèque de l'histoire de l'église"), Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1958 Cauwenbergh, P. van. Etude sur les moines d'Egypte depuis de concile de Chalcédoine jusuqu'à l'invasion arabe. Louvain:1914 Chadwick, Henry.

"Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Contro-

versy" Journal of Theological Studies new series 2(1951) pp. 151-164

Charanis, Peter. Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. Madison, Wisconsin:

University of Wisconsin Press, 1939

Chavasse, Antoine. "Un curieux centon christologique du vi Revue du droit canonique 16(1966) pp. 87-97 Chestnut, Roberta C. Three Monophysite University Press, 1976 157

Christologies.

siècle"

Oxford: Oxford

158 Chitty, Derwas J. The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Oxford: Blackwell, 1966

Empire. . Christian Coman, I.

"Jerusalem after Chalcedon, A.D. 451-518," East new series 11,1. pp.22-32

The

"The Doctrinal definition of the Council of Chalcedon and Its Reception in the Orthodox Church of the East," Ecumenical Review 22(1970) pp. 363-382

Constantelos, Demetrios J.

"Justinian and the Three Chapters

Controversy," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 8(1962/63) pp. 71-94 Daley, Brian. "The Origenism of Leontius of Byzantium," Journal of Theological Studies new series 27(1970) part 2, pp. 333-369 Devresse, R. Le Patriarcat d'Antioche depius la paix de l'église jusuq'à la conquête arabe.("Etudes palestiniennes et orientales") Paris: 1945 Diepen, H.M. Les trois chapitres au concile de Chalcédoine. Une étude de la christologie de l'anatolie ancienne? Oosterhout: Saint Michel, 1958 . "Les douze Anathématismes au concile d'Ephèse et jusuq'en 519," Revue Thomiste 55(1955) pp. 300-338 Downey, Glanville. "Ephraemius, Patriarch of Antioch," Church 7(1938) pp. 364-370 .

"Julian and Justinian and the Unity of Faith and

Culture," Duchesne, L.

History

Church History

28(1959)

pp. 339-349

L'église au v i e m e siècle. Paris: Fontemoing, 1925

Elert, W. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Berlin: 1957 Evans, David. Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology. (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 13) Washington: 1970 Every, G.

"Theosis in Later Byzantine Theology," Eastern Review (1969) pp. 243-252

Churches

Fortin, E.L. "The Definitio-Fidei of Chalcedon and its Philosophical Sources," Studia Patristica V, Berlin: 1962

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1972

159 Galtier, P. "L'Occident et le neochalcédonisme," Gregorianum 40(1959) pp. 54-74 Gray, Patrick T.R. The Defense of Chalcedon in the East. Brill, 1979

Leiden:

Grillmeier, Alois. "Auriga Mundi," Mit ihm und in ihm. Herder, 1975, pp. 386-419

Freiburg:

. "Ephrem d'Amid," Dictionaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastique. XV, pp; 581-585, Paris: 1912ff. . "Der Neu-Chalkedonismus," Mit ihm und in ihm. Freiburg: Herder, 1975, pp. 371-285. A revision of an article which was first putlished in Historisches Jahrbuch, 1958. . "Die Rezeption des Konzils von Chalkedon in der romischkatholischen Kirche," Mit ihm und in ihm. Freiburg: Herder, 1975, pp. 335-370 . and Bacht, H. Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart. 3 volumes, Wurzburg: Echter, 1951-1954 Grummel, J. "Le Tropaire ' *0 Μονογευή'ε'," Echos d'Orient pp. 404�409 Hanssens, J.M. Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus 111,2, pp. 110�123 Rome: 1932

Orientalibus.

Hay, Camillus. "Antiochene Exegesis and Christology," Biblical Review (1964) pp. 10�23 Helmer, Sigfried. Der Neuchalkedonismus.

22(1923)

Australian

Dissertation, Bonn, 1962

Honigman, E. Eveques et évêches monophysites d'Asie antérieure au vi siècle. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Subsidia 2, Louvain: 1951 Tvanka, E. von. Hellenistisches tinischen Geistleben.

und Christliches Vienna: 1948

im fruhbyzan-

Jarry, J. "Heresies et factions à Constantinople du ν au vii siècle," Syria 37(1960) pp. 348-371 Khella, Κ.Ν.Α. "A Theological Approach to the mia physis Christology in the Fifth Century," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10(1964/65) pp. 127�145

160

Kondaris, G. "The Inner Continuity and Coherence of Trinitarian and Christological Dogma in the Seven Ecumenical Councils," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 13(1968) no. 2 pp. 264-268 . "The Reciprocal Relation between Doctrinal and Historical Factors in the Separation of the Oriental Churches from the Ancient Catholical Church," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10(1964/65) pp. 54-60 Lachenschmid, R. "Theopaschismus," Lexikon p. 83, Freiburg: Herder, 1965

fur

Theologie

und Kirché Χ

Lebon, J.

"La Christologie du monophysisme syrien," in Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 421�580, Wurzburg: Echter, 1951

.

"Les citations patristiques dans le 'Sceau de la Foi'," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 23(1927) pp. 7ff.

.

"Ephrem d'Amid," Mélanges de philosophie et d'histoire t. 1, Louvain: 1914

Maspero, Jean. Histoire des Patriarches d'Alexandrie depuis la mort de l'empereur Anastase jusqu'à la reconciliation des églises Jacobites (518-6l"6X Paris: Edouard Champion, 1923 Meyendorff, John.

"Chalcedonians and Monophysites After Chalcedon,"

Greek Orthodox Theological Review (1964/65) pp. 16-36 . Christ in Eastern Christia-

Thought. Washington:

Corpus, 1969 . ".'Εφ $ (Rom.5:12) chez Cyrille d'Alexandrie et Theodoret," Studia Patristica V pp. 157�161 . "Justinian, the Emprie and the Church," Oaks Papers 22(1968) pp. 43�60

Dumbarton

Moeller, Charles. "Le Chalcedonisme et le Néo-Chalcedonisme in Orient de 451 à la fin du vi e siècle," in Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon vol. I, pp. 636-720, Wurzburg: Echter, 1951 . "Un représentant de la Christologie Néochalcedonienne au début du sixième siècle in orient: Nephalius d'Alexandrie," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 40(1944/45) pp. 73-140 . "Textes 'monophysites' de Léonce de Jérusalem," Ephemerides Theologicae Louvaniensis 27 (1951) pp. 467-482

161

Moeller, Charles, "Trois fragments grecs de l'apologie du Jean le Grammarién pour le councile de Chalcédoinë," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 46(1951) pp. 467-482 Nedoncelle, Maurice. " Prosopon et persona dans l'antiquité classique,"

Revue de sciences religieuses

Nersoyan, T.

22(1948) pp. 277-297

"The Lesson of History on the Controversy Concerning the

Nature of Christ," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10 (1964/65) pp. 122-132 O'Connell, P.

"Equal Representation for Each Patriarchate at Constan-

tinople II?," Orientalia

Christiana

Periodica

29(1963)

pp. 238-246 Pargoire, J. "Acemétès," Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie vol. 1, cols^ 307-323, Paris: 1924 Puyade, J. O.S.B. "Le tropaire '0 Mongenes'," Chrétien 17(1912) pp. 253-255

Revue de l'Orient

Refoulé, F. "Le Eglise scrute le mystère du Christ. Le dogme de Chalcédoinë," La Vie Spirituelle 109(1963) pp. 470-487 Richard, Marcel. "Le Neo-Chalcedonisme," Mélanges de science religieuse 3(1946) pp; 156-161 "Les Florilèges diphysites de ν et du vi siècle,1 in Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon vol. 1 pp; 721-748, Wurzburg: Echter, 1951 'L'introduction du mot hypostase dans la théologie de l'incarnation," Mélanges de science religieuse 2(1945) pp; 12-17 . "Léonce de Jérusalem et Léonce de Byzance," Mélanges de science religieuse 1(1944) pp. 35-88 . "Theodore de Raithou," Dictionnaire de théologie catholique tom. XV, vol. 1, cols. 282-284, Paris: Letouzy, 1946 Roey, A. van. "Deux fragments inédits des lettres de Succensus, évêque de Diocwsarée à saint Cyrille d'Alexandria," Le Museon 55(1942) pp. 87-92 Romanides, J.S. "St. Cyril's 'One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate' and Chalcedon," Greek Orthodox Theological

Review 10(1964/65) pp. 82-107

162

Sagi-Bunic, Th. "De dyophysitismo extra scholam antiochenam," Laurentianum 4(1963) pp. 231-251 Patrimonium chalcedonense in posteriore progressu christologiae," Laurentianum 9(1968) pp. 37-56 Salaville, L. "Henotique," Dictionnaire de théologie catholique VI cols; 2153-2178 — . "L'Affaire de l'Henotique," pp. 103-116 Samuel, V.C. "The Chalcedonian Definition," (1963) pp. 521-528

Echos d'Orient

18(1916-19)

[letter] Sobornost

4

· The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch. Dissertation, Yale University, 1957. Published by the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society · "Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon and its Historical Problems," Ecumenical Review 22(1970) pp. 321-347 . "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word," Theological Review 10(1964/65) pp. 37-53 Scharlemann, M.H.

Greek

Orthodox

"Case for Four Adverbs. Reflections on Chalcedon,"

Concordia Theological Monthly

28(1957) pp. 881-892

Schnitzler, Th. Im Kampfe um Chalkedon: Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclicus von 458. Analecta Gregoriana 16, Rome: 1938 Stein, E. Histoire

du Bas-Empire.

2 volumes, Brussels: 1949

Verghese, P. "The Christology of the non-Chalcedonian Churches," Sobornost 4(1961) pp. 248-256 Verhovskoy, S.

"Some Theological Reflections on Chalcedon,"

Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly 2(1958) pp. 2-12 Vogel, C.J. de.

St.

"The Concept of Personality in Greek and Christian

Thought," Studies in Philosophy and the History of

Philoso-

phy 2 (Washington, D.C.: 1963) pp. 53-67

Wallace-Hadrill, D.S. Christian Antioch: A Study of Early Christian Thought in the East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982