The trial against Eutyches

The trial against Eutyches

During the Home Synod of 448, Eutyches stood trial on charges of heresy. The trial is as follows,

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘This is what I believe: I worship the Father with the Son, the Son with the Father, and the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son; I acknowledge that his coming in the flesh was from the flesh of the Holy Virgin, and that he became man perfectly for our salvation. This I confess before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and before your holiness.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you acknowledge that the same one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, is consubstantial with his Father in respect of the Godhead and consubstantial with his mother in respect of the manhood?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘When I presented myself to your holiness, I said what I hold about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Do not examine me on anything else.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you now acknowledge “from two natures”?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Since I acknowledge my God and my Lord as Lord of heaven and earth, I have not till today allowed myself to inquire into his nature. But although up till now I have not described him as consubstantial with us, I now acknowledge it.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you not say that he is consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the manhood?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Till today I have not said that the body of our Lord and God is consubstantial with us, but I acknowledge that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that our God was enfleshed from her.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘So the Virgin from whom Christ the Lord was enfleshed is consubstantial with us?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have said that the Virgin is consubstantial with us.’

The most Godbeloved Bishop Basil said: ‘If his mother is consubstantial with us, so is he; for he was called son of man. If then his mother is consubstantial with us, then he too is consubstantial with us in respect of the flesh.’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Since you now say so, I agree with it all.’

The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Since the mother is consubstantial with us, then most certainly the son too is consubstantial with us.’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Till today I did not say this. Because I acknowledge it to be the body of God – are you attending? –, I did not say that the body of God is the body of a man, but that the body is human and that the Lord was enfleshed from the Virgin. If one must say that he is from the Virgin and so consubstantial with us, then I say this also, my lord, with the reservation that he is the onlybegotten Son of God, Lord of heaven and earth, ruling and reigning with the Father, with whom he is also enthroned and glorified; for I do not say “consubstantial” in such a way as to deny that he is the Son of God. Before I did not say this of him; I am saying to you what, I think, I did not say originally. But now, since your sacredness has said it, I say it.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘So you confess the true faith out of compulsion rather than conviction?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘For the time being, my lord, be satisfied with this. Up till this hour I was afraid to say this, since I acknowledge the Lord our God, and I did not allow myself to inquire into his nature. But since your sacredness enjoins it and teaches it, I say it.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘We are not making an innovation, but the fathers defined this. And since our faith accords with the faith they defined, we wish everyone to be abide by it and no one to innovate.’

The most magnificent and glorious patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you say, or not, that our Lord who is from the Virgin is consubstantial [with us] and from two natures after the incarnation?’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I acknowledge that our Lord came into being from two natures before the union; but after the union I acknowledge one nature.’

The holy synod said: ‘You must make a clear confession of faith and anathematize everything contrary to the doctrines that have been read.’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have said to your sacredness that I did not say this before; but now, since your sacredness teaches it, I say it and follow the fathers. But I have not found it clearly stated in the scriptures, nor did all the fathers say it. If I anathematize, woe is me, because I anathematize my fathers.’²⁴³

The holy synod rose and exclaimed: ‘Anathema to him!’

After this the most holy archbishop said: ‘Let the holy synod say what is deserved by a defendant who neither confesses the orthodox faith clearly nor is prepared to accede to the doctrine of the present holy synod, but persists in his twisted and wicked perversity.’

Seleucus the most Godbeloved bishop of Amaseia said: ‘He deserves to be deposed, but it depends solely on the mercy of your holiness.’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘If he were to acknowledge his fault and consent to anathematize his doctrine and to agree with us who follow the definitions of the holy fathers, then he would reasonably deserve forgiveness. But since he persists in his lawlessness, he will incur the penalties of the canons.’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I say these things, since you have now ordered it, but I am not ready to anathematize. What I am saying, I am saying in accordance with the truth.’

According to testimony given at the examination of the minutes at the meeting in April 449 (at 788), Eutyches made this last remark in response to a demand by Archbishop Flavian that he accept two natures after the union.

The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you affirm “two natures” and “consubstantial with us”. Speak!’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have read in the blessed Cyril, in the holy fathers and in Saint Athanasius that they said “from two natures” before the union, but after the union and the incarnation they no longer affirmed two natures but one.’²⁴⁴

The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you acknowledge two natures after the union? Speak! If you do not, you will be deposed.’

Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Have the writings of Saint Athanasius read. Then you will discover that he says nothing of the kind.’

The most Godbeloved Bishop Basil said: ‘If you do not affirm two natures after the incarnation, you imply mixture and confusion.’

   

The most magnificent and glorious Florentius said: ‘He who does not say “from two natures” and “two natures” is not orthodox in his beliefs.’

All the holy synod rose and exclaimed: ‘Faith under compulsion is not faith. Many years to the emperors! To the orthodox emperors many years! Your faith is always victorious. He does not assent; why try to persuade him?’

The most holy archbishop said: ‘Eutyches, formerly presbyter and archimandrite, is revealed in every way, by both his past actions and his present testimony, to be riddled with the heresies of Valentinus and Apollinarius²⁴⁸ and to be incorrigible in following their blasphemies. Scorning our exhortation and teaching, he has refused to assent to the orthodox doctrines. For this reason, as we moan and weep for his total perdition, we have decreed in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, that he is deprived of all sacerdotal rank, of communion with us, and of the headship of a monastery. All persons who in future speak with him or visit him are informed that they too will incur the penalty of excommunication for failing to avoid his company.’

²⁴³ According to testimony given at the examination of the minutes at the meeting in April 449 (at 788), Eutyches made this last remark in response to a demand by Archbishop Flavian that he accept two natures after the union.

²⁴⁴ Cf. Cyril in his First Letter to Succensus, ‘We do not wrong the concurrence into unity when we say that he came into being from two natures; but after the union we do not separate the natures from each other nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say one Son and, as the fathers have said, one incarnate nature of the Word’ (Select Letters, 74–6). The similar statements in Athanasius are Apollinarian forgeries.

…

²⁴⁸ Valentinus (or at least some Valentinians) denied Christ a physical body, while Apollin-arius denied him a human mind. Flavian uses their names loosely to categorize Eutyches as a heretic whose doctrine of the manhood of Christ was radically defective.

(Acts of Chalcedon, pp. 220 – 225)

Richard Price notes:

“The actual sentence against Eutyches, pronounced by Flavian and read into the minutes at I. 551, is vague as to the exact nature of his heresy. It refers only to ‘heresies of Valentinus and Apollinarius’, fairly generic accusations, and makes no clear reference to anything actually said by Eutyches at the synod – so it could indeed, as later alleged (I. 838) have been written up in advance of the trial.” (Acts of Chalcedon, Introduction, note 97, p. 28)

After examining the trial against Eutyches, Price also notes:

“When the bishops demanded a statement from him of his own beliefs, Eutyches demurred, claiming that it was enough to profess faith in the creed of Nicaea and in the teachings of Cyril and Ephesus I. The aged monk sought to present himself as a simple and unlearned man of faith with little knowledge of or patience for the theological sophistries employed by interrogators who sought to trap him in heresy. Appearing to defer to his questioners – ‘Before I did not say this … but now, since Your Sacredness has said it, I say it’ – he was in fact laying a trap of his own, allowing the bishops to go on record with statements that would later be turned against them at Ephesus. His repeated insistence on Nicaea as the only acceptable basis for faith – and his concomitant horror of ‘innovation’ – was a conviction that would be shared by Dioscorus and his colleagues at the imminent general council, and would also underlie much of the later opposition to Chalcedon. For his refusal to concede that Christ existed in two natures after the incarnation, and for his audacious defiance of episcopal authority, the bishops of the Home Synod pronounced judgement against him. In an unusual move, the abbots of Constantinople who had refused to support Eutyches were invited to append their signatures after those of the bishops.” (Acts of Chalcedon, Introduction, pp. 27-28)

This assessment is further confirmed by Eutyches’ appeal to Pope Leo I:

“And, indeed, together with a writ of appeal to which my signature was appended, I offered them a statement showing my confession upon the holy Faith. But when the holy Flavian did not receive the document, nor order it to be read, yet heard me in reply utter word for word that Faith which was put forth at Nicæa by the holy Synod, and confirmed at Ephesus, I was required to acknowledge two natures, and to anathematize those who denied this. But I, fearing the decision of the synod, and not wishing either to take away or to add one word contrary to the Faith put forth by the holy Synod of Nicæa, knowing, too, that our holy and blessed fathers and bishops Julius, Felix, Athanasius, and Gregorius rejected the phrase "two natures," and not daring to discuss the nature of God the Word, who came into flesh in the last days entering the womb of the holy virgin Mary unchangeably as he willed and knew, becoming man in reality, not in fancy, nor yet venturing to anathematize our aforesaid Fathers, I asked them to let your holiness know these things, that you might judge what seemed right to you, undertaking by all means to follow your ruling.” (Letter 21, from Pope Leo’s letters)

After Eutyches appealed to Theodosius II, the Emperor convoked a council with Dioscours of Alexandria as its president. During the First Session of Ephesus II, Dioscorus remarks:

‘I think everyone accepts the definition of the holy fathers who met long ago at Nicaea, which was confirmed and sanctioned as alone in force, and as pleasing to God and sufficient, by the holy council that convened here formerly. We heard them decree as follows: “If anyone affirms or holds or revises or inquires in addition to this, let him incur a sentence.” What is your decision? Let each person express his opinion in writing: can we inquire or revise in addition to this creed? If anyone has instituted an inquiry that goes beyond what has been said, {ordained and decreed,} will he not rightly incur the sentence of the fathers? (Acts of Chalcedon, The First Session of Ephesus II, p. 340)

He concludes his speech,

‘The holy and great council convoked long ago at Nicaea according to the will of God defined our orthodox and irreproachable faith. The holy council that met here a short time ago confirmed it, and also decreed that it alone should be approved by the church as in force; it laid down that no one is allowed to compose another creed in addition to it, or to inquire or innovate, or raise anything at all regarding our holy religion. Those who try to hold or investigate or compose anything in addition to this, or attempt at all to reverse what has been defined, it subjected to various penalties: if they are bishops, they are to be expelled from the episcopacy; if clerics, from the clergy; if laymen, they are to be excommunicated – for this is what we have learnt from the minutes that have just been read. Since, moreover, as this holy and ecumenical council recognizes, Flavian formerly bishop of the church of Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylaeum are seen to have stirred up and perverted almost everything, and have become a cause of scandal and turmoil to the holy churches and the orthodox congregations everywhere, it is clear that they have brought upon themselves the penal-ties which were then defined by our holy fathers in council. Therefore, in confirmation of this, we have delivered the judgement that the aforesaid Flavian and Eusebius are deprived of all priestly and episcopal dignity. Let each of the most religious bishops here present declare his own opinion for recording in the minutes. Everything that is transacted today will be made known to our most pious and Christ-loving emperors.’ (ibid. pp. 343-344)

Price remarks: “The point being made by the bishops of Ephesus II is not only that the creed must not be contradicted but also that any addition to the creed is automatically a betrayal of it; this left the Home Synod of Constantinople of 448, which had required assent to the doctrine of two natures after the union, with no leg to stand on. Note also the ambiguity of the phrase ‘the faith of Nicaea’, which in a narrow sense meant simply the formulae of the Nicene Creed but in a broader sense encompassed the exposition of that creed developed by Cyril of Alexandria and formally approved at Ephesus I.” (ibid. p. 340, note 491) He concludes elsewhere, “Strictly, the canon applies, however, only to the formula to be used in the reception of converts.” (ibid. p. 323)