Eutyches and the Double Consubstantiality of Christ

 

During the Home Synod of Constantinople, Eutyches was summoned multiple times to appear before the assembly of bishops. On one such instance, he was invited by John the Presbyter, and the two deacons Andrew and Athanasius. John the Presbyter provides testimony that Eutyches denied that Christ is “from two natures” as well as refusing to confess that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh. His testimony is recorded in the minutes of the Home Synod, which were examined at the April 449 inquiry as well as in the first session of Chalcedon. His official statement is as follows:

“As for the assertion that our Lord Jesus Christ had come into being from two natures united hypostatically, he [Eutyches] said that he had neither learnt it in the expositions of the holy fathers nor, if such a statement were read to him by someone, would he accept it, since the divine scriptures, as he claimed, are better than the teaching of the fathers. While asserting this, he acknowledged as perfect God and perfect man the one who was born from the Virgin Mary but does not have flesh consubstantial with us. This is what he said in conversation with me.’ The most holy archbishop said: ‘Were you the only person to hear this, or did the deacon Andrew who was sent with you also hear it?’ The most devout presbyter and advocate John said: ‘When I was being told to convey these statements to your sacredness, the most devout deacon Andrew was also present.” (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1, pg. 242, line 643)

John says that Eutyches made these statements during a private conversation with him (lines 644; 660). Andrew the deacon, who was present on the occasion, confirmed that this was true (lines 665; 667; 669). The deacon Athanasius claimed that he was not paying attention at the time (line 674). 

Two important things need to be noted about this particular conversation between John the Presbyter and Eutyches.

1) In the April 449 inquiry, there were suspicions that the minutes of Eutyches’ statements here had been falsified. John the Presbyter gave a paraphrase of his conversation with Eutyches that he had produced, which recorded things slightly differently from what was contained in the official minutes. What is most important for us to know for our present purposes is that John’s paraphrase did not contain Eutyches’ refusal to confess Christ’s double consubstantiality. John emphasized that his paraphrase did not vindicate Eutyches and swore that Eutyches had made the statements he accused him of making. Nonetheless, Andrew the deacon testified to John’s truthfulness (line 665).

2) Andrew the deacon’s account of this episode does differ slightly, by recording Eutyches as giving what appears to be an intentionally ambiguous answer as to Christ’s double consubstantiality. In both John’s and Andrew’s accounts, Eutyches ultimately refuses to say that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh:

“Andrew the most devout deacon said: ‘Since God is seated among you and fear and trembling seize my soul, I cannot depart from the truth. A short time ago I was sent by my master the all-holy Archbishop Flavian and his holy synod to the most devout archimandrite Eutyches. As for the summons I confirm and acknowledge the testimony of the most devout presbyter and advocate John. As for the expression “consubstantial”, when the most devout presbyter and advocate John put a question to the most devout presbyter and archimandrite Eutyches as to whether he says that God the Word is consubstantial with the Father as regards the Godhead and consubstantial with us as regards the manhood, the archimandrite Eutyches said, “What does the creed say?” The lord John replied that the creed has only “consubstantial with the Father”, at which the archimandrite Eutyches countered, “So hold this yourself, since I too hold it.” This is all I know of the matter.” (The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1, pg. 246, line 667)

In the 7th session of the Home Synod, Eutyches was questioned by Flavian and the imperial patrician Florentius. Eutyches does reluctantly agree to confess the phrase "consubstantial with us", simply because his superiors and examiners were pressuring him to do so. The synod recognized that his confession did not appear to be genuine, but only because he was under compulsion to do so. For the sake of research, I have listed this full proceeding below.

(The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol. 1, pgs. 219-225) - Note: Some of the lines I edited out because they are from the minutes of Chalcedon and Ephesus II. What follows is only from the Home Synod of Constantinople (AD 448).  487. Bishop Eusebius said: ‘Does he assent to what has just been read of the blessed Cyril and acknowledge that there has occurred a union of two natures in one person and one hypostasis, or does he not?’ 488. The most holy archbishop said: ‘You have heard, presbyter Eutyches, what your accuser says. Say then whether you acknowledge a union from two natures.’ 489. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Yes, from two natures.’  490. Bishop Eusebius said: ‘Do you acknowledge, lord archimandrite, two natures after the incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us in respect of the flesh or not?’ 498. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I did not come here to discuss, but I came to inform your sacredness of what I hold. What I hold has been recorded in this document. Give orders for it be read.’ 499. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Read it yourself.’ 500. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I am not able to.’ 501. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Why? Is it really your exposition, or someone else’s? If it is yours, read it yourself.’ 502. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘The declaration is mine, but the declaration of the holy fathers is the same.’ 503. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Which fathers? Speak for yourself. Why do you need a document?’  505. 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.’ 511. 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?’ 512. 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.’ 513. The most holy archbishop said: ‘Do you now acknowledge “from two natures”?’ 514. 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.’ 515. 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?’ 516. 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.’ 517. The most holy archbishop said: ‘So the Virgin from whom Christ the Lord was enfleshed is consubstantial with us?’ 518. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘I have said that the Virgin is consubstantial with us.’ 519. The most God-beloved 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.’ 520. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Since you now say so, I agree with it all.’ 521. 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.’ 522. 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.’ 523. The most holy archbishop said: ‘So you confess the true faith out of compulsion rather than conviction?’ 524. 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.’ 525. 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.’ 526. 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?’ 527. 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.’ 534. The holy synod said: ‘You must make a clear confession of faith and anathematize everything contrary to the doctrines that have been read.’ 535. 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.’ 536. The holy synod rose and exclaimed: ‘Anathema to him!’ 537. 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.’ 538. Seleucus the most God-beloved bishop of Amaseia said: ‘He deserves to be deposed, but it depends solely on the mercy of your holiness.’ 539. 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.’ 540. 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.’  541. The most magnificent and glorious former prefect, former consul and patrician Florentius said: ‘Do you affirm “two natures” and “consubstantial with us”. Speak!’ 542. 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.' 543. 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.’ 544. Eutyches the presbyter said: ‘Have the writings of Saint Athanasius read. Then you will discover that he says nothing of the kind.’ 545. The most God-beloved Bishop Basil said: ‘If you do not affirm two natures after the incarnation, you imply mixture and confusion.’  549. The most magnificent and glorious Florentius said: ‘He who does not say “from two natures” and “two natures” is not orthodox in his beliefs.’ 550. 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?’

Brief Notes on the Christology of Emperor Justinian

 

The Mia-Physis Formula

“In confessing these things thus and also accepting, in addition to the other things about the orthodox faith taught by Cyril among the saints, his statement, “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” we confess that from the divine nature and the human nature resulted one Christ, not one nature, as certain individuals who take this expression in a wicked sense try to claim. The fact is that whenever this father himself said, “one incarnate nature of the Word,” he used the term “nature” instead of “hypostasis” in that case. And in the passages in which he uses this expression, for the most part he added [another term] in what comes next, sometimes “Son,” sometimes “Word” or “Only-Begotten,” which do not indicate nature but hypostasis or person. So then, when the hypostasis of the Word became incarnate, it did not result in one nature but in one composite Christ, the same one God and human being.” (Emperor Justinian, Edict on the Truth Faith, in Wesche, pg. 169)

Definition of “Nature”

“When they construct their one composite nature, they do not know, as was shown in the teachings of the fathers, and as we ourselves said earlier, that the term ‘nature’ refers to the universal reality; it indicates something indeterminate and is predicated of many hypostases. So, if, as they would have it, the two natures of divinity and humanity have become one composite nature, this means that something universal and indeterminate has been produced. We must ask them: to which universal, or to how many hypostases, would they say this nature refers?” (Emperor Justinian, A Letter to the Monks of Alexandria)

The Three Chapters Controversy

In his Edict on the True Faith (see Wesche, pgs. 185-190), Justinian provides his reasons for condemning the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. For example, he accuses Ibas of teaching two prosopa in Christ

Justinian condemns the Nestorian writings of Theodoret, but also recognizes his repentance at Chalcedon:

“If anyone defends the writings of Theodoret which he expounded in support of the heretic Nestorius and against the orthodox faith, the first holy synod at Ephesus, and Cyril among the saints and his Twelve Chapters, in which impious writings the same Theodoret says that the union of God the Word with a particular human being was relational, about which he utters the blasphemy that Thomas touched the one who had arisen but worshiped the one who had raised him, and for this reason he calls the teachers of the church impious for confessing the hypostatic union of God the Word with the flesh, and furthermore denies that the holy, glorious, ever-virgin Mary is Theotokos. – Well then, if anyone praises the aforementioned writings of Theodoret, but does not anathematize them, let him be anathema. For it was because of these blasphemies that he was ousted from the episcopacy and afterward at the holy synod at Chalcedon was compelled to do all that was contrary to the aforesaid writings and to confess the orthodox faith.” (Edict on the True Faith)

Condemnation of Nestorianism

“Wherefore, we do not believe that the Divine Logos who performed the miracles is one [hypostasis or prosopon] and the Christ who endured the Passion another, but we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Divine Logos of God who was incarnate and became man, and both the miracles and the Passion are his which he voluntarily bore in the flesh. For a man did not give himself for us, but the Logos himself gave his own body for us so that our faith and hope might not be in a man, but that we might hold our faith in the Divine Logos himself.” (Emperor Justinian, “Edict on the Faith [AD 551]”; as found in On the Person of Christ: The Christology of Emperor Justinian, trans. Kenneth P. Wesche [New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991], pg. 165)

“If anyone confesses the number of the natures in our one Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the incarnate God the Word, without understanding that the difference between these natures, from which he was compounded, resides in contemplation, so that this difference is not destroyed on account of the union, but uses the number to refer to a division into independent things, let him be anathema.” (Emperor Justinian, Edict on the Truth Faith)

The Body-Soul Analogy

In response to the Monophysites who use the anthropological analogy to prove that there is only one nature in Christ, Justinian says the following:

“Now there are certain individuals who take a different approach in their attempt to establish that there is one nature of Christ’s divinity and humanity by adducing the example of a human being. They say that just as a human being is called one nature even though he is composed from elements that are different in nature (namely, soul and body), so too when it comes to Christ we ought to say that there is one nature, even though we say that he is from two natures (namely, divinity and humanity). In response to them we will say this: even if a human being is composed from different elements (namely, soul and body), he is nonetheless called one nature since this is what is predicated in common of all the hypostases or persons that fall under the same species. For even if it is most certainly true that each hypostasis or person, such as Peter or Paul, is distinguished from one another on account of their unique characteristics, they are nonetheless not distinct in nature since they are both human beings. And again, a human being is neither a soul apart from a body nor a body apart from a soul, but is fashioned from non-being into being from soul and body. And even if every creature has been composed of different elements, it is nonetheless said to have that one nature according to which it was created by God. Not so with Christ. For he does not display one nature or substance that is predicated in common of many hypostases or persons, as a human being does. (For if this were the case, many Christs would be found, of whom would be predicated what is common to the one nature; but it is impious to say this.) But Christ was not created from the beginning out of divinity and humanity in the same manner that a human being is created out of body and soul, such that this is what the nature of Christ is. Instead, the Word, who is God before the ages and of the same nature or substance as the Father and the creator of all things, in the last days hypostatically united human nature to himself and so became a human being without ceasing to be God. Christ is therefore one hypostasis or person and possesses in himself the whole of the divine and uncreated nature and the whole of the human and created nature……Now we say all these things not in ignorance of the fact that some of the holy fathers used the example of a human being for the mystery of Christ. But some of them did this to show that, just as what results from soul and body is one human being and not two human beings, so too Christ, compounded from divinity and humanity, is one and not divided into two Christs or two sons. Others, however, used the example of the human being to introduce one nature or substance of Christ’s divinity and humanity, which we have demonstrated to be foreign to piety.” (Edict on the Truth Faith)

Justinian uses the body-soul analogy differently in his Letter to the Monks of Alexandria than he does here in his Edict (AD 551), see Wesche pgs. 171-72, n. 9

The Two Births of Christ

“If anyone does not confess that God the Word, who was begotten from the Father before the ages and in a non-temporal manner, in the last days came down from the heavens and became incarnate from the holy and glorious Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary and became a human being and was born from her, and for this reason that there are two births of the same God the Word, one before the ages in an incorporeal manner and the other in the last days according to the flesh, let him be anathema.” (Emperor Justinian, Edict on the True Faith) 

Explaining Chalcedonian Christology

“By the preposition ‘in’ he [Cyril] teaches us to confess the two natures of divinity and humanity in which Christ is known.” (Emperor Justinian, Letter to the Monks of Alexandria) 

Samuel Rutherford on Efficacious Grace in Conversion

 

"God ordinarily contributes two causes to the work of conversion, one moral and one physical. These are outlined in the Examen, shortly after Rutherford asked whether God’s work of conversion is only moral, consisting merely in persuasion, invitation, promises and commands, or whether God’s work also consists in a real and physical predetermination of the will. Moral influences such as those outlined above are given by grace alone, in that the sinner does not deserve to be persuaded and invited by God, nor does the sinner have a right to hear the Gospel. In addition to this, Rutherford considered such graces to be ineffectual without a physical predetermination of the will. “It is hard to affirm,” he wrote in the Trial and Triumph of Faith, “that all who are prepared with these preparations of order are infallibly converted.” Nevertheless, such moral influences are part of God’s ordinary way of effecting the work of conversion, where moral influences are understood to act upon the mind and the will prior to God’s physical determination of the will. Whereas God’s moral influences are ineffectual and subjective, God’s physical acts regarding conversion are effectual and objective. The physical nature of converting grace may be understood in two ways. First, God’s converting grace is said to be physical, objective, and real, in that a new heart is actually given to the converted sinner and new powers are really granted to the will. Second, the physical nature of efficacious grace is emphasized by God physically predetermining certain acts associated with walking in obedience to God’s commands (Deut 8.6)........God’s efficacious grace, which predetermines physical acts of assent, belief, and will, provide the sufficient condition to which the good intentions of a converted saint may be joined." (Robert C. Sturdy, Freedom from Fatalism: Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661)'s Doctrine of Divine Providence [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2021], pgs. 301-302)

Leontius of Jerusalem on Defining Hypostasis

 

One of the crucial neo-Chalcedonian theologians is the sixth-century writer Leontius of Jerusalem. He is known especially (along with Leontius of Byzantium) for formulating the doctrine of enhypostasis and explaining how the human nature of Christ exists in union with the single person of the Word. He is known for he is technicality and comprehensiveness in defining key ontological and metaphysical concepts and terms that were being used in the christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, whether against the Nestorians, or the Monophysites who were at the time being led by Severus of Antioch. 

Kenneth Warren Wersche did his doctoral dissertation on the christology of Leontius of Jerusalem and how it relates to his soteriology. He has several sections on the concept of hypostasis which were quite helpful to me and which I thought I should quote and make a summary and analysis of in this article. I will be utilizing Aloys Grillmeier as well (Christ in Christian Tradition, Vol. 2, Pt. II, pgs. 276-282).

To begin with, we ought to hear from Leontius himself:

“Hypostasis also refers to when particular, different natures, together with their properties but not their prosopa, come together (τίνων συνελθουσον φύσεων διαφόρων ίδικων) in union in the same thing under one existence (ύφ’ έν στάσις). That is to say, there occurs a particular "standing together" (σΰοτασίς) which belongs to one single individual (ένδς µόνου άτοµου). It is also generally agreed that hypostasis refers to the coming together not of different natures, but of many particular properties (ιδιωµάτων µερικών) by themselves, from all of which is constituted one universal property in one particular subject, or in one single nature.” (Leontius of Jerusalem, Adversus Nestorianos, 2.1; in PG 86:1529) 

In that same passage, Leontius also writes that "[hypostasis is] that which shows the concrete individual thing (ὑποκείμενον ἄτομον τόδε τι) in its existence (πρὸς τῇ συστάσει) and as set off from all other things, whether of the same or of a different substance, by its specific mark (κατὰ τὸ ἰδικὸν γνωριστήριον); it is, as such, a detachment (ἀπόστασίς τις) and a limitation of unlimited being (διορισμὸς τῶν ἀδιορίστων οὐσιῶν) into the personal singularity of each one. This is why the Fathers considered, and called it, person (prosopon)." 

For Leontius’ doctrine, “one should note carefully that the term hypostasis itself is not the coming together of natures, or of properties, but it is itself that in which the στάσις or σύστασίς is observed. In other words, the hypostasis itself is not a union or a coming together, but it is that in which the union or coming together takes place.” (Kenneth Warren Wesche, “The Defense of Chalcedon in the 6th Century: The Doctrine of ‘Hypostasis’ and Deification in the Christology of Leontius of Jerusalem,” [PhD diss., Fordham University, New York, 1986), pg. 52)

Wesche postulates that Leontius of Jerusalem is basically teaching that hypostasis is the ontological reality which is the ground or basis for the union of natures and/or respective properties. It is the underlying reality or “that in which the union takes place.” In this schema, there is a dependence of substance on hypostasis, which is why it is possibly for two natures to exist in a single hypostasis. 

A key emphasis here is that hypostasis is not the same thing as a “particular nature.” This would lead to Nestorianism and tritheism. 

According to Leontius of Jerusalem, the principle of hypostasis (rather than nature) is to exist in distinction and separation from other natures (Adversus Nestorianos, 2.7). This is why a Nestorian doctrine of two hypostases in Christ destroys any possibility of an incarnation and personal union, since two hypostases by definition “stand away from each other” and are thus opposed in that sense. No union is possible in such a situation.

Leontius distinguishes the hypostasis from that which constitutes it (natures and properties). He speaks of properties as belonging more properly to natures, but accruing to the hypostasis and being manifested in the hypostasis. 

One particularly interesting claim of Leontius is that natures and accidents do not exist as 'parts' of the hypostasis as such, only the particular properties (idiomata) do:

"Neither ousiai, nor accidents, nor the substantial properties belong to the substantial hypostasis as parts, but [only] things that are seen individually in a particular object (ἐν τῷδε τινι), whether from the ousia or around the ousia or even from elsewhere in and around [the hypostasis]." (Adversus Nestorianos, 1.6, in PG 86:1421)

To illustrate an instance of how Leontius' metaphysics play out, Johannes Zachhuber gives the following analogy:

"To say that Peter is a human being would then be no different from saying that Peter is healthy or tall or irascible. If this seems counterintuitive, it should be recalled that Leontius reconstructs insubsistence Christology in this precise sense. The eternal hypostasis of the Logos receives, in time, another nature into its own existence. This neither modifies divine nature nor, fundamentally, the divine hypostasis even though it completes its individual property." (Johannes Zachhuber, The Rise of Christian Theology and the End of Ancient Metaphysics: Patristic Philosophy from the Cappodocian Fathers to John of Damascus [Oxford University Press, 2020], pg. 265)

This of course leads to a huge concept in Leontius' view of hypostasis: the individual overarching property (idioma). The hypostasis has particular properties, but in order to be formally "one" hypostasis (which, I would argue, is for Leontius basically the same as being a hypostasis simpliciter, because he viewed the formal ratio of hypostasis as an individual subject separate and opposed to other hypostases and/or beings) it has to have this individual property. For example, in the case of the divine persons in the Holy Trinity, Leontius wrote: "These are several simple properties of the same hypostasis. From all of them, however, one composite property is conceptualized, of the fatherly or filial hypostasis." (Adversus Nestorianos, 1.20, in PG 86:1485)

It should be briefly noted in passing that Leontius is not teaching the same doctrine as Damian of Alexandria, who thought that the hypostasis is the particular property.