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?’
|
No comments:
Post a Comment