Eusebius of Dorylaeum: They are lying!
Florentius of Sardis: Let them prove what they say.
All the bishops: If their beliefs are not orthodox, how can they elect a bishop?
The Egyptians: The dispute is over the faith.
Cecropius: They don’t know what they believe. Are they willing to learn?
Acacius of Ariaratheia: Just as at Ephesus they confused everything and scandalized the world, so their aim now is to disrupt this holy and great council!18
The Egyptians literally threw themselves on the ground to plead not to be forced to sign Leo’s Tome. As they said—knowing Egyptian conditions much better than did their hearers—“We shall no longer be able to live in the province…. We shall be killed. Have pity on us.” They weren’t exaggerating.
This atmosphere made it difficult for any attempt to reach a formula for belief, as all the different factions could scarcely be accommodated. They had to reach a text that echoed Cyril, though without some of the extreme positions that he had reached in the last stages of his assault on Nestorius. Any compromise would have to lavish praise on Cyril and his blessed memory, lauding his writings but leaving individual readers to decide which parts of that varied correspondence might actually be under discussion. Ultimately, the council moved toward a common position that drew from one of Cyril’s more moderate letters to Nestorius, from Cyril’s pact with Antioch in 433, and from Leo’s Tome. In its October 17 session, the council accepted “The Rule of Faith as contained in the Creed of Nicea, confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, expounded at Ephesus under Cyril, and set forth in the Letter of Pope Leo when he condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches.”19
On October 22, the council met in its fifth session, the most critical point of the whole gathering, and the debates that followed were genuine confrontations over significant matters of belief. Proceedings began with the reading of a draft statement of doctrine, which has deliberately been excluded from the minutes. The council’s fathers knew they would have to work hard enough to convince critics about the statement that eventually did achieve consensus, without having to argue over every stage of debate along the way. But the draft had problems. Strikingly, it failed to include the word Theotokos, God-Bearer, which was such a symbol of Cyril’s thought and a barrier to any concessions to Nestorians. Given the number of supporters, the word was added by overwhelming consensus.20
By far the touchiest part of the debate depended on the question of whether Christ was out of Two Natures [ek duo physeon] or in [en] Two Natures. Almost certainly, the draft used “out of,” which could be interpreted in different ways, and that was at once its virtue and its peril. A true Monophysite could happily assert that Christ came from two natures, which were later joined in one: Eutyches believed just that. To speak of in Two Natures offered no such loophole and clearly stated that both natures existed after the union. This was the stance of Leo and the Westerners, and of the Antiochene school, and it was the Romans and Antiochenes insisted that the draft proclaim “in” rather than “out of.”
Their protests sparked a furious response from the majority of bishops, who shouted against the Nestorians, the “fighters against God.” When Romans threatened to hold a new council in Italy if they had to, some bishops responded with cries that roughly translate to “So go back to Italy! We don’t need Nestorians here.” Other recorded yells—“acclamations” is the technical term—are important for what they suggest about the continuing hatred of anything that sounded vaguely Nestorian. “The augusta expelled Nestorius,” some shouted—that is, remember that Pulcheria took the leading role in that struggle, and we should not do anything that brings Nestorius back. “Drive out the heretics! The Virgin Mary is Theotokos…. Drive out the Nestorians! Christ is God!”21
The issue of ek and en almost wrecked a conference that otherwise seemed so obviously destined for success. Unity was saved only by the intervention of the imperial officials, who did not want to deal with a catastrophic church split at a time when the borders might be on the verge of collapse. They were also determined to see some kind of official statement to come out of the council, to reinforce Marcian’s boast to be the new Constantine. If Constantine had given the world the Nicene Creed, Marcian deserved some comparable memorial, at least a Chalcedonian definition, if not a full-scale creed. Pushing hard for compromise, the officials formed a committee to reconcile the draft definitions, and they ensured that this body had strong representation from Rome and Syria. Throughout the proceedings, imperial agents reminded the bishops that they had already agreed to documents based on the “in Two Natures” view. Also, surely a reference to the Theotokos in the revised text proved that nothing Nestorian was intended?22
Grudgingly in many cases, the bishops reached agreement; 452 bishops signed on, a much larger body than met at Nicea or First and Second Ephesus, and with a geographical span that fully justified the council’s claims to ecumenical status.23 This broad support gives special weight to the Definition that was now issued.
Proclaiming Faith
The council first recapped the beliefs asserted at the first three councils. As they said, these statements should have been clear enough, but the devil was always trying to subvert the church.24 Various babblings had arisen since, including those of the Nestorians, but the larger and more pressing problem was One Nature believers like Eutyches. Their wickedness lay in “bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering.”25 Instead, the council admitted the writings of Cyril and Leo as authoritative. The Tome was highly praised:
For it opposes those who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a Duad of Sons; it repels from the sacred assembly those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only Begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two Natures of Christ; it drives away those who fancy his form of a servant is of an heavenly or some substance other than that which was taken of us; and it anathematizes those who foolishly talk of two Natures of our Lord before the union, conceiving that after the union there was only one.26
The council declared its belief in:
one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-Bearer [Theotokos].
On the subject of the Natures, the definition asserted faith in:
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two Natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of Natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each Nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.27
The assembled bishops cried out, “This is the faith of the fathers:…this is the faith of the Apostles: by this we all stand: thus we all believe.” The letter was then laid on Euphemia’s altar and presumably taken thence to heaven. As the council reported to Leo,
For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him.28
Definitions
But what exactly had Euphemia approved? Something made this statement so valuable that it has stood, in effect, up to the
present day. If it was not the end of a story, it provided a solid foundation for all future development. However convoluted the Chalcedonian text looks, it repays closer reading. Examined more closely, we appreciate just how powerful are the ideas expressed, and how economical. The American Declaration of Independence offers a good parallel, in concentrating such a wealth of ideas into a very narrow space. And like the Declaration, the Definition cannot be appreciated except as a compressed commentary on a long previous history that is only alluded to in a brief document. In the Greek, the Definition runs only to a couple of hundred words.
The Chalcedonian Definition takes on several rival theological stances of the previous two centuries and rejects them, often with brief incidental comments that meet possible objections to orthodoxy. Take for instance the phrase, “of a reasonable [rational] soul,” psyches logikes. What does that mean? Had anyone ever suggested that Jesus had not had a rational soul? Yes, indeed they had. Apollinarius had, in fact, and said that the Incarnation involved nothing more than an irrational, animal soul (psyche alogos) taking on a human body that was filled by God’s Logos.
The text also targeted Nestorius, or at least Nestorian ideas as they had been caricatured at Ephesus. “Our Lord Jesus Christ” was absolutely both God and man,
complete in Godhead and complete in manhood,
truly God and truly man….
Consisting, of one substance (homoousion) with the Father as regards his Godhead,
and at the same time of one substance (homoousion) with us as regards his manhoood;
like us in all respects, apart from sin;
as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages.
But what about the title of Theotokos, the Mother of God? What about all the absurdities of God as toddler? Christ, “in these last days for us men and for our salvation, was born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood (kata ten anthropoteta).” This final clause is critical. To quote Philip Schaff again: “Mary was the mother not merely of the human nature of Jesus of Nazareth, but of the theanthropic [divine/human] person of Jesus Christ; yet not of his eternal Godhead…but of his incarnate person, or the Logos united to humanity.”29
The Definition proceeds to explain how the two natures must be regarded, in words that unequivocally condemn Eutyches. In reality, said the Chalcedonian fathers, the two natures are
[united] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation
(asyngchytos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos )
the distinction of Natures (physeon) being in no way annulled
by the union,
but rather the characteristics of each Nature being preserved,
and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence
(hypostasin)
not as parted or separated into two Persons (prosopa)
but one and the same Son, and only begotten,
God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ.30
The four terms “without confusion, without change, without division, without separation” may sound like a ritual chant or hymn, but they carried real weight in terms of the alternatives they excluded. Asserting to this phrase allowed no chance of recognizing Christ as a mingled God-man whose flesh was not real flesh. Nor could the two natures be divided into “two Christs.”31
New and Old Rome
Other issues also remained to be dealt with, including the restoration of Theodoret and Ibas, which made a very bitter pill indeed for most of the participants. Theodoret himself had to make very substantial compromises to be restored to favor. Although he understood that political realities forced him to anathematize Nestorius, Theodoret had to be pushed and driven to say the actual words. But ultimately he spoke them and was reconciled. The restoration of Domnus, deposed at Second Ephesus, came close to creating another potential crisis. Domnus’s successor at Antioch was Maximus, but Maximus had gone on to be legitimately ordained, and the thought of two equally qualified claimants was nightmarish. Would both men claim the see, creating yet another schism? Fortunately, Domnus was, as always, happy to accept a deal that avoided confrontation or unpleasantness, so that he accepted a pension and honorable retirement.32
Still more contentious in the long run were the decisions concerning the rank and status of other great sees, including Jerusalem, now a patriarchate. On October 26, Juvenal and Maximus of Antioch announced a pact they had reached, in which Jerusalem would have the three provinces of Palestine. Antioch kept the regions that we would call the nations of Lebanon and Jordan.33
The council’s canons enhanced the status and privileges of Constantinople, which received special privileges because it was the imperial city, suggesting parity with Rome. The new council recalled that the earlier assembly at Constantinople in 381 “rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.” But those same bishops “gave equal privileges [isa presbeia] to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.” Chalcedon proclaimed Constantinople as the second patriarchate and made it a court of appeal from provincial synods. The patriarch also received the right to ordain the metropolitans of neighboring regions—Pontus, Asia, and Thrace—and, potentially even more significant, bishops from these dioceses who were “among the barbarians.” At a time of thriving missionary effort throughout eastern Europe and western Asia, this clause offered Constantinople the basis of a vast ecclesiastical empire.34
Leo was troubled by all this and tried unsuccessfully to void the new canon on Constantinople’s status. Rome was always nervous of any attempt to raise other sees to anywhere near its level. Who knew that in a few decades another council might place the imperial capital as equal to Rome, or even superior? Also, raising Constantinople meant lowering the status of other ancient sees like Antioch and Alexandria. Leo reasserted the apostolic claims of each see, no matter what the misdeeds of individual bishops. Yes, Dioscuros had behaved abominably, but even so, “the See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through St. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendor of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds…the See is on a different footing to the holders of it.” Nor should the church of Antioch be demoted. It was here that “first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter, the Christian name arose,” and Leo was not about to tolerate any disrespect to Peter. Antioch should never be lowered below third place. “Never” of course is a long time, and taken literally, Leo was suggesting that such honors should still apply even when Antioch, say—or Rome itself—was a depopulated archaeological site.35
Leo also protested that a Christian bishop should not pursue status and glory as avidly as Constantinople’s Anatolius was doing, especially when his own personal record left so much to be desired. After all, Anatolius had only come over to the orthodox position after thoroughly compromising himself under the previous regime. He only held office by reason of the murder of the sainted Flavian. Leo urged, “Let him realize what a man he has succeeded, and expelling all the spirit of pride, let him imitate Flavian’s faith, Flavian’s modesty, Flavian’s humility, which has raised him right to a confessor’s glory.” For many reasons, Constantinople should exercise much greater humility.36
After Chalcedon
The council of Chalcedon ended with a grand session on November 1 in the presence of Marcian and Pulcheria, and the mood was ecstatic. Marcian himself was welcomed as a “second Constantine.” But whatever Chalcedon’s reputation in history, at the time, the council seemed less of a finality than a stage in a process. Soon, the different participants would have many other concerns.37
For the imperial court, Chalcedon offered only a temporary respite. The imperial family was deeply divided, as Pulcheria’s sister-in-law Eudocia strongly favored t
he Monophysite cause and despised those timeservers who accepted the new order. Later sympathizers regarded her as a near saint, and Egypt’s John of Nikiu later supplied this obituary:
The empress Eudocia went to her rest in the holy Jerusalem, full of good works and a pure faith. And she refused to communicate with Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and the men who had assembled in Chalcedon; for she knew that they had changed the true faith of our holy Fathers and of the orthodox emperors.
John, on the other hand, gave only the most slighting obituary to Marcian and rejoiced indecently at his gangrene (“his feet mortified and he died”). Pulcheria herself died in 453.38
By the time Marcian died, Rome had been sacked once more, this time by Vandals (455), and the Western empire was left immeasurably weaker. With the Theodosian dynasty close to extinct, the selection of emperors was left wholly to the military commander Aspar, who at least chose competent men. Marcian’s Eastern successor was Leo, an able soldier, who succeeded in keeping most of the Eastern empire’s territories out of barbarian hands.
We might think that the Roman emperors in this time would be entirely focused on mere survival, but for thirty years after Chalcedon, many of the issues faced by the Eastern rulers involved theological debates. Furious protests against the council raged across the Middle East. The degree of reaction may seem strange when we think how heavily Chalcedon had drawn on Cyril’s thought, but this was a thought world in which even the slightest concession to error in such essential matters was a betrayal of the whole substance of Christian truth. Moreover, One Nature believers were deeply disappointed. As recently as 450, they had every reason to believe that they absolutely dominated both church and empire, but they suddenly found themselves forced to compromise, to accept the provocative phrase “in Two Natures.” From the Monophysite point of view, Chalcedonian orthodoxy was Christian only in name and outward guise and the words Chalcedonian and Nestorian were virtually identical. An empire that accepted Chalcedon was not Christian, a fact it proved repeatedly by the persecutions it inflicted upon the true believers who accepted the Single Nature.39
Jesus Wars Page 22