(A.D. 449.)
[Roman Martyrology; but by the Greeks on Feb. 16th.
Authorities:--Nicephorus Callistus, Evagrius, and the letters of S.
Leo the Great to Flavian.[54]]
It is not easy to understand the position of any great man of the
eventful 4th and 5th centuries, without a general knowledge of the
struggles of the Church against one heresy after another for the
maintenance of the true doctrine, as to the natures and person of
Christ Jesus, and this it is almost impossible to compress into a
single article on the life of one actor in that eventful period. S.
Proclus, author of the famous "Tome," as it was called, or doctrinal
statement on the Incarnation, was patriarch of Constantinople. S. Leo,
pious, earnest, Roman-spirited, was bishop of Rome. Domnus was
patriarch of Antioch. The great S. Cyril of Alexandria was dead, and
had left a large bequest to his successor, conjuring him, "by the
venerable and awful mysteries," to befriend his kindred. The
archdeacon Dioscorus was elected in his place, and forthwith extorted
from the family of Cyril considerable sums, and imprisoned and
otherwise outraged the nephews of the deceased patriarch. The new
patriarch had previously borne a fair character, but his exaltation
revealed a spirit at once tyrannous and sensual. His life became
openly scandalous. He deposed from their functions those whom Cyril
had favoured; he burnt the house, felled the trees, and hacked up the
land of one deacon against whom he bore a grudge.
S. Proclus of Constantinople died on October 24th, 447, and Flavian,
the treasurer of the church, was elected to succeed him. He
immediately became obnoxious to the eunuch Chrysaphius, by refusing
him the fee which the creatures of the court attempted to impose on
the patriarchs on their appointment. Theodosius, the younger, was then
emperor; his sister, Pulcheria, was at the head of the orthodox party
in the Church, and the royal chamberlain, Chrysaphius, godson of
Eutyches, supported the heretical party out of motives of hostility to
the rival power of Pulcheria, and affection for his godfather.
Dioscorus of Alexandria took the same side as Chrysaphius, and these
men used their influence to expel from their dioceses bishops who did
not satisfy them. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, the famous
ecclesiastical historian, was anathematized by the haughty patriarch,
Dioscorus, in his cathedral at Alexandria; and Theodoret wrote to
Flavian of Constantinople, complaining of the outrage. Domnus of
Antioch took part with Theodoret, and sent envoys to Constantinople in
his favour, whom Theodoret charged with letters, in which he protested
his orthodoxy, declaring that he believed in one Christ, truly God,
and truly man. "I give Him one worship," he wrote, "yet I know that
the Godhead and the flesh are distinct, for the union is without
confusion." But now began the great Eutychian struggle. Eutyches,
abbot of the principal monastery of Constantinople, denied that
Christ, at His incarnation, was "perfect God and perfect man--one, not
by confusion of substance, but by unity of person." On November 8th,
448, a council of bishops assembled in the synod-room of Flavian's
palace, at Constantinople. One of these bishops was Eusebius of
Dorylæum, who begged the council to summon Eutyches, asserting that he
would convict him of heresy. Flavian observed that an accusation
against one so respected was simply astonishing. Could not Eusebius
visit Eutyches before invoking the judgment of the council? Eusebius,
who was greatly excited, declared that Eutyches had once been his
friend; he had repeatedly warned him to desist from heterodox
language, he could not, after these vain remonstrances, "go and hear
him once again blaspheme." It was, therefore, agreed that Eutyches
should be summoned; the council adjourned to the 12th, and the
patriarch Flavian, having made profession of his faith in Christ as
perfect God and perfect man, of one substance with the Father as to
his Godhead, and with Mary as to his manhood, called on the other
bishops to declare the true faith on this great doctrine. When they
had done so, the council was adjourned till Nov. 15th, when the
messengers who had been sent to Eutyches reported that he would not
leave the monastery; that he regarded Eusebius of Dorylæum as his
personal enemy; and that, as to his faith, he denied that Christ's
flesh was of one substance with ours, and that, after the incarnation,
there was more than one nature in Him. He also sent a brother abbot to
inform the council that he was ill. Flavian answered, kindly, "We have
no idea of pressing hardly upon him. We are old friends of his; we
will wait till he is better, and then let him come and confess that he
has erred." He added, after the sitting was broken up, that "fire
itself seemed cold to Eusebius," whose vehemence he had endeavoured to
calm down. A third summons was followed, on Nov. 27th, by the personal
attendance of Eutyches. His great influence and position was shown by
the officers, soldiers, and monks who escorted him, and by an imperial
order that the patrician Florentius should have a seat in the synod to
see that justice was shown to the accused. The patriarch Flavian asked
if Eutyches confessed an union out of two natures. He replied that he
did. "My lord abbot," asked Eusebius, "do you confess two natures
after the incarnation?" Eutyches attempted to fence with the question,
but, when brought to the point, he denied the existence of two natures
in the one Christ. Then, all the bishops rose, and Flavian, in the
name of the synod, passed sentence of deposition and excommunication
against Eutyches. After the council was broken up, Eutyches said, in a
low voice, to Florentius, "I appeal to Rome, Alexandria, and
Jerusalem." He at once wrote to S. Leo of Rome. Flavian also wrote,
and sent a record of what had passed. On Feb. 18th, before Flavian's
letter, which was unaccountably delayed, had reached Rome, Leo wrote
to Flavian, marvelling at his silence, and requesting him to explain
the grounds on which Eutyches had been thus severely punished.
Dioscorus of Alexandria was forward in espousing the quarrel of
Eutyches. He at once admitted him into his communion, and worked, in
conjunction with the chamberlain Chrysaphius, in support of his
petition for a general council. Flavian now replied to Pope Leo's
letter; he entreated Leo to give a written approval of the sentence
against Eutyches, and thereby to preserve Christendom from any fresh
disturbance. Before S. Leo could receive this letter, the Emperor
Theodosius wrote on March 30th to Dioscorus, announcing his will that
a general council should meet at Ephesus, on August 1st. S. Leo sent
three legates to attend this council: Julius, bishop of Puteoli;
Renatus, a priest; and Hilarus, a deacon. On the 13th of June, he
wrote several letters, one of them was his famous "Tome," a doctrinal
epistle addressed to S. Flavian, a clear, forcible, intelligible
text-book on both aspects of the incarnation-mystery. On the 8th of
August, 449, the council met in the church of S. Mary at Ephesus.
About a hundred and thirty bishops were present. Dioscorus of
Alexandria presided. Next to him sat the papal legate, Julius. It was
evident from the first that this council was not free. The eunuch
Chrysaphius was at hand to support his godfather Eutyches; veteran
troops of Asia, a band of archers, were collected to obey the summons
of Dioscorus. After the writ of convocation had been read in due form,
Hilarus explained the reason of Leo's absence, and announced that Leo
had sent a letter. "Let it be received." The letter was handed in,
but, by a pre-concerted scheme, it was put aside unread, as Dioscorus
dreaded its effects on the assembled fathers, in its place being read
a letter of the emperor to Dioscorus. Eutyches was then introduced.
The records of his trial were read, and Dioscorus still kept back the
letter of Leo of Rome, promising to read it afterwards. During the
reading of the trial a scene of tumult took place. One bishop
exclaimed, when he heard that Christ was of two natures, "This
language turns the Church upside down!" Another cried, "Let him who
says that in Christ are two natures be cut in twain." "Will you
endure," asked Dioscorus, "to hear of two natures after the
incarnation?" His followers, among the bishops, responded, "Anathema."
"I want your voices, and your hands too," said Dioscorus, "if anyone
cannot shout, let him hold up his hand." In the uproar, one bishop
after another yielded, and re-habilitated Eutyches. Hilarus again
vainly attempted to procure a hearing of Leo's letter. Dioscorus, not
content with having restored Eutyches, determined on having Flavian of
Constantinople and Eusebius of Dorylæum deposed and excommunicated.
The scene now became really terrific. The bishops who had acquitted
Eutyches against their conscience, struggled hard to escape this new
degradation. Several started up, and clasped the knees of the
president, Dioscorus. Onesiphorus of Iconium cried, imploringly, "By
the feet of your piety, I pray you forbear; Flavian has done nothing
worthy of condemnation. If he deserves rebuke, rebuke him; but do not
condemn a bishop for the sake of a priest." Dioscorus rose from his
throne, and, standing upon the footstool, made a signal with his hand,
and exclaimed, "Look you, he that will not sign the sentence has to
deal with _me_. If my tongue were to be cut out for it, I would say,
'Depose Flavian.' Are you making a sedition? Where are the counts?" At
the signal, which had been pre-concerted, a body of soldiers, with
clubs and swords, rushed in; monks followed; the trembling bishops hid
themselves behind the altar, or under the benches, and as they were
not inspired with a zeal of martyrdom, they successively subscribed a
blank paper, which was afterwards filled with the condemnation of the
patriarch of Constantinople. Flavian was instantly delivered to the
wild beasts of this spiritual amphitheatre, the monks and soldiers,
and the bishops even, most hostile to him, fell on him. Dioscorus, the
patriarch of Alexandria, buffeted and kicked,--like a wild ass, says
Zonaras,--and trampled his brother of Constantinople. Some of the
bishops were locked up in the vestry of the church, and not allowed to
leave till they signed the sentence. Hilarus escaped without
compromising his fidelity. Nothing is known of the conduct of Julius.
Renatus was not there; he had died on his way. Flavian was ordered
into exile, but was so bruised by the treatment he had received in the
church at Ephesus, that he died three days after, August 11th, in a
village of Lydia.
So closed the assembly, which has received its name from an indignant
letter of S. Leo: "It was no court of justice, but a gang of robbers."
This _Latrocinium_, it is almost needless to say, has been rejected by
the Church; its decrees were reversed by the council of Chalcedon; and
S. Flavian, "that second Abel," as he was called by S. Leo, was
re-vindicated with honour.