ST. FLAVIAN was a priest of distinguished merit, and treasurer of the
church of Constantinople, when he succeeded St. Proclus in the
archiepiscopal dignity in 447. The eunuch Chrysaphius, chamberlain to
the emperor Theodosius the Younger, and a particular favorite, suggested
to his master, a weak prince, to require of him a present, out of
gratitude to the emperor for his promotion. The holy bishop sent him
some blessed bread, according to the custom of the church at that time,
as a benediction and symbol of communion. Chrysaphius let him know that
it was a present of a very different kind that was expected from him.
St. Flavian, an enemy to simony, answered resolutely, than the revenues
and treasure of the church were designed for other uses, namely, the
honor of God and the relief of his poor. The eunuch, highly provoked at
the bishop's refusal, from that moment {423} resolved to contrive his
ruin. Wherefore, with a view to his expulsion, he persuaded the emperor,
by the means of his wife Eudoxia, to order the bishop to make Pulcheria,
sister to Theodosius, a deaconess of his church. The saint's refusal was
a second offence in the eyes of the sycophants of the court. The next
year Chrysaphius was still more grievously offended with our saint for
his condemning the errors of his kinsman Eutyches, abbot of a monastery
of three hundred monks, near the city, who had acquired a reputation for
virtue, but in effect was no better than an ignorant, proud, and
obstinate man. His intemperate zeal against Nestorius, for asserting two
distinct persons in Christ, threw him into the opposite error, that of
denying two distinct natures after the incarnation.
In a council, held by St. Flavian in 448, Eutyches was accused of this
error by Eusebius of Dorylaeum, his former friend, and it was there
condemned as heretical, and the author was cited to appear to give an
account of his faith. On the day appointed in the last summons he
appeared before the council, but attended by two of the principal
officers of the court, and a troop of the imperial guards. Being
admitted and interrogated on the point in question, that is, his faith
concerning the incarnation; he declared that he acknowledged indeed two
natures before the union, but after it only one. To all reasonings and
authority produced against his tenet, his reply was, that he did not
come thither to dispute, but to satisfy the assembly what his faith was.
The council, upon this, anathematized and deposed him, and St. Flavian
pronounced the sentence, which was subscribed by thirty-two bishops and
twenty-three abbots, of which last eighteen were priests. Eutyches said
privately to his guards, that he appealed to the bishops of Rome, Egypt,
and Jerusalem; and in a letter he wrote to St. Leo to complain of his
usage in the council, he endeavored to impose on the pope. But his
Holiness being informed of the state of the affair by St. Flavian, wrote
to him an ample declaration of the orthodox faith upon the point which
was afterwards read, and inserted in the acts of the council of
Chalcedon, in which the errors of Eutyches were solemnly condemned.
Chrysaphius, however, had interest enough with the weak emperor to
obtain an order for a re-examination of the cause between St. Flavian
and Eutyches in another council. This met in April, 449, consisting of
about thirty bishops, one third whereof had assisted at the late
council. St. Flavian being looked on as a party, Thalassius, bishop of
Caesarea, presided in his room. After the strictest scrutiny into every
particular, the impiety of Eutyches, and the justice of our saint's
proceedings, clearly appeared. St. Flavian presented to the emperor a
profession of his faith, wherein he condemned the errors of both
Eutyches and Nestorius, his adversaries pretending that he favored the
latter.
Chrysaphius, though baffled in his attempts, was still bent on the ruin
of the holy bishop, and employed all his craft and power to save
Eutyches and destroy Flavian. With this view he wrote to Dioscorus, a
man of a violent temper, who had succeeded St. Cyril in the patriarchal
see of Alexandria, promising him his friendship and favor in all his
designs, if he would undertake the defence of the deposed abbot against
Flavian and Eusebius. Dioscorus came into his measures; and, by their
joint interest with the empress Eudoxia, glad of an opportunity to
mortify Pulcheria, who had a high esteem for our saint, they prevailed
with the emperor to order a council to be called at Ephesus, to
determine the dispute. Dioscorus was invited by the emperor to come and
preside in it, accompanied with ten metropolitans and other bishops,
together with the archimandrite, or abbot Barsumas, a man strongly
attached to Eutyches and Dioscorus. The like directions were sent to the
other patriarchs. St. Leo, who was invited, though late, sent legatee to
act {424} in his name, Julius, bishop of Puteoli, Renatus, a priest, who
died on the road, Hilarius, a deacon, and Dulcitius, a notary. He sent
by them a learned letter to St. Flavian, in which he taxes the ignorance
of Eutyches in the holy scriptures, and explains the Catholic doctrine
against that heresiarch, which he also did by other letters.
The false council of Ephesus, for the violences therein used commonly
called the Latrocinale, was opened on the 8th of August, in 449, and
consisted of one hundred and thirty bishops, or their deputies, from
Egypt and the East. Eutyches was there, and two officers from the
emperor, with a great number of soldiers. Every thing was carried on, by
violence and open faction, in favor of Eutyches, by those officers and
bishops who had espoused his party and formed a cabal. The pope's
legates were never suffered to read his letters to the council. The
final result of the proceedings was, to pronounce sentence of deposition
against St. Flavian and Eusebius. The pope's legates protested against
the sentence. Hilarius, the deacon, cried out aloud, "contradicitur,"
opposition is made; which Latin word was inserted in the Greek acts of
the synod. And Dioscorus no sooner began to read the sentence, but he
was interrupted by several of the bishops, who, prostrating themselves
before him, besought him, in the most submissive terms, to proceed no
further in so unwarrantable an affair. Upon this he starts up, and calls
aloud for the imperial commissioners, Elpidius and Eulogius, who,
without more ado, ordered the church doors to be set open; upon which
Proclus, the proconsul of Asia, entered, surrounded with a band of
soldiers, and followed by a confused multitude with chains, clubs, and
swords. This struck such a terror into the whole assembly, that, when
the bishops were required by Dioscorus and his creatures to subscribe,
few or none had the courage to withstand his threats, the pope's legates
excepted, who protested aloud against these violent proceedings; one of
whom was imprisoned; the other, Hilarius, got off with much difficulty,
and came safe to Rome. St. Flavian, on hearing the sentence read by
Dioscorus, appealed from him to the holy see, and delivered his acts of
appeal in writing to the pope's legates, then present. This so provoked
Dioscorus,[1] that, together with Barsumas and others of their party,[2]
after throwing the holy bishop on the ground, they so kicked and bruised
him, that he died within a few days, in 449, not at Ephesus, as some
have said by mistake, but in his exile at Epipus, two days' journey from
that city, situated near Sardes in Lydia, as Marcellinus testifies in
his chronicle.
The council being over, Dioscorus, with two of his Egyptian bishops, had
the insolence to excommunicate St. Leo. But violence and injustice did
not triumph long. For the emperor's eyes being opened on his sister
Pulcheria's return to court, whom the ambition of Chrysaphius had found
means to remove in the beginning of these disturbances, the eunuch was
disgraced, and soon after put to death; and the empress Eudoxia obliged
to retire to Jerusalem. The next year the emperor died, as Cedrenus
says, penitent; and Pulcheria, ascending the throne in 450, ordered
Saint Flavian's body to be brought with great honor to Constantinople,
and there magnificently interred, among his predecessors in that see.
St. Leo had, upon the first news of these proceedings, written to him to
comfort him, as also to Theodosius, Pulcheria, and the clergy of
Constantinople, in his defence. The general council of Chalcedon
declared him a saint and martyr, and paid great honors to his memory, in
451. The same council honorably restored Eusebius of Dorylaeum to his
see. Pope Hilarius, who had been St. Leo's legate at Ephesus, had so
great a veneration for the saint, that he caused his martyrdom {425} to
be represented in mosaic work, in the church which he built in honor of
the holy Cross. The wicked Dioscorus was condemned by the council of
Chalcedon, in 451, and died obstinate and impenitent, in the Eutychian
heresy, and his other crimes, in his banishment at Gangres, in 454.
* * * * *
It was the glory of St. Flavian to die a martyr of the mystery of the
incarnation of the Son of God. This is the fundamental article of the
Christian religion, and, above all other mysteries, challenges our most
profound homages and constant devotion. In it hath God displayed, in the
most incomprehensible manner, the astonishing immensity of his power,
mercy, wisdom, and love, the contemplation of which will be the sweet
occupation of angels and saints to all eternity. The servants of God on
earth find their greatest delight in meditating on this great mystery,
and in profound adoration and transports of love, honoring, praising,
and glorifying their divine Saviour, and studying to put on his spirit
by the constant union in mind and heart, or of their thoughts and
affections, with him. Is it possible that we who believe in this God,
who annihilated himself, and died for us most miserable and ungrateful
sinners, should not die of love for him? At least, how is it possible we
should not always have him present to our minds, and prostrate ourselves
at his feet a thousand times a day to return him our most humble thanks,
and to pay him the homages of our adoration, love, and praise? The more
he is insulted in this mystery of goodness itself, by the blasphemies of
unbelievers and heretics, the greater ought to be our zeal and fervor in
honoring it. But as the incarnation is the mystery of the unfathomed
humility of a God to heal the wound of our pride, it is only by
humility, and the annihilation of creatures in our hearts, that we can
be disposed to contemplate or honor it with fruit. The dreadful fall and
impenitence of Eutyches, after he had renounced the world with a view to
give himself to God, were owing to the fatal sin of a secret pride.
Footnotes:
1. Evag. l. xi. c. 11.
2. Conc. Calced. act. 4.