The Formula of Reunion and the Rise of Eutyches

In 433 St. Cyril accepted a doctrinal statement drafted by his Antiochene opponents which confesses Christ “consubstantial with the Father as to his Godhead and consubstantial with us as to his manhood” and speaks of “a union of two natures” — the single most important concession in the whole controversy, and the bridge on which Chalcedon would be built. His strictest partisans never forgave it. After his death in 444 his successor Dioscorus pressed the “one nature” formula rigidly, and an aged archimandrite of Constantinople named Eutyches drew from it a genuine heresy, for which a standing synod of the capital deposed him in November 448.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

The Reunion of 433

The schism between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch that Ephesus left behind could not be allowed to fester, and after two years of negotiation the two were reconciled on the basis of a doctrinal statement — the Formula of Reunion — probably drafted by the Antiochene party (Theodoret of Cyrrhus is often credited) and accepted by Cyril in his letter Laetentur caeli, “Let the heavens rejoice” (Cyril, Ep. 39, to John of Antioch, with the text of the Formula; trans. in McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, Leiden: Brill, 1994, appendix; Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990).

What exactly did Cyril concede? The question matters, because the whole later argument about whether Chalcedon betrayed Cyril depends on the answer.

He conceded, first, the double consubstantiality in its Antiochene form: Christ is “perfect God and perfect man… consubstantial with the Father as to his Godhead and consubstantial with us as to his manhood.” He conceded, second, and decisively, the language of two natures: the Formula speaks of “a union of two natures” (henōsis dyo physeōn), and Cyril signed it. He conceded, third, the Antiochene practice of distributing the sayings of the Gospels according to the two natures — some befitting the Godhead, some the manhood — provided all are referred to the one Christ (Formula of Reunion, 433, in McGuckin, St. Cyril, 1994; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed., London: A&C Black, 1977).

What he did not concede is equally important. The Formula confesses the Theotokos without qualification; it does not retract the one-subject Christology, and Cyril never withdrew the Twelve Anathemas. He explained in his subsequent correspondence — above all in the Letters to Succensus — that “two natures” may rightly be said of what is contemplated in the union, while the incarnate Word remains one; the duality is real but not a division into two subjects (Cyril, Epp. 45–46, to Succensus; McGuckin, St. Cyril, 1994; van Loon, The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, Leiden: Brill, 2009). This is the mature Cyril, and it is why the Chalcedonian tradition can say without embarrassment that Chalcedon’s “in two natures” is Cyril’s own admission made precise.

Cyril’s acceptance of two-natures language in the Formula is thus of the first importance. It shows that the Father whom the anti-Chalcedonians would invoke against “two natures” had himself signed a confession of “two natures” eighteen years before Chalcedon, and it supplied the vocabulary the Definition would use (McGuckin, St. Cyril, 1994, on the Formula as the seed of Chalcedon).

The Cost of Peace

The reunion cost Cyril his hardliners. His more zealous followers thought he had sold Ephesus to Antioch; a party of intransigents in Egypt and among the Eastern monks read the Formula as a betrayal, and Cyril spent much of his remaining decade explaining himself to them (McGuckin, St. Cyril, 1994, on the internal opposition; see The Cost of Peace). This is the party that matters for what follows. It was not created by Chalcedon; it existed within Cyril’s own lifetime and against Cyril’s own act, and it held that no formula which numbered two natures after the union could be orthodox. When Cyril died on 27 June 444, the restraint of his personal authority was removed from it.

Dioscorus

Cyril’s successor at Alexandria was Dioscorus, an archdeacon of the Alexandrian church who had served under him. Dioscorus inherited Cyril’s formula, Cyril’s see, and Cyril’s ambitions for Alexandrian primacy in the East, but not Cyril’s theological subtlety. Under him the “one incarnate nature” formula was pressed in a rigid and exclusive way, and the Formula of Reunion was treated as an embarrassment to be quietly buried rather than a settlement to be defended (Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, 29–43; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 2nd ed., trans. Bowden, London: Mowbray, 1975, on Dioscorus). He also saw in the Antiochene-leaning patriarchate of Constantinople a rival to be broken.

It should be said plainly, and it is a point Section 08 will develop: Dioscorus was not a theologian of the “one nature” in Eutyches’ sense, and the surviving evidence does not show him denying that Christ’s flesh is consubstantial with ours. His offense at Chalcedon was ecclesiastical and procedural as much as doctrinal (see The Sessions and the Deposition of Dioscorus). But he did rehabilitate a man who taught precisely that, and he did it by wrecking a council.

Eutyches

Eutyches (c. 380–456) was an aged and influential archimandrite of a large monastery in Constantinople, godfather to the powerful imperial chamberlain Chrysaphius, and a veteran zealot against Nestorius. He pressed Cyrilline language past its limit. He would say that Christ was “of/from two natures” (ek dyo physeōn) before the union, but “one nature” (mia physis) after it; and — the damning point — he balked at confessing that Christ’s flesh is consubstantial with ours, conceding it only under pressure and without conviction. The image later associated with the position is of the humanity absorbed into the divinity as a drop of honey in the sea (acts of the 448 synod, in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.1.1, re-read at Chalcedon; Price and Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005, vol. 1, 1–37; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1, 523–526; Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 1977, on Eutyches).

This is Monophysitism in the strict and heretical sense — the position Orthodox theology properly calls Eutychianism. It is as dangerous as Nestorianism at the opposite pole: where Nestorius divided the one Christ into two, Eutyches so merged the natures that Christ’s true and complete humanity — the humanity in which our salvation is worked — is lost. The Cappadocian principle condemns him as surely as it condemns any denial of the Incarnation: “that which is not assumed is not healed” (Gregory the Theologian, Epistle 101, To Cledonius; trans. NPNF, Second Series, vol. 7). Section 08 of this collection insists on the strictness of that definition, because it is the key to using the word honestly.

The Home Synod of 448

Eutyches was accused of heresy by Eusebius of Dorylaeum and brought before the standing synod (synodos endēmousa) of some thirty to forty bishops then resident in the capital, presided over by Patriarch Flavian, in November 448. Examined at length, he refused to confess “two natures after the union,” and would not say without equivocation that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh. The synod condemned and deposed him, and stripped him of his priesthood and the government of his monastery (ACO II.1.1, the acts of the 448 synod, re-read at Chalcedon; Price and Gaddis, Acts of Chalcedon, 2005, vol. 1, 1–37).

Two things about this synod are worth fixing. First, the condemnation of Eutyches is the act of the Chalcedonian side, before Chalcedon — which is why it is simply false to present the Fourth Council as an assault on Alexandrian orthodoxy by men indifferent to the unity of Christ. Flavian’s synod condemned Eutyches for denying the humanity, exactly as the later non-Chalcedonian tradition would also condemn him. Second, the synod’s own confession, put into Flavian’s mouth in the acts, already speaks of Christ “of two natures after the incarnation, in one hypostasis and one person” — a formula reaching for what Chalcedon would define (ACO II.1.1; Price and Gaddis, vol. 1, 1–37; Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, London: SPCK, 1953, on Flavian’s confession).

Eutyches did not submit. He appealed over the synod’s head — to Rome, to Alexandria, to Ravenna and Jerusalem — protesting that he held nothing but the faith of Nicaea and of Cyril, and above all to Dioscorus, who saw an opportunity to break the Antiochene-leaning party at Constantinople and reassert Alexandria’s standing (Leo, Epp. 20–21, trans. Hunt, FOTC 34; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 1972, 29–43). Flavian for his part sent to Rome a full account of the proceedings, and asked the bishop of Rome to pronounce. Leo answered with the letter the Church would come to call the Tome. Both the appeal and the answer belong to the next section.

References

Cyril of Alexandria. Letter 39 (Laetentur caeli), with the Formula of Reunion (433); Letters 45–46 (to Succensus). Trans. in McGuckin (below).
Acts of the Home Synod of Constantinople (November 448), in Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.1.1, ed. Eduard Schwartz (Berlin–Leipzig, 1932–1938); trans. in Price and Gaddis (below), vol. 1, 1–37.
Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus). Epistle 101 (To Cledonius). Trans. NPNF, Second Series, vol. 7.
Leo the Great. Epistles 20–21. Trans. Edmund Hunt, St. Leo the Great: Letters, Fathers of the Church 34. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1957.
McGuckin, John A. St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
van Loon, Hans. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Price, Richard, and Michael Gaddis. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. 3 vols. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005.
Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Trans. John Bowden. London: Mowbray, 1975.
Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Sellers, Robert V. The Council of Chalcedon: A Historical and Doctrinal Survey. London: SPCK, 1953.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. London: A&C Black, 1977.
Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.