hypostatic union, all actions performed by Christ should be predicated. Consequently, one could legitimately say with regard to Christ's suffering that unus ex trinitate passus or crucifrxus est carne ('one of the Trinity suffered' or `was crucified in the flesh'). This is the so called `theopaschite' formula which was to be a stumbling block for the strict dyophysite party.
The Scythian monks believed that the acceptance of this formula by the Chalcedonians would exclude any `Nestorian' interpretation of Chalcedon. True, a christology that would predicate both Christ's miracles and sufferings of the Logos could not be Nestorian. As we have seen, what Nestorius as well as his more moderate friend, Theodoret of Cyrus, could not tolerate about Cyril's teaching was this
`theopaschism'. The `theopaschism' of the Scythian monks was not, however, welcomed either by the Patriarch John the Cappadocian or the legates of Pope
Hormisdas (514-523), who were also at Constantinople participating in the discussions. "'
Hoping that Hormisdas himself would be more sympathetic, Maxentius made a draft of the `theopaschite' confession and sent it to Rome with a delegation of his followers under Peter the deacon (518-519). Hormisdas realised that the issue was too important to commit himself. His vacillation caused a serious complaint from Maxentius. 802 Eventually Hormisdas too, encouraged by Justinian as we shall see, rejected the Scythian suggestion. However, the Scythians were not altogether unsuccessful. They gained a hearing from a group of African bishops who had been exiled to Sardinia by the Arian king, Thrasamund. Their spiritual leader was Fulgentius (c. 462-527), the eminent bishop of Ruspe in N. Africa. To these bishops the monks sent an Epistula, 803 which was a revision of Maxentius Libellusfidei. Fulgentius, writing on behalf of the group, confirmed the orthodoxy of the Scythian faith. 804 Also through their compatriot in Rome, Dionysius Exiguus, the Scythians managed to have translated into Latin important christological documents hitherto unknown to the West, such as Proclus' Tomus ad Armenios and, importantly, Cyril's Twelve Anathemas. ` In any
601 These events are described in Maxentius' work Dialogus Contra Nestorianos, CCL 85A, pp. 51-100.
802 John Maxentius, Ad Epistolam Hormisdae responsio, CCL 85A, pp. 123-153; PG 86, pt. I, 93-112.
i03 Epistula
scytharum monachorum ad episcopos, CCL 85A, pp. 157-172; PL 62,83-92. Engl. tr. in J. A.
McGuckin, 'The 'Theopaschite Confession' (Text and Historical context): a Study in the Cyrilline Re- interpretation
of Chalcedon, ' Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 35 (1984), 239-255.
t04 PL 65,451-93. See Tixeront, p. 126; McGuckin, p. 245.
$OS G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate (451-1204) (London: 1947), p. 60.
176
case, with the Pope's refusal to endorse the `theopaschite' christology, one can argue that a great opportunity for restoring the unity of the Church was missed-806 Although, the Scythian proposal, as has been noted, was intended to mediate between
Chalcedonians, its christology, being at the same time Cyrillian and perfectly Chalcedonian, stood a good chance of pleasing the Severians as well.
The teaching of the Scythian monks
Let us now see in more detail the teaching of the Scythian monks, as emerges primarily from the Libellus and the Epistula ad episcopos.
It must be stressed at the outset that these Scythians were committed Chalcedonians. In the aforementioned works, they often express their adherence to the definition of the fourth council and its `in two natures' as well as the teaching of Leo. 807 Yet they are also true Cyrillians and supporters of the Twelve Anathemas. Like Cyril
they proclaim that the impassible God was united to passible human nature. 808 They uphold the Logos' `double consubstantiality' (homousion patri secundum divinitatem, homousion nobis eundem secundum humanitatem)809 and `double birth' (ante saecula a patre secundum divinitatem and in novissimis temporibus secundum humanitatem a virgine sancta). " O Therefore they confess `one and the same' (unum eundemque) person to be the natural (naturalem) Son of both the father and the mother. 8 ' To this incarnate Logos they ascribe both the miracles and the sufferings. 812
Since the Logos was `naturally' born of God the Father and Mary, the latter is rightly called Theotokos or del genetrix. Maxentius points out that whereas the Nestorians call Mary `Theotokos', only in so far as she gave birth to the one who was
God `by grace' (gratia) and not `by nature' (natura), the orthodox call her `Theotokos'
`truly and properly' (vere et proprie) 813
The Scythians make absolutely clear that hypostasis (subsistentia) and prosopon (persona) are one and the same thing (Nos autem, unum et idem sentientes subsistentiam esse quod et personam) "' Maxentius feels the need to stress this because, as he says,
McGuckin, p. 245.
807 E. g. John Maxentius, Libellus fidel VI, 10, CCL 85A, pp. 10,115-11,122; Ep. adEpiscopos it, 3, CCL 85a, p. 158,33-36; Ibid., v, 11, CCL 85A, p. 164.
8oß Maxent. Libellus vu, 11, CCL 85A, pp. 11-12.
809 Maxent. Libellus vi, 10, CCL 85A, p. 10,107-112.
t0 E. g. Maxent., Libellus xiit, 24, CCL 85A, p. 20.
"' Loc. cit.
812 Maxent., Libellus xut, 26, CCL 85A, p. 21.
"' Maxent., Libellus xi1,23, CCL 85A, pp. 18-19; Ep. ad episcopos 111,4, CCL 85A, p. 159,53-59.
114 Maxent., Libellus ix, 14, CCL 85A, p. 14.
177
some hold the impious view that the `one prosopon' of the Chalcedonian Definition referred to the `man', whereas the `one hypostasis' to the God-Logos. They do this, says Maxentius, not because they do not know that for Chalcedon hypostasis and prosopon are one and the same thing, but because they do not want to appear to introduce two hypostases and two prosopa. 81S The Chalcedonian faith, however, is that the `one hypostasis' and `one prosopon' of Christ proclaimed at Chalcedon, is none other but
`the Logos incarnate and made man'. "'
Therefore it is proper to say that Christ is `one of the hypostases of the Trinity', (unum de tribus subsistentiis). The orthodox, says Maxentius, do not hold that the Divinity `dwelt' in Christ (as do `Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, the heretics, who say that Christ is outside the Trinity') but that Christ is `one of the three hypostases of the one divinity' 81 The man Christ was the God-Logos himself, emphasise the
Scythians. Very characteristically they affirm that the child who was born of the Virgin and was wrapped in swaddling clothes was by nature God. 818
The Scythians explain that Christ is one of the Trinity not because the substance of the flesh changed into divine substance, but because `it is the flesh of the God-Logos who is one of the Trinity'. Since the subject in Christ is the Logos one can say that Christ is one of Trinity without thus adding a fourth person to Trinity. "'
The so called `theopaschite' formula is found in its classic form in the Libellus:
`Christ is one of the Trinity, who for us suffered in the flesh' (unus est Christus de trinitate, qui pro nobis passus est carne). "' Maxentius cites three passages which he says are from Proclus' Tomus ad Armenios as a witness to the `theopaschite' formula.
Although this passages are not found in the Tomus as it has come down to us,
`theopaschism' is taught by Proclus through the formula `one of the Trinity became incarnate' (rd v Eva rrjq Tpcdöos, asvapx6cr9at). 821
Loc. cit.
i6 Unam vero duarum naturarum subsistentiam sine personam, quam nobis veneranda Chalcedoniensis synodus tradidit, nullus alterius nisi dei verbi incarnati et hominis facti confitemur (Maxent., Libellus VIII, 13, CCL 85A, p. 13,161-164).
"T Deum verbum unigenitum filium patris, dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, qui pro nobis passus est carne, unum de tribus subsistentiis unius deitatis credimus esse (Maxent., Libellus Ix, 14, CCL 85A, p.
14,177-188).
Ep. ad episcopos IV, 9, CCL 85A, pp. 162-163.
Loc. cit.
`20 Libellus XI, 20, CCL 85A, p. 17,262-263.
f2' ACO Iv, 2, p. 192. See Grillmeier, Christ, u, 2, pp. 317-318.
178
The Scythians also affirm the idea that the union of the natures was made according to synthesis (compositio). The fathers, say the Scythians, proclaim Christ to be composite (compositus) from divinity and humanity. 812
This Cyrillian approach in regard to Chalcedonian dyophysitism causes the Scythians to see no contradiction between Chalcedon's `in two natures' and Cyril's `one incarnate nature of the God-Logos' when properly qualified. The `one nature' formula, says Maxentius, is not contrary to Chalcedon if by it we understand `one hypostasis or prosopon in two united natures' (unam subsistentiam sive personam in duabus naturis
[... ] unitis). As a witness to this, Maxentius refers to Flavian and his confession of faith. 823 Similarly, the Scythians, in the Epistula, affirm:
We do not agree with those who proclaim one incarnate nature of the God- Logos and thus avoid the faith of the venerable council of Chalcedon; nor do we accept those who deceitfully profess two natures but are reluctant to confess one incarnate nature of the God-Logos because they believe that this is contrary to the profession of two natures, as if `one incarnate nature of the God-Logos' signifies something other than two united natures. 824
In the Epistula, the witness to such a duophysite interpretation of the `one nature' formula is Cyril himself who, in his second letter to Succensus, points to the predicate
`incarnate' as an evidence that the perfect human nature is inferred. "'
Being true Cyrillians, the Scythians strove to safeguard the close unity of the person of Christ. For them the two naturae or subsantiae were united naturaliter or substantialiter. 826 This is in direct opposition to the union according to `good will' or
`grace' which was characteristic of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In fact, in the Scythian writings we see the growing attack against the doctrine of Theodore which will culminate in Justinian and the Fifth Council.
Justinian's response
Justinian's attitude towards the question of the Scythian monks is quite indicative of the uncertainty that characterised the early days of his theological activities. At first he wrote to Hormisdas advising him to turn the monks away (29 June 519). Their teaching, he said, was a novelty not to be found either in the four councils or Leo's Tome. It also had caused disturbances everywhere. 82" Only a few days later, however, for reasons
u Ep. ad episcopos 111,6, CCL 85A, p. 160.
i2' Libellus viii, 13, pp. 13-14. For Flavian's understanding of the `one nature' formula see Part One, Chapter II.
&24 EP. ad episcopos 11,3, CCL 85A, p. 158.
'2' ACO 1,1,6, p. 160,19-24.
26 Libellus vu, 11, CCL 85A, p. 11,126-127.
i27 Collectio Ave/lava, CSEL 35, no 187; Engl. tr. in CN in, no 551.
179
unknown to us, he changed his mind. 828 In a new letter (July 519) he urged Pope Hormisdas to reply to the monks' suggestion and send them back to Constantinople as soon as possible. From this letter it emerges that the teaching of the monks had sparked a controversy which Justinian wanted settled by an unequivocal decision by the Pope. 829 Hormisdas' reluctance to take a stance led Justinian to send him a third letter which also was not acknowledged. "' When Justinian wrote to Hormisdas again (520) it was to ask the Pope to specifically subscribe to the `theopaschite' formula because, Justinian claimed, it was taught in the Bible, "' and was generally accepted by the Eastern bishops. In fact, according to the emperor, it was necessary for orthodoxy to say that Christ, who suffered for us, was indeed one of the Trinity. "' It is important that Justinian is careful to ascribe the suffering to the person of the Logos which is the person of Christ. Thus he protects `theopaschism' from the accusation of teaching that the whole Trinity was crucified or that the divine physis of the Logos endured suffering.
However, not even this refined presentation of the `theopaschite' christology was able to move Hormisdas from his initial refusal to accept the Scythian confession.
The Scythian confession was not received any more favourably in Constantinople.
The influential `Sleepless' monks again rose against what they thought was an annulment of Chalcedon and became entangled in a battle of words with the Scythians who remained in Constantinople. The whole stance of the `Sleepless' monks with their total rejection of the communicatio idiomatum (to the point of rejecting the title Theotokos as has been noted) must have caused Justinian to think that he had a clear case of crypto-Nestorianism in his backyard. The opposition to the formula by the
`Sleepless' monks is most probably what persuaded him to espouse the `theopaschite' christology and sanction it as a key orthodox doctrine in a series of legal as well as theological documents. He also must have realised that the Scythian christology could facilitate his plans for restoring unity in the Church: `theopaschism', a central Cyrillian doctrine, could lead to an agreement between Chalcedonians and Monophysites.
In an edict setting down the penalties against the heretics (527), Justinian included a confession of faith which acknowledges the basic Cyrillian tenets: Christ and the
828 Tixeront suggests that some of the monks had stayed with Justinian and managed to convince him about the correctness of their ideas. History of Dogmas III, p. 125.
°29 CSEL 35, no 191; Engl. tr. in CN III, no 552.
a30 CSEL 35, no 188; Engl. tr. in CN in, no 553.
9 Justinian refers to 1 Peter 4.1.
832 To support his view, Justinian quotes three passages from Augustine: `an aliqua ex trinitate persona',
`solus in trinitate corpus accepit' and `unus trium'. CSEL 35, no 196, Engl. tr. in CN III, no 562.
180
Logos are one and the same Person, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and with us according to his humanity. This is why both the miracles and the sufferings are to be predicated of this one and the same Person. 833 Because Christ is the Logos, the incarnation of the latter, who is `one of the Holy Trinity', did not result in an addition of a fourth person to the Trinity (as it would have been presumed if Christ had been another-human-person). "' It is significant that in this edict, Justinian links the
`theopaschite' doctrine with the christological article of the Nicene Creed. He obviously sees this as proclaiming that it was the Logos who was born of the Virgin, suffered, died and was raised from the dead. According to Justinian, this was not the view of Nestorius who taught that `the Logos who comes from the Father is `one person' (dAAoc) and the one who was born of Mary `another' (dA2os). The latter became God by grace and on account of his proximity to the God-Logos'. ` This orthodox `theopaschism' is equally alien from the teaching of Eutyches who denied the `double consubstantiality' of the Logos, and effectively the reality of the incarnation. 836
In 533 Justinian issued his Edict on Theopaschism837 where he used the full theopaschite formula. He accused the Nestorians of not confessing `our Lord Jesus
Christ the Son of God and our God, who was incarnate and made man and was crucified, to be one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity'. 838
In his letter to Epiphanius of Constantinople (520-536)839 Justinian stressed the accord of the Ecumenical Councils on the issue of the true incarnation of the God- Logos. Chalcedon, in particular, claims Justinian, endorsed the idea that Christ was `one of the Trinity' by receiving and confirming Proclus's Tomus ad Armenios. 840
In 533 Justinian made a new attempt to have the Scythian `theopaschism' approved by Rome. In a letter to Pope John II (533-535), 841 clearly referring to the
`Sleepless' monks, he wrote:
Some unbelieving and foreign to the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God [... ] deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God and our God who was born of the holy Spirit and Mary, the holy and glorious Virgin and Theotokos (Dei genetrix), and was made man and was crucified, is
33 Cl I, 1,5,1-2 (Krueger, p. 10).
aas Ibid.
aas CI I, 1,5,3 (Krueger, p. 10).
$36 Loc. Cit.
a" Cl I, 1,6 (Krueger, pp. 10-11; Engl. tr. in CN III, no 636).
t't Cl I, 1,6,7 (Krueger, p. 11).
e3 Cl I, 1,7 (Krueger, pp. 12-14).
f40 Cl I, 1,7,17 (Krueger, p. 13).
"'Cl I, 1,8 (Krueger, pp. 14,35-16,3 1); CollectioAvellana, CSEL 35, no 84, pp. 344-347.
181
one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity (unum esse sanctae et consubstantialis trinitatis), worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and the Selfsame consubstantial with us according to humanity; passible as to the
flesh and the Selfsame impassible as to the divinity. By refusing to confess our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God and our God to be one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, [these people] make it clear [... ] that they follow the wicked teaching of Nestorius, as they say that Christ is the Son of God `by grace' and that the God-Logos is one person and Christ another (alium dicentes deum verbum et alium Christum). 842