CHALCEDON
555
CHALCEDON
the Capuchins a scholasticate. There are also public
chapels belonging to the Franciscans and the Cat holic
Armenians. The Armenian Sisters of the Immaculate
Conception have a house at Chalccdon, and the Ar-
menian Mechitarists a college. Two Greek churches,
one Armenian, and one English Protestant church
complete the list of Christian institutions. At
Haidar-Pasha, the port of Kadi-Keui and head
station of the Anatolian railway to Bagdad, the
Assumptionists have a public chapel, and there are
schools conducted by the Christian Brothers and
the t folate Sisters of the Assumption, also a synagogue,
German Protestant and Jewish schools, and an
English cemetery, with a monument to the soldiers
who died in the Crimean War. At Fanaraki (ancient
Hiereia) the Assumptionists have a chapel, and the
Oblate Sisters of the Assumption a school. Near
Kadi-Keui and within the limits of the Greek diocese
are places of interest. Scutari is the Turkish name
of Chrysopolis, a city which the Mussulmans consider
sacred on account of its cemetery and its beautiful
mosques. It has a hospital for lepers and a Catholic
church, cared for by Georgian Benedictines, also
schools in charge of the Marists and of Sisters of
Charity. It was there that Licinius was defeated by
Constantine (324); there also lived St. Maximus, the
Confessor (580-662), the hero of the Monothelite
controversies. Tchiboukli, on the Bosphorus, is
the Byzantine Irenaion, where stood the fatnous
monastery of the Accemetae, founded by St. Marcellus;
at Kalam'ish (the port of Eutropius) lived the stylite,
St. Luke; Djadi-Bostan is the ancient Rufiniana,
where the famous councils Ad Qucrcum were held
in 397 and 103. In the vicinity were the monasteries
of St. Bypatiua and St. John. On the Kaiah-Dagh
lived St . Auxentius, St. Bendidianus, and St. Stephen,
and at Touzla (Cape Acritas) St. Athanasius of
Paulopetrion and St. Gregory. Finally, in full view
of Kadi- Keui, are the celebrated Prince's Islands,
with their numberless political and ecclesiastical
I ions.
Lequikn. Orient Chrialianua (1740), I; Smith. Diet, of Greek
and Roman Ueog. (London, 1878) ; Eehos d' Orient, III, 85 sqq.
S. 1'i; ruini'.s.
Chalcedon, Council of, the Fourth (Ecumenical Council, held in 451, from 8 October until 1 November inclusive, at Chalcedon, a city of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Its principal purpose was to assert the ortho- dox Catholic doctrine against the heresy of Eutyches and the Mouophysites, although ecclesiastical disci- pline and jurisdiction also occupied the council's attention. Scarcely had the heresy of Nestorius concerning the two persons in Christ been condemned by the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when the opposite errorofthe Nestorian heresy arose. Since Nestorius mi inllv divided the Divine and the human in Christ that he taught a double personality or a twofold being in Christ, it became incumbent on his opponents to emphasize the unity in Christ and to exhibit the God- man, not as two beings but as one. Some of these opponent- in t heir efforts to maintain a physical unity in i'i i-i held that the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the human, were so intimately united that they became i hysieally one. inasmuch as the human oat 'in- was completely absorbed by the Divine. Thus resulted one Christ, not only with one person- ality but also with one nature. After the Incarnation they said, no distinction could be made in Christ
between the Divine and the human. The principal
representatives of this teaching were Dioscurus, Patri- arch of Alexandria, and Eutyches. an archimandrite or president of a monaster.' outside Constantinople. The Monophysitic error, as the new doctrine was call I'd (Gr. iibrr) 0«m. one nature), claimed the author- ity ot St. Cyril, but only through a misinterpretation of some expressions of the great Alexandrine teacher.
The error of Eutyches was first detected by Dom-
nus, Patriarch of Antioch. A formal accusation was
preferred against the former by Eusebius, Bishop of
Doryla-um (Phrygia), at a synod of Constantinople
in November of that year. This synod declared it
a matter of faith that' alter the Incarnation, Christ
consisted of two natures (united) in one hypostasis
or person; hence there was one Christ, one Son,
one Lord. Eutyches, who appeared before this synod,
protested, on the contrary, that before the Incar-
nation there were two natures, but after the union _
there was only one nature in Christ ; and the humanity
of Christ wasnot of the same essence as ours/ These /
statements were found contrary to Christian ortho-
doxy; Eutyches was deposed, excommunicated, and '
deprived of his station in the monastery. He pro-
tested, and appealed for redress to Pope Leo I
(440-61), to other distinguished bishops, and also to
Theodosius II. Bishop Flavian of Constantinople
informed Pope Leo and other bishops of what had
occurred in his city. Eutyches won the sympathy of
the emperor; through the monk's representations
and those of Dioscurus, Patriarch of Alexandria,
the emperor was induced to convoke a new council,
to be held at Ephesus. Pope Leo, Dioscurus, and
a number of bishops and monks were invited to
attend and investigate anew the orthodoxy of Euty-
ches. The pope was unable to go, but sent three
delegates as his representatives and bearers of letters
to prominent personages of the East and to the im-
pending synod. Among these letters, all of which
bear the date of 13 June, 449, is one known as the
"Epistola Dogmatica", or dogmatic letter, of Leo I,
in which the pope explains the mystery of the In-
carnation with special reference to the questions
raised by Eutyches. Thus, he declares that after •-»
the Incarnation what was proper to each nature I
and substance in Christ remained intact and both /
were united in one person, but so that each nature /
acted according to its own specific qualities and \
characteristics. As to Eutyches himself, the pope did )
not hesitate to condemn him. The council was held '
at Ephesus, in August, 449. Only the friends and
partisans of Dioscurus and Eutyches were allowed
to have a voice. The Alexandrine patriarch pre-
sided; he ignored the papal delegates, would not
permit the letters of Pope Leo, including the "Epis-
tola Dogmatica", to be read in the assembly.
Eutyches was declared orthodox and reinstated in
his priestly and monastic office. On the other hand,
Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of Doryheum
were deposed. The former was banished, and died
shortly afterwards in consequence of ill-treatment ;
he was succeeded by the deacon Anatolius, a partisan
of Dioscurus. Owing to the gross violence of Dios-
curus and his partisans, this assembly was called by
Leo I the "Latrocimum", or Robber Council, of /
Ephesus, a name that has since clung to it. V
Theodosius II, who sympathized with Eutyches, approved these violent deeds; Leo I, on the other hand, when fully informed of the occurrences at Ephesus, condemned, in a Roman synod and in several letters, all the Acts of the so-called council. He refused also to recognize Anatolius as lawful
Bishop of Constantinople, at least until the latter would give satisfaction concerning his belief. At the same time he requested the emperor to order the holding of a new council in Italy, to right the wrongs committed at Ephesus. Asa special reason for the
opportuneness, and even necessity, of t he new council, he alleged the appeal of the deposed Flavian of Constantinople. Theodosius, however, positively de- clined to meet the wishes of the pope. At this stage the sudden death of the emperor (28 July, 450) changed at once the religious si i nation in the East. iu ■ , lid eeded b; hi i i it. Pulcheria, who
offered her hand, and with it the imperial throne, to a brave general named Marcian (150 57). Both Mar-
