I’m Not the Villain’s White Moonlight!

https://mangawebpro.com/manga/im-not-the-villains-white-moonlight/
Read manhwa I’m Not the Villain’s White Moonlight! / I’m Not the Villain’s White Moonlight! / What Caused This
to Happen..?! / Wǒ Cái Bù Zuò Fǎn Pài De Bái Yuè Guāng! / 我才不做反派的白月光！
Belle opens her eyes to find herself a noble within a romance novel on a mission to seduce the main character
– Duke Arges, known as “The Beast” – to change the course of the story, Adhering to the principle of “staying
away from the main character” and hating the behavior of the nobles, Bell draws the attention of Duke Agnes,
will Bell be able to carry out this task?

Author(S): N/A

I’m Not the Villain’s

White Moonlight!

Type: manga - Total Chapters: 10 - updating

Now Available: 2025 Update

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 - 84699 Views

'This comic has great storytelling' - Lisa Q.

Alternative Name(s): I'm Not the Villain's White

Moonlight! What Caused This to Happen..?! W■
Cái Bù Zuò Fǎn Pài De Bái Yuè Guāng!
我才不做反派的白月光！
Genre(s): Drama: https://mangawebpro.com/manga-
genre/drama
Fantasy: https://mangawebpro.com/manga-genre/fantasy
Josei: https://mangawebpro.com/manga-genre/josei
Romance: https://mangawebpro.com/manga-genre/romance

Find your next manga at: https://mangawebpro.com

I’m Not the Villain’s White Moonlight!

Read manhwa I’m Not the Villain’s White Moonlight! / I’m Not the Villain’s White
Moonlight! / What Caused This to Happen..?! / W■ Cái Bù Zuò F■n Pài De Bái Yuè Gu■ng! /
我才不做反派的白月光！
Belle opens her eyes to find herself a noble within a romance novel on a mission to
seduce the main character – Duke Arges, known as “The Beast” – to change the course of
the story, Adhering to the principle of “staying away from the main character” and
hating the behavior of the nobles, Bell draws the attention of Duke Agnes, will Bell be
able to carry out this task?

https://mangawebpro.com/manga/im-not-the-villains-white-moonlight/
A portion of the comic.
Jump into https://mangawebpro.com
to explore tons of well-crafted and beautiful manga.
An extract from the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
A piece from the comic.
Jump into https://mangawebpro.com
to explore tons of well-crafted and beautiful manga.
A snippet of the comic.
Jump into https://mangawebpro.com
to explore tons of well-crafted and beautiful manga.
An extract from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
An extract from the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
A portion of the comic.
Jump into https://mangawebpro.com
to explore tons of well-crafted and beautiful manga.
A portion of the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
An extract from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
A piece from the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
A portion of the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
Taken directly from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
A portion of the comic.
Visit https://mangawebpro.com
and enjoy reading top-tier manga with wonderful stories.
A portion of the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
Taken directly from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
Taken directly from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
From this comic's storyline.
Jump into https://mangawebpro.com
to explore tons of well-crafted and beautiful manga.
Taken directly from the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
A preview of the comic.
Go to https://mangawebpro.com
now to discover a world of amazing stories and beautiful
comics.
From this comic's storyline.
From this comic's storyline.
From this comic's storyline.
A portion of the comic.
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
about the Anglican mission may be noted here. They have (quite
rightly) " tampered " with the historic rite in this point, which they
think essential, as they have also by leaving out heretical names and
clauses. They can hardly, then, blame Rome for having done the
same in the Uniate rites, in cases which we consider essential.
156 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES the Sacrament, we
shall have difficulty in finding it in this liturgy.1 Some prayers and
psalms, a washing of hands and incensing lead to a complicated
fraction and commixture. The mixture is made by dipping. There is a
blessing, the Lord's Prayer with an introduction, and the usual verse
: " For thine is the kingdom, etc.," and an embolism, an elevation
with the form : " The holy things to the holies is fitting in
perfection." Then, while anthems are sung, the clergy and people
make their Communion. Normally the two kinds are received
separately ; the celebrant gives the holy bread, the deacon the
chalice. The forms of administration are : " The body of our Lord to
N.N.2 for the pardon of offences," " The precious blood for the
pardon of offences, the spiritual feast for everlasting life to N.N. (as
before)." Quite small children receive Communion, by intinction. The
thanksgiving consists of one verse by the deacon (a much shortened
litany) with the answer : " Glory be to him for his unspeakable gift,"
a few prayers, another kiss of peace, and now (in practice) the
Communion of the celebrant and deacon.3 There is a final blessing
(no formula of dismissal), and the antidoron (see p. 150) called
mkafrdnd is distributed. So the liturgy ends.4 It appears that most
people do not wait for the end. Immediately after their Communion
they go to the door of the baptistery, take the mkafrdnd,5 and go
home. Also they often come late, so that generally the lessons
(except the Gospel) are not said at all, and the Gospel is moved from
its proper place, read and explained by a homily just before the
Communion.6 The Nestorians do not now reserve the Holy Eucharist
at all, and have no provision for Communion of the sick. The
Baptism service is a long rite modelled closely on the holy 1 The
other two rites have an Epiklesis of the usual Antiochene or
Byzantine form. They are quoted in Maclean and Browne : op. cit. p.
258. 2 "The discreet priest," or "the deacon of God," or "the
circumspect believer." 3 Maclean and Browne : op. cit. 261. This is
clearly a dislocation caused by the fact that the order of the liturgy
contains no clear direction that they should communicate first. So
their communion has coalesced with the consumption of what
remains of the Sanctissimum at the end. 4 The prayers and exact
rubrics will be found in Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 247-305. From
the end of the Epiklesis the other two rites take (with a few special
prayers) the Ordo communis of the normal liturgy. 5 Often the
mkafrdnd is not given at all. Maclean and Browne, p. 260. 6 lb. 251.
THE PRESENT NESTORIAN CHURCH 157 liturgy. It has an "
Apostle," Gospel, Creed, Litany, " Sursum Corda," Sanctus, Epiklesis,
and so on. It takes place after the liturgy ; many children are
baptized together, private baptism is not allowed. Soon after birth
there is a curious imitation of baptism ; water is blessed, and the
child is washed in it. This is called " signing." Then it waits till the
next feast, when there will be a liturgy in the Church and, following
that, a general public baptism. The child's name is given at the "
signing." In the Baptism rite the children are anointed all over with
olive oil (oil of the catechumens) . The Nestorians have a holy oil
believed to come from St. John the Evangelist, like the holy leaven.
This is kept in the sanctuary, renewed as the leaven is, and a small
portion of it is mixed with the oil of the catechumens. At the actual
moment of baptism the child is held facing the east over the font ;
the priest dips it three times, saying : " N. is baptized in the name of
the Father (R. : Amen), in the name of the Son (Amen), in the name
of the Holy Ghost, for ever (Amen)." It is confirmed at once by
laying-on the right hand. No chrism or other oil is now used for
Confirmation.1 The ordination of clerks below the rank of deacon 2
is now obsolete. Deacons, priests, and bishops are ordained by
layingon the right hand, with a suitable form. Several other bishops
assist the Patriarch or Metropolitan in ordaining a bishop ; they lay
their hands on his side. The Nestorians have the rite of vesting the
subject during the ordination service ; but they do not appear to
have an anointing. We have seen that they have what seem to be
ordination forms for making a deacon an archdeacon, a bishop a
Patriarch, and so on (pp. 134-135). 3 In the marriage 1 It appears
that once oil was used for Confirmation, as everywhere else in
Christendom. See G. Bickell : Das Sakr. der Firmnng bei den Nest.
(Zt.f. Kath. Theol. 1877, 85-117); Bib. Or. hi. (i), 576. Further details
of the Baptism service are given by Maclean and Browne : op. cit.
267-279 ; the whole rite by Badger : op. cit. ii. 195-214; also by G.
Diettrich : Die nestorianische Taufliturgie (Giessen, 1903), who
ascribes its composition to the Katholikos Yeshu'-yab III (652-661),
holds it to be the oldest extant form in Christendom, and illustrates it
with interesting notes. Denzinger : Ritus Orientalium (Wiirzburg,
1863), i. 364-383. 2 Badger gives the forms (with imposition of the
bishop's right hand) for readers and subdeacons ; ii. 322-325. 3
Badger, ii . 322-350, gives the services. Denzinger : op. cit. ii. 226-
274.
158 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES service they crown
the spouses with threads of red, blue, and white, and have several
curious customs.1 They have far-reaching impediments of
consanguinity and affinity,2 but allow divorce for many reasons.3
Their burial service is very long. It differs for clergy and laity. They
sing anthems and psalms (special ones for all manner of
specialcases — a man murdered, drowned, betrothed, etc.),. and
have many prayers for the dead. They offer the holy liturgy for the
repose of their souls.4 And here we take leave of the pathetic little
Church. The curious customs, superstitions, popular traditions of the
modern Nestorians do not concern the purpose of this book. An
account of them may be read in the work of Dean Maclean 5 and Mr.
Browne, to which I am already considerably indebted.6 The
Nestorians have a wonderful history. It is strange to realize that out
there, among Kurds and Yazldis, there still exists a remnant of that
ancient Church, mother of the great army of martyrs whose glorious
blood hallowed the Persian soil, the Church which spread the
Christian name deep into the heart of China. That they have kept
the Christian faith for thirteen centuries of tragic isolation gives them
a right to all our respect and affection. They, too, are our brothers
and sheep of Christ, though they are imprisoned in the fold of
Nestorius. Our last hope for them is that they may come out of that
other fold back to the one flock. Only, to do that they must accept
Ephesus and call the mother of their Lord by her right name. There
are many tragedies in the long story of the people of Christ ; not the
least of them is that Bar Sauma of Edessa once quarrelled with his
bishop Rabbula. Summary This chapter has described the Nestorian
Church as it exists to-day. It was in a sense rediscovered by Western
Europe in 1 Maclean and Browne: op. cit. 142-159; Badger gives the
rite, ii. 244281. 2 The table in Badger, ii. 277. 3 Maclean and
Browne, p. 158. 4 For funeral rites see Badger, ii. 282-321 ; Maclean
and Browne, 279289 ; Kurds and Christians, 227-232. 5 Now Bishop
of Moray, Ross and Caithness. 6 The Catholicos of the East and his
People, London, S.P.C.K., 1892.
THE PRESENT NESTORIAN CHURCH 159 the 19th century,
first by explorers who went to Mesopotamia to find Assyrian
remains. Since then it has been the object of great interest and of
many missionary expeditions. Besides the Catholic missions, which
have been there for a long time and belong to a different category,
the chief of these are the American Presbyterian mission at Urmi and
the Anglican mission at Amadia. The Orthodox Russians, too, have a
mission here. There are now about 100,000 Nestorians living in
Kurdistan and around Lake Urmi on either side of the Turkish-Persian
frontier. Their religious (and to a great extent civil) head is the
Patriarch and Katholikos, who always takes the name Mar Shim'un.
Under him are one Metropolitan and ten bishops. The Patriarchal
and Episcopal lines are now practically hereditary. They have a
hierarchy of the usual Eastern type, but do not now in practice
ordain anyone below the rank of deacon. Priests and deacons have
no law of celibacy at all. There are a few monks and nuns, no
monasteries. Their faith differs from ours in the great point of our
Lord's person. They have a kind of iconoclasm, except that they
greatly reverence the holy Cross. Naturally they reject the primacy of
the Pope ; their attitude about the Filioque seems undetermined.
They use the old Eastern Syrian rite in classical Syriac. Their divine
office is now practically reduced to morning and evening prayer.
They have three forms of liturgy, the normal one " of the Holy
Apostles," and supplementary anaphoras of Theodore and of
Nestorius (this, apparently a version of the old Byzantine rite) used
on a few days. The most curious points in their rite are that they
begin the liturgy actually by making and baking the bread, their
curious superstition about the " holy leaven " which they mix
therewith, and, strangest of all, that their normal liturgy does not
contain the words of institution.
PART II THE COPTS ii
We have already noted that all other Lesser Eastern
Churches are Monophysite. An outline of the great Monophysite
controversy will therefore introduce the history of the Copts,
Abyssinians, Jacobites, Malabar Christians and Armenians.
CHAPTER VI MONOPHYSISM Now we go back to the 5th
century and take up again the story of the great Christological
controversy, of which the first part is the Council of Ephesus and the
condemnation of Nestorius. The second part is Monophysism. But it
is all one story. Monophysism, the extreme opposite of Nestorianism,
begins merely as an ardent opposition to that heresy. The first
Monophysites were the men who cried loudest for the faith of
Ephesus and of Cyril. It is difficult to say exactly when they begin.
They exist certainly before the Nestorian quarrel is settled. The
Monophysite sects come out (on the other side) of the same turmoil
which produced the Nestorians. They are vastly more important.
Nestorianism was soon crushed, expelled from the empire, which it
never again troubled ; it became one sect in Persia. Monophysism
made an appalling disturbance throughout the whole Eastern Empire
for about two centuries,, and then settled down in not one but four
great national Churches. All the lesser schismatical Eastern
Churches, except the one we have discussed, are Monophysite. i.
The First Monophysites There is no one man who stands out as the
founder of Monophysism, as Nestorius is the founder of his heresy.
This accounts for the different kinds of name the two great
Christological errors bear. Nestorianism is called after a man.
Monophysism is a defini163
164 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES tion of the heretical
idea.1 It is true that it has often been called Eutychianism (a
Monophysite being a " Eutychian ") after Eutyches (p. 167). But he
was only one of many Monophysites, not by any means the inventor
of the theory or leader of the party.2 He acquired some fame by
bringing the heresy to or by agitating for it at Constantinople, but he
was not really its founder. Monophysism, then, is simply the extreme
opposite of Nestorianism. As soon as Nestorius began to divide
Christ into two persons, there were among his opponents those who
insisted on the unity of our Lord to such a degree that they confused
his humanity with his divinity as one thing. They declared him so
much one person that he had but one nature. In him the humanity
was absorbed in the divinity, as a drop of wine would be in an ocean
of water. There is nothing to distinguish in Christ ; in all things,
personality, hypostasis, even nature (v
MONOPHYSISM 165 The first home of Monophysism was
Egypt ; and the Monophysites always maintained that they were
merely upholding the teaching of St. Cyril of Alexandria against
Nestorius. If they admitted a " founder " at all, they claimed Cyril as
the founder of their school.1 The phrase quoted by Cyril, " one
nature incarnate of the Word of God," became their watchword.2
Then, when Cyril made peace with John of Antioch (p. 74), some of
his partisans accused him of compromising with Nestorianism. These
are the first Monophysites. Cyril died in 444, just before the
Monophysite quarrel broke out. He was succeeded by his
archdeacon Dioscor,3 who had accompanied him to Ephesus. As
Patriarch of Alexan dria,Dioscor becomes the real head of the
Monophysite party. During Cyril's lifetime he had enjoyed a good
reputation ; but from the moment he became Patriarch and leader of
the Monophysites he is represented as a typical ecclesiastical villain.
Although he owed everything to Cyril, he began his reign by
despoiling and persecuting Cyril's heirs. He exacted so much money
from the people that his pastoral visitations became a terror
throughout Egypt ; people fled before him and hid their property, as
they would before a hostile army. He maltreated all the clergy
ordained by his predecessor. He led a notoriously immoral life, and
was accompanied everywhere by a mistress named Pansophia.4 It is
true that these are accusations made by his enemies, so that they
should be received with a certain amount of caution. On the other
hand, there seems to be unanimous contemporary authority
describing him as a deplorable person from every point of view. And
there is no doubt at all that he was a heresiarch and quite
unscrupulous in fighting for his heresy. Meanwhile, there was still an
" Eastern " party in Syria, disciples of the Antiochene school,
inheritors of the ideas of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia (pp. 59-60), the friends of John of Antioch. These are
not Nestorians — at 1 Really, of course, they said that they were
defending the teaching of the gospels (as defended by Cyril) —
which is the attitude of all heretics. 2 They quoted " the Word was
made flesh " too constantly, understanding this as meaning identity
of nature. 3 Ai6(TKopos, Dioscorus. 4 See the accusations against
Dioscor made by his clergy at the Ihird session of Chalcedon. Hefele-
Leclercq : Histoire des Conciles, ii. (2), 691 699
166 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES least, most of them
are not. They accepted the terms of reconciliation between John and
Cyril, they tempered the ideas of Diodore and Theodore, recognized
the Council of Ephesus, and no longer defended Nestorius. But they
were the natural opponents of the first Monophysites. John of
Antioch died in 441 or 442. He was succeeded by his nephew
Domnus x II (441-448), who shared all his ideas. In the vast
Antiochene Patriarchate Ibas was now Bishop of Edessa (435-457), 2
and Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus (423-458) .3 Theodoret was the chief
theologian o that side. He had been a friend and partisan of
Nestorius, an active opponent of Cyril. But about the year 435 he
joined the union between his Patriarch (John) and Cyril ; since then
he remained a Catholic. He was naturally a great enemy of Dioscor
and the Monophysites. They deposed him in their Robber-Synod
(449 ; see p. 77). At Chalcedon (451) he made a perfectly correct
profession of faith, condemning Nestorius as well as the opposite
heresy, was restored to his see, and died in peace in 457. Theodoret
succeeded the older masters as the leader of the Antiochene school
of theology ; he is also famous as a great defender of the Roman
primacy.4 His Patriarch, Domnus, had great confidence in him.
Proclus succeeded Maximian (p. 65) as Bishop5 of Constantinople
(434-447). He was on good terms with the Eastern bishops, and
leaned towards their views. But already he began to usurp
Patriarchal jurisdiction in Illyricum and Asia Minor,6 so that Dioscor,
naturally wishing to disturb the good relations between the capital
and his enemies in the East, writes to the Easterns that by allowing
this they betray the rights of Antioch and Alexandria.7 1 A6flV05 2
See pp. 76-77. Ibas must be counted as very nearly a Nestorian. 3
Kyrros (Kvppos), a little town in Syria, near the Euphrates, two days
from Antioch. 4 See his appeal to Pope Leo I, when he was deposed
by the RobberSynod (quoted in Orth. Eastern Church, p. 56). The
Monophysites always hated him. His writings were condemned as
the second of the Three Chapters, to please them (see p. 202). 5 It
is a question how far one can speak of a Patriarch of Constantinople
before Chalcedon. 6 This is part of the gradual advance of
Constantinople towards the second place in Christendom (Orth.
Eastern Church, pp. 28-47). » Theodoret : Ep. 86 (P.G. lxxxiii. 1280).
MONOPHYSISM 167 The trouble began with the affair of
Eutyches,1 archimandrite of a great monastery just outside the walls
of Constantinople. Eutyches was known as an ardent opponent of
Nestorianism. He had distinguished himself on the side of St. Cyril at
Ephesus.2 He was also a person of considerable importance ; in his
monastery he ruled over three hundred monks. He was a kind of
leader of Byzantine monasticism in his time, known and respected by
all the empire. He was also godfather, spiritual director and intimate
friend of the Grand Chamberlain and Chief Eunuch Chrysaphios,
leading minister of the Emperor Theodosius II (408-450). Eutyches
conceived the idea of perfecting the work of the Council of Ephesus.
Nestorianism, he thought, was not yet dead. It lived still in that
suspicious Eastern school. In this enterprise he could count on the
support of Egypt and the Egyptian Patriarch, besides that of his
friends at court. So he began preaching what purported to be a
crushing attack on Nestorianism. He went far beyond St. Cyril. The
basis of the Catholic position was Cyril's agreement with John of
Antioch in 433 (p. 73). Cyril had then accepted John's profession of
faith which defended " the union of two natures " 3 in our Lord ; he
himself had written in his famous letter of union (Lcetentur cceli) : "
Therefore Jesus Christ is one, although the difference of natures,
indelibly united, may not be ignored." 4 Eutyches apparently thought
this a concession to John and the " Easterns " which should now be
revoked. His theory was a complete fusion and identification of the
natures in Christ. A result of this idea was that he said plainly that
our Lord was not " consubstantial " with other men, had not the
same nature as we have. So here his heresy is patent. This flatly
contradicts Scripture : 5 our Lord would not really be man. But
Eutyches went beyond what 1 EVTV\7}S. 2 Hefele-Leclercq : op. cit.
ii. (i), p. 513 (Dom Leclercq's note) ; Hefele himself doubts whether
Eutyches was actually at Ephesus (ib. p. 514). 3 Swo yap v evwais
ye-)oi>6. See the letter in Hefele-Leclercq : op. cit. ii. (1), p. 396. 4
Such expressions as this and the whole text of the letter show that
St. Cyril was not a Monophysite. See above, p. 73. 5 E.g. Heb. iv. 15
; Rom. v. 15 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5.
i68 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES became later the
Monophysite creed. This is of great importance. Most modern
Monophysites (e.g. the Armenians) will deny that they hold
Eutyches' doctrine. They are generally as ready to condemn him as
we are. People think that this proves them to be innocent of the
heresy with which they are charged. It does not do so at all. A man
may be as pure a Monophysite as was Dioscor, and may yet disagree
with Eutyches on several points. For he evolved the extraordinary
idea that our Lord has two natures before the hypostatic union, but
that then (presumably at his incarnation) these two natures were
fused into one.1 There are other altogether wild ideas in Eutyches's
system. Christ's body was not formed of his mother. It was created
by the Logos long before his birth ; the Logos assumed this body,
fusing it with the Divinity, in the womb of the blessed Virgin. She
was thus only the channel through which her so-called son passed.2
Thus Eutyches arrived at a curious conclusion. Starting as the great
champion of Ephesine doctrine, of which the dogma that Mary is
Mother of God is the very essence, he came to a conclusion which
(were he logical) denied that dogma. A channel through which a
totally disconnected being passes, a person who is merely the place
in which a pre-existent body is combined with the eternal nature of
that being, is in no possible sense his mother.3 Now, much of this
goes far beyond mere Monophysism. A Monophysite is a man who
believes in the identity of the human nature and the Divine nature in
Christ.4 It is quite possible to hold this heresy without accepting
Eutyches' further wild theories about a pre-existing body of Christ,
and so on. Hence, almost from the beginning of the dispute many
Monophysites were quite 1 St. Leo I points out that the exact
contrary is true. " Eutyches says • I confess that our Lord was in two
natures before their union ; but after the union I confess one nature
... he says that the only-begotten Son of God had two natures
before the incarnation, as impiously as he wickedly asserts one
nature in him after the Word had become flesh." Ep. xxviii. cap. 6
(P.L. liv. 777). 2 This revives a very common idea of the old Docetes
; see Docetism in Dr. J. Hastings' Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), iv. 832-835. 3 A statement of
Eutyches' strange system will be found in Hefele-Leclercq: op. cit. ii.
(1), p. 515. 4 Practically, as we shall see, a Monophysite is a man
who rejects the dogmatic decree of the Council of Chalcedon.
MONOPHYSISM 169 ready to throw Eutyches overboard.
We must remember that a man or a national Church is by no means
proved innocent of Monophysism because of a declaration against
Eutyches.1 As soon as the Archimandrite of the great Byzantine
laura began to propagate these novel ideas he found indignant
opponents, naturally first among the " Eastern " theologians. They
had given up Nestorianism, they accepted the union of 433 between
Antioch and Alexandria ; but they were not prepared to admit the
extremest form of anti-Nestorianism. It was one thing to
acknowledge our Lord as one person, in the strictest sense ; it was
quite another to conceive his human nature so lost that he would
not be a man at all. The Easterns were quite right. Monophysism is a
much worse heresy than Nestorianism. Of the two errors it is less
harmful to conceive our Lord as a moral union between two
hypostases than to deny that he was really man at all. Theodoret of
Cyrus in 447 published a dialogue which he called The Beggar, or the
many-shaped one.2 In this, without naming Eutyches, he attacks the
new heresy. The title means that these Monophysites are people
who beg their ideas from many old heretics, from Gnostics, Docetes,
Apollinarists. The book is in the form of three dialogues between the
" Beggar " and an orthodox Christian, who, of course, confutes all
the beggar's arguments and exposes the viciousness of his theory.
The parties were now formed. It is no longer a question of the
orthodox who defend Christ's oneness against Nestorians, but of
orthodox who defend his real human nature against Monophysites.
The Egyptians, who see in Eutyches a defender of the teaching of
Cyril and Ephesus, are for him ; the Eastern (Syrian) school is for
Theodoret. Meanwhile Proclus of Constantinople was dead (447),
and was succeeded by Flavian (447-449). This Flavian is the hero of
the Catholic side in the Eastern Empire. He was not a man of any
great parts ; but he knew enough theology to under1 For this reason
it is convenient and not uncommon to distinguish between two
heresies, Eutychianism (meaning the acceptance of all Eutyches'
ideas), and Monophysism (meaning the assertion of one nature in
Christ and the rejection of the Faith of Chalcedon). Hefele makes this
distinction (ed. cit. ii. (2), 857-858). 2 'Epaviar}]5 t)toi
wo\v/j.op4>os (P.G. lxjpdii. 27-336).
170 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES stand that a system
which denied our Lord's humanity is intolerable. He was throughout
a firm champion of the faith against the new heresy, and he died a
martyr for that faith. Meanwhile old Nestorius from his place of exile
watched this struggle, saw (not unnaturally) in Flavian the man who
would rehabilitate his own ideas, and conceived the struggle
between Flavian and Dioscor as merely a repetition of the fight
between himself and Cyril. The man who comes out best in the
whole Monophysite controversy is the Pope of Rome. It has often
happened in the story of a great heresy that the earthly head of the
Church was not the leading champion of her faith. Popes have not
always been the greatest theologians of their time. Some other
bishop (Athanasius, Cyril, Augustine) has led the attack against the
new heresy and the Pope has approved, giving to their side the
enormous weight of his authority. But this time it was not so. When
Monophysism began the chair of St. Peter was occupied by one of
the very greatest of his successors, Leo I, called the Great (440-
461). St. Leo was a skilled theologian. We count him one of the chief
Latin Fathers of the Church. He was perfectly competent to
understand the danger of Eutyches's heresy ; throughout the first
period of Monophysism (till he died in 461) he is to the Catholic side
what Athanasius had been in Arian times. Domnus of Antioch took
up the cause of Theodoret.1 Meanwhile some of Eutyches' monks
went to Alexandria to ensure the support of Dioscor. As long as
Theodosius II lived, the court was for the Monophysites. Very likely
the Emperor thought that Domnus and Theodoret were trying to
revive Nestorianism ; and Eutyches had the ear of the Chief
Chamberlain Chrysaphios. So Theodosius wrote an angry letter back
to Domnus telling him that all Nestorians must be deposed and
excommunicated. Eutyches wrote to Pope Leo, warning him against
this " Eastern " backsliding into Nestorianism. The Pope answered
cautiously, refusing to take any steps till he had heard more of the
matter.2 Then Eusebius of Dorylaeum 3 brought the matter up at a
meeting 1 Hefele-Leclercq : Hist, des Cone. ii. (1), 509. 2 Ep. xx.
(P.L. liv. 713). 3 Eusebius was in no way suspect of Nestorianism. He
had been one of the first opponents of Nestorius and a great
defender of the Theot6kos. Dorylaeum (AopvXcuof) is in Phrygia.
MONOPHYSISM 171 of the Synod of Constantinople l in
November 44s.2 Flavian was at first not very willing to act in the
matter ; but Eusebius insisted. So Eutyches was summoned, refused
to leave his monastery, and got up a (heretical) declaration of his
faith, which was signed by a great number of his monks. After a
great deal of discussion he at last came and was heard. He was
found guilty of Apollinarism and Valentinianism,3 deposed and
excommunicated. The chief offence on his part was that he taught
that Christ is not " of the same nature as we are/' 4 which shows
that his judges well understood the real issue from the first. So this
synod at Constantinople in 448 adds the parallel clause to what
Nicaea had declared in 325. Then, against the Arians, the Church
had declared our Lord to be consubstantial to the Father ; in this
controversy she declared, against the Monophysites, that he is
consubstantial to us men. In other words, our Saviour is truly God
and truly man, which is the faith of the gospels. The synod in
condemning Eutyches carefully explained that the faith of St. Cyril
and of Ephesus was not to be questioned.5 2. The Robber-Synod of
Ephesus (449) Eutyches was not prepared to submit to his
condemnation. Instead he wrote letters justifying his ideas to the
Pope ; 6 to St. Peter Chrysologus (f c. 450), Archbishop of Ravenna,
a great theologian among the Latins ; 7 apparently also to Dioscor of
Alexandria and his Egyptian friends. These at once took up his cause
hotly. So did his friends at Court. The Emperor Theodosius II was
entirely under the influence of Eutyches' patron Chrysaphios ; as
long as he lived Eutyches triumphed. The 1 This is not a special
synod called together to judge this case, but the permanent council
of advisers of the Patriarch, called ZvvoSos evd-qaova-a, a regular
institution of the Byzantine Patriarchate (Orth. Eastern Church, p.
31)- 2 Mansi, vi. 652. 3 Because Valentinians were Docetes. 4 ovk
flwov . . . ojxoovctlov t]ij7v (Mansi, vi. 741). 5 For this Synod of 448
see Hefele-Leclercq : op. cit. ii. (1), pp. 518-538. Its acts are in
Mansi, vi. 649-824. 6 Ep. Eutychis ad Leonem ; No. xxi. among St.
Leo's letters (P.L. liv. 714-717) ; also in Mansi, v. 1014-1015. 7 In
Mansi, v. 1347.
172 THE LESSER EASTERN CHURCHES Emperor summoned
a synod to revise the judgement of Flavian. It was to meet at
Ephesus, like the council of 431. The Pope was, of course, invited.
He could not come (Attila was just then at the gates of Rome) ; but
he sent legates— Julius, Bishop of Puteoli, a priest Renatus, a
deacon Hilarius,1 and a notary Dulcitius. They brought letters to the
Emperor, to Flavian of Constantinople, to the monks of the city, and
to the synod. St. Leo's letter to Flavian is the most important
document of this story. It is his famous Tome or Dogmatic Letter.2 In
his other letters he refers to this one as containing a plain statement
of the Catholic faith. The Dogmatic Letter of Leo I to Flavian
categorically rejects Eutyches' novelties.3 It states the Catholic faith
exactly as all Catholics (and the Orthodox too) have learned it in
their catechism ; the technical terms and language generally are
those we still use. Our Lord is one person having two natures, of
God and of man. Each nature is real, complete, perfect. " The
property of either nature and substance 4 remaining and being
joined in one person, lowliness is assumed by majesty, weakness by
might, mortality by the eternal. To pay the debt of our condition an
inviolable nature is joined to a nature which can suffer ; so that, as
befits our salvation, one and the same mediator between God and
men, the man Jesus Christ, could die in one nature, could not die in
the other. Therefore God was born in the perfect nature of a true
man, perfect in his own (nature), perfect in ours. We say in ours,
which the Creator made in the beginning,. which he assumed to
redeem it. . . . Wherefore he, who remaining in the form of God
created man, he the same in the form of a servant was made man.
Either nature holds without defect its properties ; as the form of God
does not destroy the form of a servant, so the form of a servant
does not lessen the form of God." 5 1 Afterwards Pope Hilarius (461-
468). 2 No. xxviii. among St. Leo's letters (P.L. liv. 755-781 ; Mansi,
v. 1366) ; see Hefele-Leclercq : op. cit. ii. (1), 567-580. 3 The
constant references to Eutyches in this letter are, together with the
fact that his condemnation began the great controversy, the reason
why he has acquired undeserved importance as the founder of
Monophysism. Really his case was only an incident in the great
quarrel. 4 Nature, substance, essence mean the same thing. 6 P.L.
liv. 763.