• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

431 - Eutychianism

Eutyches and his followers were the early Monophysites. They asserted that from the union of the two Natures in our Lord there resulted only one Nature. In virtue of this assertion they were Monophysites when that term is taken in its wider and proper signification. But they went on to assert that the one resulting Nature is the Divine Nature, the Nature of the Incarnate Word. This the later Monophyeites, led by Xenaias and Fullo, denied ; and the term Monophysites is often used in a limited sense, as the name of those who defined in a different manner from the Eutychians the character of the one resulting Nature.

Eutyches, a presbyter and archimandrite of Constantinople, had exerted himself to the uttermost in opposing the Nestorian heresy, and had distinguished himself in this manner at the Council of Ephesus [AD 431]. But the genuine development of Christian doctrine is seldom, if ever, carried on in a direct course. It has aberrations to the right and then to the left, between which the truth nevertheless makes its way. So Eutyches, in combating Nestorianism, fell into the opposite error. In the enunciation of his error he used language which had been used in a Catholic sense both by earlier and contemporary theologians. Dogmatic terms were not then accurately defined. The language of theology was still in a state of change. This was the case with the word Averts, which had been not infrequently used to signify "Persona." This uncertainty of theological terms, though of considerable importance, is however by no means sufficient for an explanation of the origin of the errors of Eutyches.

There was a real difference between the theology of Alexandria and that of Antioch, and consequently an antagonism between the schools. Each held adequately a portion of the truth concerning the person of Christ, but failed to set forth adequately the complement of that portion, and was therefore liable each to its distinctive heresy. The school of Antioch, by way of preventing an Apollinarían identification of the divine and the human in the body of Christ, distinguished between the two aspects as two natures, the school of Alexandria started with laying emphasis on the unity, and then proceeded to consider what could be said concerning the duality.

Both held that the divine nature, the Logos, had a substantial existence, an hypostasis ; but while the Alexandrians attached the humanity of Christ, including the soul and its powers, to the divine hypostasis as little more than a receptive passive material, the Antiocheins strove to prove that the human factor also had a relative independence, but showed themselves not infrequently inclined to the use of expressions which attributed to the human aspect an independent hypostasis or personality.

Cyril of Alexandria, whose side Eutyches warmly took, and by whose words he afterwards defended himself, was thus, by the character of the theological school to which he belonged, inclined to use that language which set forth most strongly the union of the two natures; and his fault was principally that of too tenaciously clinging to the vagueness of expression and thought which prevailed at an earlier period, without its defectiveness being felt,- treating it as though it were perfect and satisfactory, and setting himself in opposition to those who demanded that the unity should be more accurately defined, and the rationale thereof be more distinctly exhibited.

Eutyches, with a theological acumen far inferior to Cyril's, imperfectly understood his leader, exaggerated his forms of expression, and drew inferences from them which Cyril would not have allowed. About AD 448, he taught that in Christ there was but one nature, that of the Incarnate Word. Cyril had expressed himself in this manner, and had appealed to the authority of Athanasius, and had protested that he had used the word "nature" according to the ancient usage to signify "person," and that he professed in Christ two substances, the divine and the human.

It appears that a representation on the subject of Eutyches' errors was first made by Domnus, Bishop of Antioch, to Flavian of Constantinople, but was little attended to. In AD 448, Eusebius, Bishop of Dorylaeum, in Phrygia, at a synod at Constantinople, accused Eutyches of heresy, stating that private remonstrance had failed. At a second synod Eusebius presented his articles of accusation, and Eutyches was summoned. After repeated citations he appeared. He professed his belief that in Christ is the union of two natures. This is not to be understood as an assertion of the pre-existence of Christ's Humanity, but only as of our conception of the existence of Christ. He professed the ????? faith. He confessed that up to that time he had not spoken of Christ's Human Nature as consubstantial with ours. At the bidding of the synod he admitted this consubstantiality, though with hesitation and reluctance. But he refused to acknowledge the two natures in Christ, and to anathematize the contrary opinion. Upon this he was sentenced to be deposed from the priesthood and deprived of his abbey. He afterwards asserted that ho had appealed to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, but it does not appear that a formal appeal was made.

Eutyehes then sought the advocacy of Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, with Pope Leo, which Chiysologus refused, advising him to submit himself to Leo's judgment. Both Eutyches and Flavian appealed by letter to Home, and the former, through the favour of the eunuch Chrysaphius, induced the Emperor Theodosius to recommend his cause to Leo, and to procure the convocation of another council, at which the acts of the former council were examined, and the question of Eutyches' alleged appeal considered. The result of this was that Dioscorus of Alexandria, a personal enemy of Flavian, and Clirysaphius, who favoured Eutyches, persuaded the Emperor to convene a general council, as if to free the Church from Nestorianism. Leo thought the proposed council unnecessary, and if it met at all, it ought to meet in Italy. But he at length consented, and appointed his legates for the council, and wrote his celebrated letter to Flavian, declaring the doctrine of the Church on the mystery of the Incarnation. The council met at Ephesus in August, A.d. 449. It had been unfairly packed, and its proceedings were conducted with such violent outrage that it came to be called the " Robber-synod" of Ephesus. The Emperor had assigned to Dioscorus the presidency of the synod. Its whole power was in his hands, and he extorted from the bishops the condemnation and deposition of Flavian and Eusebius. Flavian lodged his appeal to Rome in the hands of Leo's legates. He died shortly afterwards, in consequence of the violence he had suffered in the synod.

In the same year a synod at Rome under Leo declared the acts of the Latrocinium invalid, and two other synods consulted upon the assembling a general council. In the next year [AD 451] a synod was also held at Milan against the Ephesino assembly. Leo expressed his wish that a general council should meet in Italy, and Valentinian III joined in the request. But Theodosius, who had confirmed the Ephesine acts, adhered to them till his death. In the year 450, Marcian ascended the throne, and a synod was held at Constantinople by Anatolius, although he had been created patriarch through the influence of Dioscorus, in which Leo's letter to Flavian was subscribed, and both Nestorius and Eutyches were condemned. Leo now thought a general council unnecessary, but Marcian had already summoned it. It met at Chalcedon in October, AD 451, and determined the Catholic faith, and fixed the most suitable terms for ita enunciation. The profession of faith it is unnecessary to give at length. It describes Christ, True God and True Man, consubstantial with the Father according to the Divinity, with us according to the Humanity, One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, and Only-begotten.

Eutyches, who had been already banished by the Emperor, was condemned. Dioscorus was condemned, deposed, and banished. Of the hist days of Eutyches nothing is known.