Eutyches, the so-called founder of Eutychianism, though the opinions advocated by him existed before (see Sclig, Z)e Entychianismo ante Eutychen). His name Eutyches means "■the Eortunate, but his oppo- nents said lie should rather have been named Atyches, the Uvfortimate. He must not he confounded with the deacon Eutyches, who attended Cyril to the Coun- cil of Ephesus. Leo the Great, in his renowned letter to Flavian, calls him very 'ignorant and unskilled,' multum imprudens et nimis imperitus, and justly at- tributes his error rather to imperitia tliiin to versutia. So also Petavius and Hefele (ii, 300). His relation to the Alexandrian Christology is like that of Nestorius to the Antiochian ; that is, he drew it to a head, brought it to popular expression, and adhered obstinately to it ; but he is considerablj' inferior to Nestorius in talent and learning. His connection with this controversy is in a great measure accidental" (SchafF, Hist, of Christ. Church, iii, 736). He led, from his early age, an ascetic life ; was for thirty years archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople, and had reached liis 70lh year ■without being known for anything except his illit- erate fanaticism, his intimate relations with the all- powerful Chrysaphius, minister of Theodosius, and his
influence with the monastic party which blindly fol- lowed the lead of Cyril of Alexandria. He used his influence in favor of Cyril at the (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, a cop}- of the minutes of which was sent to him by Cyril. After the death of Cj-ril he was on in- timate terms with Cyril's successor, Dioscurus (q. v.). In 448 Eutyches wrote a letter to the Roman bishop Leo to prejudice him against the school of Antioch (q. v.), which, he insinuated, was bent on reviving Nes- torianism. To counteract his operations, patriarch Domnus, of Antioch, in 448 charged Eutyclics with renewing the heresy of Apollinaris. No notice seems to have been taken at the imperial court of this charge ; but the charges brought against him before the Synod of Constantinople (448) by his former friend Eusebius, bishop of Dorylanim (q. v.), had more ef- fect. Patriarch Flavian, of Constantinople (q. v.), wished to avoid taking an}- decisive action, but Euse- bius jirevailed upon the synod to summon Eutyclies. The latter, after making several excuses, obeyed the third summons, and presented himself before the syn- od, attended by a large number of monks and imperial officers. He defended his views in a long speech, but the synod, largely consisting of adherents of tlie An- tioch school, found him guilty of heresy, and, in spite of all the secular pressure brought to bear upon them in favor of Eutyches, deprived him of his position of archimandrite, and exconmiunicated him. Eutyches, with the aid of his friend Chrysaphius, obtained from the emperor a revison of the trial b}- a new general council to be convoked at Ephesus. Flavian and Leo of Rome strenuously opposed the holding of the council. Leo, who had been written to by both parties, w-as en- couraged, by this circumstance to claim a riuht to de- cide the controversy, and for this purpose wrote the celebrated epistle to Flavian (Mansi, v, 1366 sq.) See the article Chalcedon, vol. ii, p. 196 ; and Leo. But, owing to the influence of Eutyches and Dioscurus of Alexandria, the council was held, under the jiresidency of Dioscurus, and, amidst scenes of unheard of vio- lence, which have given to the council the name of the» Robber Council, the bishops were compelled to re- store Eutyches to the Chuich and his former position, and to condemn the prominent men of the Antioch school. See Ephesus, Robber-Council of. The emperor promptly sanctioned this decision, and thus Eutychianism was on the point of becoming the pre- dominant doctrine of tlie Eastern Church, when the death of Theodosius (450) gave a new turn to the con- troversy. The empress Pulcheria and her husband JIarcian sympathized with the opponents of Eutyches, recalled the exiled bishops, and convened the Oecu- menical Council of Chalcedon (451), which condemned the views held by Eutyches, and declared that "in Christ two distinct natures are united in one person, and that without any change, mixture, or confusion." See Cii.VLCEDOx, Council of. Even before the meet- ing of the council Eutyches had again been excommu- nicated by patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, and expelled from his monastery by Jlarcian. The coun- cil did not again condemn him by name. Of the last j-ears of Eutyches Ave only know that he died in exile. — Ilerzog, Peal-Encyklop. iv, 251; Baur, Z(/(/-f von d. Dreiei II if/hit. i. 800 ; Neander, Church llislory (Tor- rev's), iii, 501-505; Dorner, Person of Christ, div. ii, vol. i and ii ; Waterland, Works (Oxford), iii, 411, 481. (A. J. S.)
Eutychianism, the name of a doctrinal system called after Eutyches, according to which there was in Christ only one nature, that of the incarnate AVord, his human nature having been absorbed in a manner by his divine nature. Eutyches, like Cyril, laid chief stress on the divine in Christ, and denied that two na- tures could be spoken of after the incarnation. In our Lord, after his birth, he worshipped only one nature, the nature of God become flesh and man : /imi' Civtrtv ■arpodKvvtir, Kai ravTiyv ^tov aaoKw^ivTOQ Kai ivav-
EUTYCHIANISM
365
EUTYCHIANUS
Bp(OTrr](TavToc, or, as he declared before the sj-nod at Constantinople, 'O/toXoyw tic ci'O (pvatMv ytyivinjcjjai roc KVDiou ijiXMV Trpo T^Q tvijcjuoq • i^tfTci ci Ti)v fi'wcru' fiiav (pviriu ufioXoyoJ (Mansi, vi, 74-1). In behalf of his view he appealed to the Scriptures, to Athanasius and Cja-il, and to the Council of Ephesus in 431. The impersonal human nature is assimilated, and, as it were, deified by the personal Logos, so that his body is by no means of the same substance (ufioovcnoi') with ours, but a divine body. All human attributes are transferred to the one subject, tiie luimanized Logos. Hence it may and must be said, God is born, God suf- fered, God was crucified and died. He asserted, there- fore, on the one hand, the capabilitj^ of suffering and death in the Logos-personality, and, on the other hand, the deification of the human in Christ. Tlie otlier side imputed to Eutychianism the doctrine of a heav- enly bod}', or of an apparent body, or of the transfor- mation of the Logos into flesh. So Theodoret {Fab. h'er. iv, 13). Eutyches said Christ had a aM^ia ay- ^piiiTTov, but not a (rwi^ia ai'^nLOTvivov, and he denied the consubstantialitj' of his anp'i with ours. Yet he expressly guarded himself against Docetism, and against all speculation : ^vntoXoyiiv i^avTtiJ ouic stti- Tpiniij. He was really neither a philosopher nor a theologian, but only insisted on some theological opin- ions and points of doctrine with great tenacity and ob- stinacy" (Schaff, HisloTij of the Christian Church, iii, 737 sq.).