RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Euthymius Eutychianism
easily fitted in as some zealous Alexandrians then desired. It tended rather to favor the acceptance of two natures in Christ. It is true, i. Com- there was in the East no theology promise with which these formulas were albetween together harmonious. They corre- Alexandria sponded to the traditions of the and West, where it was possible to assert in Antioch the same breath the unity of the person in 433. and the duality of nature. In the West the conception of the single personality of Christ had, with uriphilosophical simplicity, attached itself to the historic Christ, and thus prevented the assertion of two natures, for the purpose of emphasizing both the divinity and the humanity, from working out philosophically so as to endanger the conception of the unity, and the consequent intelligibility of the person of Jesus. In the East the word prosopon, the nearest equivalent for the Latin persona, had by no means a wholly parallel sense. In its technical meaning it had been employed since the triumph of the later Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, as a synonym of hypostasis, though it could also be employed in the original signification, to denote a phenomenon, a figure presented to the senses, or the form under which either one or more hypostases are presented. It was thus very useful as a compromise formula. Both parties, however, accepted the compromise as an earnest of complete victory, the patriarch of Alexandria hoping in this for more than the mere triumph of the Alexandrian Christology. Since the days of Athanasius this see had acquired a position in the East which could inspire an ambitious bishop with the hope of dominating his rivals both at Antioch and Constantinople. This ambition was abundantly possessed by Cyril (see Cyril of Alexandria), and nothing else explains his acceptance of the compromise. Peace, however, endured as long as John of Antioch and Proclus of Constantinople as well as Cyril lived; but it became less secure each year as the extreme tendencies on both sides came into play. This was especially the case on Cyril's side. It was not unnatural that some of his partizans, incapable of comprehending his fine distinctions, should push his Christology into what was practically Monophysitism. The proceedings against Nestorius for a while kept the opposition party quiet — though the most prominent theologian on that side, Theodoret, remained true to the fundamental principles of the school of Antioch. As time went on still more zealous upholders of the Antiochian views appeared among the bishops of Asia Minor. In 435 Ibas, who had censured the dogmatic position of Cyril and the synod of Ephesus and supported Theodore of Mopsuestia, became bishop of Edessa. In 441 or 442 John of Antioch was succeeded by Domnus, a more ardent partizan of the traditions of that see; this Domnus, between 443 and 447, filled the bishopric of Tyre, contrary to the canons, with a man who had been twice married, Iren2eus, formerly a friend of Nestorius and exiled on this account about 435. After the death of Proclus (446), the see of Constantinople was filled by Flavian, who had indeed accepted the union but still came from the Antioch party. Cyril
died in 444 and was succeeded by Dioscurus, much less important as a theologian, but still more unscrupulous in his struggle for supremacy, and willing to avail himself of monastic fanaticism and obscure intrigues to win the favor of both populace and court. The time was favorable to his purposes. The feeble emperor Theodosius (408-450), since the downfall of his sister Pulcheria's influence about 440, had been under that of his favorite Chrysaphius, who was in close relations with the Alexandrian party, especially with the aged presbyter and archimandrite Eutyches, who was among the most influential members of that party. Born in 378, Eutyches had acquired the reputation of an honorable and pious man, but was uneducated and unfamiliar with the laws of thought. As a veteran monk, and a zealous foe of Nestorianism, he counted as one of the heads of the monastic or Alexandrian party. He was accordingly a useful instrument in the hands of Dioscurus, whose principal agent in Constantinople he was after the death of Proclus. On Feb. 17, 448, the emperor renewed the edict against the Nestorians, and decreed the depos'tion of Irena?us of Tyre; and about the same time intrigues against Bishop Ibas began at Edessa in which Eutyches had a hand. Both parties now felt that the decisive conflict was approaching. Domnus showed no signs of recognizing the deposition of Ibas, and maintained a close alliance with Theodoret, who had just before thrown down the gauntlet to the Alexandrian party 2. The Be- in his Eranistes ; and certain clerics ginning from Edessa who had come to Antiof Strife, och with charges against their bishop were detained there as prisoners. On the other side Dioscurus arrogantly censured Domnus, and Eutyches invoked the aid of Leo of Rome, asserting that the Nestorian heresy was being revived. The case of Ibas was discussed by a synod at Antioch in the summer of 448; Theodoret, who seems to have come to Antioch to attend it, was ordered by the emperor to return to his diocese and remain there. Possibly to the late summer belongs the unsuccessful attempt of Domnus to discredit Eutyches as an Apollinarian heretic. Probably through court influence, Irensus was replaced in September by Photius, who at once came out on the Alexandrian side. The accusers of Ibas, who had now gone on to Constantinople, had better success there than at Antioch; they obtained a decree from the emperor calling for a rehearing of their case before three bishops, two of whom at least were known as antagonists of Ibas. All seemed to be going well for Dioscurus when a renewed accusation against Eutyches provoked him to attempt to reap his harvest before it was ripe. This new charge was nominally brought by Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum, who, from what is known, seems to have had little sympathy with the Antioch party, though he was not an avowed adherent of the other side. To his moderate views some thoughtless expressions of Eutyches on a point of dogma may have seemed dangerous, and it is possible that personal dislike helped to determine his attitude — at least Eutyches asserted afterward that Eusebius had long been his enemy.
Eutyehianism
Eutychius of Constantinople