EUTYCHIANISM
636
EUTYCHIANISM
Nature of Christ; they were sometimes called Themis-
tians, from Themistus Calonymus, an Alexandrian
deacon, their chief writer. They were excommuni-
cated by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Timotheus
(d. 527) and Theodosius. Their views resemble the
"Kenotic" theories of our own day. The Tritheists,
or Tritheites, or Condobaudites, were founded by a
Constantinopolitan philospher, John Asconagus, or
Ascunaghes, at the beginning of the sixth century, but
their principal teacher was John Philoponus, an Alex-
andrian pliilosopher, who died probably towards the
end of that century. These heretics taught that there
were three natures in the Holy Trinity, the three Per-
sons being individuals of a species. A zealot of the
sect was a monk Athanasius, grandson of the Empress
Theodora, wife of Justinian. He followed the view of
Theodosius, that the bodies to be given in the resur-
rection are new creations. Stephen Gobaras was an-
other writer of this sect. Their followers were called
Athanasians or Philoponiaci. Athanasius was op-
posed by Conon, Bishop of Tarsus (c. 600), who event-
ually anathematized his teacher Philoponus. The
Cononites are said to have urged that, though the mat-
ter of the body is corruptible, its form is not. The
Tritheites were excommunicated by the Jacobite Pa-
triarch of Alexandria, Damian (577), who found the
unity of God in a fTrapJu distinct from the three
Persons, which he called avrdeeos. His disciples were
taunted with believing in four Gods, and were
nicknamed Tetradites, or Tetratheites, and also Da-
mianists and Angelites. Peter Callinicus, Patriarch
of Antiocli (.578-91). opposed them, and both he and
Damian att.acked the Alexandrian philosopher Ste-
phen Niobcs, founder of the Xiobites, who tauglit that
there was no distinction whatever between the Divine
Nature and the Human after the Incarnation, and
characterized the distinctions made by those who ail-
mitted only one nature as half-liearted. Many of liis
followers joined the Catholics, when they found them-
selves excommunicated by the Monophysites.
History. — Of the origin of Eutychianism among the Cyrillian party a few words were said above. The controversy between Cyril and Theodoret was revived with violence in the attacks made in 444-S, after Cyr- il's death, by his party on Irenseus of Tjtc, Ibas of Edessa, and others (.see DioscuRUs). The trial of Eutyches, by St. Flavian at Constantinople, brought matters to a head (see Eutyches). Theodosius II convened an cecumenical council at Ephesus, in 449, over which Dioscurus, the real founder of Monophysit- ism as a sect, presided (see Ephesus, Robber Coun- cil of). St. Leo had already condemned the teaching of one nature in his letter to Flavian called the tome, a masterpiece of exact terminology, unsurpassed for clearness of thought, which condemns Nestorius on the one hand, and Eutyches on the other (see Leo I, Pope). After the council had acquitted Eutyches, St. Leo insisted on the signing of this letter by the Eastern bishops, especially by those who had taken part in the disgraceful scenes at Ephesus. In 451, six hun- dred bishops assembled at Chalcedon, under the presi- dency of the pajial legates (see Ch.\lcedon, Council of). The pope's view was assured of success before- hand by the support of the new Emperor Marcian. Dioscurus of .\lexandria was deposed. The tome was acclaimed by all, .save by thirteen out of the seventeen Egyptian bishops present, for these declared their lives would not be safe, if they returned to Egypt after signing, unless a new patriarch had been appointed. The real difficulty lay in drawing up a definition of faith. There was now no Patriarch of Alexandria; those of .\nti()ch ami Constantinople had been nomi- nees of Dioscurus, th<)\igh they had now accepted the tome; Juvenal of Joru.salem had been one of the lead- ers of the Robber Council, but like the rest had sul>- mitted to St. Leo. It is consequently not surprising that the committee, appointed to draw up a definition
of faith, produced a colourless document (no longer
extant), using the words ix 5io (piaewv, which Dios-
curus and Eutyches might have signed without diffi-
culty. It was excitedly applauded in the fifth session
of the council, but the papal legates, supported by the
imperial commissioners, would not agree to it, and de-
clared they would break up the council and return to
Italy, if it were pressed.
The few bishops who stood by the legates were of the Antiochian party and suspected of Nestorianism by many. The emperor's personal intervention was in- voked. It was demonstrated to the bishops that to refuse to assert " two natures" (not merely " of" two) was to agree with Dioscurus and not with the pope, and they yielded with a very bad grace. They had accepted the pope's letter with enthusiasm, and they had deposed Dioscurus, not indeed for heresy (as Ana- tolius of Constantinople had the courage, or the impu- dence, to point out), but for violation of the canons. To side with him meant punishment. The result was the drawing up by a new committee of the famous Chalcedonian definition of faith. It condemns Mono- physitism in the following words: " Following the holy Fathers, we acknowledge one and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ; and in accordance with this we all teach that He is perfect in Godhead, perfect also in Manhood, truly God and truly Man, of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with His Father as regards His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as regards his Manhood, in all things like unto us save for sin; begotten of His Father before the worlds as to His Godhead, and in the last days for us and for our salva- tion [born] of Mary the Mrgin Theotokos as to His Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only- begotten, made known as in two natures [the Greek text now has " of two natures", but the history of the definition shows that the Latin "in" is correct] with- out confusion or change, indivisibly. inseparably [iv Svo (pvaeo-tv d(ri'7xiJTws. drp^TTTuSj dStaip^rws. dxwp/trrws yvupi^inei'oi']; the distinction of the two natures being in no wise removed by the union, but the properties of each nature being rather preserved and concurring in one Person and one Hypostasis, not as divided or sepa- rated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets taught aforetime about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as the sjTTibol of the Fathers has lianded down to us."
So Monophysitism was exorcised; but the unwilling- ness of the larger number of the six hundred Fathers to make so definite a declaration is important. "The historical account of the Council is this, that a doctrine which the Creed did not declare, which the Fathers did not unanimously witness, and which some eminent Saints had almost in set terms opposed, which the whole East refused as a symbol, not once, but twice, patriarch by patriarch, metropolitan by metropolitan, first by the mouth of above a hundre<l, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its bishops, and re- fused upon the grounds of its being an addition to the Creed, was forced upon the Council, not indeed as a Creed, yet, on the other hand, not for subscription merely, but for its acceptance as a definition of faith under the sanction of an anathema, forced on the Coun- cil by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the civil power " (Xewman, "Development", v, §3, 1st ed., p. 307). Theodosius issued edicts against the Eutychians, in March and July, 452, forbidding them to have priests, or assemblies, to make wills or inherit projicrty, or to do military service. Priests who were obstinate in error were to be banished beyond the limits of the empire. Troubles began almost immediately the council was over. A monk named Theodosius, who had been punished at Alexandria for blaming Dios- curus, now on the contrary opposed the decision of the council, and going to Palestine persuaded the
