Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/709

 EUTYCHES

631

EUTYCHES

anger, sadness, faint-heartedness, vanity, and pride. He analyzes them, traces the links that unite them, and emphasizes their results. A Christian should re- sist these enemies with all his strength, persuaded that of himself he cannot be victorious, but that he needs the help of God. As Eutropius develops his thought the teaching of Cassian becomes more and more evident. Eutropius was still at the monastery when he wrote these letters. It was not till 589 that he became Bishop of Valencia, and his death cannot be set down earlier than 610. These are the dates found in Florez. Nothing is known of his work during his episcopacy. Historians have usually called him saint, but it does not appear that he was ever hon- oured by a litiu-gical cult. His letters are to be found in Migne, "P. L.", LXXX, 9-20.

St. Isidore, De viris illuslribus, .xlii, xlv. in P. L.. LXXXIII, 1104-1106; Anto-jio. Bibliolheca Hispana veins. I, 283; Florez. Espana sagrada (Madrid, 1754—), VIII 57-62, 166-69 ; Ma- billon, Annales Benediclini (Lucca, 1739), I, 184-86.

J. M. Besse.

Eutyches, an heresiarch of the fifth century, who has given his name to an opinion to which his teaching and influence contributed little or nothing. The es- sence of that view is the assertion that Christ has but one nature after the Incarnation, and it is spoken of indifferently as the Eutychian or the Monophysite heresy, though Eutyches was not its originator, and though he was repudiated and condemned by many of the Monophysites, who all looked upon St. Cyril of ."Vle.xandria as their great Doctor. Eutyches in 448 was seventy years of age, and had been for thirty years archimandrite of a monastery outside the walls of Constantinople, where he ruled over three hundred monks. He was not a learned man, but was much re- spected and had influence through the infamous minis- ter of Theodosius II, the eunuch Chry.saphius, to whom he had stood godfather. He was a vehement opponent of Nestorianism, and of the Antiochian party led by Theodoret of Cyrus (Cyrrhus) and John of Antioch. These bishops had, for a time, championed the ortho- doxy of Nestorius, but had eventually accepted the Council of Ephesus of 431, making peace with St. Cyril of Alexandria in 4.34. Mutual explanations had been exchanged between the great theologians Theo- doret and Cyril, but their partisans had no; been con- vinced. On the death of Cyril, in 444, his succes.sor Dioscurus was not slow to renew hostilities, and the Cyrillians and anti-Nestorians everywhere took the offensive. It was but as a part of this great move- ment that Eutyches, at Constantinople, began to de- nounce a supposed revival of Nestorianism. He wrote to Pope Leo on the subject, and received a sympa- thetic reply. The Patriarch of Antioch, Doranus, was on his guard, and he addressed a synodal letter to the Emperor Theodosius II, accusing Eutyches of re- newing the heresy of Apollinarius (this had been the charge of the .Antiochian party against St. Cyril) and of wishing to anathematize the great Antiochian teachers of a past generation, Diodorus and Theodore — a point in which Eutyches was not altogether in the wrong (Facundus, viii, 5, and xiii, 5). This was probably in 448, as St. Flavian, Bi.shop of Constanti- nople, had heard of no such accusation when he held a synod, on Nov. 8th, with regard to a point of di.sci- pline connected with the province of Sardis. Eu- tyches had been accusing various personages of covert Nestorianism, and at the end of the session of this synod one of those inculpated, Eusebius, Bishop of Doryla'um, brought the question forward, and prof- fered a counter charge of here.sy against the archi- mandrite.

Eu.sebius had been, many years before, while yet a layman, one of the fir.st to detect, and denounce, the errors in the .sermons of Nestorius. and he was natur- ally indignant at being called a Nestorian. Flavian expressed great surprise at this sudden and unex-

pected charge, and suggested a private conference with Eutyches. Eusebius refused, for he had had frequent interviews without result. At the second session the orthodo.x view was defined, at Eusebius's request, by the reading of the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius, and its approbation by the coimcil of Ephesus, and also of the letter of Cj ril to John of Antioch, " Laetentur CEeli ' ', written after the agreement between the two patriarchs, in 434. These docu- ments were acclaimed by all. Flavian summed up to the effect that Christ was "of two natures", 4k 5i/o <pv(Teuv, after the Incarnation; Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of Amasea even spoke explicitly of His being " in two natures ' ', and all the bishops echoed, in their own words, the sentiments of the president. In the third session the messengers, who had been sent to summon Eutyches to attend, returned, bringing his absolute refusal. He had determined, he declared, that he would never set his foot outside his monastery, which he regarded as his tomb. He was ready to sub- scribe to the councils of Nica>a and Ephesus ; though in doing so he ought not to be understood to subscribe to, or to condemn, any errors into which they might have fallen; he searched the Scriptures alone, as being more sure than the expositions of the Fathers, and he adored one nature of God, incarnate and made man after the Incarnation. He complained that he had been accused of saying that God the Word had brought His flesh down from hea\'en. This was un- true. He acknowledged our Lord Jesus Christ as "of" two natures (in Sio (pvaeav) hypostatically united, as perfect God, and perfect Man born of the Virgin Mary, not having flesh consubstantial w'ith ours. These statements of Eutyches were substan- tiated by three witnesses. The council therefore ad- dressed a letter to him, summoning him to appear, for his excuse was insufficient in face of so serious a charge. Eusebius of Doryla>um, whose ardour was by no means quenched, then pointed out that Eutyches had been sending round a writing to the different monas- teries to stir them up, and that danger to the council might result. Two priests were therefore sent round to the different monasteries in the city, two to those across the Golden Horn, and two across the Bosphorus to Chalcedon, to make enquiries.

Meanwhile the envoys sent to Eutyches had re- turned. After some difficulties and the plea of illness, Eutyches had con.sented to receive them. He still re- fused to leave his monastery, and begged them not to trouble to call a third time (as the canons directed), but to treat him as contumacious at once, if they pleased. The council, however, sent him a third and final summons, to appear on the morning of the next day but one, 17th Nov. or take the consequences. The next day a Priest-Archimandrite Abraham and three deacon monks appeared on behalf of Eutyches. Abraham declared that Eutyches had passed the" night in groaning, and that he himself had consequently not slept at all either. St. Flavian replied that the Synod would wait for Eutyches's recovery. He was not asked to come to enemies, but to brothers and fathers. He had formerly entered the city when Nes- torius attacked the truth. Let him do the same once more. Repentance will be no disgrace to him. As the assembly rose, Flavian added : " You know the accuser's zeal, and that fire itself seems cold to him, on account of his zeal for piety. And God knows, I have both advised and entreated him to desist. But when he set to work, what was I to do? I desire not your dispersion, God forbid, but rather to gather you in. It is for enemies to disperse, for fat hers to gat her into one."

On the following day Eutyches did not appear, but promised to come in five days, that is on the following Monday. It was proved "that Eutyches had sent round a tome to other monasteries for signature. It was .said to contain the Faith of Nica^a and Ephesus, nor was it shown to have contained anything further.