Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 5.djvu/710

 EUTYCHES

632

EUTYCHES

On the Saturday, Eusebius elicited testimony to fur- ther heretical remarks of Eutyches, which the envoys had heard him make. In particular he had denied two natures in Christ after the Incarnation, and had said he was ready to be condemned; the monastery should be his tomb. On Monday 22nd Nov., Euty- ches was sought vainly in the Church and the .^ch- bishop's palace, but was eventually announced as ar- riving with a great multitude of soldiers, and monks, and attendants of the Prefect of the Pra?torian guard, and this escort only permitted him to enter under the synod's promise that his person should be restored to them. With the cortege came a Silentiary named Magnus, bringing a letter from the Emperor, who de- sired that the Patrician Florentius should be admitted to the Council; the Silentiary was therefore sent to in- vite his presence. Eusebius showed more than ever his anxiety that Eutyches should be convicted on the grounds of his former sayings, lest he should now un- say them, and be simply acquitted; for in that case his accuser might be made liable to the penalties due to calumnious accusation: "I am a poor man," he said, "without means. He threatens me with exile; he is rich; he has already depicted the Oasis as my destina- tion!" Flavian and the Patrician replied that any submission made by Eutyches now should not release him from answering the charges as to his past words. Flavian then said: "You have heard, priest Euty- ches. what your accuser says. Say now whether you admit the union of two natures, fK Svo (prntuv ivuiaiv." Eutyches replied: "Yes, iic Svo (piaeuv." Eusebius in- terrupted: "Do you acknowledge two natures. Lord Archimandrite, after the Incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh; yes or no?" This expressed clearly the whole question between Catholic truth and the heresy of Monophysitism. Eutyches would not give a direct answer. Perhaps he was puzzled and cautious. At all events he saw that a negative reply would mean immediate condemnation, while an affirmative one would contradict his own former utterances. " I did not come here to dispute," he said, " but to make clear my view to your Holiness. It is in this paper. Order it to be read." As he would not read it himself, Fla- vian ordered him to declare his belief. His vague re- ply evaded the point, merely asserting that he be- lieved " in the Son's incarnate advent of the flesh of the holy ^■irgin, and that He was perfectly made Man for oiu- salvation". When urged, Eutyches declared that he had never up till now said that Christ was con- substantial with us, but he acknowledged the holy Virgin to be consubstantial with us. Basil of Seleucia urged that her Son must therefore also be consub- stantial with us, since Christ was incarnate from her. Eutyches answered: "Since you say so, I agree with all"; and he further explained that the body of Christ is the body of God, not of a man, though it is a human body. Provided he was not understood to deny that Christ is the Son of God, he would say " consubstantial with us", as the Archbishop wished it and permitted it. Flavian denied that the expression was novel.

Florentius showed that the Emperor had judged rightly that he was ? good theologian, for he now pushed the Archimandrite on the essential point, the two natures. Eutyches answered explicitly: "I con- fess that our Lord was of [ix] two natures, before the union; but after the union, I acknowledge one na- ture." It is very odd that no comment was made on this utterance. The synod ordered Eutyches to anathematize all that was contrary to the letters of CjTil, which had been read. He refused. He was ready enough to accept the letters, according to the synod's wish, but he would not anathematize all who did not use these expressions; otherwise he would be anathematizing the holy Fathers. Nor would he ad- mit that Cyril or Athanasius had taught two natures after the Incarnation (and this was indeed correct, so

far as mere words go). But Basil of Seleucia rightly urged : " If you do not say two natures after the union, you say there is mixture or confusion" (though, at the Robber Council, the unfortunate bishop was fain to deny his words). Florentius then declared, that he is not orthodox who does not confess « Mo ipvaewv and also Svo 01/creis. The synod agreed, and considered the forced submission which Eutyches offered to be insin- cere. Flavian then pronounced the sentence of de- gradation, excommunication, and deposition. This was signed by about 30 bishops, including Julian of Cos, the pope's charge d'affaires at the Coiu't of Theo- dosius. The acts of this synod are preserved for us, because they were read in full at the Robber Council of Ephesus, in the following year 440, and again, in 451, at the Council of Chalcedon as a part of the .\cts of the Robber Council. Flavian took care that the acts should also be signed by many archimandrites of the city. Eutyches, on his side, wrote for support to the chief bishops of the world, and placarded Constanti- nople with complaints. He sent an appeal to the pope (St. Leo, Ep. xxi) explaining that he had refused to affirm two natures and to anathematize all who did not do so; else he would have condemned the holy Fathers, Popes Julius and Felix, Saints .Ithanasius and Greg- ory (he is referring to the extracts from the Fathers which were read in the first session of the Council of Ephesus; later in 535 it was declared that these papal documents were Apollinarian forgeries, and such is still the opinion of critics. See Harnack, Barden- hewer, etc.). Eutyches continues: "I requested that this might be made known to your holiness, and that you might judge as you should think fit, declaring that in every way I should follow that which you approve." It was untrue that Eutyches at the council had ap- pealed to the pope. He could only prove that in a low voice he had saitl he referred his case to the great patri- archs. When St. Leo had received the Acts of the Council, he concluded that Eutyches was a foolish old man who had erred through ignorance, and might be restored if he repented. Dioscurus of Alexandria, imitating some of his predecessors in assuming a pri- macy over Constantinople, simply annulled the sen- tence of Flavian, and absolved Eutyches.

The archimandrite had not been touched by the consideration Flavian had shown. His obstinacy con- tinued. He obtained, through Chrysaphius, a new sjmod of 32 bishops, which met in April 449 (without the presence of Flavian, but including the Patrician Florentius and several of the bishops who had taken part in the condemnation), in order to examine his complaint that the Acts had been falsified. After a careful revision of them, some slight alterations were made to please Eutyches; but the result was of no practical importance. Dioscurus and Eutyches had obtained the convocation by the Emperor of an oecu- menical council to meet at Ephesus on 1st August, 449. The proceedings of the party of Dioscurus be- fore and at that coimcil will be foimd under Dioscu- rus, and Robber Council of Ephesus; it is only necessary to say here that in the first session Eutyches was exculpated, and absolved, while violence was done to Flavian and Eusebius, who were imprisoned. The former soon died of his sufferings. Both had ap- pealed to Rome. The Pope annulled the council, but Theodosius II supported it. On that Emperor's sud- den death the outlook changed. A new council met at Chalcedon in October, 451, at the wish of the Emperor Marcian and liis consort St. Pulcheria, the course of which was directed by imperial commissioners, in ac- cordance with the directions of St. Leo, whose legates presided. Dioscurus was deposed, and exiled to Paphlagonia. Eutyches was also exiled. A letter of St. Leo (Ep. 134), written 15th .\pril, 454, complains that Eutyches is still spreading his poison in banish- ment, and begs Marcian to transfer him to some more distant and lonely spot. The old man does not seem