Page:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu/372

 should consort with and abet him, and the sentence was signed by 32 (? 28) bishops, and 23 archimandrites. Eutyches left the council-chamber muttering an appeal to Rome.

The monks rallied round Eutyches, and the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches himself wrote to the emperor and to many of the bishops, and placarded notices about Constantinople, protesting against his sentence and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the most important is to pope Leo. In it he accuses Eusebius of acting at Satan's bidding, not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the intention of destroying him. He repeats that he could not accede to the demands of the synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression "two natures," he himself having no wish to add to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to define too particularly the nature of God the Word. He adds that he had desired the synod to lay the matter before the pope, promising to abide by his decision; but this not having been granted, he, being in great danger, now implored the pope to give an unprejudiced judgment, and to protect him.

Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree of excommunication. He charged the monks to obey it, and communicated it to the emperor, the pope, and provincial bishops. His interviews with the emperor were marked by great suspicion on the part of the latter; and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that of Eutyches and a second was required before the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum.

Court favour inclined to Eutyches; and early in 449 the emperor appointed a commission to examine a charge of falsification of the acts of the late synod of Constantinople, proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No such falsification was proved, and the commission had no choice but to confirm the sentence pronounced by the synod; but an agitation was thereby advanced, which was productive of the greatest misery.

A council had already been summoned by the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had demanded it, and their position had been supported by Chrysaphius. The imperial summons was in the names of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. It stated the cause of the summons to be the doubts and disputes which had arisen concerning the faith; it invited Dioscorus to present himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops at Ephesus on Aug. 1; and it extended the invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus (Kars) being exempted unless specially summoned by the council.

The synod—the "Latrocinium," or "Robber Synod," as posterity was taught to call it by Leo—first met on Aug. 8, 449. "Flavian was presented as an oppressor and Eutyches as a victim, and terrible was the day on which it opened. The true faith received in the East a shock from which it has never completely recovered since. The church witnessed the separation from herself of nations which have never returned to her, and perhaps never will" (Martin). Leo was not present except by his legates, who brought the famous tome, or doctrinal letter, to Flavian, and letters to the emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and others. In his letter to Theodosius (June 13, 449) Leo expresses his regret that "the foolish old man" (Eutyches) had not given up opinions condemned by the synod of Constantinople, and intimates his wish that the archimandrite should be received again if he would keep his promise to the pope, and amend what was erroneous in his views. In the letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope considers Eutyches to have fallen into his error "through want of knowledge rather than through wickedness"; to the archimandrites of Constantinople he states his conviction that they do not share the views of Eutyches, and exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should he renounce his error; and to the synod he quotes the confession of St. Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. xvi. 16) as embodying belief in the two natures, and argues that if Eutyches had rightly understood these words, he would not have swerved from the path of truth. In most of these Leo refers to the tome as containing the true teaching of the church.

A synod stigmatized as "a gang of robbers" was not likely to permit the recital of a document condemnatory of Eutyches, the man they were pledged to acquit. It was presented, but shelved.

For the history of the synod, in its relation to Eutyches, see. The Christian world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged themselves with Dioscorus and the emperor; Syria, Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and confirmed the decisions of the synod in a decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed them if already bishops, and expelled them from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. He asked for a general council.

The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the death of Theodosius (July 450). Under Marcian orthodoxy triumphed again: "Eutychianism, as well as Nestorianism, was conquered" (Leo). Marcian assented at once and cordially to the pope's request for a council. Anatolius convened a synod of such bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons as were at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Roman legates subscribed the tome, and, together with the whole assembly, anathematized Eutyches, Nestorius, and their followers. Leo's wish for a council was not now so urgent. The danger had passed away. Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been anathematized; his own tome had been everywhere accepted; of more immediate importance, in his opinion, was the practical question, how best and most speedily to reconcile the penitent and to punish the