EUTYCHES. - Born in 378, probably in Constantinople, Eutyches embraced the religious life at a young age in a nearby monastery, where he had as his teacher a certain Maximus, a declared opponent of Nestorianism, who instilled in him the same hatred for dyophysitism. Ordained a priest and elected archimandrite of the monastery, despite lacking deep theological formation, he immediately plunged headlong into the doctrinal controversies of the time, whereas prudence would have well advised him to remain silent. At the time of the Council of Ephesus, he joined the monks of the capital who, led by Abbot Dalmatius, went to Tenedos to implore the ordination of Cyril of Menon (Mansi, VI, 628, 712). St. Cyril held him in singular esteem and sent him a copy of the acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi, ibid., 631).
After the death of St. Dalmatius (c. 440), Eutyches became one of the most notable figures of Byzantine monasticism. His prestige increased when, in 441, the eunuch Chrysaphius came to power, whom he had held at the baptismal font. It was then that he began to use and abuse this prestige to strike at all those who seemed to him infected with Nestorianism. Among those who, during Cyril’s lifetime, had waged an unfavorable campaign against Nestorius and the Antiochenes, there were some qualified as true Monophysites and some crude supporters of the formula of St. Cyril: “One is the incarnate nature of God the Word.” This movement was led by Dioscorus of Alexandria, who had succeeded Cyril in 444. During the year 448, oppressive measures were taken by the imperial government against the bishops of Syria, behind which it was not difficult to discern the hand of Chrysaphius’s protégé along with that of the patriarch of Alexandria. Theodore was one of the victims. In Constantinople, where Flavian had replaced Proclus in 446, Eutyches displayed an intemperate zeal against supporters of the dual nature in Christ. He even wrote a letter to the Pope denouncing the dangers of the resurgent Nestorianism. St. Leo replied to him (Mansi, V, 1323).
This fanatical destroyer of heretics, though not a true orthodox, was not really a pure orthodox either. In his zeal to combat Nestorianism, he fell into the opposite error, namely, Monophysitism. Relying on the Cyrillian expression (which he was unable to explain in an orthodox manner), Eutyches ended up classifying as Nestorians all who professed two natures in Jesus Christ after the union. Eusebius of Dorylaeum, the same man who twenty years earlier had been the first to attack Nestorius, discerned the new heresy during discussions with the aged archimandrite and took the occasion of the Permanent Synod (σύνοδος ἐνθυμώσα), 8 Nov. 448, to present to Flavian, immediately after the meeting adjourned, a memorandum against Eutyches, demanding the immediate public reading of the document and the appearance of the archimandrite before the Synod.
The mild Flavian, taken aback by this unexpected turn of events, gave his assent to the reading of the memorandum but advised Eusebius to work with Eutyches to recall him to orthodoxy. Eusebius insisted and insisted that the matter be examined without delay in the Synod itself. The archimandrite was summoned to appear: at first he refused, but after a third written summons, he sent word that he was ill and could not comply. Flavian, in his leniency, granted him a postponement until 22 Nov., on which day the archimandrite finally appeared, accompanied by a large number of monks, soldiers, and officials. Chrysaphius had not abandoned his protégé in this delicate situation. The session began with the reading of the acts of the previous sessions. When questioned, Eutyches contradicted himself, thus providing clear proof of his poor education and narrow mind. He was confronted with the following two propositions, which he refused outright to accept: 1) In Jesus Christ, after the union, there are two natures; 2) Jesus is consubstantial with us through His human nature. His stubbornness led Flavian and the members of the Synod to issue a sentence of deposition and excommunication against Eutyches, deemed to have fallen into the error of Valentinus and Apollinaris (Mansi, VI, 748). The blow was severe not only for Eutyches but for Chrysaphius, Dioscorus, and the entire clique of Monophysites. Flavian could now well expect harsh retaliation, which did not fail to materialize. Eutyches, for his part, rejected the sentence passed against him and appealed to the Pope and many other bishops of the West and East. He then claimed that the acts of the Council relating to his condemnation had been falsified. By order of the emperor, a new synod was held on 13 Apr. 449 to ascertain the validity of Eutyches’s complaints. His envoys, however, were unable to adduce any serious prejudice against the incriminated acts. A new investigatory commission was appointed on 27 Apr. to examine a particular point. All these intrigues, moreover, were to come to nothing. At the beginning of 449, Eutyches and Dioscorus had sought an ecumenical council to reopen the matter. Theodosius II, whom Chrysaphius manipulated at will, could not refuse. By a letter dated 30 Mar. 449, he ordered the metropolitans of the empire to go to Ephesus with some of their carefully selected suffragans for 19 Aug. (Mansi, VI, 588 sq.). What happened at this Second Council of Ephesus is well known; the pope St. Leo called it the “brigandage of Ephesus” (v. Ephesus, 1, Atrocities of). Dioscorus dominated the proceedings. The legates of the Pope were unable to carry out their mission. After reciting the Creed of Nicaea and expressing their devotion to the holy Fathers, and after anathematizing all heretics beginning with Simon Magus, particularly Manes, Valentinus, Apollinaris, and Nestorius, Eutyches was rehabilitated by almost all the bishops present, after they had already anathematized those who admitted two natures, i.e., quoz. in Christ after the Incarnation (Mansi, VI, 862-70). However, the success of Eutyches and Dioscorus lasted but a short time, despite the emperor’s zeal to have the decisions of the conciliabulum ratified. Soon after, on 28 July 450, Theodosius II died from a fall from a horse. The Empress Pulcheria took the reins of government and had the senator Marcian recognized as emperor, whom she married. Chrysaphius was condemned to death, the decrees of the “brigandage” were annulled, Eutyches was driven from his monastery and confined to a locality near Constantinople. At the Council of Chalcedon, which took place shortly afterward, Eutyches did not appear. At the Pope’s request, he was removed from Constantinople, and it is not known where he went. He passed through Jerusalem, where he was hosted by the priest Hesychius (L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Église, III, Paris 1910, p. 471). A letter from St. Leo to the Emperor dated 15 Apr. 454 informs us that the heretic had not ceased to spread his error from his new place of exile and therefore invoked for him a greater isolation (Ep. 134: PL 54, 1095). After this date, history is silent about Eutyches. Previously, on 28 July 452, Marcian had condemned his writings to the flames (Mansi, VII, 501). He cannot, in the end, have written much. From the acts of the councils, we can glean some of his letters and declarations.
Undoubtedly, Eutyches was more ignorant than malicious. His great fault was to concern himself with theology despite his lack of preparation. Pope St. Leo defined him as “multum imprudens et nimis imperitus” (Ep. 28: PL 54,
756). The favor he enjoyed with Chrysaphius, together with his indiscreet zeal against Nestorianism, was the principal cause of his ruin. Cunning men, without scruples, like Dioscorus, and heretics well disguised, such as certain Apollinarians and Monophysites, used him as an instrument to achieve their aims. More than an innovator, he was, like Nestorius, a mere mouthpiece for spreading errors already in existence. It is easy to note other points of similarity between the two, which have given rise to schisms not yet completely extinguished.
II. The Doctrine of Eutyches. It is very difficult to know with precision what Eutyches’ personal doctrine on the mystery of the Incarnation was, because he himself doubtless did not understand it well. Eutyches was an heretic because he obstinately upheld ambiguous formulas that were moreover false in their context; but since these formulas lend themselves to an orthodox explanation and certain of his statements favor a benevolent interpretation, one remains uncertain about his actual thought.
Here are a series of orthodox propositions attributed to him or recorded in his writings: 1) He who was born of the Virgin Mary is perfect God and perfect man; 2) The Word took flesh from the Holy Virgin; 3) Mary is consubstantial with us (Acts of the Synod of 449: Mansi, VI, 725–30, 741); 4) Anathema to Apollinaris, to Valentinus, to Minete, to Nestorius, and all heretics down to Simon, to all who maintain that the flesh of our Lord descended from heaven; 5) In the Incarnation there was no mixture of divinity and humanity, but the Word remained immutable; 6) Eutyches explicitly accepted the definitions of Nicaea and Ephesus and invoked in his favor the testimonies of St Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory the Thaumaturge, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Athanasius, and Atticus of Proclus (Readings at St Leo: PL 54, 716, 717, 718; Acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus: Mansi, VI, 631–34).
Why then was Eutyches, who made such declarations, condemned by the Constantinopolitan Council of 448 as infected with the error of Valentinus and Apollinaris? How could he be accused of Docetism, of gross Monophysitism, of Originism, and even of Nestorianism? The explanation of so strange a fact must be sought in two ambiguous statements of the old archimandrite: 1) “I acknowledge that our Lord Jesus Christ existed (became) of two natures; but after the union I acknowledge only one nature”: *hen ginetai ek dyo physeon ho Kyrios henos, meta de ten henosin ouketi all’hen physis* (Mansi, VI, 744); 2) “Up to this point I have not said that the body of our Lord God was consubstantial with us, but I confess that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us. I acknowledge that the body of Christ is the body of God; the body of God I have never wished to call a body of union, but this body is human”: *ouk eipon pote sōma henōmenon ton Kyrion hēmōn, henōmenon de ek tōn hēmeterōn* (Mansi, VI, 741). When invited to anathematize the following two propositions that were imputed to him: 1) Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with us; 2) After the union there is only one nature, not two, Eutyches firmly refused, saying: “I have not found the doctrine of which you speak clearly expressed in Scripture, nor has my father taught it to me” (Mansi, VI, 745). From these two statements the motives were drawn for determining specifically Eutychianism. Thus were attributed to their author, despite his repeated declarations, all the errors that could logically be deduced from them. If Christ is not consubstantial with us, then His humanity is but an appearance, or else it must have a celestial origin: hence the accusation of Docetism, Valentinianism, Originism, and Apollinarianism brought against Eutyches. Mary is not truly Mother of God. If there were two natures ante unionem, then at least for a certain time they were separate and the union did not take place from the first moment of conception: an error which, according to the testimony of Cassian, many Westerners gratuitously attributed to Nestorius. If post unionem there is only one nature, then four hypotheses follow: either the divinity and humanity were fused to form a tertium quid, or the humanity was absorbed by the divinity like a drop of water in the ocean, or the Word was condensed into flesh and thus lost His divine attributes, or the two natures became like the constituent parts of a natural whole, in the same way as soul and body form one nature.
Many other absurd conclusions were drawn from Eutyches’ two statements, which might well have been given a benign interpretation, such as could easily have been found in the writings of St Cyril. But the Fathers of the Synod of 448 were anything but kindly disposed toward the obstinate old man who exploited the prestige he enjoyed with Chrysaphius to persecute those who admitted two natures in Christ. They took his words literally and extracted from them Valentinian and Apollinarian motives. Contemporaries first, and posterity afterwards, followed their example, attributing to Eutyches all the errors that lurk under the label of Valentinianism and Apollinarianism. Most Monophysites themselves recoiled with horror from Eutychianism in the above sense.