CINXE.COM

<!DOCTYPE html> <html lang="en"> <head> <title>CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Eutychianism</title><script src="https://dtyry4ejybx0.cloudfront.net/js/cmp/cleanmediacmp.js?ver=0104" async="true"></script><script defer data-domain="newadvent.org" src="https://plausible.io/js/script.js"></script><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm"> <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> <meta name="description" content="Eutychianism and Monophysitism are usually identified as a single heresy. But as some Monophysites condemned Eutyches, the name Eutychians is given by some writers only to those in Armenia"> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="RSS" href="http://feeds.newadvent.org/bestoftheweb?format=xml"><link rel="icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><link rel="shortcut icon" href="../images/icon1.ico" type="image/x-icon"><meta name="robots" content="noodp"><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="../utility/screen6.css" media="screen"></head> <body class="cathen" id="05633a.htm">   <div id="capitalcity"><table summary="Logo" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 width="100%"><tr valign="bottom"><td align="left"><a href="../"><img height=36 width=153 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></td><td align="right"> <form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active"> <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0"/> <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9"/>  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label> <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel"/>  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label> <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel"/> </form> <table summary="Spacer" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td height="2"></td></tr></table> <table summary="Tabs" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr> <td bgcolor="#ffffff"></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../"> Home </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_white_on_color" href="../cathen/index.html"> Encyclopedia </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../summa/index.html"> Summa </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../fathers/index.html"> Fathers </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../bible/gen001.htm"> Bible </a></td> <td class="tab"><a class="tab_color_on_beige" href="../library/index.html"> Library </a></td> </tr></table> </td> </tr></table><table summary="Alphabetical index" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"> <a href="../cathen/a.htm"> A </a><a href="../cathen/b.htm"> B </a><a href="../cathen/c.htm"> C </a><a href="../cathen/d.htm"> D </a><a href="../cathen/e.htm"> E </a><a href="../cathen/f.htm"> F </a><a href="../cathen/g.htm"> G </a><a href="../cathen/h.htm"> H </a><a href="../cathen/i.htm"> I </a><a href="../cathen/j.htm"> J </a><a href="../cathen/k.htm"> K </a><a href="../cathen/l.htm"> L </a><a href="../cathen/m.htm"> M </a><a href="../cathen/n.htm"> N </a><a href="../cathen/o.htm"> O </a><a href="../cathen/p.htm"> P </a><a href="../cathen/q.htm"> Q </a><a href="../cathen/r.htm"> R </a><a href="../cathen/s.htm"> S </a><a href="../cathen/t.htm"> T </a><a href="../cathen/u.htm"> U </a><a href="../cathen/v.htm"> V </a><a href="../cathen/w.htm"> W </a><a href="../cathen/x.htm"> X </a><a href="../cathen/y.htm"> Y </a><a href="../cathen/z.htm"> Z </a> </td></tr></table></div> <div id="mobilecity" style="text-align: center; "><a href="../"><img height=24 width=102 border="0" alt="New Advent" src="../images/logo.gif"></a></div>  <div id="mi5"><a href="../">Home</a> > <a href="../cathen">Catholic Encyclopedia</a> > <a href="../cathen/e.htm">E</a> > Eutychianism</div> <div id="springfield2"> <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-top' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <h1>Eutychianism</h1> <a href="https://gumroad.com/l/na2">Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...</a> Eutychianism and <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> are usually identified as a single <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>. But as some <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> condemned <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>, the name Eutychians is given by some writers only to those in <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">Armenia</a>. It seems best to use the words indifferently, as no party of the <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> looked to <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutychius</a> as a founder or a leader and Eutychian is but a nickname for all those who, like <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>, rejected the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> expression "two natures" of Christ. The tenet "one nature" was common to all <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> and Eutychians, and they affected to call <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a> Diphysites or Dyophysites. The <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> took its rise in a reaction against <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a>, which taught that in Christ there is a human hypostasis or <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a> as well as a Divine. This was interpreted to imply a want of reality in the union of the Word with the assumed Humanity, and even to result in two Christs, two Sons, though this was far from the intention of Nestorius himself in giving his incorrect explanation of the union. He was ready to admit one prósopon, but not one hypostasis, a "prosopic" union, though not a <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">"hypostatic" union</a>, which is the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> expression. He so far exaggerated the distinction of the Humanity from the Divine Person Who assumed it, that he denied that the Blessed Virgin could be called <a href="../cathen/15464b.htm">Mother of God</a>, Theotókos. His views were for a time interpreted in a benign sense by Theodoret, and also by John, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a>, but they all eventually concurred in his condemnation, when he showed his <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> spirit by refusing all submission and explanation. His great antagonist, <a href="../cathen/04592b.htm">St. Cyril of Alexandria</a>, was at first vehemently attacked by Theodoret, John, and their party, as denying the completeness of the Sacred Humanity after the manner of the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretic</a> Apollinarius. <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> The fiery Cyril curbed his natural impetuosity; mutual explanations followed; and in 434, three years after the Council of Ephesus which had condemned Nestorius, peace was made between Alexandria and Antioch. Cyril proclaimed it in a letter to John beginning Lætentur cæli, in which he clearly condemned beforehand the <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelite</a>, if not the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>, views, which were to be unfortunately based on certain ambiguities in his earlier expressions. If he did not arrive quite at the exactness of the language in which <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> was soon to formulate the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, yet the following words, drawn up by the Antiochian party and fully accepted by Cyril in his letter, are clear enough: <blockquote>Before the worlds begotten of the Father according to the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, but in the last days and for our <a href="../cathen/13407a.htm">salvation</a> of the Virgin Mary according to the Manhood; <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantial</a> with the Father in the <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, consubstantial with us in the Manhood; for a union of two natures took place, wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to the understanding of this unconfused union, we confess the Blessed Virgin to be Theotokos, because the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word of God</a> was incarnate and made man, and through her conception united to Himself the temple He received from her. And we are aware that the words of the Gospels, and of the Apostles, concerning the Lord are, by <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>, looked upon some as applying in common [to the two natures] as belonging to the one Person; others as attributed to one of the two natures; and that they tell us by tradition that some are of divine import, to suit the Divinity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, others of <a href="../cathen/07543b.htm">humble</a> nature belonging to His humanity.</blockquote> In this "creed of the union" between John and Cyril, it is at least implied that the two natures remain after the union (against <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a>), and it is quite clearly enunciated that some expressions belong to the Person, others to each of the Natures, as, e.g. it was later <a href="../cathen/04675b.htm">defined</a> that activities (’enérgeiai) and will are of the Natures (against <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelites</a>), while Sonship (against the Adoptionists), is of the Person. There is no <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> that Cyril would have understood rightly and have accepted (even apart from <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">papal</a> authority) the famous words of St. Leo's tome: "Agit enim ultraque forma cum alterius communione quod proprium est" (Ep. xxviii, 4). The famous formula of St. Cyril mía phúsis toû Theoû Lógou sesarkoméne, "one nature incarnate of <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">God the Word</a>" (or "of the <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">Word of God</a>"), derived from a treatise which Cyril believed to be by St. Athanasius, the greatest of his predecessors, was intended by him in a right sense, and has been formally adopted by the <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>. In the eighth canon of the Fifth General Council, those are <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematized</a> who say "one Nature incarnate of God the Word", unless they "accept it as the Fathers taught, that by a <a href="../cathen/07610b.htm">hypostatic union</a> of the Divine nature and the human, one Christ was effected". In the Lateran Council of 649, we find: "Si quis secundum sanctos Patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem unam naturam Dei verbi incarnatum … anathema sit." Nevertheless this formula, frequently used by Cyril (in Epp. i, ii, Ad Successum; Contra Nest. ii; Ad eulogium, etc.; see <a href="../cathen/11743a.htm">Petavius</a>, "De Incarn.", IV, 6), was the starting point of the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>, some of whom understood it rightly, whereas others pushed it into a denial of the reality of the <a href="../cathen/09580c.htm">human</a> <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">nature</a>, while all equally used it as a <a href="../cathen/12454c.htm">proof</a> that the formula "two natures" must be rejected as <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a>, and therefore also the letter of St. Leo and the <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a> of Chalcedon. <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> The word phúsis was ambiguous. Just as the earlier writings of Theodoret against Cyril contained passages which naturally permitted a <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorian</a> interpretation—they were in this sense condemned by the Fifth General Council—so the earlier writings of Cyril against Nestorius gave colour to the charge of <a href="../cathen/01615b.htm">Apollinarianism</a> brought against him by Theodoret, John, Ibas, and their party. The word phúsis produced just the same difficulties that the word ‘upóstasis had aroused in the preceeding century. For ‘upóstasis, as <a href="../cathen/08341a.htm">St. Jerome</a> rightly declared, was the equivalent of ousía in the mouths of all <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosophers</a>, yet it was eventually used theologically, from Didymus onwards, as the equivalent of the Latin persona, that is, a subsistent essence. Similarly phúsis was an especially Alexandrian word for ousía and ‘upóstasis, and was naturally used of a subsistent ousía, not of abstract ousía, both by Cyril often (as in the formula in question), and by the more moderate <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>. The Cyrillian formula, in its genesis and in its rationale, has been explained by <a href="../cathen/10794a.htm">Newman</a> in an essay of astounding learning and perfect clearness (Tracts Theol. and Eccl., iv, 1874). He points out that the word ‘upóstasis could be used (by St. Athanasius, for example), without change of meaning, both of the one <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, and of the three Persons. In the former case it did not mean the Divine Essence in the abstract, but considered as subsistent, without defining whether that subsistence is threefold or single, just as we say "one <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>" in the concrete, without denying a triple Personality. Just the same twofold use without change of meaning might be made of the words ousía, eîdos, and phúsis. Again, phúsis was not applied, as a rule, in the fourth century, to the Humanity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, because that Humanity is not "natural" in the sense of "wholly like to our nature", since it is sinless, and free from all the imperfections which arise from <a href="../cathen/11312a.htm">original sin</a> (not pura natura but integra natura), it has no human <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a> of its own, and it is ineffably graced and glorified by its union with the Word. From this point of view it is clear that Christ is not so fully "consubstantial with us" as He is "consubstantial with the Father". Yet again, in these two phrases the word consubstantial appears in different senses; for the Father and the Son have one substance numero, whereas the Incarnate Son is of one substance with us specie (not numero, of course). It is therefore not to be wondered at, if the expression "consubstantial with us" was avoided in the fourth century. In like manner the word phúsis has its full meaning when applied to the Divine Nature of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, but a restricted meaning (as has been just explained) when applied to His Human Nature. In St. Cyril's use of the formula its signification is plain. "It means", says <a href="../cathen/10794a.htm">Newman</a> (loc. cit., p. 316), "(a), that when the Divine word became man, He remained one and the same in essence, attributes and <a href="../cathen/11727b.htm">personality</a>; in all respects the same as before, and therefore mía phúsis. It means (b), that the manhood, on the contrary, which He assumed, was not in all respects the same nature as that massa, usia, physis, etc., out of which it was taken; (1) from the very circumstance that it was only an addition or supplement to what He was already, not a being complete in itself; (2) because in the act of assuming it, He changed it in its qualities. This added nature, then, was best expressed, not by a second substantive, as if collateral in its position, but by an adjective or participle, as sesarkoméne. The three words answered to St. John's ‘o lógos sárks ’egéneto, i.e. sesarkoménos ên." Thus St. Cyril intended to safeguard the teaching of the Council of Antioch (against <a href="../cathen/11589a.htm">Paul of Samosata</a>, 264-72) that the Word is unchanged by the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>, "that He is ‘én kaì tò a’utò tê o’usía from first to last, on earth and in <a href="../cathen/07170a.htm">heaven</a>" (p. 317). He intended by his one <a href="../cathen/06612a.htm">nature of God</a>, "with the council of Antioch, a protest against that unalterableness and imperfection, which the anti-Catholic <a href="../cathen/13554b.htm">schools</a> affixed to their notion of the Word. The council says 'one and the same in usia'; it is not speaking of a human usia in Christ, but of the divine. The case is the same in Cyril's Formula; he speaks of a mía theía phúsis in the Word. He has in like manner written a treatise entitled 'quod unus sit Christus'; and, in one of his Paschal Epistles, he enlarges on the text 'Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today, the same, and for ever.' His great theme in these words is not the coalescing of the two natures into one, but the <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> of making two sons, one before and one upon the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>, one divine, one human, or again of degrading the divine usia by making it subject to the humanity" (pp. 321-2). It has been <a href="../cathen/10733a.htm">necessary</a> thus to explain at length St. Cyril's meaning in order to be able to enumerate the more briefly and clearly, the various phases of the Eutychian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a>. 1. The Cyrillian party before Chalcedon did not put forward any <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of their own; they only denounced as <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorians</a> any who taught dúo phúseis, two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, which they made equal to two hypostases, and two Sons. They usually admitted that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> was ’ek dúo phúseon "of two natures", but this meant that the Humanity before (that is, <a href="../cathen/09324a.htm">logically</a> before) it was assumed was a complete phúsis; it was no longer a phúsis (subsistent) after its union to the Divine nature. It was natural that those of them who were consistent should reject the teaching of <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>, that there were two natures: "Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura", "Assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens", and if they chose to understand "nature" to mean a subsistent nature, they were even bound to reject such language as <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorian</a>. Their fault in itself was not necessarily that they were <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> at heart, but that they would not stop to listen to the six hundred <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of Chalcedon, to the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a>, and to the entire <a href="../cathen/09022a.htm">Western Church</a>. Those who were ready to hear explanations and to realize that words may have more than one meaning (following the admirable example set by St. Cyril himself), were able to remain in the <a href="../cathen/15179a.htm">unity of the Church</a>. The rest were rebels, and whether <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> in <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">belief</a> or not, well deserved to find themselves in the same ranks as the real <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a>. (2) <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a> himself was not a Cyrillian. He was not a Eutychian in the ordinary sense of that word. His mind was not clear enough to be definitely <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>, and <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> was apparently right in thinking him <a href="../cathen/07648a.htm">ignorant</a>. He was with the Cyrillians in denouncing as <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorians</a> all who spoke of two natures. But he had never adopted the "consubstantial with us" of the "creed of union", nor St. Cyril's admissions, in accepting that creed, as to the two natures. He was willing to accept St. Cyril's letters and the decisions of Ephesus and Nicæa only in a general way, in so far as they contained no <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>. His disciple, the <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monk</a> Constantine, at the revision, in April, 449, of the condemnation of <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>, explained that he did not accept the Fathers as a canon of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>. In fact <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a> simply upheld the ultra-Protestant view that nothing can be imposed as of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> which is not verbally to be found in Scripture. This, together with an exaggerated horror of <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a>, appears to describe his whole <a href="../cathen/14580x.htm">theological</a> position. 3. <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscorus</a> and the party which followed him seem to have been pure Cyrillians, who by an excessive dislike of <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a>, fell into excess in minimizing the completeness of the Humanity, and exaggerating the effects upon it of the union. We have not documents enough to tell us how far their <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> went. A fragment of <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscorus</a> is preserved in the "Antirrhetica" of Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm., IV, 380) which asks: "If the Blood of Christ is not by nature (katà phúsin) <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God's</a> and not a man's, how does it differ from the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer? For this is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of man according to nature is earthly and corruptible. But <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> forbid that we should say the Blood of Christ is consubstantial with one of those things which are according to nature (‘enos tôn katà phúsin ‘omoousíon)." If this is really, as it purports to be, from a letter written by <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscorus</a> from his exile at <a href="../cathen/06377b.htm">Gangra</a>, we shall have to class him with the extreme <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> "Incorrupticolæ", in that he rejects the "consubstantial with us" and makes the Blood of Christ incorruptible of its own nature. But the passage may conceivably be a Julianist <a href="../cathen/06135b.htm">forgery</a>. <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> 4. Timothy Ælurus, the first <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>, was on the contrary nearly <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> in his views, as has been clearly shown by the extracts published by Lebon from his works, extant in Syriac in a <a href="../cathen/09614b.htm">manuscript</a> in the British Museum (Addit. 12156). He denies that phúsis, nature, can be taken in an abstract sense. Hence he makes extracts from St. Leo, and mocks the <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">pope</a> as a pure <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorian</a>. He does not even accept ’ek dúo phúseon, and declares there can be no question of two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, either before or after the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>. "There is no nature which is not a hypostasis, nor hypostasis which is not a <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">person</a>." So far we have, not <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, but only a term defined contrary to the Chalcedonian and Western usage. A second point is the way Ælurus understands phúsis to mean that which is "by nature". <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, he says, is by nature <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a>, not man; He became man only by "oikonomía" (economy or <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>); consequently His Humanity is not His phúsis. Taken thus, the formula mía phúsis was intended by Ælurus in an <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> sense. Thirdly, the actions of Christ are attributed to His Divine Person, to the one Christ. Here Ælurus seems to be unorthodox. For the essence of <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelism</a> is the refusal to apportion the actions (’enérgeiai) between the two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, but to insist that they are all the actions of the one Personality. How far Ælurus was in reality a <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelite</a> cannot be judged until his works are before us in full. He is, at all events in the main, a <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schismatic</a>, full of <a href="../cathen/07149b.htm">hatred</a> and contempt for the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a> outside <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a>, for the 600 <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of Chalcedon, for the 1600 of the Encyclia, for <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a> and the whole West. But he consistently <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematized</a> <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a> for his denial that Christ is consubstantial with us. 5. In the next generation Severus, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a> (511-39), was the great <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> leader. In his earlier days, he rejected the <a href="../cathen/07218b.htm">Henoticon</a> of Zeno, but when a patriarch he accepted it. His contemporaries accused him of contradicting himself in the attempt, it seems, to be comprehensive. He did not, however, conciliate the Incorrupticolæ, but maintained the corruptibility of the Body of Christ. He seems to have admitted the expression ’ek dúo phúseon. Chalcedon and Pope Leo he treated as <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorian</a>, as Ælurus did, on the ground that two natures mean two <a href="../cathen/11726a.htm">persons</a>. He did not allow the Humanity to be a distinct <a href="../cathen/10447b.htm">monad</a>; but this is no more than the view of many modern <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a> that it has no esse of its own. (So <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a>, III, Q. xvii, a. 2; see Janssens, De Deo homine, pars prior, p. 607, Freiburg, 1901.) It need not be understood that by thus making a composite hypostasis Severus renounced the Cyrillian <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of the unchanged nature of the Word after the unconfused union. Where he is most certainly <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretical</a> is in his conception of one nature not Divine (so Cyril and Ælurus) but theandric, and thus a composition, though not a mixture—phúsis theandriké. To this one nature are attributed all the activities of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, and they are called "theandric" (’enérgeiai theandrikaí), instead of being separated into Divine activities and human activities as by the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a>. The undivided Word, he said, must have an undivided activity. Thus even if Severus could be defended from the charge of strict <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a>, in that he affirmed the full reality of the Human Nature of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, though he refused to it the name of nature, yet at least he appears as a dogmatic <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelite</a>. This is the more clear, in that on the crucial question of one or two wills, he pronounces for one theandric will. On the other hand utterances of Severus which make <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> sufferings <a href="../cathen/15506a.htm">voluntarily</a> permitted, rather than naturally necessitated by the treatment inflicted on His Body, might perhaps be defended by the consideration that from the union and consequent <a href="../cathen/02364a.htm">Beatific Vision</a> in the Soul of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, would congruously ensue a <a href="../cathen/02364b.htm">beatification</a> of the Soul and a spiritualizing of the Body, as was actually the case after the <a href="../cathen/12789a.htm">Resurrection</a>; from this point of view it is <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> that the possibility of the Humanity is <a href="../cathen/15506a.htm">voluntary</a> (that is, decreed by the Divine will) and not due to it in the state which is connatural to it after the union; although the Human Nature is of its own nature passible apart from the union (St. Thomas, III, Q. xiv, a. 1, ad 2). It is important to recollect that the same distinction has to be made in considering whether the Body of Christ is to be called corruptible or incorruptible, and consequently whether <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">Catholic doctrine</a> on this point is in favour of Severus or of his adversary Julian. The words of St. Thomas may be borne in mind: "Corruptio et mors non competit Christo ratione suppositi, secundum quod attenditur unitas, sed ratione naturæ, secundam quam invenitur differentia mortis et vitæ" (III, Q. 1, a. 5, ad 2). As the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> discussed the question ratione suppositi (since they took nature to mean hypostasis, and to imply a suppositum) they were bound to consider the Body of Christ incorruptible. We must therefore consider the Julianists more consistent than the Severians. 6. Julian, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/07117a.htm">Halicarnassus</a>, was the leader of those who held the incorruptibility, as Severus was of those who held the corruptibility. The question arose in Alexandria, and created great excitement, when the two <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> had taken refuge in that city, soon after the accession of the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> Emperor Justin, in 518. The Julianists called the Severians phthartolátrai or Corrupticolæ, and the latter retorted by entitling the Julians ’Aphthartodokêtai and Phantasiasts, as renewing the <a href="../cathen/05070c.htm">Docetic</a> <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresies</a> of the second century. In 537, the two parties elected rival <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchs</a> of Alexandria, Theodosius and Gaianas, after whom the Corrupticolæ were known as Theodosians, and the Incorrupticolæ as Gaianites. Julian considered, with some show of reason, that the <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> of Severus necessitated the admission of two <a href="../cathen/10715a.htm">natures</a>, and he was <a href="../cathen/08010c.htm">unjustly</a> accused of <a href="../cathen/05070c.htm">Docetism</a> and <a href="../cathen/09591a.htm">Manichæanism</a>, for he taught the reality of the Humanity of <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a>, and made it incorruptible not formaliter quâ human, but as united to the Word. His followers, however, split upon this question. One party admitted a potential corruptibility. Another party taught an absolute incorruptibility katà pánta trópon, as flowing from the union itself. A third <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> declared that by the union the Humanity obtained the prerogative of being uncreate; they were called Actistetæ, and replied by denominating their opponents "Ctistolaters", or worshippers of a creature. Heresies, after the analogy of low forms of physical life, tend to propagate by division. So <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> showed its nature, once it was separated from the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> body. The Emperor Justinian, in 565, adopted the incorruptibilist view, and made it a law for all <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. The troubles that arose in consequence, both in East and West, were calmed by his death in November of that year. 7. The famous Philoxenus or Xenaias (d. soon after 518), <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of Mabug (Mabbogh, Mambuce, or Hierapolis in <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a> Euphratensis), is best known today by his Syriac version of the <a href="../cathen/14530a.htm">New Testament</a>, which was revised by Thomas of Harkel, and is known as the Harkleian or Philoxonian text. It is unfair of Hefele (Councils, tr. III, 459-60) to treat him as almost a Docetist. From what can be learned of his doctrines they were very like those of Severus and of Ælurus. He was a <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> in words and a <a href="../cathen/10502a.htm">Monothelite</a> in reality, for he taught that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ</a> had one will, an <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> which it was almost impossible for any <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> to avoid. But this mía phúsis súnthetos was no doubt meant by him as equivalent to the hypostasis composita taught by <a href="../cathen/14663b.htm">St. Thomas</a>. As Philoxenus taught that <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Christ's</a> sufferings were by choice, he must be placed on the side of the Julianists. He was careful to deny all confusion in the union, and all transformation of the Word. 8. Peter Fullo, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a> (471-88), is chiefly famed in the realm of <a href="../cathen/05089a.htm">dogma</a> for his addition to the Trisagion or Tersanctus, "Agios o Theos, Agios Ischyros, Agios Athanatos", of the words "who wast crucified for us". This is plain Patripassianism, so far as words go. It was employed by Peter as a test, and he <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> all who refused it. There is no possibility of explaining away this assertion of the suffering of the Divine Nature by the communicatio idiomatum, for it is not merely the Divine Nature (in the sense of hypostasis) of the Son which is said to have been crucified, but the words are attached to a three-fold invocation of the Trinity. Peter may therefore be considered as a full-blooded <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>, who carried the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> to its extreme, so that it involved <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> as to the Trinity (Sabellianism) as well as with regard to the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>. He did not admit the addition of the words "Christ our King" which his <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> rival Calandio added to his formula. Some Scythian <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a> of Constantinople, led by <a href="../cathen/10073a.htm">John Maxentius</a>, before the reconciliation with the West in 519, upheld the formula "one of the Trinity was crucified" as a test to exclude the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> of Peter Fullo on the one hand and <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a> on the other. They were <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> adherents of the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a>. <a href="../cathen/07470a.htm">Pope Hormisdas</a> thought very badly of the <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a>, and would do nothing in approval of their formula. But it was approved by <a href="../cathen/08421b.htm">John II</a>, in 534, and imposed under <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathema</a> by the <a href="../cathen/04308b.htm">Second Council of Constantinople</a> in 553, which closed the so-called "Theopaschite" controversy. 9. We have further to catalogue a number of subdivisions of <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> which pullulated in the sixth century. The <a href="../cathen/01215b.htm">Agnoetæ</a> were Corrupticolæ, who denied completeness of <a href="../cathen/08673a.htm">knowledge</a> to the Human Nature of Christ; they were sometimes called Themistians, from Themistus Calonymus, an Alexandrian <a href="../cathen/04647c.htm">deacon</a>, their chief writer. They were <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> by the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Timotheus (d. 527) and Theodosius. Their views resemble the "Kenotic" theories of our own day. The <a href="../cathen/15061b.htm">Tritheists</a>, or Tritheites, or Condobaudites, were founded by a Constantinopolitan <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosopher</a>, John Asconagus, or Ascunaghes, at the beginning of the sixth century, but their principal teacher was John Philopomus, an Alexandrian <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosopher</a>, who died probably towards the end of that century. These <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a> taught that there were three natures in the <a href="../cathen/15047a.htm">Holy Trinity</a>, the three Persons being <a href="../cathen/07762a.htm">individuals</a> of a species. A zealot of the <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> was a <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monk</a> <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a>, grandson of the Empress Theodora, wife of Justinian. He followed the view of Theodosius, that the bodies to be given in the <a href="../cathen/12792a.htm">resurrection</a> are new creations. Stephen Gobaras was another writer of this <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a>. Their followers were called Athanasians or Philoponiaci. <a href="../cathen/02035a.htm">Athanasius</a> was opposed by Conon, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/14461b.htm">Tarsus</a> (c. 600), who eventually <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathematized</a> his teacher Philoponus. The Cononites are said to have urged that, though the matter of the body is corruptible, its form is not. The <a href="../cathen/15061b.htm">Tritheites</a> were <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> by the Jacobite <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>, Damian (577), who found the unity of <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> in a ‘úparksis distinct from the three Persons, which he called autótheos. His disciples were taunted with <a href="../cathen/02408b.htm">believing</a> in four <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Gods</a>, and were nicknamed Tetradites, or Tetratheites, and also Damianists and Angelites. Peter Callinicus, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a> (578-91), opposed them, and both he and Damian attacked the Alexandrian <a href="../cathen/12025c.htm">philosopher</a> Stephen Niobes, founder of the Niobites, who taught that there was no distinction whatever between the Divine Nature and the Human after the <a href="../cathen/07706b.htm">Incarnation</a>, and characterized the distinctions made by those who admitted only one nature as half-hearted. Many of his followers joined the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholics</a>, when they found themselves <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> by the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>. <h2>History</h2> Of the origin of Eutychianism among the Cyrillian party a few words were said above. The controversy between Cyril and Theodoret was revived with <a href="../cathen/15446a.htm">violence</a> in the attacks made in 444-8, after Cyril's death, by his party on Irenæus of <a href="../cathen/15109a.htm">Tyre</a>, Ibas of <a href="../cathen/05282a.htm">Edessa</a>, and others (see <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">DIOSCURUS</a>). The trial of <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>, by <a href="../cathen/06098c.htm">St. Flavian</a> at Constantinople, brought matters to a head (see <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">EUTYCHES</a>). Theodosius II convened an æcumenical council at Ephesus, in 449, over which <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>, the real founder of <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> as a <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a>, presided (see <a href="../cathen/05495a.htm">ROBBER COUNCIL OF EPHESUS</a>). <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> had already condemned the teaching of one nature in his letter to <a href="../cathen/06098c.htm">Flavian</a> called the tome, a masterpiece of exact terminology, unsurpassed for clearness of thought, which condemns Nestorius on the one hand, and <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a> on the other (see <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">LEO I, POPE</a>). After the council had acquitted <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a>, <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> insisted on the signing of this letter by the Eastern <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, especially by those who had taken part in the disgraceful scenes at Ephesus. In 451, six hundred <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> assembled at <a href="../cathen/03554a.htm">Chalcedon</a>, under the presidency of the <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">papal legates</a> (see <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">CHALCEDON, COUNCIL OF</a>). The <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope's</a> view was assured of success before-hand by the support of the new Emperor Marcian. <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus of Alexandria</a> was deposed. The tome was acclaimed by all, save by thirteen out of the seventeen <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egyptian</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> present, for these declared their lives would not be safe, if they returned to <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a> after signing, unless a new patriarch had been appointed. The real difficulty lay in drawing up a definition of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>. There was now no <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>; those of Antioch and Constantinople had been nominees of <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>, though they had now accepted the tome; Juvenal of <a href="../cathen/08344a.htm">Jerusalem</a> had been one of the leaders of the Robber Council, but like the rest had submitted to <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a>. It is consequently not surprising that the committee, appointed to draw up a definition of <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>, produced a colourless document (no longer extant), using the words ’ek dúo phúseon, which <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a> and <a href="../cathen/05631a.htm">Eutyches</a> might have signed without difficulty. It was excitedly applauded in the fifth session of the council, but the <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">papal legates</a>, supported by the imperial commissioners, would not agree to it, and declared they would break up the council and return to <a href="../cathen/08208a.htm">Italy</a>, if it were pressed. The few <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> who stood by the <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">legates</a> were of the Antiochian party and suspected of <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a> by many. The emperor's personal intervention was invoked. It was demonstrated to the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> that to refuse to assert "two natures" (not merely "of" two) was to agree with <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a> and not with the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a>, and they yielded with a very bad grace. They had accepted the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope's</a> letter with enthusiasm, and they had deposed <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>, not indeed for <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> (as Austolius of Constantinople had the <a href="../cathen/06147a.htm">courage</a>, or the impudence, 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 <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a>. It condemns <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> in the following words: "Following the holy Fathers, we acknowledge one and the same Son, one <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a>; and in accordance with this we all teach that He is perfect in <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, perfect also in Manhood, truly <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">God</a> and truly Man, of a rational <a href="../cathen/14153a.htm">soul</a> and body, <a href="../cathen/07449a.htm">consubstantial</a> with His Father as regards his <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, and consubstantial with us as regards His Manhood, in all things like unto us save for <a href="../cathen/14004b.htm">sin</a>; begotten of His Father before the worlds as to His <a href="../cathen/06608a.htm">Godhead</a>, and in the last days for us and for our <a href="../cathen/13407a.htm">salvation</a> [born] of Mary the Virgin 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] without confusion or change, indivisibly, inseparably [’en dúo phúsesin ’asugchútos, ’atréptos, ’adiairétos, ’achorístos gnorizómenon]; 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 separated into two Persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, <a href="../cathen/09328a.htm">God the Word</a>, the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a>; even as the Prophets taught aforetime about Him, and as the <a href="../cathen/08374c.htm">Lord Jesus Christ</a> Himself taught us, and as the symbol of the Fathers has handed down to us." <div class="CMtag_300x250" style="display: flex; height: 300px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; "></div> So <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysitism</a> was exorcised; but the unwillingness 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 <a href="../cathen/05075b.htm">doctrine</a> 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, <a href="../cathen/10244c.htm">metropolitan</a> by <a href="../cathen/10244c.htm">metropolitan</a>, first by the mouth of above a hundred, then by the mouth of above six hundred of its <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, and refused 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 <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> under the sanction of an <a href="../cathen/01455e.htm">anathema</a>, forced on the Council by the resolution of the Pope of the day, acting through his Legates and supported by the <a href="../cathen/02137c.htm">civil power</a>" (Newman, "Development", v, §3, 1st ed., p. 307). Theodosius issued edicts against the Eutychians, in March and July, 452, forbidding them to have <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a>, or assemblies, to make wills or inherit <a href="../cathen/12462a.htm">property</a>, or to do military service. Priests who were obstinate in <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a> were to be banished beyond the limits of the empire. Troubles began almost immediately the council was over. A <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monk</a> named Theodosius, who had been punished at Alexandria for blaming <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>, now on the contrary opposed the decision of the council, and going to Palestine persuaded the many thousands of <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a> there that the council had taught plain <a href="../cathen/10755a.htm">Nestorianism</a>. They made a raid upon <a href="../cathen/08344a.htm">Jerusalem</a> and drove out Juvenal, the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, who would not renounce the Chalcedonian definition, although he had been before one of the heads of the Robber Council. Houses were set on fire, and some of the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> were slain. Theodosius made himself <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, and throughout Palestine the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> were expelled and new ones set up. The <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/13648b.htm">Scythopolis</a> lost his life; <a href="../cathen/15446a.htm">violence</a> and riots were the order of the day. Eudocia, <a href="../cathen/15617c.htm">widow</a> of the Emperor Theodosius II, had retired to Palestine, and gave some support to the insurgent <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a>. Marcian and Pulcheria took mild measures to restore peace, and sent repeated letters in which the real character of the decrees of Chalcedon was carefully explained. <a href="../cathen/05630b.htm">St. Euthymius</a> and his community were almost the only <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a> who upheld the council, but this influence, together with a long letter from <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> to the excited <a href="../cathen/10487b.htm">monks</a>, had no <a href="../cathen/05141a.htm">doubt</a> great weight in obtaining peace. In 453, large numbers acknowledged their <a href="../cathen/05525a.htm">error</a>, when Theodosius was driven out and took refuge on <a href="../cathen/14011a.htm">Mount Sinai</a>, after a tyranny of twenty months. Others held out on the ground that it was uncertain whether the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> had ratified the council. It was <a href="../cathen/15073a.htm">true</a> that he had annulled its disciplinary canons. The emperor therefore wrote to <a href="../cathen/09154b.htm">St. Leo</a> asking for an explicit confirmation, which the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> sent at once, at the same time thanking Marcian for his acquiescence in the condemnation of the twenty-eighth canon, as to the precedence of the <a href="../cathen/04301a.htm">See of Constantinople</a>, and for repressing the religious riots in Palestine. In <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a> the results of the council were far more serious, for nearly the whole <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchate</a> eventually sided with <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>, and has remained in <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> to the present day. Out of seventeen <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> who represented, at <a href="../cathen/03554a.htm">Chalcedon</a>, the hundred <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egyptian</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, only four had the <a href="../cathen/06147a.htm">courage</a> to sign the <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a>. These four returned to Alexandria, and peacably <a href="../cathen/11279a.htm">ordained</a> the <a href="../cathen/01693a.htm">archdeacon</a>, Proterius, a man of good character and venerable by his age, in the place of <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a>. But the deposed patriarch was popular, and the thirteen <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, who had been allowed to defer signing the tome of St. Leo, misrepresented the teaching of the council as contrary to that of Cyril. A riot was the result. The soldiers who attempted to quell it were driven into the ancient temple of Serapis, which was now a church, and it was burnt over their heads. Marcian retaliated by depriving the city of the usual largess of corn, of public shows, and of privileges. Two thousand soldiers reinforced the garrison, and committed <a href="../cathen/13506d.htm">scandalous</a> <a href="../cathen/15446a.htm">violence</a>. The people were <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obliged</a> to submit, but the patriarch was safe only under military protection. Schism began through the retirement from his communion of the <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priest</a> Timothy, called Ælurus, "the cat", and Peter, called <a href="../cathen/11770a.htm">Mongus</a>, "the hoarse", a <a href="../cathen/04647c.htm">deacon</a>, and these were joined by four or five <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. When the death of <a href="../cathen/05019a.htm">Dioscurus</a> (September, 454) in exile at <a href="../cathen/06377b.htm">Gangra</a> was known, two <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecrated</a> Timothy Ælurus as his successor. Henceforward almost the whole of <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a> acknowledged the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> patriarch. On the arrival of the news of the death of Marcian (February, 457), Proterius was <a href="../cathen/07441a.htm">murdered</a> in a riot, and <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> were everywhere replaced by <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>. The new emperor, Leo, put down force by <a href="../cathen/15446a.htm">force</a>, but Ælurus was protected by his minister Aspar. Leo wished for a council, but gave way before the objections made by the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">pope</a> his namesake, and the difficulties of assembling so many <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. He therefore sent queries throughout the Eastern Empire to be answered by the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, as to the veneration due to the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a> and as to the <a href="../cathen/11279a.htm">ordination</a> and the conduct of Ælurus. As only <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> were consulted, the replies were unanimous. One or two of the provincial councils, in expressing their indignation against Timothy, add the proviso "if the reports are accurate", and the <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of Pamphylia point out that the <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a> of Chalcedon is not a creed for the people, but a test for <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>. The letters, still preserved (in Latin only) under the name of Encyclia, or Codex Encyclius, bear the signatures of about 260 <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, but Nicephorus Callistus says, that there were altogether more than a thousand, while Eulogius, <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a> in the days of <a href="../cathen/06780a.htm">St. Gregory the Great</a>, puts the number at 1600. He says that only one <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a>, the aged Amphilochius of Side, dissented from the rest, but he soon changed his mind (quoted by Photius, Bibl., CCXXX, p. 283). This tremendous body of testimonies to the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a> is little remembered today, but in controversies with the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> it was in those times of equal importance with the council itself, as its solemn ratification. In the following year Ælurus was exiled, but was recalled in 475 during the short reign of the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> usurper Basiliscus. The Emperor Zeno spared Ælurus from further punishment on account of his great age. That emperor tried to reconcile the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> by means of his <a href="../cathen/07218b.htm">Henoticon</a>, a <a href="../cathen/04670a.htm">decree</a> which dropped the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a>. It could, however, please neither side, and the middle party which adhered to it and formed the official Church of the East was <a href="../cathen/05678a.htm">excommunicated</a> by the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">popes</a>. At Alexandria, the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> were united to the <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schismatic</a> Church of Zeno by <a href="../cathen/11770a.htm">Peter Mongus</a> who became patriarch. But the stricter <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> seceded from him and formed a <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a> known as <a href="../cathen/01100c.htm">Acephali</a>. At Antioch Peter Fullo also supported the <a href="../cathen/07218b.htm">Henoticon</a>. A <a href="../cathen/13529a.htm">schism</a> between East and West lasted through the reigns of Zeno and his more definitely <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> successor Anastasius, in spite of the efforts of the <a href="../cathen/12260a.htm">popes</a>, especially the great <a href="../cathen/06406a.htm">St. Gelasius</a>. In 518, the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> Justin came to the throne, and reunion was consummated in the following year by him, with the active co-operation of his more famous nephew Justinian, to the great <a href="../cathen/07131b.htm">joy</a> of the whole East. Pope <a href="../cathen/07470a.htm">Hormisdas</a> sent <a href="../cathen/09118a.htm">legates</a> to reconcile the <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchs</a> and <a href="../cathen/10244c.htm">metropolitans</a>, and every <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> was forced to sign, without alteration, a petition in which he accepted the <a href="../cathen/05752c.htm">faith</a> which had always been preserved at <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, and condemned not only the leaders of the Eutychian <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a>, but also Zeno's time-serving <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> of Constantinople, <a href="../cathen/01082a.htm">Acacius</a> and his successors. Few of the Eastern <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> seem to have been otherwise than <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> and anxious for reunion, and they were not <a href="../cathen/11189a.htm">obliged</a> to omit from the <a href="../cathen/05022a.htm">diptychs</a> of their churches the names of their predecessors, who had unwillingly been cut off from actual communion with <a href="../cathen/13164a.htm">Rome</a>, in the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius. The famous <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> writer Severus was now deposed from the See of Antioch. Justinian, during his long reign, took the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> side, but his empress, Theodora, was a <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>, and in his old age the emperor leaned in the same direction. We still possess the acts of a conference, between six Severian and seven <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a> <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a>, held by his order in 533. The great controversy of his reign was the dispute about the "three chapters", extracts from the writings of <a href="../cathen/14571b.htm">Theodore of Mopsuestia</a>, Theodoret, and Ibas, which Justinian wished to get condemned in order to conciliate the Severians and other moderate <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a>. He succeeded in driving Pope <a href="../cathen/15427b.htm">Vigilius</a> into the acceptance of the Second <a href="../cathen/04308a.htm">Council of Constantinople</a>, which he had summoned for the purpose of giving effect to his view. The West disapproved of this condemnation as derogatory to the <a href="../cathen/03555a.htm">Council of Chalcedon</a>, and Africa and Illyricum refused for some time to receive the council. The divisions among the <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heretics</a> have been mentioned above. A great revival and unification was effected by the great man of the <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a>, the famous Jacob Baradai, <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">Bishop</a> of Edssa (c. 541-78). (See <a href="../cathen/02282a.htm">BARADÆUS </a>.) In his earlier years a <a href="../cathen/07280a.htm">recluse</a> in his <a href="../cathen/04340c.htm">monastery</a>, when a <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishop</a> he spent his life traveling in a beggar's garb, ordaining <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> and <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a> everywhere in Mesopotamia, <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a>, <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a>, in order to repair the spiritual ruin caused among the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> by Justinian's renewal of the original <a href="../cathen/09053a.htm">laws</a> against their <a href="../cathen/02581b.htm">bishops</a> and <a href="../cathen/12406a.htm">priests</a>. <a href="../cathen/08470c.htm">John of Ephesus</a> puts the number of <a href="../cathen/04049b.htm">clergy</a> he <a href="../cathen/11279a.htm">ordained</a> at 100,000, others at 80,000. His journeys were incredibly swift. He was believed to have the <a href="../cathen/10350a.htm">gift of miracles</a>, and at least he performed the <a href="../cathen/10338a.htm">miracle</a> of infusing a new life into the dry bones of his <a href="../cathen/13674a.htm">sect</a>, though he was unable to unite them against the "Synodites" (as they called the <a href="../cathen/11330a.htm">orthodox</a>), and he died worn out by the quarrels among the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">patriarchs</a> and <a href="../cathen/14580a.htm">theologians</a>. He has deserved to give his name to the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> of <a href="../cathen/14399a.htm">Syria</a>, Mesopotamia, and <a href="../cathen/02179b.htm">Babylonia</a>, with <a href="../cathen/01782a.htm">Asia Minor</a>, Palestine, and <a href="../cathen/04589a.htm">Cyprus</a>, who have remained since his time generally united under a <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01570a.htm">Antioch</a> (see <a href="../cathen/05230a.htm">Eastern Churches</a>, A. Schismatical Churches, 5. <a href="../cathen/14417a.htm">Jacobites</a>). A number of these united in 1646 with the <a href="../cathen/03449a.htm">Catholic</a> <a href="../cathen/03744a.htm">Church</a>, and they are governed by the Syrian <a href="../cathen/01691a.htm">Archbishop</a> of <a href="../cathen/01283b.htm">Aleppo</a>. The rest of the <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> are also frequently called <a href="../cathen/14417a.htm">Jacobites</a>. For the <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Coptic</a> <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysites</a> see <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">EGYPT</a>, and for the <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">Armenians</a> see <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">ARMENIA</a>. The <a href="../cathen/01736b.htm">Armenian</a> <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a> Patriarch resides at Constantinople. The <a href="../cathen/01075e.htm">Abyssinian</a> Church was drawn into the same <a href="../cathen/07256b.htm">heresy</a> through its close connexion with Alexandria. At least since the <a href="../cathen/10424a.htm">Mohammedan</a> conquest of <a href="../cathen/05329b.htm">Egypt</a>, in 641, the Abuna of the <a href="../cathen/01075e.htm">Abyssinians</a> has always been <a href="../cathen/04276a.htm">consecrated</a> by the <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Coptic</a> <a href="../cathen/11549a.htm">Patriarch</a> of <a href="../cathen/01300b.htm">Alexandria</a>, so that the <a href="../cathen/01075e.htm">Abyssinian</a> Church has always been, and is still, nominally <a href="../cathen/10489b.htm">Monophysite</a>. <div class='catholicadnet-728x90' id='cathen-728x90-bottom' style='display: flex; height: 100px; align-items: center; justify-content: center; '></div> <div class="cenotes"><h2>Sources</h2>The chief materials for the general history of the Eutychians will be found in the Collections of the Councils by MANSI, HARDOUIN, or LABBE, that is to say the councils, letters of popes, and other documents. To these must be added the historians EVAGRIUS, THEOPHANES, etc., and the Monophysite historians JOHN OF EPHESUS, and ZACHARIAS RHETOR (both in LAND's Anecdota Syriaca, II-III, Leyden, 1879), a German translation of the latter by AHRENS and KRÜGER (Leipzig, 1899) and an English one by HAMILTON and BROOKS (London, 1889). The works of FACUNDUS, the Breviarium of LIBERATUS, and information imparted by PHOTIUS are valuable. Of modern authorities, the larger and smaller histories are innumerable, e. g. BARONIUS, FLEURY, GIBBON, HEFELE, and (for the early period) TILLEMONT, XV; also the biographical articles in such large works as CAVE, Biogr. Litt. FABRICIUS; the Kirchenlexikon; HERZOG, Realencykl.; and Dict. Ch. Biog.; ASSEMANI, Bibl. Orient., II; WALCH, Ketzergeschichte (Leipzig, 1762-85), VI-VIII; for detailed biographies see the articles referred to above. On the dogmatic side see PETAVIUS, De Incarn., VI; DORNER, Entwicklungsgeschichte von der Person Christi (Berlin, 1853), 2nd ed.; tr.: Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Edinburgh, 1861-3), 5 vols.—it should be noted that DORNER himself held a Nestorian view; Dict. de Théol. Cath.; the histories of dogma such as those of SCHWANE, HARNACK, and (up to 451) BETHUNE -BAKER; KRÜGER, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten in Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik (Jena, 1884); LOOFS, Leontius von Byzanz. in Texte und Unters., 1st series, III, 1-2; new light has come from the Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic of late years. In addition to the histories mentioned above: EVETTS, History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, Arabic and English in Patrol. Orient., I, 2 (Paris, 1905); S. BEN EL MOGAFFA, Historia patriarchum Alexandr. in Corpus Script. Christ. Orient., Scriptores arabici, 3rd series, IX; CHABOU, Chronique de Michel le Syrien (Paris, 1901), II. On the works of Timothy Ælurus, CRUM, Eusebius and Coptic Ch. Hist., in Proc. of Soc. of Bibl. Archæol. (London, 1902), XXIV; LEBON, La Christologie de Timothée Ælure in Revue d'Hist. Eccl. (Oct., 1908), IX, 4; on Severus of Antioch, KUGENER, Vies de Sé0vère par Zaccharie le Rhéteur, et par Jean de Beith Apthonia in Patrol. Orient. II (Paris, 1907); DUVAL, Les homélies cathédrale de Sévère, trad. syr. de Jacques d'Edesse in Patrol. Orient.; BROOKS, Sixth book of the select letters of Severus in the Syrian version of Athan. of Nisib. (Text and Transl. Soc., London, 1904), besides the fragments published by MAI, etc.; on Julian see LOOFS, loc. cit.; USENER in Rhein. Mus. für Phil. (N. S., LV, 1900); the letters of Peter Mongus and Acacius publ. by REVILLOUT (Rev. des Qu. hist., XXII, 1877, a French transl.) and by AMÉLINEAU (Monum. pour servir à l'hist. de l'Egypte chr. aux IVe et Ve siècles, Paris, 1888) are spurious; DUVAL, Litt. Syriaque (Paris, 1900), 2nd ed.</div> <div class="pub"><h2>About this page</h2>APA citation. Chapman, J. (1909). Eutychianism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htmMLA citation. Chapman, John. "Eutychianism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm>.Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by WGKofron. With thanks to Fr. John Hilkert, Akron, Ohio.Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.</div> </div> <div id="ogdenville"><table summary="Bottom bar" width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td class="bar_white_on_color"><center>Copyright © 2023 by <a href="../utility/contactus.htm">New Advent LLC</a>. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.</center></td></tr></table><a href="../utility/contactus.htm">CONTACT US</a> | <a href="https://cleanmedia.net/p/?psid=491-308-20180429T2217479770">ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT</a></div> <ins class="CANBMDDisplayAD" data-bmd-ad-unit="30849120210203T1734389107AB67D35C03D4A318731A4F337F60B3E" style="display:block"></ins> <script src="https://secureaddisplay.com/au/bmd/"></script>  <ins class="CMAdExcludeArticles"></ins> </body> </html>