(), a presbyter and abbot at Constantinople, in
the 5th century, who headed the party opposed to the Nestorian doctrines [NESTORIUS]. Nestorius having maintained that there are in Christ two persons or
substances (ν̔πσοστά σεις), one divine (the Λόγος), and one human (Jesus), but with only one aspect, and united not by nature, but by will and affection ;--Eutyches carried his
opposition to this system so far as to assert that in Christ here is but
one nature, that of the Incarnate Word. The declaration "the word was made flesh" implies,
according to Eutyches, that He so took human nature upon Him, that His own nature was not
changed. From this it follows that His body is not a mere human body, but a body of God. There
can be no doubt that this doctrine, if pushed to its logical consequences, would he highly
dangerous, since it would destroy all the practical benefits of our belief in in the
Incarnation, as it involves the denial that we have a High Priest who can be touched with a
feeling of our infirmities. If this is borne in mind, the horror which it excited can be
accounted for; and although we do not know that Eutyches, any more than many other teachers of
error, did carry out his principles to their practical conclusions, still the means which were
adopted to support his cause were such as to prevent our feeling any sympathy with it. His
opinions became popular in the Alexandrian Church, where the doctrines of Nestorius had been
most loudly coindemned, and where the patriarch Dioscurus was eminently violent and
unscrupulous. Eutycilea was first warned of his error privately by Eusebius,
bishop of Dorylaeum, and was then denounced by him as a heretic, before a synod which
assembled at Constantinople, under the presidency of Flavian, patriarch of that city. He was
condemned, in spite of the extent of his influence at court, where Chrysaphius, eunuch and
chief chamberlain to Theodosius II., was a close friend of Dioscurus, and godson to Eutyches.
Besides this, Chrysaphis had a strong desire to crush the partisans of Pulcheria. the
emperor's sister, who was warmly attached to Flavian. By his influence Theodosius was
persuaded to declare himself dissatisfied with the decision of Flavian's synod, and to refer
the matter to a general council, to meet at Ephesus, A. D. 449. under
the presidency of Dioscurus. This is the celebrated λῃστρικὴ
σύνοδος, an appellation which it most richly deserved. It was composed almost
entirely of partisans of Eutyches. Flavian, and those who had judged him on the former
occasion,though allowed to be present, were not to be suffered to vote. Theodoret, the
historian, who had been a friend of Nestorius, was not to vote without the permission of
Dioscurus; and a number of frantic Egyptian monks accompanied their abbot, Barsumas, to whom,
as a vigorous opponent of Nestorius, a seat and vote in the council were assigned. For the
emperor had avowed, in his letters of convocation, that his great object was πᾶσαν διαβολικὴν ἔκκοψαι πίζαν, meaning by this phrase the
Nestorian doctrines. When the council met, all opponents of Eutyches were silenced by the
outcries of the monks, the threats of the soldiers who were admitted to hear the
deliberations, and the overhearing violence of the president. Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret
were deposed, and the doctrines of Eutyches formally sanctioned; and this was regarded as a
victory gained over the Eastern church by its Alexandrian rival, which two bodies often came
into conflict from the different dogmatical tendencies prevalent in each. The deposed
prelates, however, applied for aid to Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, who had been himself
summoned to the council, but, instead of appearing there, had sent Julius, bishop of Puteoli,
and three other legates, from whom therefore he obtained a correct account of the scenes which
had disgraced it. He was ready to interfere, both on general grounds, and from the notion,
which had already begun to take root, that to him, as the successor of St. Peter, belonged a
sort of oversight over the whole church. Things were changed too at Constantinople:
Chrysaphius was disgraced and banished, and Pulcheria restored to her brother's favour. In the
year 450, Theodosius II. died; Pulcheria married Marcian, and procured for him the succession
to the throne. A new general council was summoned at Nicaea, and afterwards adjourned to
Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which 630 bishops attended. The proceedings
were not altogether worthy of a body met to decide on such subjects; yet, on the whole,
something like decorum was observed. The result was that Dioscurus and Eutyches were
condemned, and the doctrine of Christ in one person and two natures finally declared to be the
faith of the church. We know nothing of the subsequent fate of Eutyches, except that Leo wrote
to beg Marcian and Pulcheria to send him into banishment, with what success does not appear.
There are extant a confession of faith presented by Eutyches to the council of Ephesus (the
βουλὴ λῃστρικὴ), and two petitions to the emperor
Theodosius (Concil. vol. iv. pp. 134, 241, 250); but no works of his are
in existence. This schism was continued among the monks by Eudocia, widow of Theodosius, and
to such an extent, that Marcian was obliged to send an armed force to put it down. The
followers of Eutyches, however, under the name of Monophysites, continued to propagate their
opinions, though with little success, till the 6th century, when a great revival of those
doctrines took place under the auspices of Jacob Baradaeus, who died bishop of Edessa, A. D. 588. From him they were called Jacobites, and under this title still
constitute a very numerous church, to which the Armenians and Copts belong. (Evagrius, Hist. Eccles. 1.9; Theodoret, Ep. 79, 82, 92, &c.;
Cave, Script. Eccles. Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, Kirchengesch. iii. p. 1079, &c.)