EUTYCHIANISM, u-tik'i-an-iz'm, in Christology, the monophysitism peculiar to Eutyches, an archimandnte, or abbot of a mon astery, who lived near Constantinople during the 5th century A.D. Monophysitism designates the creed of those who in opposition to the Creed of Chalcedon maintain the single-nature in Christ, or that the human and the divine in Jesus Christ constitutes but one composite na ture. In Eutychianism it is held that the divine and human person in Christ is so blended as to constitute one nature. Eutyches was seduced by the vehemence of his opposition to Nestorian ism into an unorthodox view of the nature of Jesus Christ. Prior to his time the Nicene Fathers had pronounced on the relation of the Father to the Divine Logos but left within the limits of orthodoxy room for a difference as to the relation of the Logos to the human Christ. The Antiochene school dreaded lest the idea of humanity should be entirely merged in that of the Logos. Others, leaning toward the teachings of Alexandria, sought to avoid any contaminations of the Logos by the associations of humanity. These positions on dogma be came intermingled with questions of ecclesias tical authority, the conflict of national ideals and the lower strife of personal rivalry.
It is usually alleged that Eutyches was the victim of his own zeal in opposition to Nesto rius. Nestorius, a harsh, unpleasant man, in tolerant of doctrinal eccentricities, other than his own, made it his peculiar mission to prevent mankind from assigning human attributes to God, and boldly took the consequences of his position.
Now in time Nestorius came into collision with Cyril, a member of the Alexandrian school. To Cyril, it seemed that the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Logos is impugned by any hesitation to assign the attributes of hu manity to the divine Christ. And it was this theological principle which was the cause, or at least the pretext, of Cyril's first attack on Nes torius. On the other side, the Antiochene school, well represented in Theodore of Mops vestia, a learned man and a great commenta tor, and the teacher whether directly or indi rectly of Nestorius,— held to the christology of Theodore. In it the union of the divine and human in the person of Jesus was moral rather than physical or dynamical, and Theodore fully avoided the deduction that the relation of divine and human was similar in kind, though different in degree, in Christ and in his follow ers. And the actions of Christ and his quali ties as man and particularly his birth, suffer ings and death, were not, in the christology of the Antiochene school, to be attributed to God without a qualifying phrase. This was the doc trine which Nestonus carried to its logical and practical conclusion; a position which is sum marized in his saying: °I cannot speak of God as being two or three months old!o And yet this is the view which the Alexandrian, with Cyril at their head, and Eutyches among its fol lowing, considered as virtually implying two Christs, one divine and the other human.
In the Monophysite controversy Eutyches is the main figure. He had opposed Nestorius; now he was himself accused of disseminating errors of an opposite kind from those of his opponent. His accuser, Euselius of Dorylmum, induced Flavian, the patriarch of Constantino ple, to call Eutyches to account. The accusa tions made, the aged Eutyches was with diffi culty brought from the seclusion of his monas tery. He was no theologian; and wished to fall back on the decisions of Nicma and of Ephesus. But the accusers pressed him, and the old man replied that he confessed Christ as being of two natures before the union in the Incarnation, of one nature afterward, being God Incarnate! On this point he would not recant: it was his peculiar monophysitism. How he appealed to the emperor, to Pope Leo and to the monks of Constantinople; how the decision of the Patriarch Flavian to excommunicate Eutyches was controverted by the Council of Ephesus in 449; and how in Chalcedon, two years later, Eutychianism was condemned a second time, and the received doctrine came into existence; all this is without the limits of this article. In place of the Monophysite doctrine of the one nature, it was established at Chalcedon that Christ was perfect God and perfect man, con substantial with the Father as to his divinity, and with man as to his humanity, the two na tures being united with him, without conversion, without confusion and without division. But if the Council of Chalcedon had succeeded in pronouncing Eutyches a heretic, it did not stamp out the influence of his doctrine. The sect of the Eutychians continued quietly to grow for a century after his death in the churches of Armenia, Ethiopia and of the Copts. And soon after his condemnation, 10 different sects could be counted who shared his teachings among themselves. Thus it came about that his heresy got for itself the name "ten-horned .b Monophysites still exist in Egypt and the East, under the title of Jacobites, a name de rived from Jacob Barodieus. From them the orthodox are distinguished by the name of Melchites, or Royalists, which title they have owing to their adherence to the edicts of the Emperor Marcian in favor of the Council of Chalcedon, and tlieir adoption of the doctrine it laid down. (See MONOPHYSITES). Consult Harnack, (History of Dogma) ; and Ottley, R. L., (The Doctrine of the Incarnation.)