ABSTRACT
The mia physis slogan, in particular, became a source of conflict within a few years of Cyril’s death.2 Cyril had interpreted ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’ in an orthodox way, but it could easily be taken to imply that there were two natures before the union but only one after it. This was the teaching of Eutyches, an archimandrite of Constantinople and extreme Cyrillian, who emphasized the unity of Christ at the expense of his humanity. Eutyches was condemned in November 448 at a Home Synod (synodos endemousa), at which his writings were judged against the standard of orthodoxy set by Cyril’s Second Letter to Nestorius and the Formulary of Reunion, but he refused to accept the verdict. Protected by Chrysaphius, a powerful palace official, he wrote letters to a number of hierarchs protesting the orthodoxy of his teaching. His cause was taken up with enthusiasm by Dioscorus, Cyril’s successor at Alexandria, who put pressure on Theodosius to summon a general council in order to exonerate Eutyches. This council met at Ephesus in August 449. Proceedings were controlled by Dioscorus, who was evidently hoping to repeat Cyril’s success at
Ephesus eighteen years previously. Unlike Cyril, however, Dioscorus neglected to secure the support of Rome. The Roman legates had brought with them Leo’s Tome to Flavian, which was to play such an important role at Chalcedon, but they were prevented from reading it out. Instead Eutyches was allowed to hold the floor and win a supportive vote from the 113 fathers assembled at the council with the help of intimidation brought to bear by soldiers, monks and parabalani, who burst in at a prearranged signal. The way in which the vote was secured prompted Pope Leo to dub the synod ‘the Robber Council’.3
