13. Theodora's Efforts for Monophysitism

But Theodora had been busy in the direction of Rome also. She had gained influence over the deacon Vigilius, who had come to Constantinople with Agapetus, and he is said to have promised her that if he were elected pope he would set aside the Constan- tinopolitan Synod and hold commu- Mono- -nion with Anthimus and Severus. In physitism. his absence Silverius had been chosen pope in Rome; but at Theodora's bidding Belisarius, then all-powerful in Italy, imprisoned and banished him on a charge of treasonable intercourse with the Goths, and procured the election of Vigilius (Mar. 29, 537). Vigilius now sent to Theodosius, Anthimus, and Severna a confession of faith which rejected the two natures and condemned the Antiochian theology, requesting

479

them, however, to keep it secret that he might the more effectively work for their cause. At the same time he was officially declaring his adherence to the faith of Chalcedon, and in his letters to Justinian and Mennas (Seat. 17, 540) he formally approved the anathemas of the synod of 536 against the three Monophysite patriarchs. The Monophysites maintained their existence as a party in Constantinople to the end of Justinian's reign, and had a preponderating influence in Syria and Egypt. At Theodora's bidding Jacobus Baradeeus was consecrated bishop in Constantinople by Theodosius, the Severian patriarch of Alexandria at the time of the conflict with the Julianists, and set out to begin his career as organizer of eastern Monophysi tism (see Jacobites). Justinian himself became increasingly interested in theological discussions, and toward the end of his life gave fresh offense to the orthodox by hias support of the Aphthartodoceteo (see Julian of Halicarnassus). Eutychius (q.v.), patriarch of Constantinople from 552, was deposed and banished for refusing to agree to this (Jan. 22, 565), and Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of Antioch, escaped a similar fate only by the emperor's death (Nov. 13, 565).

Justinian's nephew Justin II., who succeeded him (565-578), was a tool in the hands of the patriarch Johannes III. Scholasticus (q.v.), and from 571 there were severe persecutions of the Monophysites in the capital. There were, x4. Final however, long-continued negotiations Schism of with the party leaders, of whom the Mono- physite principal ones were now John of Ephesus (q.v.) and Paul "the Black," Churches. nominal bishop of Antioch. A diplo matic appeal was made to the union formula of 433 (see Nestorius) and the authority of Cyril in its favor. The Monophysite bishops were distrustful and hesitated a long time; they were just on the point of avowing their readiness to re enter the communion of the Church when the pa triarch startled them by saying that the matter must first be referred to Rome. Feeling that they had been deceived and regretting their concessions, they drew back, and after being summoned before the emperor were banished. Few of the Egyptians accepted the patriarch of Alexandria who had been appointed under the influence of Justinian; the great majority chose a patriarch of their own, and formed a schismatic church which was never reconciled, and the Ethiopian church out in its lot with the Alexandrian. In Armenia also the Monophysite party, favored by the Persian rulers of the country, gained the upper hand to ward the end of the fifth century. Early in the sixth the Synod of Theoria declared in favor of Monophysite views, and about 600 the Arme nian church ceased to be in communion with the Iberian, which held to the decrees of Chalcedon. In Syria and Mesopotamia the Monophysites, persecuted and forsaken, seemed to be on the point of disappearing altogether, when they were revived by the extraordinary zeal and energy of Jacobus Baradeeus, after whom they were called Jacobites (q.v.). M was the case with other opposition parties in the Church, the Monophysites were united only

in their repudiation of the orthodox formula; among themselves they differed widely and xg. Various fiercely. The party whose most prom. Aspects inent representative was Severus always of Mono- protested energetically against the im physitism. putation of Eutychianism and Apol linarianism; in fact, they accused the adherents of Chalcedon of being Nestorians, and called themselves the orthodox; they emphasized the view that their faith was that of the fathers of Nicæa, which was confirmed at Constantinople and Ephesus, and made the rejection of the definition

of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo a matter of prin

ciple, while they could accept the Henoticon of Zeno only by putting their own interpretation on

the passage relating to Chalcedon. Severus and

other like-minded theologians were far from wishing to reduce the human element in the Logos to mere appearance, nor did they entertain the idea of a mixture or transubstantiation. According to them, the Christ came into being by the junction of two natures, whose attributes were in the ab stract distinguishable; but they refused to speak of two natures after the incarnation, because the conception of two independent factors seemed neo essarily to involve that of two subjects or individ ual beings. Following the phraseology of Cyril and of the Areopagite, Severus spoke of a divine nature and person of the Logos complete in itself, which by the assumption of flesh, together with a reasonable soul, became flesh and man; the united elements form one nature and divine-human hypo stasis to which all the activities of the Savior are to be referred. The radical Monophysites, on the other hand, adhering to an expression of Eutyches, refused to speak of the body of Christ as consub stantial with us; nothing merely human was to cling about the person of the Incarnate Word.

This fanatical party of extremists was always power ful in Alexandria, and was constantly receiving accessions from the lower clergy and the monks. It was out of such elements that the faction of Ju lianists or Gaianites grew up there in contradis

tinction from the Theodosians (see above). Julian's

doctrine of aphthorsia (see Julian of Halicarnassus), that the human nature of Christ was so absorbed in the divine that he was not subject to the accidents of humanity or to corruption, from which his party gained the name of Aphtharto docetee or Phantasiasts, had nothing in common

with the assertion of consubstantiality by the or

thodox and the Severians alike, although Severus . was forced by the need of support against the up holders of Chalcedon to make common cause with him. A section of the Julianists even went so far as to say that the body of Christ, from the moment of the incarnation, was actually untreated, whence they got the name of Actistetss. There was

division, too, among the Severians. Against the

Patriarch Timothy IV. of Alexandria arose a deacon Themistius with the assertion (supported by passages like Mark xiii. 22; John xi. 34) that as the body of Christ was subject to natural txm ditions, so also he could not be conceived as omni

scient. The doctrine of the Themistaans, or Ag-

480

noetse, must have caused no little excitement; for even toward the end of the sixth century the ortho doer monks in Palestine are found communicating on the subject with the papal legate in Conatanti nople, who not only reported the matter to Gregory I., but requested a formal pronouncement from Eulogius, the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria. It was going wholly beyond the bounds of Mono physitism in the strict sense when Stephen Niobes, an Alexandrian sophist, was driven by his feeling of the contradiction between the asserted unity of nature and the attempted maintenance of natural differences between the divine and human to say that after the incarnation there was in Christ no distinction of natures whatever. Against him and his followers, called Niobites, the Patriarch Dami anus and Peter of Antioch (Peter of Callinicus) came forward decidedly. Besides all these differ ences, the Monophysite party was disturbed also by the Tritheistic Controversy (q.v.).

For convenience in following the course of the developments, the following dates of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are given. Constantinople: Anatolius, Aug. (?), 449-July 3. 458; Gen nadiw to Sept. (?), 471; Acacius to the end (?) of 489; Fravitas till spring, 490; Euphenliw probably till the sum mer of 498; Maoedonius II. till Aug. 7, 511; Timothy I. till Apr. 5 (?), 518; John II. of Cappadocia, Apr. 17-Feb., 520; Epiphanius Feb. 25, 520-June 5, 535; Anthimus to Mar., 538; Mennae Mar. 13, 536-August, 552; Eutychiw till Jan. 22, 565; John III. Scholasticw till probably Aug . 31, 577; Eutyohius till Apr. 12, 582; John the Faster till Sept. 2, 596. Alexandria: Proteriw Nov., 451- (probably) Mar. 28, 457; Timotheue Murus till the beginning of 480; Timo theus Salophakiolue, June, 460-Nov., 475; Timothew Murw till July 31, 477; Petrw Mongw till Sept.. 4, 477; Timothew Salophaciolue till probably June, 482; John I. Tabenneeiotes till the end of 482; Petrw Mongw till May, 490; Athanasiw II. May, 490-Sept. 17, 496; John II. Hem ula, 498-Apr. 29, 505; John III Nikiotee till May 22, 515 (518); Diowurue II. till Oct. 14, 517 (518); Timothy IV. till Feb. 8, 535 (536); Theodosius I. Feb., 10-11, 535 (536); Gaian, Feb. 10-May 23, 535 (536); Theodosius I. July, bib- (probably) 537 or 538 (Jan., 540); Paul, 539? (541) Easter, 542 (543 at the latest); Zoilw till 551 (550); Apol linariue, 551 (550)-M; Peter IV., 576-Jan. 19, 578; Da mianus, July, 578-June 12, 605.

Antioch: Maximus 449-Mar.. 455(1); Basil 456(?)-4b8; Acaaiw 458-459(?); Martyriue 480(1)-470(?); Peter the Fuller 468 (? 470)-471; Julian 471-475-478; Peter the Fuller 475-4-476-7 (4778); John 477 (478); Stephen 478-481 (?); Calandion 481-2-485; Peter the Fuller 485-488 (?); Palladino 488 (?)-498; Flavian 498 (499)-512; Severna Nov. 6. 512-Sept. 29 (?), 518; Paul II. end of May. 519-May 1, 521; Euphraeiw 521-May 29, 528; Ephraem 526-545; Domnus III. 545-559.

Jerusalem, according to Diekamp: Juvenal 422-458; Anaetaaiw beginning of July, 458-beginning of Jan., 478; Martyriw 478-Apr. 13, 486; Sallust Apr. ,486-July 23, 494; Elias 494-Aug., 518; John I. Sept., 516-Apr. 20, 524; Peter 524-beginning of Oct., 532; Macariw Oct.-Dec., 552; Ewtochiw Dec., 552-563 (564); Maoariw 583 (564)-c. 575.

(G. Krüger.)

Bibliography: The principal sources are: (1)The sate of the synods named in the text to be consulted in the works of Maui and Hefele (the latter is available here in Eng. and Fr. transls.). (2) The letters and deliverancee of the popes, Such as are collected in A. Theil Epistola Romanorum p ontocum vita, vol. i., Bruwberg, 1868; Jaffé, Regatta, Vol. i. (3) Histories: Evagrius, Hist. ecol., Eng. transl., London, 1898; John of Antioch, in C. Müller's Frapmenta, Paris, 1870; John of Nijion, in H. Zotenberg'a article in JA, 7 ear., xii (1878), 245-347; $oba Malalae, Chronographia, xiv.-xviii.; Nicephorw Cal lletus, Hist. eccl.; Proeopiun, Hist. arcana, in CSHB, 1833 ; Theodore Lector, is MPG, Ixxxvi. 1. pp- 16`-228; Libera tor, in MPL, i xviii. 963-1098; Marcellinw Comes in T.

Mommsen, MGH, Chron. min., ii (1894). The Syrian Chronicle of Zechariah of Mitylens, London, 1899; the "Commentary" of John of Ephesus. in Latin, Amsterdam. 1889; The Chronicle of Joshua Stylite, text and Eng. transl., ed. W. Wright, Cambridge, 1882; John of Majuma (cf. F. Nau, in Revue de L'orient ehrdtiew, iii. 232-259. 337-392); Timothy the Presbyter, in MPG, lxxxvi. 1; pp. 11-74; Select Letters orSeverua, Patriarch ofdntioeh, 608-618, 4 parts, London, 1902-04; Corpus scriptorum Christianorum ordentalium, note especially vol. xxv., Vita virorum spud Monophysitae celebmimorum, part 1, text, ed. E. W. Brooks, and vol. xxxvii., Documenta ad ori4ines Monophysitarum illuatnandos, ed. J. B. Chabot, Paris and Leipsic, 1907-08; Timothew A?Aurw, Widerlegung der auf der Synods su Chalcedon festpsadstan Lehre, Armenian text with preface, ed. K. TerMekrttachian and E. Ter-Minaseianta, Leipsic, 1908.

The subject is treated in the works on the history of doctrine, see Doctrine, History of; in the literature under Alexandria, School of; Antioch, School of; and in the works on the church history of the period. Consult further: G. Krüger, Monophysitiseks Sheitigkeiten, Leipsic, 1884; S. A. Aseemani, Bibliodeca orientWis, vols. i.-ii., Rome, 1719-21 (valuable); M. Le Qulen, Oriena Christianus, 3 vols., Paris, 1762-6; F. C. Baur, Die christlicha Lehre von der Droisinipkeit, ii. 37-96, Tübingen, 1842; I. A. Dorner, Person Christi, ii. 150-193, 5 parts, Berlin, 1845-63, Eng. transl., 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1861-63; H. G. Kleyn, Hat leven van Johannes van Tdla door Elias, Leyden, 1882; idem, Biudrage tot de Kerkpeachisdenia van her Oosten durends de B. sours, Utrecht, 1891; J. C. L. Gieseler, Commentatio: Monophysifarum vaterum varies . . . opinionee, 2 vols., Göttingen, 1835-38; J. Langen, Geschichte der r6miwhen Kirche von Leo 1. bit Nikolaus I., Bonn, 1885; G. A. Rose, Kaiser Anaetaeius l., vol. f., Halls 1882, vol. ii., Wohlau, 1888; J. B. Bury, Hist of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols., London, 1889; A. von Gutechmid, Kleine Schriften, ii. 395-525, Leipsic, 1890; H. Gelser, in Byzantinische Zaitschrift, i (1892), 34-49; idem, in Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 911 Hqq.; A. Knecht, Die Religionepolilik Justinian#, i., Wersburg, 1896; W. H. Hutton, The Church of the Sixth Century, London, 1897; F. Diekamp, Die origenietischen Stroitipkeitan und das 6. 6kumenische Konzil, Münster, 1899; O. Baumatark, in Origins Christianus, ii (1902), 151-169, 358-389; F. Sohmid, in ZKT, xxx. 2 (1902); J. Pargoire L'Itplise bysantins 687-8/,7, Paris, 1905; Gibbon, Decline and FaU, chap. xlvii.; DCB, iii. 308-320; KL, viii. 1781-1797.